Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Should Divorce be Just a Click Away? Are Americans Too Attached to Their Pets?
Aired March 06, 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, I'm Arthel Neville.
With instant messaging, e-mails, faxes, Fed-Ex, instant gormet meals, these days we seem to want what we want and we want it fast. Well, introduce instant divorces into that category, that's right, on- line divorce, quick, cheap, and maybe too easy. We want to know what you think about this, so give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN, and e-mail me: TALKBACK@CNN.com.
Now when you email me, make sure you include your name and where you live. Also, you might want to include your phone number because I might just give you a call while I am on the air.
First, we have some compelling pictures from the front lines in Afghanistan, where you can see firsthand what it is like in the heat of battle. CNN correspondent Martin Savidge is Operation Anaconda and managed to get some incredible video and interviews. And here to watch with and explain what we are seein is retired Army Brigadier General David Grange. He is a former Ranger and Green Beret, and is CNN's military analyst.
General, thank you very much for being with me this afternoon.
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you.
NEVILLE: I want to let everybody know what we like to do is look at the clips and listen to them, because the natural sound here is so amazing. So let's look at the first clip, listen and watch, we will come back and analyze it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Over here...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come over here. Come over here. Shoot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: General, give us an idea here, now we can start telling us what we are seeing here.
GRANGE: This is a soldier firing a -- it's called an Individual Shoulder-Fired Weapon. It's usually for anti-tank purposes. It's called an AT-4. It fires an 84 millimeter warhead. It has about a 300 meter range and it is used, like I say, mainly to take out vehicles, but in this case they are using it to destroy anything at the entrance of a cave.
Now, the enemy probably wouldn't be fighting from the the cave. They would be fighting around the cave. The cave would be used as a sanctuary from airstrikes or to hide equipment that they need.
NEVILLE: Let's take a look and listen to our next video clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Got yours?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See anything at all?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hunter 6, hunter 7, over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: General, again, we are watching these pictures and this is real, this is not a videogame or, this is real live combat going on here, and give us an idea, if you could, of what these soldiers are going through, and we do not hear gunshots around them, but it is silent and sometimes the deadly silence can be more menacing or as menacing as shots fired?
GRANGE: Right. What we saw right after the anti-tank weapon fired in cave was a sniper team. And snipers operate in at least in two-man teams. That way you have what is known as an observer that spots targets and protects the shooter. And then the shooter was the soldier that had the soft-knit cap on that was behind the weapon, it was an M24 weapon, a 7.62, like a .30 caliber type weapon, and about a 6 to 800 meter kill range. Some can kill to a thousand meters. Very effective and the psychological affect of snipers on both sides of the war, it has quite an impact on the forces.
NEVILLE: Let's take a look at some more video now and then we will talk about that as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNFIRE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: General, tell us what we are seeing here now?
GRANGE: What you are looking at is the terrain and some fighting that is taking place. You can hear the audio of machine gun fire, small arms fire and the source of impact -- there is a tracer that just went across the front of the screen -- your source of impact on the other end, friendly fire going in to an enemy position, that may have been from the troops themselves or from an attack helicopter. And right here you can see troops moving forward. This is obviously the front element that Martin or whoever is with, this is more of a rear area right now we are looking at. We are looking at soldiers getting ready to fire a 60 millimeter mortar, it is the smallest mortar that the American forces have. That one was fired in hand-held mode -- short range, but effective, but we have larger mortars that would be more effective in this type of terrain, and I hope they have the larger mortars with them.
NEVILLE: General, is this type of coverage unprecedented?
GRANGE: It's not unprecedented. Ask Joe Gallaway (ph) from when we were soldiers. He was in a pretty tough there in Vietnam, and all the battles, but this is the first I have seen of this particular war where Martin is located, and he has access to the front line troops, no doubt about it.
NEVILLE: Well certainly new video, seeing this sort of front- line video for generations like my generation, so thank you very much, General, for joining you us and for your insight into what American troops face on the ground in Afghanistan.
I want to mention that the photographer who captured all this amazing video for CNN is Scott McWhinnie (ph) . He is on the front lines with CNN correspondent Martin Savidge. We will have a live report, LIVE FROM AFGHANISTAN, that is tonight at 8:00 Eastern, right here on CNN.
