Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Free-for-All Friday

Aired January 18, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, HOST: It's free-for-all Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is unfair that you have to give up your right to sue. It is unfair. It is unfair. It is unfair.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did my daughter have a chance, 97th floor of the second building? She didn't have a chance. And then my son had to see that plane go up with his sister in that building. And then you are telling me that her worth is what not even $100,000?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Protest, complaints and criticisms over the Victim's Compensation Fund. Maybe the government just should have stayed out of it.

Also, three men and a flag. A gesture of patriotism turned bittersweet. Does it matter whose face is on this statue?

(APPLAUSE)

It is Friday. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out". I'm Carol Lin. And this is free-for-all Friday. Everybody knows it here.

First up, that statue of three New York firemen raising a flag at ground zero on September 11. You will remember it took its inspiration from a photograph. It caused a big row when faces were changed to disguise the facts. Well now, the firefighters are looking at other options for a memorial.

So let's meet our panel today. In New York, Linda Evers -- actually it's Lisa Evers, host of "Street Soldiers with Lisa Evers" on Hot 97, WQHT-FM and reporter for 1010 WINS radio; and in Washington, Armstrong Williams, syndicated columnist and host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show, "The Right Side With Armstrong Williams". His latest book is "Beyond Blame: Moving Beyond Being a Victim"; and in Los Angeles, my hometown, Marc Germain, known as Mr. KABC, where he has a radio talk show; and Michael Smerconish, a trial lawyer and columnist with the "Philadelphia Daily News". A really terrific panel. Thanks so much for joining us everybody. We have got a great crowd here. We have been talking about this statue all week long, and now it looks like the New York Fire Department says enough, don't want to talk about it any more. We're going to look at other memorial options. Did they cave in to political pressure here?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, COLUMNIST: This is political correctness run amok. I mean, this is so ridiculous, Carol, I can't tell you. If they wanted to create a monument without the photograph as a basis, then fine. To quote Jim Watt, "you can give me a black, two Jews and a cripple" and the thing will make perfect sense. But for crying out loud, you don't take a real life photograph and then change the names to protect the innocent or the identities or the facial characteristics.

MARC GERMAIN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, KABC: Well, my understanding is that this was paid for with private funds, $180,000 of private money. It seems to me that we have individual property rights in this country and if you want to pay to have a statue that isn't representative of what a picture shows, you have that right. If government is paying for it, it's on public property, it's a different issue. But if it's private money that's paying for it, you can have the statue look any way you want.

LISA EVERS, 1010 WINS RADIO REPORTER: I can understand the firefighters are very sensitive, but the reality is the bodies of firefighters and their remains that were carried out of ground zero on flag-draped stretchers, those were African-American firefighters, those were Latino firefighters and those were white firefighters. So for an artist to embody the terrible losses that our city endured and that that department endured, and to make it more representational, I don't see a problem with that.

I think it's outrageous that people would object to the race -- representing the races of what actually is in New York City. New York City -- this is not political correctness. This is reality. There were blacks, Latinos and whites who died on September 11 wearing firefighters uniforms there.

LIN: Ooh. All right, Harvey here has got an opinion here in the audience. Harvey, do you think they caved in? Do you think they should have kept up the fight?

HARVEY: Definitely caved in. Those firefighters represented everybody. And the whole city of New York came together. It was brotherly love and I don't think it's necessary to change it.

LIN: All right. How many here think that they gave up too quickly?

(APPLAUSE)

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Can I add my two cents worth?

LIN: You get in there. Go ahead. WILLIAMS: You know, actually, I think the reasons artists are paid to do their work, and there's a reason why they are paid and why historians are not paid. The beautiful thing about this is that these events were inspired by the moments. These firefighters watching their brethren and fellow citizens die in an accident, it was inspired by the moment.

I'll tell you something that's very interesting that you may not agree with. But if they all had been black and if they all had been women, they would never would have dared change the images of that inspiration. Only because there are three white men they would do that and get away with it in the name of political correctness. I think it's a fraud. It's deceitful. For me, whomever inspired that photo, and they just happened to be three Caucasians, is representative of American heroes. And when I see them, I see myself.

EVERS: Carol, the reality is is that the three firefighters...

(APPLAUSE)

The reality is is that the three firefighters depicted in that sculpture are in bronze. And if you take a narrow interpretation, the sculpture was -- I don't think it was intended to represent that photograph directly. The photograph was an inspiration for that.

