Chapter Four
The Theory of Reflection
Pratibimbaviidah
In the ordinary worldly course, sound is reflected outwardly
in ether and inwardly in the ear. Touch is reflected outwardly
in air and inwardly in the skin. Form is reflected outwardly in
fire and in a mirror and inwardly in the eye. Taste is reflected
outwardly in water and inwardly in the tongue. Smell is reflected
outwardly in the earth and inwardly in the nose. These
reflections, however, are just like the reflections in a mirror.
They only take place individually. All five re_flections are not
available at once; only one thing is reflected in each. In a mirror,
form is reflected. Touch can not be reflected in a mirror nor
can taste, smell, or sound. A mirror will only reflect form. It is
only in Supreme God Consciousness that you find all five
reflected at once. In fact, although these ·reflections are experienced
individually in all of the sense organs-sight in the eye,
sound in the ear, etc.-these reflections could not even be
observed if consciousness were not there. Awareness is needed
and this is found in consciousness, not in the organs.
The universe, therefore, is reflected in the mirror of consciousness,
not in the organs nor in the five gross elements.
These are merely tattvas and cannot reflect anything. The real
29
KASHMIR SHAMSM "The Secret Supreme"
reflector is consciousness. In consciousness, however, you see
only the reflected thing and not the object that is reflected. That
which is reflected (bimba) is, in fact, sviitantrya. This whole
universe is the reflection of sviitantrya 1 in God Consciousness.
There is no additional class of similar objects existing
outside of this world that He reflects in His nature. The outside
element, that which is reflected, is only sviitantrya. The infinite
variety which is created is only the expansion of sviitantrya.2
You can understand this by taking the example of cause and
effect. When a potter makes a pot, he takes clay and gives form
to that clay with his potter's instruments, such as a stick, a
string, and the potter's wheel. Within the potter's creative
activity, two kinds of causes can be distinguished. There is the
material cause, which in Sanslqit is called upiidiinakiira1Ja.
This is that cause that travels with the effect. It cannot and does
not become separated from the effect. Second, there is the formal
cause, which in Sanskfit is called nimittakiira,:za. The formal
cause does not travel with the effect. The material cause is
the potter's clay and the formal cause is the potter himself and
his stick, string, and wheel. In the ordinary worldly course, the
object which is reflected (bimba) seems to be the cause of the
reflection (pratibimba) because the reflection cannot exist
without that which is reflected. We have seen, however, that all
reflection is really a reflection in God Consciousness. If the
object reflected is really the cause of the reflection, then what
kind of cause is it? Is it the material cause, which travels with
1 SvGtantrya Sakti is one with God Consciousness. There are not two elements,
such as the mirror and the object which is reflected in the mirror.
The reflecteda nd the reflection are one. The mirror,w hich is the absolutely
independent will of God (sviitantrya), is God Con~sciousness.
2 yadvapik aranamk iiicit bimbatven.a..
• Tantriiloka: IIl;SO
30
The Theory of Reflection (Pratibimbaviida/:1)
the effect, or is it the formal cause, which does not travel with
the effect? It cannot be the material cause because that would
mean that there is something outside of God Consciousness
which travels to become part of the effect which is the reflection.
It is our theory in Saivism that nothing can exist outside
of God Consciousness. There cannot, therefore, be any agency
which is separate from God Consciousness and which travels
with the cause because if it is separate from God
Consciousness and therefore from the effect, it would not exist.
If the reflection of some object is existing in the mirror of
God Consciousness, then what is that reflection a reflection of?
We have seen that if the object which is reflected were to
remain outside of God Consciousness, then it would not exist.
There can be nothing, therefore, which is outside to be reflected
in the mirror of God Consciousness. There is only the mirror.
There is no external cause which has gone into the reflection
which is the effect. There is only the mirror of God
Consciousness.
But what then is the cause of this reflection? Sviitantrya is
the mirror. Sviitantrya,. the absolutely independent will of God,
is the cause of this reflection. Unlike ordinary reflection which
we experience in the world wherein an object can be distinguished
as the cause of that reflection, in God Consciousness
only the reflection exists and not anything that is separate and
reflected (bimba). In this causality, sviitantrya is the formal
cause (nimittakiira!Ja), not the material cause (upiidiinakiira!
Ja), of the reflection. It does not travel from the cause
into the effect because, as I have explained, there is no cause
which could be separate from God Consciousness. It is His free
will that He wills and what He wills appears in the: mirror of
His Consciousness. It is simply His will (sviitantrya). In reality,
only the reflection exists and not anything that is reflected.
This universe, therefore, is found in the reflector of God
Consciousness, not through the agency of anything of which it
31
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
is a reflection (bimba) but through His sviitantrya, where the
universe is contained in seed form. Sviitantrya is the seed of
everything. Everything exists in the mirror of God
Consciousness with sviitantrya as its cause.
The theory of reflection (pratibimbaviida) is meant for
advanced yo gins. This theory teaches them how to be aware in
their daily activities, while talking, while walking, while tasting,
while touching, while hearing, while smelling. While they
are performing all of these various actions, they see that all of
these actions, move in their Supreme Consciousness. Their
vision, their perception, heretofore limited, becomes unlimited.
The mode of their actions becomes absolutely unique. They see
each and every, action in their God Consciousness. They exist
in the state of sadiisiva. Each and every action of their life
becomes glorious. This is the awareness that comes from the
practice of pratibimba.
32
Chapter Five
The Explanation of the Means
Upayas
The meaning of the Sanskfit word upiiya is "means." The
word upiiya in Kashmir Saivism is used to indicate the means
to enter into Universal God Consciousness from individual
consciousness. Our Saivism proclaims that there are three
means for entering into Universal God Consciousness: siimbhavopiiya,
the supreme means; siiktopiiya, the medium means;
and ii,:iavopiiya, the inferior means.
S' iimbhavopiiya
Siimbhavopiiya, the supreme means, functions in miitrikiicakra,
pratyiihiira, and pratibimbaviida. The definition given
in the "Miilin1vijayottaratantram" for siimbhavopiiya is "the
one who preserves thoughtlessness." By preserving thoughtlessness,
that is, riot having thoughts and maintaining the continuity
of that thoughtlessness, and by the grace of the Master,
one enters into that transcendental consciousness where he
finds that this whole universe has come out from sentences and
sentences from words and words from letters and letters from
33
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
that real "I" which is Parama Siva. Here, one finds that this
whole universe is reflected in his own consciousness and that
it is reflected from within rather than from without.'
Siimbhavopiiya is called icchopiiya because it originates
from icchii sakti and because it is that means which exists in
the state of the meant. In siimbhavopiiya, there are no means to
travel upon. It is the meant. There is nowhere to go. You must
reside only in the meant. The rest is automatic. Here, only the
grace of your Master is necessary. It must be realized, however,
that you yourself must come to this point where you reside
in the meant and this you do by maintaining the continuity of
thoughtlessness. Up to this point, therefore, there is still something
to be done. When you reside only in the meant, it is then
the grace of your Master that carries you. You must reach that
state where only your Master shines for you. This means that
you must merge in your Master's consciousness. In this state,
you do not exist; only your Master exists. Masters select disciples
for this upiiya who are highly developed in awareness.
U:ntil then, they will not be accepted by the Master for this
upiiya. In this upiiya, the Master functions more than does the
disciple.
In our Kashmir Saivism, we say,
, svamuktimatre kasyiipi
yiivadvisvavimocane I
pratibhodeti khadyotaratnatiirendu
siiryavat II
1 akirilciccintakasyaivgau nJ.I).p3.r atibodhatal)I.
jayate ya]:,s amiivesaJ:s, iimbhavo 'siivudiritaJ:I, I
Tantraloka: XIII:159
Miilin1vijayottaratantram; II; V23
/ 34
The Explanation of the Means (Upaya)
"A light bug shines only for himself, jewels
shine not only for themselves but for a few
others also, the stars shine for even more, the
moon shines for still more, and the sun shines
for the whole universe. In the same way, he
who is established in the sambhavopaya state
shines like the midday sun for the whole universe."
As the light bug has sufficient light to show his own body,
there are those yogins that are sufficient only for themselves;
they cannot help anybody else. There are also yo gins, who like
jewels, shine so that their light illumines those that are near.
Those yogins that shine like stars illuminate even more with
their light. Those that shine like the moon illumine still more.
But the Saivaite yogi, established in sambhavopaya, is just like
the sun-he lights the whole universe. •
~iiktopiiya
Siiktopiiya is that upiiya which functions by the means of
energies.· Saktopiiya is called jniinopaya, because it is the
means which originates fromjnana sakti, the energy of knowledge.
Here, the aspirant is more important than .the Master
because he must make himself capable of receiving the
Master's grace, He must work to develop great velocity of
awareness until he reaches the "feet of the Master." By this I
do not mean the Master's physical feet. "Being at the feet of
the Master" means reaching that state where the aspirant is
capable of receiving the grace of the Master. Those who reach
that state are said to be at the feet of the Master.
In siiktopiiya, the yogi does not have to recite mantras or use
his breath to be aware or concentrate on any particular spot. He
has only to see and concentrate on that Supreme Being that is
35
KASHMIR SHAIVISM "The Secret Supreme"
found in two actions without actions. In the "Vijiiana Bhairava
Tantra," this is called centering.2
In siiktopiiya, centering can be practiced between any and all
actions and or thoughts. In centering, the yogz must develop
great velocity of awareness. Great velocity means firmness of
awareness. Awareness must not become loose. If the yogi's
awareness becomes loose, he will be forced out of siiktopiiya
into the lowest upiiya, iil}avopiiya. He will lose the right to
tread on the path of siiktopiiya. In his practice, there must be
continuity in the cycle of his awareness. Only by maintaining
an unbroken chain of awareness will he be able to discover the
reality between any two thoughts or actions. The practice of
centering is meant to function between any two actions or any
two thoughts. He can center between any two thoughts or any
two movements, between one thought and another thought,
between waking and dreaming, between one step and the next
step, between one breath and the next breath. All actions and
all thoughts are the proper framework for the practice of siiktopiiya.
The siiktopiiya yogz must simply insert continuous
awareness in the center of any two actions or thoughts. If his
awareness is faulty and is not unbroken, then he falls and enters
into the lowest upaya, iil}avopaya.
Al}avopiiya
Al}avopaya is concerned with al}u, the individual soul.
Al}avopiiya is that upiiya, which functions by the process of
concentrating on ucciira (breathing), karal}a ( organs of sensa-
2 "madhyarisl amiiSrayet."
Vijfia.DBa hairavaT antra;V erse 61
36
The Explanation of the Means (Upiiya)
tion), dhyiina ( contemplation), and sthiina prakalpanii ( concentrating
on a particular place).
The word ucciira means "breathing," actually concentration
on the breath. Concentration on the breath is the essential element
of the practice of cakrodaya. In practicing cakrodaya you
have to continue breathing deeply and find the point, the center
between the two breaths, the incoming breath and the outgoing
breath. This is the ending point, the beginning point, and
also the center of the span of the breath. In cakrodaya, however,
the beginning and ending points of the span of the breath are
predominant. This is ucciira, concentration on the breath. It can
be either with sound or without sound.
Kara,:za means "organ" and, in particular, it means "sense
organ." Concentrating on kara,:zam eans having and maintaining
one-pointedness through vision or any other sense organ. In
kara,:zat,h e sense of sight is predominant. For example, in concentrating
on kara,:za through the sense of sight, you have to
look at a particular thing. You must go on looking without
blinking your eyes. You should go on seeing that one point
with unbroken awareness. And when that point vanishes, and it
should and will vanish when you enter into that vastness of the
center, that is the end. If you were to practice concentrating on
kara,:zat hrough the sense of hearing, then you would listen to
some sound and continue listening and repeat that sound again
and again. You can also practice by concentrating on some
taste or some particular sensation of touch. In kara,:za,y ou cari
employ all the five organs of sensation, however; with the
senses other than sight, you must remain aware of where the
sensation first arises. This is the way of kara,:ia in ii,:zavopiiya
and, in the long run, this creates one-pointedness.
The word dhyiina means "contemplation." It is anoth~r
mode in ii,:zavopayaD. hyiina is contemplation on some point.
There are different forms of dhyiina. For example, you -Je
practicing dhyiina when you contemplate on the lotus in your
37
KASHMIR SHAMSM "The Secret Supreme"
heart, or on the meaning of some mantra 3 such as the mantra
"so' ham" or the mantra "iliva." This is a_ higher form of
ii,:zavopiiya because it is contemplation without any shape,
without any form. If you were to contemplate on Lord Siva as
having a particular form, a particular shape, that is a lower
form of ii,:zavopiiya. It is contemplation with form.
Therefore, any time in meditation that you have mantra,
then you have dhyiina. And along with dhyiina, you can also
adjust kara,za and ucciira, but not in the beginning.
Sthiina prakalpanii means concentration on some paiticular
place. The higher form of sthiina prakalpanii, which is a practice
in higher ii,:zavopiiya, is that practice where you discover
where each aspect of reality is found in the span of the breath.
You see where the devas are residing, where the lokapiilas are
residing, where is the location of dawn, where is the location
of morning, where is the location of midday, where is the location
of sunset (sandhyii), where is the location of midnight,
where is that location which is the time when the sun moves
toward the northern side, and where is that location which is
the time when the sun moves to the south. These are all sthiina
prakalpanii, and these are the particular points you have to
concentrate on, and discover in the course of your breath.4 The
practice of sthiina prakalpanii is simply to see the vastness of
the universe in one breath.
The second and lower form of sthiina prakalpanii, which is
a practice in lower iinavopiiya, is where you concentrate on dif-
3 All mantras have meaning.
4 In the practice of sthiina praka/panii, there are points in the breath which
you must concentrateo n. In the practiceo f ucciira, therei s no need to concentrate
on each and every point in the passage of the breath. In this practice,
you concentrate on only one point.
38
The Explanation of the Means (Upiiya)
ferent points in the body. These particular places for concentration
are divided into three. One place for concentration is
between the two eyebrows (bhrumadhya). The second place
for concentration is the pit of the throat (ka,:itha kupa). And
the third place of concentration is the heart (hridaya).
All of these processes, ucciira, kara,:ia, dhyiina, and sthiina
prakalpanii, are called the upiiyas of jfva, the means of the
individual, and they exist in ii,:iavopiiya.
A,:iavopiiya is the means found in the world of duality and
is known as bhedopiiya. The means which exists in the world
of mono-duality, in the world where duality and nonduality
exist together, is !siiktopiiya and is called bhediibhedopiiya.
That means which exists in the world of pure monism (abheda)
is !siimbhavopiiyaa nd is called abhedopiiya.
Siimbhavopiiya is also called icchopiiya, as it is the means
which exists in icchii !sakti. The means which exists in jniina
!sakti is !siiktopiiya t\lld is called jniinopiiya. A,:iavopiiya is
called kriyopiiya because it is the metins which is found in
kriyii !sakti.
The difference between ii,:iavopiiya,! siiktopiiya,a nd !siimbhavopiiya
is this. In ii,:iavopiiya, the strength of your awareness
is such that you have to take the support of everything as
an aid to maintaining and strengthening your awareness.
Though you concentrate on the center, you must take the support
of two things for concentrating on that center. In !siiktopiiya,
your awareness is strengthened to the extent that only
one point is needed as a support for your concentration and
that point is the center. In !siiktopiiya,y ou begin with the center
and then become established there. In !siimbhavopiiya,t he
strength of your awareness is such that no support is needed.
You are already residing in the meant. There is nowhere to go,
just reside at your own point. The rest is automatic.
It is important to realize that though there are different
upiiyas, they all lead you to the state of one transcendental
39
KASHMIR SHANISM "The Secret Supreme"
consciousness. The difference in these upiiyas is . that
iil}avopiiya will carry you in a long way, siiktopiiya in a shorter
way, and siimbhavopiiya in the shortest way. Although the
ways are different, the point to be achieved is one.
Anupiiya
Beyond these three upiiyas, siimbhavopiiya, siiktopiiya, and
iil}avopiiya, there is another upiiya. Although it is not actually
an upiiya, yet it is mentioned in Kashmir Saivism. This upiiya
is called anupiiya. The word anupiiya means "no upiiya."
Thoughtlessness is called siimbhavopiiya. One-pointedness is
called siiktopiiya. Concentration on and with the support of
mantra and breathing and all other elements is called
iil}avopiiya. Above all of these is anupiiya. In anupiiya, the
aspirant has only to observe that nothing is to be done. Be as
you are. If you are talking, go on talking. If you are sitting, go
on sitting. Do not do anything, only reside in your being. This
is the nature of anupiiya. Anupiiya is attributed to iinanda sakti
of Siva and is also called iinandopiiya.
40

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. My guest, James Franco, has written and directed a new movie called "The Disaster Artist." That's about the making of the 2003 film "The Room." "The Room" is a movie that's been called the "Citizen Kane" of bad movies. "The Disaster Artist" is based in part on a book of the same name about the making of "The Room." The co-author, Tom Bissell, describes "The Room" as a movie made by an alien who has never seen a movie but has had movies thoroughly explained to him.

"The Room" has developed a cult following through midnight screenings around the country. People laugh at how ineptly made it is and how strange the leading man's performance is. That actor, Tommy Wiseau, also wrote, directed, produced and financed "The Room." James Franco plays Wiseau and befriended him during the making of "The Disaster Artist." But Wiseau remains a mystery man with an unplaceable accent, which he says is from New Orleans but is clearly not.

Earlier this year, James Franco starred in season 1 of the HBO series "The Deuce" playing two roles, identical twins. We'll talk about that later. Let's start with the scene from the 2003 film "The Room." Tommy Wiseau plays Johnny whose girlfriend, Lisa, has been cheating on him with his best friend. In this scene, Johnny is upset and deeply wounded because Lisa has accused him of hitting her. He's walking through the door to the roof of his building where he meets his friend Mark.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "THE ROOM")

TOMMY WISEAU: (As Johnny) I did not hit her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.

GREG SESTERO: (As Mark) Oh, hey, Johnny, what's up?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) I have a problem with Lisa. She says that I hit her.

SESTERO: (As Mark) What? Well, did you?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) No, it's not true. Don't even ask. What's new with you?

SESTERO: (As Mark) Well, I'm just sitting up here thinking, you know? I got a question for you.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Yeah?

SESTERO: (As Mark) You think girls like to cheat like guys do?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) What makes you say that?