And as we go to break, I want you to hear the voices of those troops as they move into battle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Instincts took over and training took over and we just returned fire.
We were taught to do it. We really did not have much time to think after that, it was just keep my head down, take good shots, hopefully make sure I got some people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go men, hurry up, hurry up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It felt real good to get back for all those lives lost and let 101st do its job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Up next: Divorce is just a click away. Now you can delete your marriage on-line. Should it be this easy it to say "I don't?"
And later: Obits for pets, what's the point?
Are Americans just a little bit too obsessed with their furry friends?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Not to scare anybody out there, but if you are married there is an excellent chance you will eventually need a divorce lawyer, sad to say. More families than we like to admit split up every year. And in the age of instant gratification, is it any surprise you can now get a divorce on-line?
There are several places, including completecase.com. It's founder, Randy Finney is with us today. Randy is an attorney with Finney, Schukwit and Gulic (ph) in Seattle. Also with us is Dennis Rainey, executive director of Family Life, a division of Campus Crusade for Christ. He is the host of the syndicated radio show "Family Life Today" and author of "Growing a Spiritually Strong Family."
Also joining us, marriage and family therapist Pat Love. She is the author of "The Truth About Love and Hot Monogamy." And Cecile Weich, an attorney specializing in matrimonial law.
Thank you to all of you guys for joining me, and Randy, I want to start with you. Why did you start this Web site?
RANDY FINNEY, FOUNDER, COMPLETECASE.COM: I started completecase.com because as a family law attorney myself, I have had years and years of people contacteding me, asking for advice that I rally don't have the time to give over the telephone, and people that cannot get access to the legal system to complete their uncontested cases and do not understand the forms, the laws, the books about them, et cetera.
So it was a way to get them access to the legal system, to get professional documents created for them and to give them an understanding of what it is that they are doing in an amicable and relatively inexpensive way.
NEVILLE: OK, so how much does it cost, by the way?
FINNEY: $249 for the use of completecase.com.
NEVILLE: And if you want an attorney that is an extra hundred or $200 you say?
FINNEY: We don't provide attorneys. Completecase.com operates without human intervention. If you do want to take the documents down to an attorney after they are completed you are certainly free to do so. And most attorneys, if you are already done with the documents will charge you a fairly nominal fee just to review them.
NEVILLE: Is business good? I mean, are people coming to your site and filing for divorce?
FINNEY: Business is very strong. A lot of people are interested in this, we have had a great response from each state that we are in so far.
NEVILLE: Pat Love, you are in the business of "let's work this out." What do you say to this idea of getting a divorce on-line?
PAT LOVE, MARRIAGE & FAMILY THERAPIST: One of the difficulties is it gives the illusion this is a painless process. And we know simply from research that divorce has implications not just for the individuals but everyone related to them, children, families, friends, et cetera.
And so one of the difficulties also is that it gives the illusion that we can make this decision and you move away from one of the most important healing agents, and that is time. Research shows that if you just wait, the low times will actually have an up swing and your marriage will get better, even without intervention often times.
NEVILLE: So sometimes it is just too quick. If you have, if you are forced to wait six months or whatever the law may require, then perhaps you have a chance to rethink it.
LOVE: Exactly and it is also a major life decision. Having it happen too soon can often give the illusion that well, it is over, it is painless, but the point is that it has major reprocussions all the way down the line. If you want to be happy and successful, what research says is get married, stay married, and work on your marriage.
NEVILLE: Ms. Weich, I would like to ask you now that there are also legal ramifications involved here, becuse different states have different divorce laws.
CECILE WEICH, DIVORCE ATTORNEY: Sure there are. There are loads of legal ramifications. There are many pit falls in this procedure. I personally think it is a very, very bad idea. Not necessarily from the emotional viewpoint, but from the legal view point.
Certainly if there is money, if the couples have money, property or children, they should absolutely not, not do this kind of a divorce. If it is just two people who have gotten married and a month later want to get divorced, I mean that's not the worst thing that could happen.
But the divorce is bad, but having it on-line is not awful if you have been married for a month. If you have been married for longer than that, this is a bad idea. It has boomerang possibilities. If the papers are not done right, if you do not take them to an attorney, if they are not filed properly, and again, it depends upon what state.
Most states now have a a filing requirement before you serve the papers. I don't know how you do this on an on-line situation. I mean if the papers are prepared for you, and them you serve them, there are some states that don't permit service by one of the parties.