The larger picture is that we lost African-American firefighters, Latinos and whites on that terrible day. And that's a tragedy that befell all of our communities and that unity that existed. It's an insult to the unity that existed that day to be haggling about this right now.

SMERCONISH: The insult is to change it.

WILLIAMS: That's not the issue. The issue is what inspired the moment. What inspired the moment was the photo of those three gentlemen who just happened to be white. They inspired it. Political correctness steps in and makes a mountain out of a mole hill. The issue is it was inspired by the moment, not by the hue of their skin, but they just happen to be the ones who inspired it.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: You are talking about reality versus symbolism. Chris, what are you hearing in the audience here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Jonah, U.S. Naval Academy, go ahead.

JONAH: Personally I think the concept of the statue is incorrect. It should be a simple firefighter going in to rescue the citizens from September 11 because that's what it was. It was -- they were American citizens. And I think haggling over this is making the terrorists win. This is the kind of destruction that they want to have for our country.

It should just be a single firefighter going in to with maybe a helmet on or a mask because we are all American citizens. And everyone in that -- all of the firefighters together gave their lives and I think it's sad that we would fight over an issue like this. It's dishonor to their memory.

(APPLAUSE)

EVERS: And, Carol, to reduce this to an issue of political correctness after everything that happened on September 11 is really an insult to the memory of those heroes who lost their lives that day. The reality is that people were pulled together from all races, all ethnic backgrounds, all religions to try and save lives on that day, and that is what should be reflected. That's the symbolism, but that's also the reality. And that's what should be reflected in any memorial that we have.

LIN: Chris in Florida disagrees though.

WILLIAMS: But race, ethnicity and gender should never have been injected into this debate.

LIN: We've got Chris in Florida on the telephone -- Chris.

CHRIS: Good afternoon.

LIN: Good afternoon.

CHRIS: If we are allowed to practice revisionist history, we are no better than the Soviet Union that changed its history in order to reflect the current political climate. We are misrepresenting the facts of what happened to further somebody's political agenda. It's wrong. History should remain true.

LIN: Lisa, he's got a point.

EVERS: Well, this is not -- but this is not -- we are not talking about rewriting history that's going into a school book.

WILLIAMS: But it has been rewritten.

EVERS: It's not being rewritten. The history, the reality -- Armstrong, I was there on September 11, OK. The firefighters...

WILLIAMS: You were not in the photo.

EVERS: But the firefighters that I interviewed, the firefighters who I know were carried out whose bodies and remains were carried out on stretchers with flags covering them, were black firefighters, Latino firefighters and white firefighters. And to dismiss once again...

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: Nobody is denying it. The fact of the matter is there's a photograph. There is a photograph that was the inspiration...

WILLIAMS: Yes. SMERCONISH: ... for this bronze statue. And now we are changing the facial characteristics of those who were in the actual photographs. And political correctness is the only explanation.

EVERS: This is not political correctness.

SMERCONISH: Of course it is. What other explanation is there?

LIN: All right, obviously part of the debate is the face itself, the image of the faces, the skin color. We are going to continue this debate because we are not going to settle it in this first block.

We're going to be right back. We're going to regroup and we're going to be talking about some other things too related to September 11, whether those victims should also be compensated, paid for free by the U.S. government. Lots to talk about today. Stay right there.

(APPLAUSE)

Coming up Monday on TALKBACK LIVE, your chance to talk to Nic Robertson, CNN's man in Afghanistan. He'll be here with us in our Atlanta studios, along with Saira Shah, the journalist who unveiled the plight of women in Afghanistan. From the frontlines to the home front, your first row seat is right here on TALKBACK LIVE, Monday at 3:00 Eastern.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

LIN: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We have been talking about the statue, supposed to be a memorial to the firefighters who -- the rescue workers there. That's the bronze depiction of a permanent statue that was to be built at a Brooklyn fire house in honor of those firefighters who lost their lives, based on this real photograph taken by a Hackensack, New Jersey newspaper.

But lots of questions about whether those three firefighters faces should represent a black, a Hispanic and a white to show the diversity of all the different victims. Joining us today, Lisa Evers, Armstrong Williams, Marc Germain, Michael Smerconish and a great audience here with lots of opinions. Everybody has been asking why does it have to be a face? Why does it have to be a skin color? Can't it be a monument that's more neutral like the Vietnam War Memorial?