SESTERO: (As Mark) I don't know. I don't know. I'm just - I'm just thinking.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) I don't have to worry about that because Lisa's loyal to me.

SESTERO: (As Mark) Yeah, man, you never know. People are very strange these days.

GROSS: Now that you've heard that scene from "The Room." Listen to this scene from "The Disaster Artist" about shooting that scene. Seth Rogen plays the script supervisor who's directing the scene and has to keep giving Tommy Wiseau his lines because Wiseau can't remember them.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "THE DISASTER ARTIST")

SETH ROGEN: (As Sandy) Action.

JAMES FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) What line? What (unintelligible) line?

ROGEN: (As Sandy) I did not hit her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) OK.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) Action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) What is the line?

ROGEN: (As Sandy) I did not hit her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark. Scene 112, take 13, mark it, action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) I did not hit her. I - OK, OK. Line?

SETH ROGEN AND UNIDENTIFIED ACTORS: (As characters in unison) I did not her. It's not true. It's bull [expletive]. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) Take 17. Action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) I hit her.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) No. Do you want to change the line?

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) Script is script. Script stays the same.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character) You're doing great, man. We'll get there.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) Action, action, action, action.

FRANCO: (As Tommy Wiseau) You have to say it loud. I can't hear in here. Say action so I can hear.

ROGEN: (As Sandy) OK.

GROSS: So that was a scene from "The Room" and a scene from the new film "The Disaster Artist." James Franco, welcome back to FRESH AIR.

FRANCO: Thank you so much, Terry.

GROSS: So I know...

FRANCO: This is my third time.

GROSS: It is.

FRANCO: I don't know if you remember, but this is my third time.

GROSS: But who's counting? (Laughter) Oh, I'm so glad you remember. So I think a lot of our listeners know "The Room," but a lot of our listeners don't. So I'm going to ask you to describe "The Room" for people who haven't seen it. Like, what's your short version of the description?

FRANCO: Right. OK, well, first of all, just to say, my movie "The Disaster Artist" is about the making of "The Room," which is an actual movie. It is not the Brie Larson, Oscar-winning movie, "Room." It's...

GROSS: (Laughter) That's right.

FRANCO: ...Something else that was written and directed by and stars this man named Tommy Wiseau, who also financed it at the tune of $6 million. Now, it does not look like it was made for $6 million - looks like it was made for about $60. It came out in 2003. And Tommy intended it to be a great drama. He wrote on the original poster that it was a Tennessee-Williams-level drama. It's a very simple story. If I told you the plot, it's basically - you know, Tommy casts himself as this guy Johnny.

Maybe I should say, first, the kind of magic behind "The Room," you know, is due to Tommy Wiseau. There are three mysteries to Tommy - where he's from 'cause he sound - he sounds like this, you know, which would suggest like Eastern Europe by way of France and trying - I don't know - maybe dialect coaches and failing at that. But he say he from New Orleans - he all-American guy.

The second mystery is his age. He was at least in his late 40s when he made "The Room" but claimed that he was in his 20s. And then - where he got the money - the $6 million dollars, which is the darkest mystery. I mean, the other two, you just sort of see through this thin - the thin facade.

But the money - he claims that he made it, you know, selling denim at his own little shop. And every time I've questioned him about that, he's - he, you know, adamantly insists that he made it through selling Levi's jeans. And I'd be, like, Tommy, come on, you know how many jeans that is? He's like, James, you embarrass yourself. You don't know anything about retail. And I'm like, OK. I don't (laughter) - all right, fine.

So, anyway, the - real quick, the plot of "The Room" is this guy who - oh, by the way, you can look him up online, but he looks sort of like the mix between, like, a vampire and a pirate and Michael Jackson or something like that.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: And he has, like, long black hair that looks like it's dyed with magic marker and...

GROSS: And has never been washed (laughter).

FRANCO: Yes. And so he casts himself as Johnny, this - you know, the great guy, all-American guy. And basically, the plot of the movie is his girlfriend and his best friend have an affair and betray him. And - spoiler alert - he commits suicide at the end. And that's kind of it.

But that says nothing about all the bizarre, you know, creative decisions - the weird side plots about drug dealers that have - that never show up again, mothers-in-law who say they have breast cancer and then never mention it again - you know, just bizarreness. And almost as if - some people have described this movie as the best worst movie ever made or the "Citizen Kane" of bad movies.

GROSS: So to make your movie about the making of "The Room," you had to basically study everything that makes "The Room" weird and unintentionally funny - the writing...

FRANCO: In a way.

GROSS: ...Acting, the edits, the use of music - because you had to reproduce some of it in addition to telling the behind-the-scenes story.

FRANCO: Yes. But here's the thing - yes, yes. But if all we had was "The Room" and we were just sort of like, let's make a movie on that, it would - we would, at best, probably, be able to make a spoof. In fact, what we had was this book, "The Disaster Artist," that was written by Greg Sestero, who was the other actor in "The Room" and Tommy Wiseau's best friend, and also written by this great journalist, Tom Bissell...

GROSS: Tom Bissell, yeah

FRANCO: Yeah - who was incredible - an incredible writer. And so I think one of the, you know, the smartest things Greg Sestero ever did was to get Tom to co-write this book with him because it's an incredible book. And that's actually how I came to this whole project. I read the book right when it came out about four years ago. I saw it on the New York Times Book Review. And it's a Hollywood story, but it's unusual and unlike any other. And I love Hollywood stories. And so as - like before I was halfway done, I was like, oh, this is for me. So that's all to say we had more than just "The Room." We had...

GROSS: Well, you had even more than that. You had tapes.

FRANCO: (Laughter) Yes.

GROSS: You had tapes that Tommy Wiseau made like his - like audio journals.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: Tell us about those tapes.

FRANCO: OK, well, so Tommy knows I have them. OK, so let's just say that up front like...

GROSS: Did he give them to you? Or did...

FRANCO: No. Tommy did not - Tommy did not give them to me...

GROSS: How did you get them?

FRANCO: Greg gave them to me. So Tommy calls them now (imitating Tommy Wiseau) the secret tape. I know you have secret tape.

GROSS: Can I just stop right there? For people just tuning in, James Franco keeps lapsing in and out of Tommy's accent. So if he occasionally sounds odd to you, that is why. He's lapsing - he's going in and out...

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: ...Of Tommy Wiseau's accent.

FRANCO: Not only am I lapsing into the accent. I almost can't help it. I just - it's sort of like a virus. It's just in me now. But (laughter) - so it'll come out every once in a while. So 20 years ago, five or six years before he made his magnum opus, "The Room," he was in LA trying to make it as an actor, going to acting school. And so he would drive around in his car and talk to himself on a mini tape recorder. And it's amazing material. As an actor, you couldn't ask for anything more. It was - it's as if I had the running inner monologue of the guy I was playing.

And in fact, it was even more valuable in this case because Tommy Wiseau is the master rewriter of history because when he was making "The Room," I think he was completely sincere. He was aiming for Brando and James Dean and came out with something completely different. But when he realized that people were laughing at his film, he then rewrote the whole - you know, his whole script and claimed...

GROSS: The script of his life, not the script of the movie.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: Yeah.

FRANCO: Yes, yes, meaning - yeah, meaning he came out and said, oh, I intended it to be comedy, whereas in fact he had kept it in theaters on his own dime for two weeks to qualify for the Oscars. So he had been aiming for this great dramatic movie. He had said, you know, before, yeah, people will see my movie, and they will not be able to sleep for two week; they'd be so disturbed. And - but then people laughed at it. And so he then said, yeah, I intended to be comedy. And now what he says about "The Room" is, you know, "The Room" is a safe place. You can laugh; you can cry. Do whatever you like. Express yourself. Just don't hurt yourself.

So I couldn't very well go to Tommy now and say, what were you like when you were making "The Room"? 'cause he wouldn't give me anything real, you know? He'd just be like, yeah, I intended it to be comedy. So these tapes became even more valuable. They were sort of the truth. And it was a - like, a time capsule of the man from the time that he was making "The Room."

Even though "The Room" resulted in - you know, it was such a kind of wacky bat, you know, conventionally bad thing, we're showing that the passion behind it is no different than the passion of, you know, Francis Ford Coppola or of James Dean or me, James Franco. Like, everybody has the same level of passion. It's just that I guess Tommy had zero self-awareness, you know, when he was making it.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco. He stars in and directed the new movie "The Disaster Artist," which is about - behind the scenes of the making of "The Room." And it's about the person who made "The Room." "The Room" is a 2003, like, midnight cult-classic film. And he also stars in the HBO series "The Deuce." We'll be back after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF VIJAY IYER'S "BLACK AND TAN FANTASY")

GROSS: My guest is James Franco and his latest project is starring in and directing the new film "The Disaster Artist" and he's also in the HBO series "The Deuce." The first season is over, but it's still on demand on HBO.

OK, so I just want to play another short scene from "The Room." So this isn't James Franco's movie about the making of "The Room." This is from "The Room" itself. And so we're going to hear Tommy Wiseau as Johnny finding out that his girlfriend doesn't want to be with him anymore.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "THE ROOM")

WISEAU: (As Johnny) You shouldn't have any secrets from me. I'm your future husband.

JULIETTE DANIELLE: (As Lisa) You sure about that? Maybe I'll change my mind.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Don't talk like that. What do you mean?

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) What do you think? Women change their minds all the time.

WISEAU: (As Johnny, laughter) You must be kidding, aren't you?

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) Look; I don't want to talk about it. I'm going to go upstairs and wash up and go to bed.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) How dare you talk to me like that. You should tell me everything.

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) I can't talk right now.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Why, Lisa? Why, Lisa? Please talk to me, please. You're part of my life. You are everything. I could not go on without you, Lisa.

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) You're scaring me.

WISEAU: (As Johnny) You're lying. I never hit you. You are tearing me apart, Lisa.

DANIELLE: (As Lisa) Why are you so hysterical?

WISEAU: (As Johnny) Do you understand life? Do you?

GROSS: I don't know it's...

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: You can tell somebody is, like - that Wiseau's trying somehow to just channel some kind of emotion, but it's all just so out of sync. He doesn't seem to really understand human emotion either as a person, judging from how you portray his story, or as an actor. Tommy just seems, like, delusional.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Do you think he has, like, a psychological or cognitive disorder? Is that a weird question? Is that OK to ask that?

FRANCO: (Laughter) Yeah, it's OK to ask me. I - it sort of, like, gets a little tricky because if I thought he was sort of, like, suffering - you know what I mean? - if I thought like, oh, man, he needs to be locked away and - 'cause he needs serious help, I - that's something I take very seriously. And I don't think that. I think, you know, he's living his life. He's got a community. And he's not hurting anyone, and he's not hurting himself. I think - you know, I think he's fine.

But yeah, I think he's got a disorder that's sort of on the spectrum that maybe a lot of actors have, that I have to a certain extent, of like, thinking - you know, there's this weird thing that happens in Hollywood and probably happens everywhere where it's like, if I make it into the movies, I will be saved; I will be happy. And I think in Tommy's case - 'cause I do think he was a very lonely guy - that one of the things he was seeking with this movie and also making it with his best friend, Greg, was friendship, a community, love. And I think in a weird way, he got that. When he shows up to these screenings, he does have a community. People are chanting his name.

I know what you're going to say (laughter). Like, yeah, but it's not genuine or whatever. Yeah, he has to do a certain amount of mental gymnastics to translate the laughing and the applause that he gets at those screenings into, like, just pure applause or, you know - but it's still something.

What happened with my movie - at the first screening - the first public screening at South by Southwest, which was also the first time that Tommy ever saw the movie 'cause he didn't want to watch it in private for whatever reason, is we showed it there. It turned out to be an incredible screening, standing ovation. I kept looking down the row at Tommy to see how he was going to react. He was wearing his (laughter) shades in - you know, while watching the movie. I couldn't tell what he thought of the movie. We went up on stage to do a Q&A after - me, my brother and Seth Rogen. We were hesitant to bring Tommy up because we didn't know what he was going to think. He famously said, of the book that our movie's based on, the book only 40 percent true. And we're like, well, he could very well not like our movie because we based the movie on the book. And, you know, we don't want to have an awesome screening and then have Tommy come up and say, well, you know, that movie not true and, you know, whatever. And so we didn't bring him up.

And then this guy came up from the audience and asked a question. Then he said, oh, by the way, I play the real Chris R in "The Room," which is this just side character - this drug dealer named Chris R. (Laughter) They ask Tommy like, why is his name Chris R? Can't we just call him Chris? He's like, no, his name Chris R. He drug dealer - Chris R. (Laughter) And I'm like OK. So he's like I played the real Chris R. Can I have a picture? And Seth Rogen's like, yeah, dude, come on up here. So Chris R came up on stage. And I look out in the audience at Tommy. And he's like 15 rows back, but I can see like this darkness - this dark cloud descending on him. And I don't - and I still haven't talked to him. I don't know if it's because he's jealous that Chris R is up there or that he just hated the movie.

And so I just - I was like, Tommy, come up. Tommy, come up on stage. And he won't come up. And so then the audience in Austin all stood up and started chanting his name - Tommy, Tommy. And - just like in our movie. And he - you know, that's basically what he wanted. So he comes up. And we still didn't give him the mic because I still didn't know what he was going to say. And it's my biggest regret. And I step off stage finally, and I'm like, all right, Tommy, what do you think? And he goes, well, yeah, I approve 99.9 percent. And I'm like wow. And would you - what's the .1 percent? And you think he's going to say, well, you know, I have - that - I never said that - or whatever. And he goes - director to director, he goes, yeah, James, I think you should look at lighting in beginning of movie.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: And I'm like, oh, man. Yeah, I'll tell my cinematographer to watch "The Room" for pointers. But then we realize only later that he had been wearing his shades through the whole movie.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: So it's like, yeah, of course, the lighting's off. But here's my big point - is I realized in that screen - I only realized later. When they were cheering for him, that - they were cheering his story. You know, they were cheering him on and, you know, the will it took to get his movie made because we made Tommy sympathetic. That was our aim in the movie - in my movie, "The Disaster Artist." And that was the first time in Tommy's entire life that he heard unadulterated, unironic applause for his story. And that - just thinking about that, it moves me right now to say that. Like, he got it. He finally got what he wanted.

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He directed and stars in the new movie "The Disaster Artist." We'll talk more after a break. And linguist Geoff Nunberg will tell us his word of the year. I'm Terry Gross. And this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco. He directed and stars in the new movie "The Disaster Artist." And if you watched "The Deuce," you know he played two characters in that HBO series, which is set in Times Square on 42nd Street in the early '70s, just at the very beginning when the mob is moving in and opening up massage parlors and when porn is starting to become a little aboveground and just not underground and starting to be shown in porn theaters. And you play two characters. One of them is a bartender who gets involved with the mobsters and kind of against his will gets involved with the massage parlors. He doesn't want to be involved in - you know, working in a sex trade industry. But he's kind of getting, you know, pushed into it. And you also play his brother...

FRANCO: Frankie.

GROSS: ...His twin brother - identical twin brother who is kind of happy to get involved with the mobsters because that's where the money is.

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: And he's just a real professional troublemaker. He's a gambler who's always in debt and always in trouble and always looking to his brother, Vince, to kind of bail him out.

FRANCO: Wow, you really are a fan of the show.

GROSS: Oh, it's a great series.

FRANCO: You watched it? (Laughter).

GROSS: Yeah, I really like it (laughter). So I want to talk to first a little bit about playing two twin brothers.

FRANCO: Yeah, yeah.

GROSS: Like, you had to figure out - you and the director had to figure out some distinguishing characteristics so that I, watching it, could tell which character I was watching. Part of it was the clothing because they dressed a little bit differently. What else did you do as an actor?

FRANCO: Yeah, so when a single actor plays twins, there's a lot of ways you can go. Like, you can make them - their look distinct - you know, like one could have a mustache, and one doesn't. You know, you can - you know, one has like long hair. And one, you know, is bald or whatever. You know, there's things you could do just physically to differentiate them and - which is, you know, completely legitimate way to go. I think we settled on making them sort of similar, like real twins, although we knew from the start that their personalities were very distinct.

And the mustache, that sort of was just a practical thing because I hate - there's one thing that I hate. And I'm sure most actors hate - is like glued-on facial hair. It's even worse than just like facial prosthetics, like I wore in "The Disaster Artists" - like I had two-and-a-half hours of prosthetics in "The Disaster Artist." That was not nearly as bad as just a fake mustache. And so we decided that they would both have mustaches so that I could just grow a mustache. And they would both have it.

And then we just decided, you know, you'll be able to just tell the characters apart by their personalities. And as an actor, it was like - and maybe as a slight egomaniac or whatever (laughter), like it was a dream come true. And I thought of it almost as getting to play the Harvey Keitel and the De Niro roles from "Mean Streets," you know.

GROSS: No, absolutely. I thought of the De Niro character in "Mean Streets" right away when I saw...

FRANCO: Oh, yeah.

GROSS: ...Your character.

FRANCO: For sure.

GROSS: And then you have a great shot in the first episode. It's a totally "Taxi Driver" shot where you're walking down the street. And all these like marquees are behind you. Like that's the poster for "Taxi Driver."

FRANCO: Oh, yeah.

GROSS: So you directed two episodes of "The Deuce." And in one of the episodes, there's a scene in which the Maggie Gyllenhaal character, she plays a sex worker or prostitute who's trying to transition into actually making pornography because it's seems like safer and more lucrative and way more interesting and comfortable. And so...

FRANCO: Yeah, I mean - yeah, go ahead.

GROSS: The question is as part of your research did you have to go back and watch a lot of period porn - just to get a sense of like, what is it these characters are making? What is it they're watching? What's like the sex environment of the time?

FRANCO: Yeah, it's the early days of American porn. "Deep Throat" was, you know, obviously the big hit and kind of was the birth of the American porn industry. In the early days, compared to now, it was sort of innocent. There was a bubbliness to it. There was - you know, and they were trying to tell stories. And something like "Deep Throat" did play in more mainstream cinemas. And so, you know, they learn things. Like, you know, it's mostly a male audience. Cut the guy's head out. Don't show the guy's face - you know, and all these things. And cut out the story. People don't want this story. Just cut to the - you know, the juice - sorry for that, (laughter) no pun intended - and that kind of thing. But, yeah, at the time, you know, the early '70s - and, oh, there's a lot of hair - a lot of pubic hair.