You have to be familiar with the law, the divorce law, the family law, in the state in which you live. And many times, you need to be familiar with the law in the the particular county of the state in which you live. There is no easy way here.
NEVILLE: Let's talk about the family. Mr. Rainey, I would like to bring you in on the conversation at this point. Do you think this adds to or encouragings the breakdown of family by being able to get a divorce on-line?
DENNIS RAINEY, EXEC. DIR. FAMILY LIFE: Absolutely. In fact, you know in 1960 we had zero states with no-fault divorce. Today all 50 states have no-fault divorce. And the thing that this does is that this takes the Internet to a whole new low level.
What we need to do today is we need to call couples to keep their marriage promise, to keep their vows, not disintegrate more marriages and families.
You know, there are a number of your listeners right now who may be attracted to hiw Internet site, but I believe far more of your listeners and viewers are interested in making a marriage and a family work. His click-and-split divorce Web site, I believe, is a terrible use of the Internet.
What we are attempting to do through our arena events called "I Still Do" and through our Web site, familylife.com, is we are trying to encouraging couples and families to make it work in a culture that is increasingly hostile to in-tact families.
NEVILLE: Melba, what would you like to say to this?
MELBA: I would like to ask, if you can get a divorce that easy, how you do you sell your property, child support, there is a lot of things?
WEICH: You can't do it on the Internet. You -- on this on-line stuff. If you have children and property, it must be handled properly through a proper attorney. Otherwise you are going to have problems. You are going to have problems with child support, depending on the state in which you live, there are different percentages depending on how many children that are percentages that are paid pursuant to the federal guidelines. Every state must follow guideline support programs. You can't do an on-line divorce.
FINNEY: If I could respond to some of this?
NEVILLE: Jump in.
FINNEY: The reality here is that your guests are not understanding the complete case.com Web site. Nothing with complete case.com changes the existing state laws.
WEICH: Nobody says it is changing...
FINNEY: If there are waiting requirements in a specific state, if there are waiting requirements those waiting requirements still exist. The reality is that you have people out there creating their own divorces every single day and they make mistakes.
Completecase.com takes software, it helps people understand what they are going through, it calculates child support based on each existing states' laws. It uses forms that are specificly authorized by the state's government. This is not something that is going to get you an instant divorce. This isn't something that is going to break up families that are otherwise going to stay together.
This is a concept that says to those families that are going to get a divorce, if you are going to get a divorce, do not break the piggybank doing it. Don't bankrupt doing it, don't be at each other's throats tearing apart your chldren doing it.
Do it in an amicable way. Do it in a way that is relatively inexpensive so that your family isn't torn apart, so that you aren't bankrupt and so that you aren't presenting paperwork to the court that is sloppy, handwritten, et cetera.
If you want to have a attorney look at it, you are still free to do so. But this will help you understand the process and get you documents that are professionally prepared by a software system that look appropriate. To the attorney that we are talking to here, I would suggest that you take a look at the Web site before you make the statements you are making because they are simply inaccurate, .
WEICH: They are not inaccurate.
FINNEY: Have you looked at the web site?
WEICH: Yes. Part of a divorce situation is being able to talk to someone. And as Ms. Love says it is an emotionally driven process. You sometimes need to talk to a professional.
Most divorce attorneys, certainly those that are not neophytes, know what they are doing, know how to talk to their clients, know how to help their clients through the process. Not just to take their money and file the papers. That is what you are doing.
That is not a proper way to end a relationship, even if it is a very short relationship with no money and no children, but certainly if there are children, if there is property, this is absolutely a fool hardy way of handling your life.
NEVILLE: Dennis, I know you want to jump in there, but let me go to Gale on the the phone right now. Gale, go ahead?
CALLER: I am thinking that they should make divorce really easy, but they should make getting married much harder. It's too easy to get married these days. You go in get a license, get married it is over, nobody cares, if anyone is in love or -- care about each other, or know, .
NEVILLE: So they are taking the human element out of this, is what you are saying, Gale?
CALLER: Yes.
NEVILLE: Pat, what do you say to that?
LOVE: It is so important because what we are missing here, it is not just a legal process. It is a process that you are taking away the options. If you are going to turn to the Internet, turn for help, because this is where there are so many grass roots. There is smartmarriages.com. there are so many resources.