WILLIAMS: I would just like to raise one thing to your audience and to our distinguished colleagues here. If the firefighters had all been black who inspired the photo and they changed it, would they cry racism? And if they were women -- wait a minute -- would they cry discrimination. So if it's not racism, if they were to change it with blacks or women, why would it not be discrimination or racism if they were able to do it with three white men.

EVERS: Armstrong, with all due respect, and you know I have respect for you, but with all due respect... WILLIAMS: Talk to me.

EVERS: ... not every single issue can be reduced down to one of reverse discrimination.

WILLIAMS: You don't think so.

EVERS: And if any of you have had any art history classes or been to Europe and traveled through museums, you know that when it comes to art, art it's representational. We're not talking about historical fact. And the representation should be of the reality of the losses that were endured by the fire department on that terrible day.

LIN: Annette, you have got an opinion here?

ANNETTE: Yes. I think it should represent all of the diversity of all the races.

LIN: Of all the races?

ANNETTE: Yes. I don't want to it to away from the essence of the moment of that particular photograph. However, it does represent.

LIN: All right. We have got another opinion here -- Dominic (ph)?

DOMINIC: Yes. First of all, in response to the female radio host on the panel there, I think it's outrageous to distort a historical reality. That's not what the picture was of, and you shouldn't change it. If you want something that represents diversity, there will be plenty of times afterwards to make a monument to represent that. Just keep it the way it is because if you talk about divisiveness, this political correctness is what is dividing the country, and that's not how it should be.

(APPLAUSE)

EVERS: Sir, we are not talking about -- Carol, may I respond to that?

LIN: Go ahead, Lisa.

EVERS: Sir, you are obviously and of course entitled to your opinion, but this is not about representing diversity. This is about representing the very real firefighters who made the ultimate sacrifices on September 11. And those firefighters were white. They were African-American and they were Latino. And to marginalize the Latino and African-American communities by excluding them from the sacrifices that they made and that they have suffered as well is clearly inaccurate and it's wrong and it's just not...

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: Carol, I have to tell you. I see this as no different than those who would now like us to ignore the fact that the terrorists were all Arabs. I mean, there's revisionist history going on all around us now. And there's some people saying, oh, don't profile. Let's ignore that they were Arabs. It's the same thing here. The facts are what they are. A picture was taken. It's the basis of the monument. You have got to stick with the underlying facts.

WILLIAMS: It has become a lie is what it is.

EVERS: That is so absurd to equate black and Latino firefighters with Arab terrorists. I mean, that's very objectionable.

SMERCONISH: No one is saying we shouldn't pay homage to those firefighters. But you don't distort a photograph to do that. We don't need to do that.

LIN: Stan (ph) from North Carolina, get in there while you can.

STAN: Yes. Well, it just -- it really bothers me that, you know, time and time again, every time an event comes up in history or whatever that the race card or something has to be played, that everybody has got to get their hand in it. You know, why are we changing it? The photograph was taken for a symbolization and we need to use that. It doesn't have to have different faces on it. Make it the way it was. Quit using the race card for everything.

GERMAIN: Well, if it is a symbol, then shouldn't it be representational of the people who really fought and died on September 11 for not only our freedom but to save the lives of those who were saved?

LIN: All right, Dana, you have an opinion here?

GERMAIN: If that's the point, if the point is that it's supposed to be representational.

DANA: I want to say about what Lisa was saying, is that it's definitely about diversity. What she is talking about is about diversity. If we are talking about representing the reality then the reality is what the photograph was and the photograph was those three firemen.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. That's right.

SMERCONISH: Carol, can you imagine if we were having this debate back during World War II and the aftermath of Iwo Jima because somehow, some rocket scientist decided we have got to change the racial dynamics of the men who were then serving. I mean, we would never have done it then and we ought not to be doing it now.

LIN: So what is the solution then? What is best representational of all the different victims, the ethnicities, the sexes of what happened that day then? I mean, do we...

WILLIAMS: The men who inspired the photo, they were representative of all that until we got involved...

LIN: But why does it have to be then? It was a seminal moment, but it is a divisive point. What is the point of going forward with something that is clearly something no one is ever going to agree on?

EVERS: Carol, there's so many different -- what should happen for this type of memorial and especially in a situation like this, which is still very emotional and very, very painful for so many people is to really have an open process, to have people submit ideas, to submit different kinds of drawings, artists' conception, and see what works for everybody.