GROSS: Oh, and chest hair really.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Right, different times (laughter).

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: So anything else with your filmmaker's take on the porn of the period - just like from a filmmaker's point of view? How it looked to you?

FRANCO: I mean, it's shot on film. There's...

GROSS: As opposed to video.

FRANCO: Yeah, there's no - there's hardly any fake breasts. But, you know, the moves...

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: The moves are basically the same. It's sort of kind of how it's always been.

GROSS: Was it kind of confusing when you were directing yourself in two different parts in "The Deuce"?

FRANCO: That, yes, was a little bit of a - it spun my head a little bit. Like basically, you know, playing twins and then directing yourself as twins is - you know, it's just sort of an extension of directing. And the way, you know, Bryan Cranston described it - I worked with him. He's such a great guy. And he said on "Breaking Bad," when he did it, like as a director, you're already doing the work. You're breaking down the scenes. You're talking to your cinematographer about how you want to capture it. You understand what you want to get out of each scene so that by the time you're shooting, and you step in front of the camera as an actor, you already are really clear on what you want to get from the scene as a director. And so being the actor is just an extension of that.

So then playing twins, you just sort of do that twice over where, you know - surprise, surprise - you know, I'm not actually playing both twins at once. So like I go in, block it out as the director, then act it as one twin and then, you know, make the move to change over from Vincent to Frankie, at this time, so that the cinematographer is now turning the lights around. And they'll be spending enough time so that I can quickly change over to Frankie and not waste any set time and come back and then do the scene from the other side.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco, and he stars in the HBO series "The Deuce." Season one is over, but you can watch it on demand. And also he directed and stars in the new film "The Disaster Artist." We'll be back after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF CLAUDIA ANN SODARO'S "PASSION")

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is James Franco. He starred as two characters in the HBO series "The Deuce." And now he stars in and directed the new movie "The Disaster Artist," which was basically the behind-the-scenes story of the midnight cult film "The Room."

So I want to ask you about your movie from a few years ago, "The Interview," 'cause it seems very timely, sadly, right now. In "The Interview," you played a celebrity journalist. And you host a program. And as it turns out...

FRANCO: I was playing one of you.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: That's right.

FRANCO: I was like, - that character Dave Skylark in "The Interview" was sort of like the Tommy Wiseau, like...

GROSS: (Laughter).

FRANCO: Me to Tommy Wiseau is you to Dave Skylark.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: That's really funny. So it turns out Kim Jong Un is a fan or so he says.

FRANCO: Yes. Yes.

GROSS: And so he invites your character Dave Skylark...

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: ...To interview him. And so Dave Skylark thinks, like, this is my ticket to, like, big time...

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: ...Journalism. I'm going to do it.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: And Seth Rogen is his producer. He's a little skeptical of, you know - but they go, and they do it. And meanwhile, the CIA says, and while you're there, assassinate Kim Jong Un.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Here's some ricin. You could just slip it when...

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: ...When you shake his hand and...

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: ...Assassinate him with that 'cause it's that...

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: ...It's that poisonous.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: And so what happens instead is that your character has this kind of, like, bromance with Kim Jong Un. They spend the day together, and they play basketball.

FRANCO: (Laughter).

GROSS: And they drink margaritas, and they hang out with attractive women.

FRANCO: Yes.

GROSS: And they...

FRANCO: They sing Katy Perry together.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: They sing a Katy Perry song and have a great time together. So your character doesn't want to assassinate Kim Jong Un because he's so kind of smitten with him.

FRANCO: (Laughter) So silly.

GROSS: But in the end, he realizes that the whole thing is a facade. And Kim Jong Un is a bad man.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And...

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...The assassination happens. We see his head or his whole body explode. I forget which.

FRANCO: Yeah. (Laughter) Both I think.

GROSS: Meanwhile, North Korea's reaction to this - Kim Jong Un's actual reaction to the release of the movie is, do not release it or there will be trouble.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And they threatened - there were threats against theaters. There were threats to Sony.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Sony...

FRANCO: Sony was hacked.

GROSS: Sony was hacked.

FRANCO: We don't know - I guess we don't know officially if it was...

GROSS: We don't know if officially...

FRANCO: ....North Korea or not.

GROSS: Exactly.

FRANCO: But Sony was hacked. Yeah.

GROSS: Exactly. But I think we were basically told it was pretty much North Korea.

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And Sony basically released it as an on demand - a video on-demand thing so that people wouldn't have to, you know, feel like...

FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...They were risking their lives to see it in a theater. This whole time - throughout that whole period, I was thinking, what is going through James Franco and Seth Rogen's minds? So I can ask you now, what was going through your mind during that period when all this really bad stuff was happening attached to the movie? It's a comedy. You know, it's just a - it's funny. It's a comedy.

FRANCO: It's bizarre. Yeah. It was so bizarre. And I think, you know, we'll go down in Hollywood history. I mean - and so in being in the middle of that was - as you can imagine - confusing. Seth and I were sort of in the dark for a while. Like, nobody was telling us what decisions they were going to make. We were sort of learning things as they came out in headlines. And then, you know, so we learned, oh, they're pulling the movie from the theaters and, you know, all this stuff. And so I was sort of in the dark.

And then I went home for the holidays. I was staying in a hotel with my grandma. And every morning, we'd have breakfast together and there - and there's a TV in the hotel. And inevitably, you know, something about "The Interview" would come up. And then one day, it was, like, Obama came out and made a statement. And he said, you know, they should play it in the theaters. Don't be, you know, back down. We don't back down to threats like this. And he said - and it was my big moment - he said, and I love Seth Rogen. I love James Flacco.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANCO: I was like, no. It's Franco. No. And I keep hoping I'm - maybe this is the interview with Terry - the great Terry Gross - that Obama will actually hear and come out and say, OK, it's James Franco. I made a mistake.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: But were you feeling, oh, my God, is this my fault? Is the hack my fault - like, if people are hurt?

FRANCO: Well, it's a - it was such a tricky thing. And that's what people were, you know, like - I think even, like, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney came out and said, you need to watch this. They - I don't think they had seen "The Interview" at this point. Maybe they wouldn't have said this, but they were like, you need to watch this movie as a - your patriotic duty.

GROSS: (Laughter).

FRANCO: And, you know, so it was a really confusing - and Clooney - a lot of people were coming out and saying, you know, this, you know, keep it in theaters. This is - you know, we don't back down. And it became a really strange thing. And, you know, when we - there was a point before we made the movie where we were, you know, saying, like, OK, should we make it the real guy? Should we use the name Kim Jong Un or should we just make - should we just sort of suggest it's the guy?

And the strange and crazy thing - it's almost like, you know, "The Disaster Artist" in this sense where we weren't really making things up when we were kind of making jokes about North Korea or just showing how it was. Like, that was strangely all based on things we read or things that had come out of reportage that had come out of North Korea. And then, you know, the idea that maybe he's not a great guy - like, I don't think we were going out on a limb there, you know. Like, these threats of nuclear war - like, I don't - you know, I don't know if we were going out on a limb. It was sort of like, yeah, maybe somebody should sort of make a comment on this. Like, and...

GROSS: So...

FRANCO: ...In making no comparison in, like, moviemaking, you know, skill or anything like that, but, you know, "Dr. Strangelove" is a comedy about nuclear war - like, atomic war. Like, I felt like, yeah, we were falling in that tradition. I thought - what I thought was, oh, we're doing what comedy does best. We are slipping you a pill coated in candy except that then it became this much bigger thing. It was supposed to be, you know, this sort of comedy that had political, you know, underpinnings. Instead, it just became completely political. And I think that prevented people from really actually seeing the movie for what it was because I still - I think it's a great comedy.

GROSS: I think it's really funny. The only question I'd have about where should the line be is at the end when we see Kim Jong Un actually kind of blow up, like, get blown up, blown apart. And I was just wondering like...

FRANCO: Maybe that was (unintelligible) bridge too far.

GROSS: Yeah. I was wondering if you ever had any second thoughts about that.

FRANCO: I mean, there were second thoughts. You can read about all of it in the Sony hack. Like, the original cut had his face exploding in a much more gruesome explicit way. And then the one concession was - and this is long before the Sony hack. But you can just read about it in the emails of the Sony hack that we had - they had to cover his face exploding with like flames so that it wasn't as gruesome.

But - you know what, Terry? Maybe you're right. Maybe that was the step too far. I don't know. I kind of doubt that anything would have happened differently with this hack if we - if he didn't get killed. I kind of doubt that. But maybe that was too far. I don't know.

GROSS: So here's my other question. Like, did it make you feel kind of like the power of movies - the unintended power of movies that make you think about movies in any different way than you'd ever thought about them before just in terms of like...

FRANCO: For sure. I mean, I always believe in the power of movies and in, a basic sense, like, what I think they can do. And what I always try to do, because I don't normally make political movies - I mean, not that I'm against them. Like, one of my favorite movies is "All The President's Men." But they show us to ourselves. You know, like Shakespeare said it. You're holding up a mirror to life. It's - that's my favorite thing about movies.

But then, you know, something like "Brokeback Mountain" or, you know, a movie I was a part of, "Milk" - like it starts to turn the consciousness of the country. You know, what art does the best, like, understand another - understand somebody who's different than us. When it does that, that's, you know, also so beautiful. And that's what literature does. That's what all great art does. And then, in the case of the interview, that's, you know, it was crazy. It's unprecedented in the history of movies like that.

GROSS: (Laughter) Yes, it is.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: James Franco, it's just been wonderful to talk with you again. Thank you so much.

FRANCO: I love it so much. And I remember all of our interviews, and I hope we can do more.

GROSS: James Franco directed and stars in the new movie "The Disaster Artist." After we take a short break, linguist Geoff Nunberg will tell us his word of the year. This is FRESH AIR.

TERRY GROSS, host:

This is Fresh Air. I'm Terry Gross. My guest, James Franco, stars with Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk." Penn plays Harvey Milk, who became the first gay man elected to public office in the U.S. when he won a seat on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1977. Before completing his first year in office, he was assassinated by fellow supervisor Dan White.

James Franco plays Milk's lover, Scott Smith. Together, they moved to San Francisco, set up a camera shop in the Castro, and helped transform the neighborhood into the gay capital of the city. Franco co-starred in the short lived but terrific TV series "Freaks and Geeks." After playing the rebellious high-school heartthrob in that series, he played the ultimate rebellious heartthrob, James Dean, in a telemovie about the iconic actor. In "Spiderman," Franco played Peter Parker's best friend and the son of Spiderman's enemy, Green Goblin. Franco starred with Seth Rogen in last summer's comedy "Pineapple Express," a stoner film meets action film. In a cameo in the film "Knocked Up," and a series for the website Funny or Die, Franco has mocked his own image. We started our interview talking about "Milk."

James Franco, welcome to Fresh Air. The characters in the movie, for the most part, are real people that existed. And for some of the characters, like Harvey Milk, there's a lot of archival footage and documentation so that Sean Penn could base his performance on that. But as far as I know, the person you play, Scott Smith, wasn't nearly as well documented. I mean, the screenwriter of the movie said that there was very little in terms of film footage and things like that for you to base your performance on. So, what did you do to create the character? Did you talk with people who knew him?

Mr. JAMES FRANCO (Actor): Yeah. When I heard that Gus was doing the movie, I didn't really know anything about Harvey Milk, which I found shocking and sad because I grew up in the Bay Area, in Palo Alto, 45 minutes away from San Francisco. And I heard Gus was doing the movie, and I started doing some research and found out what, you know, an important story this was.

And as far as, like, the research, you know, there's some great sources on Harvey Milk in the time, Randy Shilts' book "The Mayor of Castro Street" and the Oscar-winning documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk." And like you said, Scott isn't - doesn't play a huge part in either of those. In the documentary, you know, he shows up for about five seconds. I think Harvey and Scott are at the Gay Pride Parade, and they kiss, and that's it. So, I, you know, I couldn't build a character on that either.

And so, it was really a matter of just talking to a lot of people that had worked with Harvey and Scott and were friends with Scott. And I went to Rob Epstein, the director of "The Times of Harvey Milk," and I asked him if he had any extra footage that didn't make it into his documentary. And so, he had a pre-interview with Scott Smith from 30, like, 28 years ago on a film reel, and he found that in some old vault for me and transferred it to DVD. And so, I could finally really hear what Scott sounded like and, you know, see how he moved and everything. So, I had the - and then, I had the outside and the inside.

GROSS: Are we past the point where I have to ask if it's risky to play a gay character and if that could adversely affect your career?

Mr. FRANCO: I don't know. I mean, yeah, it certainly seems like, you know, times have changed. I think as far as straight actors playing gay roles, "Brokeback Mountain" was a big breakthrough. I'm pretty sure when they were casting that movie that I think the story is, like, you know, 10 to 15 other actors turned it down. I don't know if that's true or not. But after that movie, I think some of the hesitancy of straight actors to, you know, play gay roles has been dissipated.

But you know, that's not even the reason I took it on. I just, you know, I've been the biggest fan of Gus Van Sant forever, you know, even before I started acting. I would just watch "My Own Private Idaho," you know, repeatedly just in high school. And then when I did start acting, you know, sometimes people ask you, like, what's the one role that you wish you could have played? And I think it would probably have been River Phoenix's role in that movie. And so to play, you know, a gay character in a Gus Van Sant movie sounded like, you know, a fantastic thing to me. So, I had no fear of playing this role.

GROSS: Did Gus Van Sant want to get assurances from you that you'd be OK kissing Sean Penn in scenes?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, I read the script, so I knew it was coming. So, I guess one thing that happened was that after I agreed to do the script, there was a rewrite, and I read the rewrite, and one of the changes were that there were more kissing scenes, and there was like, you know, a big love scene on, like, page five. And you know, I was all prepared for the other scenes, the kissing scenes, but I said, well, Gus, well, you're adding more, what's going on? And he was very smart, and he said, you know, Sean Penn is going to be playing a gay character, and you're playing - you know, you're both straight actors playing gay characters. And in the back of people's minds, they're probably going to be thinking like, all right, when is Sean going to kiss a dude? And so...

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: You might as well just get it out of the way, so people can get beyond it and, you know, really engage with the story. And I think he was right.

GROSS: Yes, this is sort of interesting...

Mr. FRANCO: I could tell you a little bit more about the kissing if you want...

GROSS: Yeah, go ahead, yeah, yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: The funny thing is right before we started filming in San Francisco, there was a show at the SF MoMA of this artist, Douglas Gordon, a great artist. He does everything, but some of his best pieces are his video pieces, and this was - it was called, like, Everything Up Until Now. And it was all of his video pieces in one room. And so, Gus went his DP, Harris Savides, and there was one piece where this couple is kissing, a young man and a young woman were kissing on the street, and I think it lasted about three minutes.

And Gus told me the story later. He turned to Harris, and he said, wow, look at that kiss. It's so natural. It looks so real. You know, that's what we need for the movie, you know? We don't want movie kisses; we want our actors to look real when they're kissing. How do you think Douglas did that? And Harris said, like, well, you know, they're probably really kissing. It's just a couple that he saw kissing and shot them. And that night, Gus had dinner with Douglas Gordon. They both - I guess they knew each other. They both had done "Psycho" pieces, you know? Gus remade the movie, and Douglas has this piece called "24 Hour Psycho" where he slowed "Psycho" down...

GROSS: Oh, right, right. I read about it. Yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: So, it would last 24 hours.

GROSS: Mm-hm.

Mr. FRANCO: And so, he asked Douglas, you know, how did you get that kiss to look so real? It must have been just a couple you shot, right? And then Douglas said no, no. I hired two actors who didn't know each other, and I had them kiss for 12 hours. And then, I took the best three minutes to put in there.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: So, Gus told me the story, and he said, so, yeah, you and Sean, huh? And I - and I knew he was kind of kidding, but not exactly, because the Douglas Gordon piece actually, like, inspired this shot in the movie that hadn't been in the script where Sean and I are just on the sidewalk like kissing for, like, at least a full minute. The shot - I don't think it's a minute in the film, but we - the takes were, like, at least a minute, if not longer. And that - I don't think I've ever kissed anybody on camera for that long.

In addition to that, there were, like, 300 people out on Castro Street behind the camera just watching. And it was, you know, the first kiss that was filmed in the movie. So, it felt like there is a lot of pressure on that kiss, and I think - you know, you can kind of just make your mind blank for about 30 seconds. But you know, after that, I really think I thought, well, here I am kissing Spicoli. I was just thinking - that's really what I thought.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Like, wow - I was thinking of Sean Penn in the beach, you know, in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." And just like, hey, dude, you know, I saved Brooke Shields or whatever. And that's what I was thinking, and like, I cannot believe that I went from a kid watching that to this. And...

GROSS: Well, Sean Penn is such, like, the method actor. Did you both, like, talk through the scene before doing it? And did he prepare for it differently than you prepared for it?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, I mean, you don't really prepare for a kissing scene. I don't - I mean, I've never - I've been asked that a lot, like, did you and Sean do preparation? Like, and I'm thinking, if you think about it, like, if I said to one of my female co-stars in another movie, like, hey, why don't we go rehearse this love scene in my hotel room a bit?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: I don't think it would fly. And so, you just don't really rehearse kissing scenes whether it's male or the female. And there's not really much to talk about, you know? You kind of both know how to kiss, you assume, and you just do it. I guess if - I think Sean took some breath mints, and you just do it.

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He stars opposite Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk." We'll talk more after a break. This is Fresh Air.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: My guest is James Franco, and he co-stars in the new movie, "Milk," in which Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk, the first out-of-the-closet gay man to be elected to public office in the United States. Now, you're going to college now in addition to making movies. You're getting your graduate degree...

Mr. FRANCO: Yes...

GROSS: From Columbia, in what? Writing, is it?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, I'm going to several schools. So, yes, I am going to Columbia for the MFA Fiction Writing Program, and then, I'm studying directing at the NYU Tisch Grad School. And then - I'm also taking fiction writing at Brooklyn College.

GROSS: Wow. That's a lot of work. You know, I think a lot of people who have reached your stature as an actor would say, well, I don't have to go to graduate school. I'm already doing it, so why should I go to school? So, let me ask you why you are going to school since you already have a very successful career. A lot of people drop out when they've reached, you know, the point you're at as opposed to going to school, three schools no less.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah. I did leave school when I started acting. I mean, I wasn't successful, but I moved to L.A. from Palo Alto to go to UCLA, and I left after a year because I was not in the theater program. My parents didn't let me apply. And once I got to L.A., I wanted to act, and they wouldn't let me audition for the theater program until I was a junior. And I just, you know, that seemed like a lifetime away. And so, I left school and went to acting school in North Hollywood, and I acted for eight years. And then after awhile, you know, for a lot of reasons acting wasn't completely satisfying. I was very grateful, you know, that I had a career and I could support myself as an actor, but I just needed something more.