We need now have the information that tells us how to keep marriages. I myself have been divorced. My husband and I both have been divorced, and what we will tell you is if we had the information available now, we would still be married to our first spouses and we have that remorse from that experience, and it was very easy to get divorced.
So if you want to take some work and some time, and use the resources, use them to improve your marriage, not to end the marriage.
NEVILLE: OK, I have to take a break right now. I promise when we come back, I will let you respond. And I know you at home have some questions for our panelists, so get on the phones, send those e- mails and we will be back in a moment to discuss this very topic.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back. We are talking about getting a divorce on-line. If you just read that e-mail that Mark, I think it was from Ohio, said that getting a divorce should be easy. Dennis Rainey, I know you wanted to go ahead and weigh in on this. What are your comments?
FINNEY: Divorce should be easier than it is. The big problem for people getting a divorce, what we are talking about, we are not encouraging people to get a divorce.
We are encouraging people, if they are going to get a divorce, to get a divorce in an amicable and inexpensive way. This is only for people with uncontested cases. They are able to resolve their situation either in advance or through some negotion. This is not for people who have to go see a lawyer because they can not work it out. It is for people who are able to work out their issues, so those people do not break the piggybank, don't go into bankruptcy.
NEVILLE: Dennis Rainey.
RAINEY: What we are talking about here, it's like we are talking about some kind of business deal that we are just breaking up. We are talking about breaking up the social infrastructure of our nation. And when a divorce occurs, it has been proven, a woman is more likely to live in poverty, a child is more likely to be sexually abused, in fact 40 times more likely, in fact the greatest predictor or sexual abuse among children today is the presense of a step family.
And the reason divorce occurs today is because people fail. People do not have the blueprints to know how to build a marriage and a family. And what needs to happen is not more of what Randy is recommending here: easy divorce, where it is just this business decision just to terminate with the click of a mouse. What we need to do is encourage people to stay together.
Let me read you a letter, I get thousands of letters from people all across the country who want to make their marriage work.
NEVILLE: Do me one favor though, if you could, hang on to that for a second, because I would like to take a phone call from Karen in pennsylvania.
CALLER: Yes, I think it is actually a good thing. I was married for 13 years, had an abusive husband, and had somebody who cheated on me. But when it all came down to it I took a class, filed for my own custody on my own, filed for my own child support on my own. It was an agreeable divorce but I had to go through a lawyer. I went through a low income thing because at the time I lost my job. I spent $750 on a divorce that could have been done for a heck of a lot cheaper and would have saved me some money to give towards my children. I spent money that could have bought my kids other things, but instead I had to pay for a divorce.
NEVILLE: I am going to let Derrick here comment as well. Thank you for that comment.
Derrick, what do you have to say now?
DERRICK: I think that anything you can do to keep the lawyers out of things, is good.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: So you have two comments keeping the lawyers out of the equation is a good thing?
WEICH: Can I answer that?
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
WEICH: Let me say something. You know, most people who are not mature thinkers think that you do not need help. Do you say keep the doctors out of your business when you are sick, when you have appendicitis, you want to keep the doctor out?
If you need to produce a television program, do you want to do away with the producers? If you go to war, do you want to do away with the soldiers?
For goodness sakes, we are trained professionals, most of us, and I say that, clearly, most of us know what we are doing. We are out to help people. Indeed it is a job, indeed I get paid. But I help the people that come to me understand the process of the what they are going through.
I try to hold their hands as much as possible, and help them emotionally to handle what they are going through. To click on a mouse, and say I'm divorced, that is indeed another immature way of handling your thinking and your life, and I certainly am opposed to that. Lawyers serve a very important purpose.
NEVILLE: Derek, what do you say?
DERRICK: That's fine, I agree with that. But there is one problem, there is just too many of you.
NEVILLE: All right. All right, Derek, let's talk to you, Pat Love right now. Let's address what the caller just said. She explained a situation where she was in an abusive relationship and she didn't want to wast a lot of money. She know she had to get out of this relationship, so she would have appreciated being able to get a divorce on-line.
LOVE: You know what is so interesting is, is that abuse often comes up when you talk about divorce, and it assumes that it can't be treated, No. 1, which it can, but No. 2, there are courses, if youant to click on- line, there are courses free and otherwise that will actually help you so that you will not pick an abusive partner, you will not remarry the same problem that you had even in the first marriage.