I mean, the firefighters and the people of the city of New York should really be the ones who have the say over it. But I would defend an artist's right to interpret their work the way that they see fit. And this was the artist's interpretation. We are not talking about an historical documentary on a news station.

LIN: All right. We have another controversial topic coming up for all of you, including those of you in our audience. The compensation fund that the government is talking about, $250,000 to the surviving families. How is that going to work? And is it really going to be fair? We are going to be talking about that coming up. Stay right there.

Still ahead, does this woman still have a story to tell? HBO thinks she's worth a documentary. Do you?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRED SICHOVY, BOSTON UNIVERSITY STUDENT: Hi. My name is Fred Sichovy (ph) from Boston University, and I think that the Bush administration needs to keep a close eye on the September 11 Fund to make sure that 100 percent of the money reaches the victims' families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Everybody, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.

Last night, a big rally was held in New York protesting the way the government's victims compensation fund is being divvied up. There is a lot of squabbling going on over the formula used to determine the awards. Now, these are awards for the surviving families of firefighters, police officers, as well as people who worked in the World Trade Center towers. And there's a lot of debate over how much money should be paid out, and whether people's pensions and life insurance should be deducted from that amount, which means that a lot of these families may actually end up with nothing if they had a pretty good pension fund. So that's part of the debate.

But is this really the role of the government? Is it just a government boondoggle for people who have suffered a tremendous loss?

We are going to get back to our panel of talk show hosts and columnists. We have a terrific audience here. We're going to sort of regroup on this topic here.

Let me go to my panel first. Do you guys think that this is just a government boondoggle? Is this the role of the government to be compensating victims, as tragic as it has been?

SMERCONISH: Well, I think it's headed in that direction, and I think there's a role for the government to play. This is not an ideological issue like should Chrysler have been bailed out by the feds. This really is a war-like scenario, and I think the role of the government should have been greater oversight and greater coordination among all the charities, like that young college student just said. Just as Tom Ridge was put in charge of homeland security, the Bush administration blew it by not naming a czar to oversee all of the charitable efforts to make sure that everybody is taken care of, and they didn't do that.

LIN: But we all suffered that day. I mean, does that mean that everybody is entitled to...

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: Well, we didn't all lose somebody.

EVERS: Carol, we did not suffer the way that these families and these close relatives who lost loved ones on September 11 did. I was at their rally last night, and to see the grief just etched into their faces, these months of suffering, these months of grieving and mourning going on and on, and now they have to go to meeting after meeting, trying to figure out whether they should participate in this fund or not participate.

Let's not forget that Congress passed a law creating this fund in late September. Part of the reason was to bail out the airlines so that they wouldn't be hit with a flood of lawsuits crippling them at a time when the economy is bad. The other fact is that we have to keep in mind, families whose participate in this fund are asked to relinquish their right to sue the government over what happened on September 11. But they don't know what compensation they will be receiving.

And also, another problem that came out last night was that firefighters and police officers, their families will receive virtually nothing from this fund, because they are receiving pensions and receiving other funds from the city of New York.

LIN: Yeah, Armstrong, do you agree with this?

WILLIAMS: This is a -- this is actually a tough one for me, because I know our country is very tremendous at rebuilding other countries after wars. And certainly citizens should be a priority.

I just think the government is certainly in a no-win situation, no matter -- on its best efforts. They could not have foreseen the kind of a fallout which they have created in trying to compensate victims for their loss, for their pain, because in actuality money can never replace the loved one that you have lost. It may help you rebuild a home and pay certain bills, but ultimately it cannot replace that loss.

I think the issue of not suing the government was something that was very attractive to them. They thought they could head it off. And so, you asked the question, what is enough? And I just think they are in a no-win situation. I think it's very difficult. For me personally, I don't think the government should ever have gotten itself involved in this kind of issue.

LIN: Tough. We have an opinion here from the audience. Chris, who do you have?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Captain Williamson (ph) from the United States Naval Academy and the United States Marine Corps.

LIN: And what do you think, captain?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will admit that our government does provide financial assistance for those in need, and I don't disagree with this idea, but what I would hope is that we would not reward or offer financial assistance for anyone above what we give the family members of those military men and women who have already given their lives, who have died in combat. I have got a classmate, Matt Grenkoff (ph), United States Naval Academy class of 1994 who died in that C-130 last week, and there are at least six other Marines and their families. And what are we doing for them?