I went back to school to write, and I guess, based on my experiences with acting, you know, I went to acting school for like eight years, and for me, hard work just seemed to pay off. And so I thought, I - if I wanted to be serious about writing, then I should be around other writers. And you know, some people - like, there's a romantic notion, like, well, if you want to be a writer, just write. But I don't know - I don't know if this is true, but I had a professor at UCLA who just wrote a book on this very thing, and I think it turns out that, like - I could be wrong, but I think something like 90 percent of authors that are fiction authors that are being published today went through MFA programs. So, I don't know, but it certainly does a lot for me to be in school.

GROSS: On "Saturday Night Live," when you hosted, you did an opening monologue about how your dream - just like any other student at Columbia - anyway, it was very funny because of course, you're not. But I'm thinking...

Mr. FRANCO: Well, I said I was living in the dorms. I don't live in the dorm.

GROSS: No. I couldn't imagine you living in the dorms. But I'm thinking how self-conscious I would be if I were in your shoes, because once you're famous and you're sitting in a class with a bunch of other people, I would imagine people are either waiting for you to be incredibly brilliant or to make a fool of yourself and show, well, you're not all that.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: So, like, what kind of, like, peculiar pressures do you feel are on you as a student now?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, for the most part, it's actually pretty great. I - you know, the writing programs, and to a certain extent, the film program, they're run in a workshop fashion. And so, the group becomes pretty intimate, and people get to know me, and I like to think that they forget about me as an actor. I don't know. They certainly don't really bring it up. And I get the feeling, like, at the film school if I - if I ever bring up any movie that I've acted in, like, don't - you know, nobody wants to hear about it really.

And I guess when I was at UCLA, I felt a lot of pressure to work hard because I, you know, I was going back to undergrad, and so I was older than most of the people there. And so, I didn't want anybody to think that I was like sliding by. And so, I took a lot of extra courses. I mean, I was taking classes that I was very interested in with professors that I was very interested in working with, but I - like, the cap on the number of units that a student can take in a quarter is 19 and in that last quarter, I took 62 units.

GROSS: Oh, geez.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And you know, most - it was mostly because it was just, like, my last quarter and there were so many teachers I wanted to be in class with. But I'm sure part of it was just, like...

GROSS: Showing off.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: I didn't want anybody - I didn't want - no, I know I'm showing off now. It's kind of ridiculous.

GROSS: No, no, no. I'm kidding.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: OK. I did break the record. I'm a little proud of that. I broke the record for the number of units in a class. But I didn't want anyone to think that I was, like - you know, I had it easy or something.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is actor James Franco, and he's now co-starring in the new movie "Milk." This summer, you starred in "Pineapple Express," which I just thought was a wonderful film. And you starred in it with Seth Rogen, and you're, like, the real stoner in the movie. Well, you both are, but you're the person who, like, sells the marijuana.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, I'm the dealer, yes.

GROSS: You're the dealer, and you're selling, like, potent stuff, called Pineapple Express. And let's just start with a clip.

Mr. FRANCO: That was a good voice right there.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: Yeah.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: Yeah. Let's just start with a clip from the film. And this is from early in the movie. Seth Rogen is a process server; his job is to hand-deliver legal papers to people.

Mr. FRANCO: Right.

GROSS: And, you're the dealer. So, he shows up at your door one day to buy some marijuana from you, and he's on his way to, like, serving a subpoena. So, he's wearing a suit, and you're surprised to see him that dressed up. Here's the scene.

(Soundbite of movie "Pineapple Express")

Mr. JAMES FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) What's up with the suit?

Mr. SETH ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) Well, I'm a process server, so I have to wear a suit.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Wow. You're a servant, like a butler, a chauffeur?

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) No. No. What? No. I'm not, like - no, I'm a...

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Shine shoes?

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) I'm a process server. I like...

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) In process.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) I work for a company that's, like, hired by lawyers to, like, hand out legal documents, like subpoenas to people who don't want them. So, I've got to wear...

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Subpoenas.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) Like, disguises sometimes just to make them admit that they're themselves so I can served them the papers.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Disguise?

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) Kind of, I guess. It's a hell of a job.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) That's cool, man.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) Like, a day-to-day basis, it's fine...

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Got a great job where you don't do anything.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) That's what I say.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) I wish I had that.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) Are you kidding? You - you do have the easiest job on Earth.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Yeah, yeah, that's true.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) You didn't think of that, huh?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) I do have a good job.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) Yeah, you do nothing.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Saul Silver) Thanks, man.

Mr. ROGEN: (As Dale Denton) No problem.

GROSS: You are so funny in this film. I mean, you're so - you're so kind of, like, sweet and dumb at the same time. And there's some incredible...

Mr. FRANCO: But I have high aspirations. I want to be a - I want to be an architect.

GROSS: Yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: Of some sort and build off-ramps, highway off-ramps and septic tanks.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: And you have some great moments of physical comedy in it. You take a lot of physical abuse in this movie.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, yeah. As far as the physical abuse, you know, I had a feeling going into the movie that there would be some injuries just because, you know, I've been on, like, the "Spiderman" movies that, you know, have very big budgets. I think "Spiderman 3" had one of the biggest budgets ever, and you take a lot of time to do those action scenes. Like, you know, we take a month or more to do one action scene in "Spiderman." On "Pineapple Express," you know, I'm reading the script and there's like a lot of - a lot of action for a comedy. I mean, they call it an action-comedy. But there's, you know, there wasn't a lot of - there wasn't a huge budget, and there wasn't a lot of time to do them.

And I just knew in the back of my mind, I was thinking, oh, man, we are going to get hurt. And the actors ended up doing - you know, we ended doing a lot of our own stunts. And you know, I - I don't know - ran into a tree. There's that scene where we're running through the woods and I ran into a tree. Well, I actually ran into the tree. But not only that, there was a pad on the tree that I guess was supposed to protect me, but it was screwed in with exposed washers in each corner. And so, I not only hit the tree, I hit, like, a washer. So, I had, like, a - and the reason I knew I hit the washer is that the cut was crescent-shaped.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And so - and you know, it was kind of I guess my fault, but you know, the guy - ah, whatever. But - and then Seth, like, I think he sprained his finger. He had to go to the hospital for his finger. There's a scene where I hit Danny over the head with a bong, and yeah, it was a breakaway bong. But by that point - I mean, I even warned Danny McBride. I was like, look, Violet(ph), you know, just based on the way things have been going, I - you know, I'm going to hit you in the right spot, but I think you're going to get hurt. And he was like, do it, do it!

And I guess because it was, you know, weighted with water or something, sure enough, like, as soon as I hit him, you look at him in the scene because it's - it's the take that he actually got hit, and his eyes are like, dude, look like really dilated or something. But I think it was worth it just because we're not - one thing you - that can happen with stuntmen is they're very, you know, they're well-trained at - you know, with fighting and movie fighting, and so they look very slick when they're fighting. We don't necessarily look that sleek, you know? And so, the fights become comedic.

GROSS: James Franco will be back in the second half of the show. He's now starring opposite Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk," about Harvey Milk. I'm Terry Gross, and this is Fresh Air.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: Coming up, our book critic Maureen Corrigan reviews Toni Morrison's new novel, "A Mercy," and we continue our conversation with actor James Franco and talk about his role on "Freaks and Geeks" and his own adventures in high school.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: This is Fresh Air. I'm Terry Gross back with James Franco. He stars opposite Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk," about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the U.S. Franco also starred in the TV high-school series "Freaks and Geeks," played James Dean in the telemovie about the iconic actor, played the son of Spiderman's enemy Green Goblin, and was the stoner drug dealer in last summer's comedy, "Pineapple Express."

Seth Rogen, who you starred with in "Pineapple Express," is someone you met in your first big role, which was in the series "Freaks and Geeks," the sadly short-lived series "Freaks and Geeks," which was set in high school. And that's where you also met Paul Feig and Judd Apatow. How did you get the part in "Freaks and Geeks"? Were you still in high school or just out of high school?

Mr. FRANCO: No. Seth, I think, was still in high school. I don't think - I don't think...

GROSS: Yeah, he was.

Mr. FRANCO: He finished high school.

GROSS: Yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: It - right. Exactly, he dropped out, I think.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, he's one of the smartest dropouts I've ever met. I was a little older. I was I think 20 when I auditioned, and I - you know, I'd done little things here and there. I think I did, like, "Pacific Blue," which was like "Baywatch" on, like, bikes and roller blades and stuff like that.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And you know, little bits here and there. And they just did a huge casting call. I think they met a lot of young actors, and they were really smart. They, you know, they had a script for the pilot, but I think that they just looked for actors that they really liked and not really people that would fit their script exactly. So, my character in this script didn't have a last name, just Daniel. And the description - I still have it, the original draft - it says Daniel - he's Latino with Peter Frampton hair.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And so, I'm not exactly that, and - but they just liked me. And so, they put me in that role and when the show got picked up, they changed the name to Daniel Desario, so I guess I became Italian. And then they, you know, they kind of wrote the characters around the actors, although I wasn't exactly like Daniel in high school, but I guess they thought I could play that very well.

GROSS: Were the scripts in the storylines at all like your high-school experiences growing up in Palo Alto?

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, to a certain extent. I got in a lot of trouble; I mean, it was silly trouble, guess as much as trouble as you can get in, in Palo Alto.

GROSS: For what?

Mr. FRANCO: I got arrested for graffiti. I got arrested - a lot of, like, underage drinking, drunk in public, shoplifting, you know, your various, like, suburban arrests, I guess. And...

GROSS: Let's stop for a moment. What did you shoplift?

Mr. FRANCO: Oh, gosh, that was ridiculous. I don't know - for some reason when I was in junior high school, my friends and I had, like, a cologne-stealing ring.

GROSS: Cologne?

Mr. FRANCO: Well, yeah, I guess - I didn't even really wear it, but it's kind of, I guess, it's ironic. I just did the Gucci cologne ad, and I was the cologne thief in junior high. We would go around to all the department stores and they have, like, the tester bottles out on a counter, so it was, like, really easy to steal. And then we'd take them to the school and keep them in our gym locker and sell them to people. And for a while, it was really hip to wear, like, Drakkar Noir and stuff like that. We could sell it.

GROSS: It was a cologne-smuggling ring.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, and then one day, the assistant principal found out about it and then, like, went into the locker room and busted our lockers open with a crowbar, and we were caught. And actually, I think I was on vacation or something. I don't know why I was gone from school, but I was in Hawaii. And he had called the police, and they thought I had, like, jumped the city or whatever and bailed out of town to get away from, you know, my cologne stealing.

GROSS: So, you were telling us you were getting in trouble, and these are some examples of the things that got you in trouble.

Mr. FRANCO: Oh, yeah, yeah.

GROSS: What kind of circle were you in, in high school?

Mr. FRANCO: I tried to be an athlete. I played a lot of soccer when I was younger, but as soon as I got to high school I was on the football team for about a minute, and it just was not my thing and I quit. So, I got into, like - I don't know what we were, I guess, just the troublemaking crowd. But I guess, you know, a couple of my friends were really into literature. That's when I really started reading seriously. So, that's when I started reading "On the Road" and Ginsberg and Burroughs and all the Beats. And then, when I got into a certain amount of trouble, I knew I had to stop.

I mean, I was, like, a ward of the court after a while. You know, it was past probation. It was like I didn't belong to my parents. So, I guess if I jaywalked I would go to a juvenile hall or something. So, I had to change my ways, and I didn't know what to do. I didn't want to play sports or anything. I had to occupy my time with something, so that's when I really started painting. So, every day after school, I'd go to this art league and either do portraiture or draw naked models from, like, 3:30 to 10 everyday.

GROSS: Well, I want to play a scene from "Freaks and Geeks." The series is set in a high school. And there's a girl in "Freaks and Geeks" who has a real crush on you, and she's very smart, and you're not a good student. And in this episode, she's tutoring you for a math test.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And what you do is that you steal a copy of the test so that you have the answers in advance.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And then you want her to help you cover up. And so, you're kind of explaining to her how she has to help you do this, and she kind of realizes that you're playing her and we'll pick it up from there.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

(Soundbite of TV show "Freaks and Geeks")

Ms. LINDA CARDELLINI: (As Lindsay Weir) You're manipulating me.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Daniel Desario) What?

Ms. CARDELLINI: (As Lindsay Weir) You're manipulating me.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Daniel Desario) No, I'm not.

Ms. CARDELLINI: (As Lindsay Weir) Yes, you are. And you know, it's really hard to say no to you, but I have to. I'm sorry. I can't go in there and lie. I'm not going to.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Daniel Desario) OK, fine. Don't lie.

Ms. CARDELLINI: (As Lindsay Weir) What?

Mr. FRANCO: (As Daniel Desario) No, let's go in there, we'll tell them what we did. What's the difference? You'll get a nice slap on the wrist, and I'll get, what, suspended, expelled?

Ms. CARDELLINI: (As Lindsay Weir) That is not fair, Daniel.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Daniel Desario) What do you think, I want to be terrible at school? Do you think I like it? I wish I was as smart as you. I wish it all came easy to me, but it doesn't. You know, when I was in 6th grade, they told us when we got to junior high it would be either track one, track two or track three. Track one is the smart kids. Track two is the normal kids. Track three is the dumb kids. And what do you think I got? How do you think it feels to be told you're dumb when you're 11 years old?

Ms. CARDELLINI: (As Lindsay Weir) You are not dumb.

Mr. FRANCO: (As Daniel Desario) I just wanted them to prove them wrong, just once.

GROSS: That's actually a really funny scene, because we learn later that this is, like, the speech you give to people...

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: When you're trying to get their sympathy and get off the hook and not take responsibility for your actions.

Mr. FRANCO: Right, right. It's all acting, yeah.

GROSS: It's all acting. And really, I thought that that scene was, like, your character kind of borrowing from James Dean, who you later played in a made-for-TV movie, and Marlon Brando in the "I coulda been a contender" scene.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Right, right, right, right.

GROSS: Did you think of it that way when you were playing this?

Mr. FRANCO: Not really. I guess, I - even before I played James Dean, I, you know, I did love his work, and you know, I'd study it and Brando, certainly, and Cliff, those were like the big three. So, maybe they were kind of influencing it, or I'd certainly seen all the Dean movies, like "On the Waterfront," probably 50 times each by that point. But I don't know. I think I was just, I don't know, drawing on my inner dumb guy. It's weird. I play a lot of dumb guys.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: And what's funny is in high school, my, you know, my dad works in Silicon Valley, and is, like, a math freak, so he actually, like, rammed math down my throat. So, I tested out of math. I didn't have to take it in college because of all the work my dad did, and thank God, I haven't studied it since high school.

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He's now starring opposite Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk." We'll talk more after our break. This is Fresh Air.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: My guest is James Franco. He stars opposite Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk." He also starred in the TV series "Freaks and Geeks," played James Dean in a telemovie about the actor, played the son of Spiderman's enemy, Green Goblin, and was the stoner and dealer in the comedy "Pineapple Express." One of the things you've done over the years is a lot of really funny sketches and scenes in other people's movies in which you mock yourself or you mock serious acting, and you've done a series for the Funny or Die website...

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: Of sketches called "Acting with James Franco," in which you give acting tips to your younger brother.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah.

GROSS: And it's kind of like a send-up of acting classes and of the Method. And one of them is all about, like, James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause," and you go through a scene with your brother that's a reenactment of a scene from "Rebel Without a Cause." Describe the scene that you're reenacting in this.

Mr. FRANCO: Oh, yeah. There's a scene in "Rebel" where James Dean gives Sal Mineo his jacket, and you know, back in the '50s, I guess, you couldn't be explicit about gay characters. And so, it's not that subtle, but I think Sal's character is kind of in love with Dean's character. And so, when Sal takes the jacket, I guess he kind of, like, sniffs it or, like, rubs it on his face or something, like, adoringly. And so, the joke was that I was going to, you know, make my brother perform that exact action.

GROSS: You're bullying him...

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, yeah.

GROSS: Into adoring you. And so, I just want to hear - play that scene from your Funny or Die video.

(Soundbite of "Funny or Die" online video)

Mr. J. FRANCO: Just rub the jacket against your face and smell it.

Mr. DAVY FRANCO: Why would I want to smell the jacket and rub it against my face?

Mr. J. FRANCO: Because that's what he did, because he's in love with James Dean.

Mr. D. FRANCO: That's, I mean, it's typical, man. You give me the worst characters again, and you get to be James Dean, of course. Of course, you get to be James Dean.

Mr. J. FRANCO: Of course, of course, I get to be James Dean. Who else is going to be James Dean?

Mr. D. FRANCO: You're such a good actor you can play him, and I'll play James Dean.

Mr. J. FRANCO: You can't play James Dean. I'm James Dean. Actors sniff jackets.

Mr. D. FRANCO: OK. Go on.

Mr. J. FRANCO: Actors act. Actors sniff jackets if they need to sniff jackets. Marlon Brando sniffed jackets.

Mr. D. FRANCO: OK.

Mr. J. FRANCO: He sniffed pants. He did.

Mr. D. FRANCO: OK.

Mr. J. FRANCO: You're a "Rebel Without a Cause"? What's your cause? Not sniffing jackets? Sniff it.

Mr. D. FRANCO: You sniff it.

Mr. J. FRANCO: You sniff it.

Mr. D. FRANCO: No.

Mr. J. FRANCO: Just what I thought.

Mr. D. FRANCO: OK.

Mr. J. FRANCO: You don't know how to act.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: I think that's so funny. Is he really your younger brother, the person who's doing the...

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's Davy, my younger brother. We were - I went to UCLA. He went to USC, and he started acting a couple of years ago, and he's been doing pretty well. If I ever taught acting, I like to think I'd be a little bit nicer of a teacher.

GROSS: I think you're also, in the Funny or Die videos, "James Franco on Acting," you're kind of sending up acting school and acting pretensions. Like, there's one in which you're teaching your brother how to cry and how to, like, use an emotion from within. And every time he comes up with an emotion, you're telling him, no, that's too trivial. You can't use that.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, yeah.