So again, the education -- if we were talking about this five years ago, it would be a different scenario. If the information were not there, if we didn't have research that said this is what makes marriages work, that these low times, the distraught times, "I love you but I am not in love with you" syndrome, that is also normal and predictable, and here is what you can do about it. If we did not have that information, I would be more in favor of something that simple. But when you look at the direction from no fault to now, one click, you look at the direction we are headed and research says it is not good for any of us.
NEVILLE: Standing by with Jennifer from Alabama, what do you say, Jennifer?
JENNIFER: Marriage on the Internet should not be allowed. Marriage was meant for commitment, and if you can get divorced and end the relationship without counseling or help, it is just too soon. You can make a decision that could effect the rest of your life.
NEVILLE: And then also, Pat Love, you were just talking about the whole emotional impact, if you could stand up for me, Elane, because I was speaking to Elane earlier, who has -- you have been married 40 years and your son was murdered...
ELANE: My daughter was murdered seven years ago. And Gordon and I have been married 40 years, but seven years ago our marriage was in such disruption because of the grief in not knowing who did the murder, we would have gone directly to that Internet and I would have divorced him in a minute because he did not understand my grief.
And we feel, with our organization Fight Crime, Invest in Kids we work -- our mandate is to keep families together and work as hard as we can. And the emotional battles of working in America today with all of the problems we have now, and with our own murder -- Joyce's son was murdered also -- we would be divorced instead of doing good work for Fight Crime, Invest in Kids keeping families together.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. I am sorry you had to go through that. Thank you very much.
I think someone was shaking -- was it you, Pat -- shaking your head when the last comment was made?
LOVE: Yes, it's so true. And what she is mentioning is support groups of people helping each other. There are mentoring groups. There are church and Synagogue groups. There are local groups. I mean your mental health professionals. And again, this isn't about even making money. It's about providing a service that we now know exists. So, if you are going to click, click towareds your marriage, not away from it.
RAINEY: I really agree.
You know, what needs to happen today is, we need to be encouraging couples to make their marriage work, because there's a generation of children at stake.
And I mentioned this letter. It's from Paul. And he draws a picture of a heart with a smiley face on it. And he wrote to say: "Thank you for what you did in my parents' life at your conference. Since they have gone to the conference, my dad and mom have not fought once. My dad is spending more time with us. And my mom is also. I have seen a major change in them."
And it goes on to say...
NEVILLE: That's good news.
I'm sorry. I'm out of time. I wanted to let get a portion of that letter in, though.
The debate continues. I am sure you at home will talk about this a little bit more. Should you be able to get a divorce online? Should you not? Should you keep the family together? The debate goes on.
Randy, Dennis, Pat, and Cecile, glad you could join us here today.
It's time for a break right now, but when we come back, we are going to switch gears and talk about this. Maybe some of you who own pets can explain why animal obits belong in a newspaper. I certainly think pets are people, too, but do you? Call in and let me know what you think.
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. "The Philadelphia Daily News" is adding pet obits to the newspaper. And it's not the first paper to do it. You see them all over the Web, people mourning their pets with tributes, pictures and eulogies. It is clear some of these animals are as important to their owners as any human.
The question is: Are Americans just a little too attached to their pets? Dr. Michael Fox is a veterinarian, author and pet columnist with "The United Feature Syndicate." And Steve Malzberg is a radio talk show host on WABC and columnist for NewsMax.com.
Thanks to you gentlemen for joining me.
And I am going to go on record right now. You were going to find out sooner or later. But I am way over the top when it comes to my cat. So there. I'm going to try to do this without -- no, no, I'm going to be biased. I'm just going to be biased on this story
Let's just put the question out there: Pet obits, have we gone too far? What do you think?
STEVE MALZBERG, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I have a cat, Arthel. And I don't know. Are you planning an obit for your cat when the day, hopefully way, way in the future, comes that he or she passes away?
NEVILLE: You know, I probably won't do an obit. But I have thought about if I might cremate my cat or not. So this is something people think about. I have had my cat for 17.5 years. She is my little girl.