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Shawn (ph) in Virginia, on the telephone. Shawn (ph).

SHAWN: Well, basically, I disagree. I agree. I think the government should have just basically stayed out of it and just basically let every person go through their own procedure, basically go back to the companies and deal with their insurance, companies, and just basically go through the court and just work it that way. And the government should have stayed out of it. Maybe they could have reviewed it, and maybe there is something in it that everybody went through their own normal, you know, steps of how it is normally handled.

LIN: Isn't that what life insurance and pension funds are for?

SMERCONISH: But you are penalized here, Carol. This is one of the outrageous aspects of the way the government is handling it. I think they should be involved, but handling it in a different fashion.

You can't penalize the estate of someone who is now dead because that person had the smarts to maintain life insurance. And yet that's what is happening here. If you are had life insurance, it's a deduction against that which your estate is going to receive. That's not fair.

GERMAIN: What about the victims of Tim McVeigh in the Murrah Federal Building? There have been other terrorist acts in this country and we don't give people a lottery winning of $1.6 million because they have suffered a loss. SMERCONISH: This is no lottery. That's horrible to say. This is no lottery.

(CROSSTALK)

GERMAIN: It is a lottery, because it's a big fund that's being given to people. How many other people died on September 11 that won't get a penny from the government? Why is it any different than a state-run lottery?

EVERS: Mark, we have never had -- this was the largest -- this was the biggest act of terrorism ever against the United States. We have never gone through anything like this before. And I would express my condolences over and over again to the people who continue to suffer from the losses from that day, because if we can't even understand...

(CROSSTALK)

EVERS: May I finish, please?

There was one man last night who summed up the feelings of many of the people who were there. He said to me, "You know what?" He said, "The families of the terrorists of these suicide bombers, those families are taken care of better than the families whose loved ones were killed on September 11." He's raising his 4-year-old daughter alone because his wife was killed that day.

So what do we say to him in terms of -- as a country? We are not going to do anything to help you cope with your loss?

GERMAIN: No, we are a very compassionate country. Lisa, we are a very compassionate country. That is why over $1 billion was raised by a variety of charities. That's the money that should go to those victims, not government money. That's money that people who don't choose to give money are being forced to give.

(APPLAUSE)

LIN: And some of the language that some of these families were using at the rally last night. I mean, Lisa, these families were stepping up to the microphone and saying that they are being betrayed by their government. How is it betrayal when the government is coming up with a quarter-million dollars and talking about ways of just giving it out for free, money that they don't have to pay back?

EVERS: Carol, I really reject that characterization that they are giving it out for free. You have to understand that people have to sign -- they have to sign away their rights without knowing what amount of compensation they are going to get, what the formula is.

And even if -- they can't even get an estimate. So if they say, "How much would I get in my particular circumstance?" they are immediately giving away their rights. And they can't change their mind after that. So there's no way for them to know... GERMAIN: Well, that's why government doesn't do this well. Government shouldn't be asked to do this. We have charities that are able to give $1 billion that was raised by Americans. How much less would Americans have contributed if they knew that possibly $1.6 million, on average, would go the victims of September 11?

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: Look at the Red Cross. The Red Cross had to do a complete turnaround because they were taking so much of those moneys and not making a commitment to pass them on to the real victims of this tragedy. There's no confidence that the American public has that the charitable efforts will really reach the real victims. If there were, it would be different.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Dan, in the audience, do you feel that these victims are entitled to government assistance here?

DAN: I actually do not think the government should be giving money out for what happened on the 11th, because it's not the government's job. I'm a family man and I pay insurance so that if I were to meet my demise, my family would be taken care of. And it's not fair...

GERMAIN: And that's the bigger issue.

DAN: ... to me as a taxpayer to take some of my money and give it out. I know those folks and

(CROSSTALK)

DAN: But it's not the government's job to deal with that.

EVERS: But doesn't the government have the right to protect its citizens?

DAN: I take care of my family and that's it. The government is not real quick to give money out to -- like the captain said earlier this evening, to all the men and women that they send into harm's way don't get what they are giving or want to give to the people who just happened to have a job there selling stocks or something like that.

The firefighters and the EMS folks, they know what their job is. I did that for a while. I knew that I might have to walk into a building and be carried out in a body bag. And I wasn't even getting paid for it.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: All right, I have got to interrupt right now.

(INTERRUPTED FOR LIVE EVENT)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com