GROSS: It's so, kind of, clueless and insulting. It's really funny. Were there a lot of acting pretensions that bothered you when you were in acting school?

Mr. FRANCO: I learned a lot of good things in my school. I've audited at a lot of other schools, and I guess, after awhile, I got a little tired of the acting school atmosphere, where it's really tricky, because as an actor in the classroom, you know, you're revealing so much. And teachers are - you know, they're not just critiquing like a painting or a piece of work. It's, like - it's you and it's your emotions that they're working with. And so, it becomes a very weird kind of intimate space.

And there's some, like, acting schools - thank goodness, not the one I was at - but you know, they'll ask things, like, in front of the whole class, like, have you ever had an abortion? And it's just, like, what? Wow! And so it becomes so strange and almost - even despite themselves sometimes, teachers become these gurus just because actors have revealed so much to them, and I'd like - you know, I used to think, like, oh, you know, it's not going to happen to me. I've got my own life. But you go in there and you work, you know, year after year with these people, and you can't help but become really engrossed in that world. And so, I got a little scared of that after awhile. I just - I wanted to be out. I learned a lot of good things but after awhile, it was too much.

GROSS: Did you study the Method?

Mr. FRANCO: Not exactly. The Method, I guess, according to Strasberg, is something kind of different than what we learned, but it seems like when people say, do you - are you a Method actor? They are implying, do you behave as your character when the camera is not rolling? And I guess I did, kind of, on James Dean or something, but it doesn't really help me if people, like, would come up to me and say, hey, James Dean. You know, it doesn't do anything for me to, like, talk about my life as if I'm James Dean to other people when we're not rolling. I more just kind of keep to myself if it's a serious role and just try and kind of, I don't know, stay focused, but not really display that I'm, you know, the character all the time.

GROSS: You were talking like you're not the kind of Method actor who has to stay in character even when you're not on camera. In fact, you know, I've heard that when you're on the set, you sometimes are reading a novel. And I'm wondering if that kind of is a voyage into a completely different story and emotional space that can be distracting, like, if it's sometimes good and sometimes bad to immerse yourself in another story like that.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, I do read a lot on the set. In the last couple of years, a lot of it was just homework.

GROSS: Right.

Mr. FRANCO: I mean, I shot "Spiderman 3" and "Pineapple" and "Milk" all while I was at UCLA. So, that was just homework I needed to get done. I mean, if it's a very intense scene or, you know, demands a lot of focus, I mean, I'm not going to sit down and read a book. But you know, movies have long setup periods, and some longer than others. I mean, I would go to "Spiderman 3" and, you know, be there 12 hours, and probably work, like, be actually on camera for, like, a minute, you know, total, you know, in a day. And so, that's just a lot of time for - to do whatever, so rather than, you know, catch up on watching "The Hills" or whatever you could do on your trailer, I just read.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: Now, I read that you do so much research for films, that, for instance, for the movie "Flyboys," you earned your pilot's license; for the movie "Annapolis," you did eight months of boxing training; and for the movie, "Tristan and Isolde," you studied sword fighting for eight months. And all these movies were flops.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: So, what's the moral of the story in terms of, like, committing to incredible research for a film? Yeah, go ahead.

Mr. FRANCO: Oh, the moral, well, you know, I went into "Annapolis" as a young actor hoping that it would be "Raging Bull."

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. FRANCO: Now, that sounds kind of ridiculous, but that's how I tried to apply myself.

GROSS: Yeah.

Mr. FRANCO: You know, I'd box every day for eight months. I would, you know, spar with pros. I mean, you know, they went very, very easy on me and actually like, you know, hurt me sometimes when they weren't going so easy. But you know, I worked as hard as I could with the intention of making, you know, a movie with, you know - and the best is that, oh, yeah, I'd be like a young "Raging Bull." But it wasn't. I mean, that wasn't the movie. I was ridiculous in thinking that it would be something like that. It was a completely different kind of story.

And, so, no matter how hard I worked, I could have boxed for five years, it was never going to be that. And so I guess now, it's just - it's a matter of being really clear about what kind of movie I'm getting into. And you know, I still work really hard, but I like to think I'm a little smarter about at least the type of movie I'm getting into. And if, you know, if it turns out to be a failure, at least, you know, a box-office failure, at least I start movies with people that I believe in, and people with visions, you know, that I believe in. And so, if it doesn't, kind of, come together in the right way, at least I was doing it because I believed in the person and in the movie.

GROSS: James Franco, it's really been great to talk with you. Thank you so much.

Mr. FRANCO: Yeah, it was great.

GROSS: James Franco stars opposite Sean Penn in the new movie "Milk." Coming up, Maureen Corrigan reviews Toni Morrison's new novel, "A Mercy." This is Fresh Air.

A CONVERSATION WITH BARACK OBAMA - TRANSCRIPT

October 20, 2006
JOHN SHATTUCK: Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the John F. Kennedy Library. I’m John Shattuck, CEO of the Kennedy Library Foundation. And on behalf of our Board of Directors, many of whom are here tonight and Tom Putnam, the Acting Director of the Kennedy Library, we are just delighted to be able to host tonight’s very special Kennedy Library Forum.

Before introducing our guest of honor, who in a typical way I could say needs no introduction, but I’m going to give him one anyway, I’d like to thank the institutions that make these forums possible, starting with our lead sponsor, Bank of America. We’re also very grateful to Boston Capital and its President, our Board member Jack Manning, who is here with us tonight. Thank you Jack. Also, the Lowell Institute, the Corcoran Jennison Companies, and our media sponsors, The Boston Globe, NECN and WBUR, which broadcasts all Kennedy Library forums on Sunday evenings at eight.

Tonight is a banner night for the Kennedy Library. As a presidential library, we are proud to attract speakers who are making headlines. But the headlines this week about tonight’s speaker tell us that he may be poised, not just to make news, but to make history. Our Guest of Honor is on this week’s cover of Time Magazine. His name is on the lips of Democrats and Republicans across the nation. And his new book, The Audacity of Hope, published this month and now on sale in our book store, tells us about a brand new form of political leadership.

It’s a great privilege to welcome Senator Barack Obama to the Kennedy Library.

[applause]

Senator, you are described by the New York Times as, and I quote, “That rare politician who can write, and write, and write movingly and genuinely about himself.” And your story is extraordinary. As this week’s cover article in Time tells us, and I quote, “Senator Obama’s father was from Kenya, and his mother from Kansas. The Senator has told the story in brilliant, painful detail in his first book, Dreams of My Father, which may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” and I end-quote.

A central theme of the book is that Barack Obama learned from an early age how important it was to bridge the many divides of the world in which he grew up, which is the same world as the one in which we all live today.

At Harvard Law School, he was the first African American to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review. He was chosen for that prestigious position, not only because he was near the top of his class, but also because he had a unique ability to win over conservative and liberal students alike.

As one of his classmates told Time magazine this week, most of the class were liberals, but there was a growing conservative presence, and there were fights between right and left about almost every issue. Barack won the election because the conservatives thought he would take their arguments into account.

After graduating from law school, Senator Obama entered public service. He started as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney in Chicago, representing victims of employment and housing discrimination and teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

In 1997, he was elected to the Illinois Senate, where for the next seven years, he played a leading role reaching across party lines on difficult issues to achieve results.

He forged coalitions of Democrats and Republicans to help working families, creating programs like the state earned income tax credit that provided over 100 million dollars in tax relief for lower and middle income families.

He pushed through a bipartisan expansion of early childhood education, and he worked with law enforcement officials to enact legislation requiring that all interrogations and confessions in cases involving the death penalty be videotaped.

On the national stage, he spoke out early against the war in Iraq, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. Here in Boston, he electrified the Democratic National Convention two years ago in a key note address that charted the common ground that unites all Americans.

“We worship an awesome God in the blue states,” he said, “and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and we’ve got gay friends in the red states. There is not a black America, and white America, and Latino America, and Asian America, there’s the United States of America.”

Elected in an Illinois landslide to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Senator Obama is now in a position to project his special brand of political leadership on the national level; leadership based on consensus building, not slashing and burning; leadership based on listening to opposing views and responding with fact and truth, not destruction distortion; a brand of leadership, I might add, in great demand but very short supply in our political life today.

Senator, again, it’s a great privilege to have you here.

[applause]

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

SHATTUCK: To moderate this evening’s forum, we’re also privileged to have one of our nation’s leading commentators, Bob Herbert of the New York Times. Bob has been a star, as many of you know, at other Kennedy Library forums, and we’re pleased to welcome him back here tonight.

Bob joined the Times as an Op-ed columnist in 1993. And twice a week he helps us understand what’s important in politics and our national life. Bob Herbert began his career with the Newark Star Ledger, where he became a city editor. Before joining the Times, he was a national correspondent for NBC, a founding panelist on Sunday Edition, the weekly discussion program on WCBS, and the host of Hot Line, a weekly issues program on New York Public Television.

He’s won many awards for his reporting and commentary, including, recently, the American Society of Newspaper Editors Award for Distinguished Commentary. Please join me in welcoming Barack Obama and Bob Herbert to the stage of the Kennedy Library.

[applause]

BOB HERBERT: Senator, it’s an honor to have you here. I know we’re on a tight schedule, so we’re not going to waste a lot of time. Members of the audience will see people coming around with pencils, and we’re going to take some written questions. And if we have time, we’ll answer a few at the end of the interview.

I noticed upstairs, I’m looking at the pictures of President Kennedy, and I recalled from your book that you were born, if I’m not mistaken, in the year Senator Kennedy was inaugurated. Is that right?

OBAMA: That is correct.

HERBERT: Wow. Are you getting enough attention lately?

[laughter]

OBAMA: Well, the first thing I have to say to everybody is I’m sorry I’m late. I had forgotten how wonderful Boston weather is this time of year, and we were delayed in a holding pattern over the skies for about half an hour, and an hour back in New York. But I appreciate everybody taking the time to-- and everybody’s patience.

HERBERT: Let’s start with the war in Iraq, which is going horribly, and which seems to be the big topic in the upcoming elections, and we’re very close to them. You were not in favor of the war, but you have not called for a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops. So what should the United States do in Iraq? And, if the Democrats take control of either or both Houses of Congress, what could the party do to move us toward a more acceptable solution?

OBAMA: Well, as you mentioned, Bob, in fact we talked before I was elected, and at that point, I had made my position clear. I thought that the war was not based on reason and fact but rather on ideology. And unfortunately, most of my worst fears came to pass.

My view had been at the time, and continues to be, that once we were in, we had some obligations to try to stabilize the situation. And so, over the last year, as I’ve watched conditions to continue to deteriorate-- and I made a visit to Iraq in January-- my view was let us see if we can give this political process a chance and try to buck up the capacity of the Iraqi government to create some order.

It’s my view at this point, and I’ve been saying this now for several months, that there is no military solution possible in Iraq at this point, that what you have is a political problem that is going to have to be solved, to a large degree, by the Iraqis themselves.

And so, to my mind, it makes sense for us to now begin a phased withdrawal. Originally, I believed that withdrawal should have started by the end of this year. Now it’s unlikely that we can execute that that quickly.

But I think early next year, the President should sit down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and say, “How do we do this in a way that causes the least threat to our troops and maintains some semblance of stability, whatever is left in Iraq, but sending a strong signal to the Iraqis that they are going to have to make a determination-- do they want to live as Iraqis in a unified national government? Are they Kurds, Shiites, Sunni first? And force them to make some political decisions about what’s going to happen.”

The second thing I think the President needs to do is to gather up all the regional powers, including Iran and Syria who, to some degree, are enjoying watching us flounder there, but will not enjoy millions of refugees if Iraq collapses completely, and to them say, “You have to take some ownership over the process as well, the international community, but particularly, the Arab states in the surrounding region.”

And I think if we send a signal that we are not interested in permanent bases, we are not going to attempt to police a civil war, that we can provide support for whatever plans emerge from those discussions. But we are not going to be able to impose our will in Iraq by ourselves, then we can make some progress.

Now keep in mind-- and I’ll finish up with this-- part of the reason I thought this was a bad idea was because, at this stage, I don’t think there are any good options. I think there are bad options and worse options. And there are risks in a phased withdrawal, because one can argue that, as bad as the situation is now, it could conceivably, in the short term, get worse.

The problem is the alternative, which is to continue on a course that we’re on at this point, where what we’re seeing, typically, is when U.S. casualties get high, the administration pulls back troops into the large consolidated basis. The situation deteriorates, we send them back in. And so this month, now, we’re seeing a huge spike in U.S. casualties. That kind of pattern is unsustainable. It’s not serving our national security interests, and I think the American people have made it, at this point, made it clear that that is not a burden that they wish to bear.

HERBERT: And is there a role for the Democratic Party, if you take one of the Houses of Congress, to move the administration or the country along?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the politics of this election are not only going to embolden the Democrats, somewhat belatedly, but I think are also going to cause a lot of soul-searching among those Republicans that remain in Congress. I’m confident at this point that the House is going to go Democratic. I think the Senate is going to be close.

[applause]

I know this is a non-partisan event, but feel free to applaud.

[laughter]

And as a consequence, the Democrats are going to be in a position, now, to, at the very least, hold hearings and provide the kind of oversight that we have not been able to initiate because committee chairmen have essentially refused. That, in and of itself, would put pressure on the administration to make a different set of decisions.

But I think, more fundamentally, the albatross around the Republican Party’s neck in this election is going to cause them to step back and say, “We’re going to have to figure out a new way of doing business.” And the commission that is co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton may provide, if not the administration, at least Republicans in Congress the cover to start rethinking what their position is going to be.

HERBERT: One more question on Iraq, but this also relates to our obligations as citizens. Not too long ago, I went to Tennessee to interview an American soldier who had been sent to the combat zone three times. He went to Afghanistan and then served two year-long tours in Iraq.

And he made the point that it’s a very small percentage of Americans who are bearing the burden and making the sacrifices for this war. Most of us are free to go about our daily business. You can go shopping, go to the mall, do whatever it is you need to do, and it’s only a tiny sliver of the population that’s enduring the suffering. That seems fundamentally unfair, and I’d like to know what your views are about that.

OBAMA: Well, I think it raises two points. The first and most immediate point is that, in fact, the burden of this war has been borne by a small segment of the population. And, to some degree, that’s the only reason that we went in there in the first place. Had there been a draft, we would not have launched this war, I think that’s fair to say.

In fact, one could argue that we wouldn’t even need a universal draft if there was a rule that all members of Congress’s children were eligible for the draft, there would not have been--

[applause]

[laughter]

--We would not have gone in.

We can’t have that conversation in the midst of war. It’s too volatile for us to start thinking about how are we structuring our military, and what does an all-voluntary force mean relative to a universal service requirement. But I think it’s one that we should initiate in times where we can be more reflective and less passionate.

HERBERT: But isn’t it likely, at a time when we can be more reflective, meaning a time when we’re not at war, that we won’t have that conversation?

OBAMA: Well, I would like to start a conversation, and this brings me to, I guess, the larger point about what citizenship means, and what are our obligations to each other, and how do we create a stronger link between the decision-making in Washington and the daily experience of people’s lives?

And this is not just true in foreign policy, the same is true with respect to the economy. This week we saw the Dow go over 12,000 points. If you’re walking down Wall Street, the economy looks great. If you go to Decatur, Illinois or Galesburg, Illinois, or Peoria, Illinois, the economy looks very different. And the reason is because the top 1% is seeing their incomes rise about 500% over the last decades, and the average working stiff has seen their wages and salaries flat lined.

The top 1% is much more likely to participate politically than the other 99%, and so we had these distortions in terms of how decisions are made in Washington. I don’t have a magic solution to it, but part of the reason I wrote this book was to suggest that there have to be ways for us to re-engage the citizenry around the project of American renewal, both domestically and internationally.

And the first step in that, I think, is to restore some mechanisms for honest debate, because the problem with the Iraq war was the debate was dishonest. The problem with our foreign policy right now is that we have posed the problem as either we’re belligerent and the military is the only solution to any national security threats that we have; or, conversely, that we have this vague multilateralism, kum ba yah approach-- at least, that’s how it’s characterized in the press and in our politics. And what we have to do is to say those choices are inadequate.

And we have to return to the kind of serious policy discussions that characterize, for example, after World War II, when Acheson and Marshall and Truman sat down and said, “What are our options?” given a threat that, by all accounts, I think, historically, one would argue was far more dangerous than the threats that we face now from terrorism. I mean, we had nuclear bombs pointed at every major city in the United States.

And yet we were able to negotiate that, because there was not only among policy-makers a sense of seriousness and honesty about the nature of the threat, how we were going to approach it, and so forth, but also among the population, at least in the early years.

I write about it in the book that the Marshall Plan involved an enormous PR campaign to explain to people why it made sense for us to invest in Europe, and why it made sense for us to build the kinds of alliances that ultimately shaped NATO and allowed us to lock in Japan as a long-term ally in Asia.

That kind of a conversation, I think, is one that can’t just be left to the wise men in Washington but has to be something that the population as a whole is engaged in.

HERBERT: Now the book-- and I have to say, it really is a terrific book. Usually, if I’m doing interviews--

OBAMA: He’s got to say that.

[laughter]

HERBERT: Now, usually, you kind of go out of your way not to look like you’re trying to promote the book, but this really is an excellent book. And you’ve titled it The Audacity of Hope. But, you know, we’re in a pretty tough environment right now. We’ve got this war that we just talked about, which is going badly.

You’ve mentioned the stock market. Well, the Dow is at record highs, but a lot of working people are feeling economically insecure, the poor have been literally left behind, and Americans are worried about things like terror and the spread of nuclear weapons. We’ve got tragic situations like Darfur.

A lot of people are really depressed. You seem very optimistic. You’ve titled your book The Audacity of Hope. Tell us why we should be hopeful. Make the case for hope right now.

OBAMA: Well, first of all, where I got the title from, some of you remember I actually used the line in the speech that I gave here in Boston. But I actually pilfered it from my pastor. I’m making this confession publicly.

[laughter]

He gave a sermon… My pastor’s name is Jeremiah Wright, he’s the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago. And he gave a sermon about 18 years ago. I was a young community organizer.

And the south side of Chicago-- this particular region is the far south side of Chicago-- had been devastated because steel plants had shut down. This was right when the rust belt was rolling through the Midwest. And there had been massive layoffs, and the communities had been devastated. People were out of work, there was a lot of racial conflict and racial turnover in the area, crime was on the increase, usual maladies facing inner-city schools.