MALZBERG: Well, I have had mine for almost 10. And I will be very sad on the day that the cat is no longer there. And maybe, in my cat's honor, I will contribute to a pet shelter or think about going to a pet shelter and getting another cat. But I can't see equating that cat with a human life and taking out an obituary. It just doesn't make sense to me.
NEVILLE: So you are saying the $52 you would spend to take out the obit on your pet, you should put that to better use and maybe donate it to charity or something?
MALZBERG: Absolutely. Absolutely.
NEVILLE: Dr. Fox, what do you say to this?
DR. MICHAEL FOX, VETERINARIAN: Well, it is my feeling that, since animals are part of the family and therefore part of the community, it is a real community and family thing for the local newspapers to run obituaries.
In my recent book, "Bringing Life to Ethics," I propose the principal of equalitarianism. And that is to give animals equal and fair consideration to humans. After all, we are animals, too. And when you think of what a companion animal gives to the family, putting an obituary out is something to express publicly one's gratitude. And it's a very important point of closure for children.
NEVILLE: Ann, what do you say to this? You have two pets, right?
ANN: Right. I have two dogs. One is almost 14 years old and is probably getting close to the time that she will pass away -- and another one that is 2 years old. But I personally would not do it myself. But I would respect the opinions of those who would want to do it.
I know there are a lot of people who get very, very close to their pets, especially those who don't have children or maybe someone who is living by their self in an apartment or whatever. So I would definitely respect their opinion to do that. But I would not do it.
NEVILLE: Now, there is somebody else who e-mailed us recently and said they won't do it either. So let's take a look at that e-mail right now.
OK, it's from Ana in Southport, North Carolina: "If my darling pets died, I would get an obituary for my pet. I would want to let my friends and neighbors know that a part of my family is no longer with us."
Debbie, what do you think about this?
DEBBIE: Well, I just felt before that -- I said we had a dog. And we put her to sleep. And I don't think anybody else is going to know about it in terms of putting it in a newspaper to say that our dog died. So I thought it was ridiculous because dogs and cats, they are going to read about people that they know and say, "Oh, my friend the dog died."
But in terms of...
(CROSSTALK)
DEBBIE: In terms of cremating the dog and everything, we do have her ashes. We cremated the dog. We kept it for our own to that know that we kept her for our memory.
NEVILLE: Steve, go ahead. What do you say?
MALZBERG: I'm sorry, Arthel.
There is another major difference. Yes, pets are part of the family, and, yes, especially for people who live alone or don't have children. But, you know, you may run out and get -- especially if you live alone -- you may run out and get another cat or another dog immediately after the death. You wouldn't do that for a member of the family. Your wife, your husband dies, you are not going to go out and get married in a week or in a month. So there is a difference. And we have to keep this in perspective, I believe.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: But, Steve, do you have a pet?
MALZBERG: Yes, I have a cat, 10 years.
NEVILLE: That's right, you said 10 years.
FOX: Hello? NEVILLE: Yes, go ahead, Doctor.
MALZBERG: I'm not anti-animal. I'm just trying to be a realist here.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Dr. Fox.
FOX: I'm not quite sure what realistic perspective Steve is offering.
But the bottom line is that, when we have loved an animal, and we miss it, why not use the obituary column? Why not also give a donation in the animal's name to your local humane society to expand your gratitude and appreciation to help all animals?
MALZBERG: Because a lot of senior citizens can't afford to do both if it is $50 for the obituary. And I would rather see them do the former rather than the latter.
NEVILLE: Renya (ph), what do you say to this?
RENYA: Well, from what I understand from the story, the Philadelphia paper isn't running these obituary writings in the traditional obituary section along with people. They are running them in the classifieds.
NEVILLE: That's right.
RENYA: That is much more respectful and, therefore, gives greater credence to the whole issue.
NEVILLE: OK, I have got to take a break now. I have a phone call waiting. I think it's Mary on the line. I'm going to get to you when we come back. After this break, more on this pet obit topic. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back.
We are talking about whether Americans are too fond of their pets. We are going to go to the phone now. And I have Mary in North Carolina standing by -- Mary.
CALLER: Yes, ma'am.
NEVILLE: Go ahead. You're on the air.
CALLER: Well, the first thing I would like to say is, I'm a fur mama.
NEVILLE: You're a what?
CALLER: I'm a fur mama. And a lot of people don't know even what I'm talking about.