And he delivers this sermon that had a very simple premise. He said, “You know, it’s actually sometimes easier to be cynical. It’s easier to feel hopeless. It doesn’t require much from each of us. What’s audacious, what requires risk, is to be hopeful, to believe that despite what we see around us, what is, there is this other thing that’s possible, what could be.”

And that idea stuck with me and, I think, characterized what not only I’ve ended up finding most valuable in my faith, but also, I think, described an aspect of the American character that’s pretty fundamental. I mean, there’s a reason why, in that speech, I talked about slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; or immigrants coming from distant shores, not really knowing what it was that they were going to find when they arrived in America, but believing somehow across that ocean, there’s something else.

And as rough as our history has been, somehow, we’ve continued to have that stubborn optimism that things can be better. And as a consequence of that, the trajectory of this nation, I think, has been in favor of justice and freedom and equity.

As bad as things are now, they were worse at many times in our history, certainly worse for people who looked like you and me, worse for the women in this audience, worse for poor people before there was any safety in that. And in each juncture, there were a bunch of people who decided, “You know what? It’s possible for us to come together and solve these problems.”

And so the basic theme of the book is that most of the challenges we face-- healthcare, education, the problems we face in terms of globalization, foreign policy, dilemmas as a consequence of rogue states and nuclear proliferation and terrorism-- none of these problems are easy. All of them, though, are amenable to good decision-making, common sense, practicality and improvement. And if we can focus our politics around what our common values are and our common ideals are, then it’s possible for us to make progress, although progress will always be imperfect.

HERBERT: Now one of the things you stress in the book-- it’s a theme throughout-- is what you feel is the need to reach out to people who hold opposing views to your own, to try and understand what the other side is talking about, even if you don’t agree with it, to reach across the aisle, Democrats, Republicans, etc.

But that’s not what I want to ask you about right now. I want you to put your partisan hat on. And we’re very close to the election, and why is it—looking from the perspective of the American people, your constituents-- why is it important, in your view, for Democrats to do well in the upcoming election?

OBAMA: Well, I actually do talk about this in the book. And, by the way, I confess in the book that although-- this book is not balanced. I’m a Democrat, so some people are going to read it, and they say, “Well, that’s not entirely fair, and he mischaracterizes this or that.”

You know, I strive to be fair, but I still have a perspective. And what I believe has happened over the last six, eight, ten years is that the Republican Party has become captive. Now keep in mind, I come from the Land of Lincoln, so I don’t think that any political party in our history has had a monopoly on wisdom or truth.

But over the last ten years, at least, what you’ve seen is the Republican Party has become captive to a narrow band of highly ideological absolutists, folks who see problems through preconceived notions about how the world should work, as opposed to how it actually does work.

And so, in the economy, we’ve had the victory of a radical laissez-faire that has resulted, essentially, in the working people you discussed earlier being entirely on their own. And each and every decision that’s made, whether it’s privatizing Social Security, or setting up private health savings accounts, or diminishing regulation, or essentially eliminating anti-trusts, or not enforcing civil rights laws, in each instance, the basic premise is, “You know what? Anything goes.” And folks will sort it out in some fashion, but the government does not have a role to play in the economy, and that’s defined in a very absolute way.

With respect to foreign policy, the view is, “We don’t need anybody else.” And any encroachment or restraints on our actions as a nation are absolutely unacceptable. Because we are the most powerful nation on earth, we should be able to dictate our will in very absolute terms.

In terms of how we think about culture and social issues, we’ve seen the rise of people who believe that if you do not subscribe to a particular interpretation of a particular religion, then you are suspect, and you are potentially immoral. And that I don’t think characterizes the majority of Republicans in the country. And I would argue that it doesn’t characterize the best of the Republican Party. But those are the folks who have been driving the agenda over the last ten years.

And so there has always been a contrary set of ideas that, at least since FDR, have been at the core of the Democratic Party, and that says, “No, you are not on your own. Yes, we value individual initiative and self-reliance and the freedom of the market place. But we also affirm that we have some mutual obligations toward each other, that we have some fellow feelings, some sort of solidarity, some belief in community. And that has to express itself, not just in our churches or mosques or synagogues, not just in our families or our neighborhoods or our ethnic enclaves, it has to express itself through our government and through our notions of citizenship.

Now the Democrats haven’t always been true to that ideal, and oftentimes we deserve criticism for betraying that ideal. But that idea, I think, continues to be what holds together the Democratic Party. And so, at this stage, when we look at the fact that 46 million people don’t have health insurance, or we look at the fact that we don’t have an energy policy that would not only help our economy but also strengthen our national security and deal with our environment, or we look at an education system that continues to fail large numbers of children so that they have no way of accessing the global economy, then I think it’s clear that things have swung out of balance.

And the last point I’d make on this, that’s why the Democrats, I think, should win. The reason I think Democrats will win is because, as I’ve traveled around the country, what I’m struck by is a sense of soberness and seriousness among people right now. People want substantive responses to the challenges that we face.

And I know that this is a nonpartisan event, but I will go ahead and say, since you asked the question--

[laughter]

I think that the election here in Massachusetts for Governor is a prime example, where my good buddy, Deval Patrick, has presented an agenda.

And the reason people are responding to that agenda and not responding to the usual negative ads that have just been, you know, plastered all over television screens in Massachusetts, is because people want to know what are you going to do about these problems-- and you’re seeing that all across the country. And that, I think, is a terrific turn of events.

Now it forces then Democrats to actually have an affirmative agenda. It’s not going to be sufficient simply to say, “We’re not Bush.” We can’t try to flip the script and simply say, “All right, as bad as they are, you should vote for us,” because that means the next election cycle, they’re going to take it out on Democrats.

HERBERT: Well the election’s close. Is that agenda in place?

OBAMA: Well, I think the other side’s so bad right now that we’re going to get through the next three weeks. But the--

[applause]

But-- So I was referring to ’08--

[laughter]

HERBERT: We’ll get to that.

OBAMA: --Where I think if Democrats don’t show some leadership and affirmative set of solutions to some of these challenges, even if we can’t get all of those solutions passed, then I think we’ll be punished.

You know, people want serious answers to these problems. And if you’re going to talk about energy, for example… You know, the easiest thing in the world is to look at Exxon Mobile’s profits last quarter and say, these folks are making 36 billion dollars in one quarter, and the CEO’s making 500 million dollars, and gas prices are high, and we’re getting gouged. That may be sufficient, because it does describe the degree to which the powerful have made out like bandits over the last several years.

That may be sufficient to get us through this election, but, after the election, people then are going to say, “Okay smart guy, what are we going to do about energy?” And at that point, Democrats are going to have to say, “Okay, we’ve got to sift through the range of proposals that are out there, from, you know, your fellow columnist is Tom Friedman, who’s been pushing, you know, a higher gas tax; to, you know, what can we do to develop cellulosic ethanol in the way that Brazil has done; to expanding, you know, bio-diesel and other sources of alternative fuels; to reducing consumption by, you know, retrofitting buildings and industry.”

We’ve got to make a series of proposals that actually make sense. And I think if we do, then the American people are going to stand up and say keep going. And they will understand, and we can be honest with them, that there’s no panaceas. I mean, most of the challenges that we face, there’s no silver bullet.

I have a lot of town hall meetings in Illinois. And one of the favorite topics that I bring up is the issue of the federal budget, because typically, what will happen is, it will be a crowd. Sometimes we get town hall meetings with 2,000 people, and I’ll get one person who’s saying, you know, “We need health care-- or mental health to be included in health care coverage.” Another person will say, you know, “No Child Left Behind left the money behind. And we need more money for schools.” And somebody else will say, you know, “The bridge needs to be repaired,” and so forth and so on.

And then at some point, somebody will say, you know, “Why are you supporting the death tax?” And then at that point, I will say, “Okay, look. A basic principle to the federal budget, there’s no free lunch. There’s no free lunch.

“You know, if you want to eliminate the estate tax, that will cost us one trillion dollars. It affects .5% of the population. If we completely eliminate it, it costs one trillion dollars. We’ve got three ways of dealing with it, that one trillion dollars. We can make it up by raising taxes on the other 99.5%, we can borrow a trillion dollars from China and South Korea and Mexico, or we can reduce services by a trillion dollars. Those are our choices.”

And I think when you describe those choices to the American people in an honest, straight-forward way, then I’m your representative. You tell me what is going to reflect our borrows, because we can’t… You know, there’s not a trillion dollars worth of waste in the federal budget.

Over 90% of the federal budget goes to Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and payments on the national debt. And about 10% is left over for everything else. We’d have to eliminate everything else, and we would still have to make further cuts. Is that reflective of your values and your ideals?

And most of the time, I don’t care whether it’s a Repub-- You know, I’ll have these town hall meetings in all Republican, red-state areas of Illinois, and people will say, “No, that’s not what we believe.”

HERBERT: The first time I met you, you were running for Senate. You were a State Senator in Illinois, and you were not well-known outside the state of Illinois. And you--

OBAMA: I wasn’t well-known inside the state.

[laughter]

Although, I guess, by the time we met, I’d won the primary, so some folks in the state knew me.

HERBERT: Well, on my ride over here in a cab in the rain this evening, a fellow pulled up here, and he said, “Oh, what’s going on at the forum?” And I said, “Senator Barack Obama will be speaking.” And he just said, “Oh, our next President,” just like that.

[laughter]

[applause]

OBAMA: You know, if the election took place among cab drivers--

[laughter]

I think I would have it. About half of them are from Africa, first of all, so they all have funny names, and so, you know, I’d do well.

[laughter]

HERBERT: He’s ready to work for you. But, you know, I watched you on Oprah the other day. You’re on the cover of Time magazine, you’re in New York magazine, you were on Larry King last night; I checked into the hotel and turned on the television, and you’re on Larry King. You’re everywhere.

OBAMA: Yeah, it’s a bit much, isn’t it?

[laughter]

HERBERT: That’s for you to say.

OBAMA: That’s what my wife says, anyway. “I am fed up with reading about you.”

[laughter]

HERBERT: In any event, the wide-spread assumption is that at some point, you will run for President. So my question is, when you think about yourself and the Presidency, what is it that runs through your mind? What kind of thoughts do you have about that?

OBAMA: Well all the attention is flattering. And as I’ve said before, if you go into public service, then you want to have influence. Otherwise you wouldn’t do it. I mean, I suppose there’s the motiva-- just pure vanity can force you into politics. I have found, and I think this is something… You know, as you get older, you discover certain things about yourself that you don’t like so much. But every once in a while, you discover some things about yourself that you do like. And one of the things I’ve discovered that I’m pleased with is that I actually find the attention, and seeing my name in the papers, and the stuff that feeds your ego less satisfying as time goes on.

So the reason you go into politics or any form of public services is, hopefully, because you’re going to have influence, you’re going to create some sort of change out there. And obviously the President has the most influence, and so I think it would be disingenuous for me to say– or, for that matter, let me tell you, any of the other 99 Senators who are the United States Senate, or any Governor across the country– to say at some point they don’t think about what it would be like if you had that platform, that unique office.

What I then also think is that that office is so different from any other office on the planet, that you have to understand that if you seek that office, you have to be prepared to give your life to it– I said this on Charlie Rose last night–

HERBERT: Charlie Rose? I missed that one.

[laughter]

OBAMA: But in case there were folks who were watching, I didn’t want them to think that I didn’t– you know– I acknowledge I’m repeating myself here. But essentially the bargain that any President, I think, strikes with the American people is you give me this office, and in turn, my fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone. I am giving myself to you.

And the American people should have no patience for whatever is going through your head, because you’ve got a job to do. And so how I think about it is that you don’t make that decision unless you are prepared to make that sacrifice, that trade-off, that bargain.

And I think that what’s difficult and important for somebody like myself, who has a wonderful forbearing wife and two gorgeous young children, is that they end up having to make some of those sacrifices with you. And that’s a profound decision that you don’t make lightly. You know, I think those who make mistakes, I suspect, in the President’s office, make it because they haven’t fully thought through the dimensions of that choice.

HERBERT: Can you imagine yourself at some point making that kind of a commitment?

OBAMA: Sure.

[applause]

OBAMA: I didn’t say I had, I just said I could imagine myself doing it.

HERBERT: Have you ruled out running in 2008?

[laughter]

OBAMA: At this point, and I’m not trying to be coy here, at this point, I really am focused on these next three weeks, because I’m too tired, and my mind is filled up with too many things. I mean, I literally finished this book, finished session, went on the roads trying to campaign for folks.

HERBERT: So you have not ruled it out?

OBAMA: The–

[laughter]

OBAMA: We’ll leave it there, you know. That was his comment, not mine.

[applause]

HERBERT: All right, we’ll see what you guys have come up with. Interesting question. In the upcoming election and the 2008 election, how should we survive the stumbling blocks of wedge issues, such as gay marriage and abortion that so often have prevented the success of progressive candidates?

OBAMA: Well, point number one, those issues seem to have less traction in this election than they did in the election two years ago and the election two years before that, and I think that’s part of the seriousness that I talked about. It’s not that people don’t care about those issues any more, it’s just that there are other things that they seem to care more about in this cycle. And that, I think, is a healthy thing.

But I also think that it’s important for Democrats or progressives of any stripe to engage in a conversation, to be in the space where a lot of these issues percolate. And one of those places is the church or the synagogue or the mosque, in places of worship and in various religious venues.

I have an entire chapter devoted to faith, and the basic argument I make is that we who consider ourselves progressive, I think, for at least a generation, have felt uncomfortable talking about religion, in part for fear of appearing intolerant. And as a consequence, we’ve sort of emptied the space, and it’s been filled by the Pat Robertsons and the James Falwells. And they’re pervasive on Christian radio and Christian television, and they’re in church, and they’re producing pamphlets and books and so forth. And there’s no answer to their definition of what religion could be in our lives, and so my view is that we’ve got to get in there and have an argument. We’ve got to– Let’s take, you know, the issue of gay marriage. You know, a lot of pastors, those who are literalists, who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, will cite, you know, a passage in Romans that says, “Homosexuality is an abomination”-- you know, it doesn’t say it that way, but it is in the Bible, there are a couple of passages there-- and just start going hog wild on it. And nobody’s there to say, “Well, is that obscure passage in Romans more important than Sermon on the Mount, or the entire story of how Jesus behaved towards all people?” And I think that’s an argument progressives can win, and I think that…

So just to finish up the point in terms of how we deal with these so-called wedge issues, we don’t deal with it on Election Day. We deal with it between elections. You know, if you go into rural Illinois– and this is true all throughout the South– there is a news station, and there are eight Christian radio stations, and maybe a country station. And if that’s all folks are hearing, that’s the only source of information for 24 months or 22 months.

And then the last two months, we’re running some ads on CNN, we lose that argument. And so I think it’s important for us to engage.

Now we have to be true to certain principles in how we engage, so I believe in separation between church and state. And as I point out in the book, historically, that’s not to protect just the state, that’s to protect the church.

And the biggest advocates of church and state separation weren’t just Jefferson and Madison, they were the Baptists, the forbearers of today’s evangelicals, because, you know, they were worried that the Congregationalists and, you know, essentially the Anglican Church, which

was dominant, would impose their views. And they said, “No, no, no. We want to worship the way we want.”.

So we need to retain that principle, and we need to retain the notion that if we’re going to talk about faith, we shouldn’t say that people leave their faith at the door, that’s not possible. Martin Luther King didn’t every time he started marching on Washington suddenly say, “Okay, I’m not a preacher any more.”

But what you do have to insist on in a pluralistic democracy, if you want somebody to listen to you, is to translate whatever religiously-motivated ideals that you have into a language that is accessible to all people, some sort of universal language, a set of ethics or principles, moral ideas, that is subject to reason and subject to argument. And you can’t close the conversation up by simply saying, “God told me so.”

HERBERT: To what extent do you think that a new Democratic majority will have to occupy itself with repair work, with systematic reversal of a long list of policies of the recent Republican majority, without enough funds to work with?

OBAMA: I think that we have to be very clear and honest with the American people about the constraints that we’re under right now. As I said, in terms of foreign policy, you know, just because the Democrats take over, Kim Jong Ill is still going to be in North Korea, and there’s no easy solution to that problem. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there are no easy solutions to that problem. And Iraq is a mess. Changes in tone from an administration could make an enormous difference.

It’s hard for Congress to entirely force that tone. Domestically, our budget is shot. And even if we begin a phase-down of troops, we’re still looking at tens of billions of dollars going to Iraq over the next several years, even if we phase down our occupation there.

And so we’re not going to have a lot of pleasant choices over the next couple of years. I think the American people understand that, as long as we are leveling with them and not trying to over promise in terms of what can be accomplished.

HERBERT: And the final question, I think, for the evening, is give us a sense of what it’s like; You went to the Senate at the beginning of last year. Give us a sense of what it’s like to be a United States Senator. What was it that you encountered that was surprising when you got to Washington? What was it that was disappointing? And what might have been particularly rewarding?

OBAMA: Well, I open up the book by talking about walking into the Senate Chamber, and I have the same feeling each time I walk in. Everybody has these little mahogany desks. They’re like third-grade desks– you can’t really work on them.

[laughter]

OBAMA: But they’re very pretty. And some of them date back to, you know, 1819. Daniel Webster’s desk is still in the floor of the Senate. And if you open up the drawer, the previous occupants of each desk have carved their names in their own hand, inside the desk, so it’s sort of an early form of graffiti. I don’t know who started it; It’s like, you know, “Webster was here.”

[laughter]

OBAMA: But so the tradition began. And so I pulled open my desk and, you know, I’ll see names like Taft and Simon and Wellstone and Kennedy– Robert. And you realize that you’re connected to this amazing history, that you’re part of this experiment that’s been going on for a couple of centuries, that in no way was guaranteed to succeed.

And, you know, you can imagine, sort of, the debates that were taking place around secession and abolition and through the wars, and then the filibustering of the civil rights movement, and decisions about war and peace. And to be part of that conversation– that’s a continuous conversation– from the days of the Founding Fathers is powerful. So that’s on the plus-side.

The disappointment is that most of the time, that chamber is empty except for one or two people who are talking. And I think a lot of folks here are probably aware of the fact that when you hear Senators speaking on the floor of the Senate, they are almost always speaking to an empty room, except to the C-SPAN camera. And they may be turning and pretending like they’re giving this great oration, but it’s all a play, an act. The structure of the Senate… Everybody’s so busy, and there are committees, and the demands of the press, and fund-raising, and so forth.

And the way the rules are structured are such where it’s almost never the case that all 100 Senators are on the floor listening to a debate.

And when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, every Senator had to be on the floor on every bill. And the sponsor would stand up and present it, and anybody could ask questions and force that sponsor to defend their views, and so you’d actually have a sense of deliberation. Now, nine out of ten times, you know, the votes were already determined, and they’d go along party lines often times.

But one out of ten times, you’d see an actual debate take places, and democracy, as one envisions it, would occur. And that almost never happens in the floor of the Senate. What you have is passing press statements, essentially, that are never joined. And that, I think, is the disappointment. And what was the last one?

HERBERT: Well, I’ll ask you about just one related item, and that has to do with fund-raising, which apparently is relentless. And I don’t think many Americans really understand how that works and what the implications of begging for money all the time are. So if you would just talk a little bit about fund-raising…

OBAMA: You pick up the phone, and you call people, and you beg them for money.

[laughter]

HERBERT: But you can’t do it–

OBAMA: But you can’t do it on the floor of the Senate.

HERBERT: So what happens?

OBAMA: So people run off to the Democratic Senate Committee Office or the Republican Committee Office, which are close to the Senate, and they beg for money. And the consequences are–

HERBERT: And how frequently? How often?

OBAMA: Well, you know, it’s hard… Chuck Schumer’s doing it a lot right now, you know, because he’s the head of the DSCC. It’s hard to say. I don’t have a typical situation. One of the virtues of celebrity is my fundraising capacity is higher, just because I get a lot of attention. And so, it’s not entirely fair, but I don’t have to go and just work the phones now, the way I had to do when I was an unknown candidate, for example. But folks, if they’re up, they spend a lot of time doing it. So that, obviously, distorts not… And I write about this in the book.

It’s rare… Obviously we’re seeing it in the press, where people just take, you know, bags of money and trade votes. I mean, that happens, but the corruption is more subtle. It has to do with the fact that special interests in Washington not only are making contributions, but they have the money to hire lobbyists, who are there all the time tracking every piece of legislation for months. And everything moves very slowly.

And that’s really where they exert the most influence, right? It’s the business interest that has a provision in some obscure provision in the tax code that will make them a billion dollars, and that they care deeply about, and nobody else cares that much about or really understands. And that can make an enormous difference.

I think one last thing you asked, and that was, what gives me the most satisfaction? And as I said, the thing that gives me the most satisfaction is when somehow I’ve delivered something useful to the people I represent.

And, you know, it can be, you know, some veteran’s working through red tape at the VA, and we get suddenly a $60,000 check for back disability payments that he hasn’t gotten.

Or it can be a modest measure that I just passed that the President signed to create a website, so that everybody can search, like a Google search, what’s happening with their money, to create transparency. Sometimes you fail, but there’s still satisfaction.

One of the things I was most proud of this last session was the anti-terrorist detention bill that was going to be, you know, the administration’s closing argument, essentially, going into the fall election. And at the time that that started, the conventional wisdom was that you’d only get maybe eight, ten folks voting against it. And for me to be able to stand up and caucus two or three consecutive weeks and say, “How can we junk habeas corpus?”– the basic principle of our country, that if the government rounds you up, that you have the opportunity to answer the charges against you, and say, “Hey, you’ve got the wrong guy,” or “It didn’t happen this way.”

And at the end of the vote, there were 35 votes against it, which may not sound like much, but for me indicated a sense that the debate was shifting a little bit. That provides me great satisfaction.

HERBERT: We are going to wrap it up. I’m going to ask everyone if they could remain in their seats for a little while, while the Senator goes off the stage, and then he’ll be back there signing some books.

I saw you suggest to Oprah that if you run for President, you might announce it on her television show. I don’t have a television show–

[laughter]

OBAMA: He’s going to announce it on his column.

HERBERT: A telephone call, a little bit of a heads up–

[laughter]

[applause]

HERBERT: Thank you so much.

OBAMA: Thank you also.

[applause]

OBAMA: Thank you.

HERBERT: Thank you very much.

OBAMA: Thank you.

Yesterday was a special day around my house. It was back-to-school day for my girls. Sasha started second grade and Malia began 5th. I know Malia was really embarrassed when I walked her to the classroom, but I did it anyway because she's still Daddy's girl. And seeing them back at school was a reminder not only that another year had passed and that they're growing up a little faster than I'd sometimes like. It was also a reminder of all the other parents who are dropping their children off at school, and all the other kids who are getting ready for another year of classes.

Every four years, we hear candidates talk about the vital importance of education; about how improving our schools is key to the future of our children and the future of our country. Every four years, we hear about how this time, we're going to make it an urgent national priority. Remember the 2000 election, when George W. Bush promised to be the "education President"?

But just as with energy independence and health care, the urgency of upgrading public education for the 21st century has been talked to death in Washington. And that failure to act has put our nation in jeopardy.

Well, the day of reckoning is here. Our kids and our country can't afford four more years of neglect and indifference. At this defining moment in our history, America faces few more urgent challenges than preparing our children to compete in a global economy. The decisions our leaders make about education in the coming years will shape our future for generations to come. They will help determine not only whether our children have the chance to fulfill their God-given potential, or whether our workers have the chance to build a better life for their families, but whether we, as a nation, will remain in the 21st century the kind of global economic leader that we were in the 20th century.

The rising importance of education reflects the new demands of our new world. In recent decades, revolutions in communications and information technology have broken down barriers that once kept countries and markets apart, creating a single, global economy that is more integrated and interconnected than ever before. In this economy, companies can plant their jobs wherever there's an internet connection and someone willing to do the work, meaning that children here in Dayton are growing up competing with children not only in Detroit, but in Delhi as well.

What matters, then, isn't what you do or where you live, but what you know. When two-thirds of all new jobs require a higher education or advanced training, knowledge is the most valuable skill you can sell. It's not only a pathway to opportunity, but a prerequisite. Without a good pre-school education, our children are less likely to keep up with their peers. Without a high school diploma, you're likely to make about three times less than a college graduate. And without a college degree or industry certification, it's harder and harder to find a job that can help you support your family and keep up with rising costs.

But it's not just that a world-class education is essential for workers to compete and win, it's that an educated workforce is essential for America to compete and win. Without a workforce trained in math, science, and technology and the other skills of the 21st century, our companies will innovate less, our economy will grow less, and our nation will be less competitive. If we want to outcompete the world tomorrow, we must out-educate the world today.

If we want to keep building the cars of the future here in America, we can't afford to see the number of PhDs in engineering climbing in China, South Korea, and Japan even as it's dropped here in America; we can't afford a future where our high school students rank near the bottom in math and science, and our high school drop-out rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world.

If we want to build a 21st century infrastructure and repair our crumbling roads and bridges, we can't afford a future where a third of all 4th graders and a fifth of all 8th graders can't do basic math, and black and Latino students are even further behind; where elementary school kids are only getting an average 25 minutes of science each day when over 80% of the fastest-growing jobs require some knowledge in math and science.

If we want to see middle class incomes rising like they did in the 1990's, we can't afford a future where so many Americans are priced out of college; where only 20 percent of our students are prepared to take college-level English, math, and science; where millions of jobs are going unfilled because Americans don't have the skills to work them; and where barely one in ten low-income students will ever get their college degree.

That kind of future is economically untenable for America. It is morally unacceptable for our children. And it is not who we are as a nation.

We are a nation that has always renewed our system of education to meet the challenges of a new time. Lincoln created the land grant colleges to ensure the success of the union he was fighting to save. Generations of leaders built mandatory public schools to prepare our children for the changing needs of our nation. And Eisenhower doubled federal investment in education after the Soviets beat us to space.

That is the kind of leadership we must show today.

But that's not the leadership we've been getting from Washington. For decades, they've been stuck in the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves. It's been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform. There's partisanship and there's bickering, but there's no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we'll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need. And we've fallen further and further behind as a result.

If we're going to make a real and lasting difference for our future, we have to be willing to move beyond the old arguments of left and right and take meaningful, practical steps to build an education system worthy of our children and our future.

In the past few weeks, my opponent has taken to talking about the need for change and reform in Washington, where he has been part of the scene for about three decades.

And in those three decades, he has not done one thing to truly improve the quality of public education in our country. Not one real proposal or law or initiative. Nothing.

Instead, he marched with the ideologues in his party in opposing efforts to hire more teachers, and expand Head Start, and make college more affordable. You don't reform our schools by opposing efforts to fully fund No Child Left Behind. And you certainly don't reform our education system by calling to close the Department of Education. That would just make it harder for us to give out financial aid, harder for us to keep track of how our schools are doing, and lead to widening inequality in who gets a college degree.

That is not my idea of reform. That is not my idea of change. That is not a plan to help your kids compete with those kids in China and India.

After three decades of indifference on education, do you really believe that John McCain is going to make a difference now?

John McCain doesn't get it. He doesn't understand that our success as a nation depends on our success in education.

I do.

That's why last November, I proposed an education agenda that moves beyond party and ideology and focuses instead on what will make the most difference in a child's life. My plan calls for giving every child a world-class education from the day they're born until the day they graduate from college. It's a plan that starts with investing in early-childhood education because we know that children in these programs are more likely to score higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, more likely to hold a job and earn more in that job. And it's a plan that will finally put a college degree within reach for anyone who wants one by providing a $4,000 tax credit to any middle class student who's willing to serve their community or their country.

Of course, we also have to fix the broken promises of No Child Left Behind. Now, I believe that the goals of this law were the right ones. Making a promise to educate every child with an excellent teacher is right. Closing the achievement gap that exists in too many cities and rural areas is right. More accountability is right. Higher standards are right.

But I'll tell you what's wrong with No Child Left Behind. Forcing our teachers, our principals, and our schools to accomplish all of this without the resources they need is wrong. Promising high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leaving the support and the pay for those teachers behind is wrong. Labeling a school and its students as failures one day and then throwing your hands up and walking away from them the next is wrong.

And by the way - don't tell us that the only way to teach a child is to spend most of the year preparing him to fill in a few bubbles on a standardized test. Let's finally help our teachers and principals develop a curriculum and assessments that teach our kids to become more than just good test-takers. We need assessments that can improve achievement by including the kinds of research, scientific investigation, and problem-solving that our children will need to compete in a 21st century knowledge economy.

We must fix the failures of No Child Left Behind. We must provide the funding we were promised, and give our states the resources they need, and finally meet our commitment to special education. But Democrats have to realize that fixing No Child Left Behind is not enough to prepare our children for a global economy.

We need a new vision for a 21st century education - one where we aren't just supporting existing schools, but spurring innovation; where we're not just investing more money, but demanding more reform; where parents take responsibility for their children's success; where our schools and government are accountable for results; where we're recruiting, retaining, and rewarding an army of new teachers, and students are excited to learn because they're attending schools of the future; and where we expect all our children not only to graduate high school, but to graduate college and get a good paying job.

It's time to ask ourselves why other countries are outperforming us in education. Because it's not that their kids are smarter than ours - it's that they're being smarter about how to educate their kids. They're spending less time teaching things that don't matter and more time teaching things that do. Their students are spending more time in school, and they're setting higher expectations.

That's what we need to be doing - because America isn't a country that accepts second place. When I'm President, we'll fight to make sure we're once again first in the world when it comes to high school graduation rates. We'll push our kids to study harder and aim higher. I've worked with Republican Senator Jim DeMint on a bill that would challenge high school students to take college-level courses - and make sure low-income neighborhoods and rural communities have access to those courses. And I'll make it the law of the land when I'm President. And we'll also set a goal of increasing the number of high school students taking college-level or AP courses by 50 percent in the coming years. Because I believe that when we challenge our kids to succeed, they will.

A while back, I was talking with my friend Arne Duncan, who runs the Chicago Public Schools. He was explaining how he'd managed to increase the number of kids taking and passing AP courses in Chicago over the last few years. What he said was, our kids aren't smarter than they were three years ago; our expectations for them are just higher. Well, I think it's time we raised expectations for our kids all across this country, and that's what we'll do when I'm President of the United States.

The second thing we need to do is make sure that we're preparing our kids for the 21st century economy by bringing our school system into the 21st century. Part of what that means is fostering the kinds of schools that will help prepare our kids, which is why I'm calling for the creation of an Innovative Schools Fund. This fund will invest in schools like the Austin Polytechnical Academy, which is located in a part of Chicago that's been hard hit by the decline in manufacturing over the past few decades. Thanks to partnerships with a number of companies, a curriculum that prepares students for a career in engineering, and a requirement that students graduate with at least two industry certifications, Austin Polytech is bringing hope back to the community. And that's the kind of model we'll replicate across the country when I'm President of the United States.

Giving our parents real choices about where to send their kids to school also means showing the same kind of leadership at the national level that I did in Illinois when I passed a law to double the number of charter schools in Chicago. That is why as President, I'll double the funding for responsible charter schools. Now, I know you've had a tough time with for-profit charter schools here in Ohio. That is why I'll work with Governor Strickland to hold for-profit charter schools accountable, and I'll work with all our nation's governors to hold all our charter schools accountable. Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow. And charters that aren't will get shut down. And we'll help ensure that more of our kids have access to quality afterschool and summer school and extended school days for students who need it - because if they can do that in China, we can do that right here in the United States of America.

As we bring our school system into the 21st century, we also have to bring our schools into the 21st century. Because while technology has transformed just about every aspect of our lives - from the way we travel to the way we communicate to the way we look after our health - one of the places where we've failed to seize its full potential is in the classroom.

Imagine a future where our children are more motivated because they aren't just learning on blackboards but on new whiteboards with digital touch screens; where every student in a classroom has a laptop at their desk; where they don't just do book reports but design PowerPoint presentations; where they don't just write papers but build websites; where research isn't done just by taking a book out of the library but by emailing experts in the field; and where teachers are less a source of knowledge than a coach for how best to use it. By fostering innovation, we can help make sure every school in America is a school of the future.

That's what we'll do when I'm President. We'll help schools integrate technology into their curriculum so we can make sure public school students are fluent in the digital language of the 21st century economy. We'll teach our students not only math and science, but teamwork, and critical thinking and communication skills - because that's how we'll make sure they're prepared for today's workplace.

But no matter how many choices we're giving our parents or how much technology we're using in our schools or how tough our classes are, none of it will make much difference if we don't also recruit, prepare, and retain outstanding teachers. Because from the moment a child enters a school, the most important factor in their success is the person standing at the front of the classroom.

That's why last year, I proposed a new Service Scholarship program that will recruit top talent into the profession, and place these new teachers in overcrowded districts and struggling rural towns, or hard-to-staff subjects like special education in schools across the nation. To prepare these new teachers, I'll create more Teacher Residency Programs that will build on a law I recently passed and train 30,000 high-quality teachers a year, especially in math and science. To support our teachers, we'll expand mentoring programs that pair experienced, successful teachers with new recruits.

And when our teachers succeed in making a real difference in our children's lives, we should reward them for it by finding new ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. We can do this. From Prince George's County in Maryland to Denver, Colorado, we're seeing teachers and school boards coming together to design performance pay plans.

So yes, we must give teachers every tool they need to be successful. But we also need to give every child the assurance that they'll have the teacher they need to be successful. That means setting a firm standard - teachers who are doing a poor job will get extra support, but if they still don't improve, they'll be replaced. Because as good teachers are the first to tell you, if we're going to attract the best teachers to the profession, we can't settle for schools filled with poor teachers.

Now, I know this sounds like a lot, but we can do it all - we can increase the number of students taking college-level courses; expand innovation and school choice; invest in the schools of tomorrow; and put a quality teacher in every classroom - all for the cost of just a few days in Iraq. And we'll pay for that cost by carefully winding down the war in Iraq, by ending no-bid contracts, and by eliminating wasteful spending. So we'll make these investments, but we'll do it without mortgaging our children's future on an even larger amount of debt. We'll do it responsibly.

This leads me to my final point - as President, I will lead a new era of accountability in education. But I don't just want to hold our teachers accountable. I want you to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable. That's why every year I'm President, I will report back to you on the progress our schools are making. Because it's time to stop passing the buck on education, and start accepting responsibility, and that's the kind of example I'll set as President of the United States.

Accountability in Washington starts by making sure that every tax dollar spent by the Department of Education is being spent wisely. When I'm President, programs that work will get more money. Programs that don't will get less. And we'll send a team to fix bad programs by replacing bad managers. Because your tax dollars should only be funding programs and grants that actually make a difference in a child's education.

But in the end, responsibility for our children's success doesn't start in Washington. It starts in our homes. It starts in our families. Because no education policy can replace a parent who's involved in their child's education from day one, who makes sure their children are in school on time, helps them with their homework after dinner, and attends those parent-teacher conferences. No government program can turn off the TV, or put away the video games, or read to your children.

But we can help parents do a better job. That's why I'll create a parent report card that will show you whether your kid is on the path to college. We'll help schools post student progress reports online so you can get a regular update on what kind of grades your child is getting on tests and quizzes from week to week. If your kid is falling behind, or playing hooky, or isn't on track to go to college or compete for that good paying job, it will be up to you to do something about it.

So yes, we need to hold our government accountable. Yes, we have to hold our schools accountable. But we also have to hold ourselves accountable.

You know, when I dropped my daughters off at school yesterday, I couldn't help but think about all America had done over the years to give me and my family a good education. This is a country that put my grandfather through college on the GI Bill after he left Patton's Army. This is a country that drew my father - like so many immigrants - across an ocean in search of a college degree. And this is a country that let the child of a teenage mom and an absent father reach for his dreams.

You see, I wasn't born with a lot of advantages. But I was given love, and support, and an education that put me on a pathway to success. The same was true for Michelle. She came from a blue collar family on the south side of Chicago. Even though her father had multiple sclerosis, he went to work every day at the local water filtration plant to support his family. And Michelle and her brother were able to go to a great college, and reach a little further for their dreams.

So I know that the only reason Michelle and I are where we are today is because this country we love gave us the chance at an education. And the reason I'm running for President is to give every single American that same chance; to give the young sisters out there born with a gift for invention the chance to become the next Orville and Wilbur Wright; to give the young boy out there who wants to create a life-saving cure the chance to become the next Jonas Salk; and to give the child out there whose imagination has been sparked by the wonders of the internet the chance to become the next Bill Gates.

Our future depends on it. When the story of our time is told, I don't want it to be said that China seized this moment to reform its education system, but the United States did not. I don't want it to be said that India led the way on innovation, but the United States did not. I want it to be said that we rose to meet this challenge, and educated our people to become the most highly-skilled workers in the world - just like we always have been.

Because I know that if we can just bring our education system into the 21st century, not only will our children be able to fulfill their God-given potential, and our families be able to live out their dreams; not only will our schools out-educate the world and our workers outcompete the world; not only will our companies innovate more and our economy grow more, but at this defining moment, we will do what previous generations of Americans have done - and unleash the promise of our people, unlock the promise of our country, and make sure that America remains a beacon of opportunity and prosperity for all the world. Thank you.

President Trump: Thank you very much, everybody. We appreciate you being here. We've had a great meeting. We have a great relationship. The Emir is a fantastic man, respected all over the world, prime minister likewise and, but we have to go the Emir first. Do you agree Mr. Prime Minister?
Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani: [Laughs] Of course.
Trump: [Laughter] First him. But highly respected people. Great people. And we worked very well together. We have our deal done with Iran and, uh, it should be successful. It goes to a second stage which I think will be actually easier. I didn't want to attack them last week but we had no choice and we did it twice actually.
We were doing it a third time and, uh, we were able to not have to do that. But we have a deal that's a fair deal. It's a good deal. Um, we are not investing any money in Iran, by the way. That rumor got out there yesterday, it was ridiculous. Uh, we have the right to go in someday and do if I want to do something or somebody wants to do something, but, uh, we are not investing any money.
We have no obligation to invest any money in Iran. Uh, working with Qatar and the people of Qatar, uh, was really a pleasure. They are, they were tough, they were strong. You know, they are the closest to Iran physically so with other countries, I noticed I had to travel about 45 minutes to get there. With you, you could walk right across the border.
So you were in a more dangerous position. But I just, I do have to say you, uh, you fought and you helped us and with great bravery. So I just want to compliment you on that and, uh, you'll always be my friend.
Al Thani: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Pres- -- President. It's always a pleasure, uh, seeing you. I wanna thank you for your leadership. And this is very, very important and critical time in the Middle East. And I think as you mentioned, Mr. President, this is a very important deal. There's still a lot of work to be done, but I think, you know, uh, with this momentum, if we continue like that, Mr. President, I think we can achieve and do great in the, in the, in the region.
So it's gonna be very important for the region, very important also for Iran as well. So, uh, we are here to help whenever, you know, um friends ask us to help, we're always here, uh, to help. Of course, also our bilateral relationship, Mr. President, since your historic visit in Doha last year, our, uh, trade partnership is gonna reach $1.2 trillion.
Trump: Right.
Al Thani: And this is huge and we have a lot of great investments that we're very proud of as well in the US and also American companies, uh, investing in Qatar. So overall, you know, um, we are very, very proud and very, uh, happy about this relationship and, you know, I also, uh, once again, thank you very much for your leadership.
Al Thani: I think it was a very critical time, but I think you did, you took the right decision. Thank you.
Trump: Thank you too.
Al Thani: Thank you.
Trump: Uh, Qatar is going to be investing much more than $1 trillion in the United States. We have over 18, it's going to be 19.4 or so when the new figures are out, but, you know, we set a record. There's never been anything like it. No country in history has had that kind of investment. We'll be having, uh, almost 19.1, $19.2 trillion invested in the United States.
The record was three 10 years ago from another country when it was hot, but we have the hottest country in the world right now. But Qatar's been, uh, a great investor. We, we really, uh, rekindled ourselves when I met with you last year, a year ago, probably 13, 13, 14 months. That was a good trip. And, uh --
Al Thani: I think it was May, last May I think.
Trump: Yeah, last May?
Al Thani: Yeah.
Trump: That was, uh, that was a great trip and we had, we established. We- -- we've been friends for a long time. We've known each other for a long time, but Qatar is investing tremendous amounts of money in our country and we appreciate that. Uh, our country's, uh, doing, we're building more factories, AI, we're leading AI by a lot.
We're building automobile factories. We're building more than we've ever built in the history of our country. Never, no country is ever doing, what we're doing right now, no country has ever been able to do, and those factories will be opening over the next year, year and a half. Some are already open very soon.
Uh, the pharmaceutical companies come, companies are coming back. The car companies are coming back from Germany, from Japan, from so many other places, Mexico and Canada. They're all coming back. We lost them foolishly years ago because we had presidents that didn't really know what they were doing. They should have never lost, but they're all coming back in beautiful brand new gleaming factories.
In fact, there are a couple of big old plants. And I said, "Are you going to use that plant?" And they said, "No, we're building brand new. They're knocking it down. Everything's built brand new, beautiful jobs. And, uh, the auto business, we're gonna bring back probably, you know, we lost 57% of our automobile business.
I think we're going to bring, bring it mostly back. And for chips, uh, we were the king of chips, and then it got stolen from us. We were, we went from being the king to having basically no chip business. The CHIPS Act that was done by, uh, Biden, was a disaster. Just a stupid thing to do. You handed billions and billions of dollars to people, and then they didn't build a factory.
But we have a different system. We have a system that if they don't build, they get paid tariffs. They have to pay tariffs of upwards of 200%. They don't have to pay anything for a little while, but if they don't get their plant built, then we can have, we would have, I think, 50% of the chip industry by the time I leave office.
So maybe more. Uh, they're building mostly coming out of Taiwan, but they're building and a lot of them for whatever reason in Arizona. Arizona, Texas. But we'll have 50%, maybe more than that of the chip industry. We're gonna have, uh, we'll be making almost all of our pharmaceuticals, and likewise that, uh, if they don't build, they'll have 150 to 200% tariff to pay.
If they do build, they have no tariff to pay. So our country has never done anything like this. And just, I wanna mention Iran. Uh, we appreciate the relationship we've had over the short period of time with Iran. Uh, the primary thing, it's, you know, we can talk about the Iran deal all day long. We're not investing any money.
We have the right to if we want, but we're not investing any money. We didn't pay for it like Obama did. He paid billions of dollars. He paid 1.7 billion from an airplane all green cash. It was crazy. I watched that. I, I couldn't believe it. But the one thing that's happening that's of note, frankly, the only thing that really matters to me is Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
And it says it loud and clear. They're not gonna develop it. They're not gonna buy it. They're not going to do anything with it. And if they do, they suffer unbelievable consequences. Uh, not just a little bit like, uh, I won't even tell you the consequences, but the consequences are the ultimate consequences.
And with that being said, I hope we have a very good relationship. But the biggest thing is they will not have a nuclear weapon, and that's the reason I got in, and that's the reason I agreed to sign that we originally had. Marco was, uh, with me, and they originally wrote that we will not develop a nuclear weapon.
I said, "No, no. You're not gonna develop it. You're not going to buy either." So we have, uh, that took another couple of days of time. Everything was, it's, uh, ridiculous, but so we, uh, have, they will not develop, purchase, buy, or any other thing. They're not going to acquire a nuclear weapon. If they do, all hell will rein down on that, and they're not gonna do that.
I, you know. Now you talk about regime change. I never cared about regime change. It's never a part, but I guess you have regime change because you know better than anybody. The first group, they're all dead. The second group, they're dead. A part of the third group is gone, and we're dealing with people that I think are very rational people.
I mean, they were nice to deal with. They were strong people, smart people. I think actually they're smarter than the first and second group, but they're not radicalized, and they're, you know, looking to help their country. So, uh, again, I, I don't believe the regime changed. You know, I've watched regime changes for years that they never work.
It has to just happen. I can tell you this is a country where the Emir is so respected, and the prime minister is so respected by the people, and that's the way a country should run, should run out of respect, not a fear. Uh, as you know, at least 42,000 protestors were killed in Iran, killed. They were protesting.
The wrestler, they had the big event at the White House the other day, the UFC, and they were all talking about he was a great fighter, and he was hung with his two friends because he spoke something about their regime. Uh, it's tough stuff. So, uh, we're very happy that we're involved. We're very, very impressed with Qatar and the way they've handled things, because they were really on the line.
They were in the front line. They were being shot at just about as much as anybody, but you were a lot closer, because you were right there. Literally, I could walk in a minute. Every, every other place I have to take a plane, but I can walk. So they were really on the line, and I just want to comment that, uh, and you should b- -- I just want to really, uh, congratulate you on bravery.
I don't know if you get congratulated for bravery, 'cause bravery is something you either have or you don't, and you never know until you test it. But --
Al Thani: Right.
Trump: -- you were tested.
Al Thani: Yeah.
Trump: And you had great bravery. Thank you very much.
Al Thani: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Really appreciate it.
Question: Are you going to have a separate meeting with President Zelensky, and what would a --
Trump: I had one.
Question: What would a Ukraine deal look like?
Trump: Well, we have one, but, uh, we had a good meeting. I'm meeting him later on today. We had –
Question: [Inaudible]
Trump: -- a very good meeting. Look, Russia should make a deal. Russia's lost tremendous amounts of people, and so has Ukraine. Last month they lost 35,000 soldiers between the two of them. Think of that. This is on a monthly basis, they averaged 25,000 people. Mostly soldiers, young, young, beautiful people. And it's crazy what's going on there.
But, uh, we had a meeting, and we'll see how, I spoke with President Putin on Sunday. And it's sort of the same thing. I mean, they just keep going, fighting, losing soldiers. They lose so many soldiers. This is, not since World War II has anything like this happened. I settled eight wars. This was the one I thought was going to be the easiest settled.
Question: Yeah.
Trump: They just, there's a, a lot of dislike between the two leaders, but, uh, yeah, I'm meeting with him again later on today.
Question: And are you going to have a special focus on Ukraine --
Trump: Well, we're going to look. Now we focused on, we were focused on Iran. It's going to be in the back, in the rearview mirror, but we'll be, I just, look, we have nothing to do with it. We sell weapons to them. We don't even give them. Obama gave them $350 billion worth of we- -- gave, which was crazy. The European Union pays us full price for weapons, but it's not that.
It's that this, it has no impact on us, other than we sell weapons. We're thousands of miles away. But the only reason I'm in, I, I don't like to see 25,000 young people die every month. Every month, 25,000 people die. Young people, they're just starting their life. They go to this front, and they get blown up, and Ukraine is losing a lot of people too.
I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. So, uh, yeah, I- -- I'm going to do whatever I can.
Note: [Crosstalk]
Question: Mr. President, um, if the Iranian regime continues to kill their own people, will you still move ahead with this deal?
Trump: If they refuse to what with their people?
Question: If they continue to kill their own people, the Iranian regime --
Trump: Well, we're talking, we talk to them about it --
Question: And [Inaudible]
Trump: -- and we see, I will say, the majority of that took place during the first and second regimes, much more so than now. It was, it was --
Question: The Iranians [Inaudible]
Trump: -- it was much, it was much more --
Question: #NAME?
Trump: -- severe, but it's a terrible thing. Yeah, do you have a question?
Question: Yes, Mr. President. Um, what are the, this is for both you and the Emir. What are the economic opportunities?
Trump: Well, I think they'd be good. I mean, I can tell you from our standpoint, we have a lot of opportunities all over the world. But the Emir lives right next door, and I think, you know, they have a lot of oil. Uh, I, I think they'll be good. First they're gonna have to prove themselves, I think, before any of us go in there.
But, uh, I could s- -- I hope they do well. I hope they do well. Look, one thing, whether they do well or poorly, they can't have a nuclear weapon. That's a big thing. If they had a nuclear weapon, they would've blown up Israel, they would've blown up the Middle East, and they probably would've taken a shot at us. We would've gotten them first, I think, but they would have done tremendous damage.
Had we not canceled the Obam- -- Obama nuclear deal, the JCPOA, you would've had them having a nuclear weapon five years ago. You know, that expired. That was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was the dumbest deal I've ever seen, other than NAFTA. NAFTA maybe was even dumber. But just in terms of a bad deal for us, uh, paid them billions and billions of dollars, we paid nothing.
They paid them billions of dollars and it was, it was a disaster. I terminated that on my first term. Had I not terminated, and, and we hit them hard. We terminated it. My second term, we sent in the B2 bombers and we terminated their, I call it the nuclear dust, they're enriched material, right?
Uh, and totally effectively. I remember when CNN, which is fake news, I don't know, you probably use them, but CNN said, "Well, maybe it wasn't that effective." So the Atomic Energy just reported that it was one of the most devastating bombings that they've ever seen. The whole mountain collapsed on top of it. And frankly, to go get a we- -- we're going to go get it, but to go get it is a big deal because, uh, they say only China and us have the equipment where you can even get it. The whole mountain has collapsed on top.
We have cameras on it. You could make the case, why are you even bothering? 'Cause it's not really valuable, it's, you know, it's probably half a million dollars worth. It's not very valuable soil but I think psychologically we want to get it.
Al Thani: Can I just, can I just, uh, can I just answer, you asked that. I think the last couple of months or weeks, I think that wasn't our, we were not interested in, you know, what are the opportunities, economical opportunities in Iran. Our interest, both of us was to, first of all, to find a deal to stop this war.
This is our main, uh, target, but looking at the economy and the opportunity, I'm sure they're going to be huge opportunities and, you know, as long as I said, this is a very important momentum to keep, uh, working like that, to reach let's say the final deal. After that, Iran will be, you know, of course, uh, open for, uh, any kind of investment and I'm sure there are going to be huge opportunities.
But to be honest, you know, we never thought of a, you know, our target, you know, is to trying to find a deal.
Trump: Well, they're going to need something because we blew them up and, you know, you could make the case, I used to make the case that like a week ago I said, and now it's different, we have an agreement, but if you, if we left, we did a great job. If we just left, we did a great job because it'll take them 15, 20 years maybe to rebuild.
And we were going to do a much bigger job if the agreement wasn't signed, we would have taken it to a level. But, and if, if we did that, they would never, ever, I believe, be able to rebuild. Too much.
Question: Mr. President, what are the expectations for Israel? Can this deal survive if Israel attacks Lebanon?
Trump: It can and, you know, I consider that the minor war, Iran's a big one, but we have that little pinprick out there that constantly rears its head, and that's Hezbollah. And you know, I was very responsible for Syria and the man that's running Syria now is a person that I put there, along with President Erdogan and some others.
He's done an amazing job of pulling it together. He's not a boy scout, but he's done an amazing job of pu- -- pulling it together and he is very good with Hezbollah. Does not like them, and I'll tell you what, Israel's fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. And you don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you're looking for somebody because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses and they're not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you.
And I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah. 'Cause to be honest with you, I think they'd do a better job of doing it.
Question: Is it that more important --
Trump: And I didn't like Syria. I didn't like where two hours before we're signing the agreement that there was an attack in Lebanon, in Beirut. It was right in, it wasn't like in the southern side and, you know, it was in Beirut. I did not like that, I let them know that. I didn't like it, not at all, but I think that Syria, you know, he's, he's pulled that country together amazingly quickly.
He's very capable and he's been very good for me. He's protected everything that I've asked for, he's done. And if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job, Syria will do the job.
Question: Are you frustrated with Netanyahu, sir?
Trump: No. We had a great relationship. Uh, we're talking about, uh, some end details. I didn't like that he, uh, did an attack based on a, you know, there's a very minor, uh, little thing with some drones that were released and he ends up doing a very, I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went. Did you see what happened?
That was not, that was a vicious, that was too much. You know, you can do too much also, but we've had a very effective relationship without us. Without the United States, there would be no Israel.
Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did. I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to, uh, be more responsible with respect to Lebanon. Lebanon used to be a great country. It was a country where you had professors, doctors, lawyers. The great intellect was in Lebanon.
Now it's just, it's terrible. I would say of all countries, they've been treated the worst and they can't defend themselves and they have Hezbollah, which is a problem for them. So, uh, no, I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah. They should have been able to do the job faster.
It, it just goes on forever. And when that happens, it throws a negative light on the big deal and that's the deal with Iran. So, so, uh, when you ask me about Bibi, an unbelievable relationship. But Israel would have been blown up a long time ago had I not gotten involved. Two things I did. I terminated the Iran nuclear deal, Barack Hussein, Obama sold out Israel for Iran.
He went to Iran. He sold them out. How anybody can vote for this guy or the party, the Democrats, I call 'em because they're dumb. They're dumb people. That's number one, how anybody can vote for them. And the second was the B-2 bombers just totally determined. So they had the right there, the JC- -- I watched his politicians.
I watched a Senator Reed that nobody ever heard of the other day. Well, this deal is the same as the deal Barack Obama. No. This deal is a wall to a nuclear weapon. His deal was a road to a nuclear weapon. My deal, they can't have a nuclear. They get blown up. If they have a nuclear weapon, they get blown up. In his deal, they were allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Uh, if, and in all fairness to Bibi, Bibi, I remember very well. BB came to Washington and begged. He begged Obama not to make that deal. And Obama was on the side of Iran, not Israel. And he made the deal. That deal was a disaster. I terminated that deal and if I didn't terminate, and, and was very tough after the termination.
And if I didn't do that, Howard knows better than anybody. If I didn't terminate that deal, I believe that, uh, they would have, Israel wouldn't be here right now. And the second one was what we did with respect to the, uh, nuclear dust, as I call it, right? We blew it up. The mountain collapsed on top, it was, you can't get to it. And had, they were two weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.
And if they had a nuclear weapon, they would have used it on Israel and I hate to say it and probably the rest of the Middle East because they had all those missiles aimed at the Emir, at Saudi Arabia, at UAE, at Kuwait, at Bahrain. I mean, the biggest surprise in this whole thing, I didn't think you guys would, I thought he would aim at Israel, but he didn't aim in Israel much less.
He aimed at your countries. And actually that was a mistake for them because it brought us, these countries, in particular the five countries, it brought us, I mean, he even hit Turkey once. I never understood it. I ne- -- nobody's going to understand it. That's the problem. They're totally irrational people and those people are now gone.
And I think Iran has rational leadership now.
Question: Is that now --
Trump: But you wouldn't have, if it weren't for the United States of America, with me, because Obama was the opposite, uh, Israel would not exist right now, Israel would have been blown off the face of the earth, 100%. And every smart person in Israel knows that. Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
Transcript courtesy of Roll Call

Skyeblu and Kristen... and me when I was a lot younger.

Welcome to the Community section of The Hi Network! Here users can share posts which are then categorized in CPMI Consciousness Postures.