NEVILLE: Is that a fur mama, you said?
CALLER: Yes, ma'am. I'm a fur mama.
And what that means to me, anyway, is, for the last 28 years, in my early 20s, I had cancer. I have to have a hysterectomy. I couldn't have children. I would loved to have had a house full of them.
But, over the last 28 years, my husband and I have taken in any animal that was looking a place to come that would not be harmed, whether it was set on fire, it was shot, it was tortured, fed poisons or whatever. We have a small farm here in North Carolina. And we have a reputation. All the vets around here know about us.
And any animal, fur baby, that needs a second chance, we are willing to give to them. And it is amazing to me that I've gotten animals in here that have been considered dangerous by other people. I have never been bitten. Neither has my husband. And we have got everything here. We have horses. We have donkeys that people beat unmercifully with barbed wire, because a man couldn't get to his kids. He took it out on the animals. I have got nine dogs now. I just lost a 23-year-old Siamese last year.
NEVILLE: So, Mary, it sounds you have a menagerie there. You have got a bunch of animals.
But I understand your point. You are saying that, listen, animals are part of the family. They also serve a good purpose, because they help people who are shut-ins, people who cannot have children for medical reasons, etcetera.
And one of our audience members pointed out to me that, after you have lost a loved one, let's say, that people need to put it in perspective that animals aren't that important as people. But yet your point I think was an excellent point as well.
And I am going to let Frank here from Georgia make a comment now.
Frank, what do you say?
FRANK: Well, lots of people know my dog because I walk him a lot. And so I wouldn't go out and tell people that he died. So lots of people would know if he died if it was in the newspaper.
NEVILLE: So you would want to have an obit for your pet?
FRANK: Yes.
NEVILLE: Well, thank you, Frank.
Steve, what do you say?
MALZBERG: I would say that that's a very, very sweet thought and a very sweet and fine intention.
But maybe he would be better served, again, if he made a donation in the name of his dog, and then could tell all the people along that walking route: "Hey, you know, my dog died. But you know what we did? We donated $100 or $50 to the shelter in his name. So, in effect, he lives on." I think that's more beneficial and more useful and certainly more practical than the obituary.
NEVILLE: John, what do you say?
JOHN: Well, I was surprised to hear the guy talk about animals as if they are human beings. I think you can have pets as a great part of the family. But I think there is a major difference between an animal and a human being. And I think a lot of us call it a soul.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: A lot of us call it what?
JOHN: A soul.
NEVILLE: A soul, I see.
FOX: I would like to respond to that, if I may. Hello.
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
FOX: I have written a couple of books dealing with this soul issue.
And, recently, his holiness, the pope -- and this is for the Catholics in the audience -- the pope has said that animals are imbued with the same spirit of life as we are. It was Aristotle who made the difference, saying that only we have immortal souls, and Saint Thomas Aquinas.
From where I sit and from my knowledge of other animals, I would say that they are as ensouled as we are. And many of the animals, in certain ways, are far superior to human beings: in their loyalty, their devotion, their trust, and all of those virtues that we find increasingly lacking in this world in our own species today.
NEVILLE: I think that animals are definitely God's creatures as well.
Chris, from Maryland, what do you have to say?
CALLER: Yes, I do agree with him. But, I mean, my cat died recently. And I was very painful about that. But I have a neighbor down the street, and he lost two dogs. And he went way overboard. He got two hearses for both his dogs. And he got a limo for himself and buried them in a public cemetery. And I think that is very crazy.
NEVILLE: That is over the top.
CALLER: Yes.
NEVILLE: Now, I love my cat, but that is going way too far. He took it to a level that I would not go to. All right, let's take a look at an e-mail right now that just came in. Let's see that e-mail, please. All right, it's on the way, I'm told. There it is.
OK, it is coming in from Canada. And it says: "You can have a dead pet stuffed, but you can't do the same with your aunt, because people aren't animals and they deserve more respect. Obituaries are for people, not animals."
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Wow, we are getting a lot of applause in the audience here.
Steve, what do you say to this?
MALZBERG: I would like to know from the doctor, to help put this a little bit in perspective, is he one of those people who says that we shouldn't do research on animals in labs to further cures for disease that effect newborn babies? Or does he realize that we are the superior beings and we are the race that runs the world, and we have it look out for ourselves, first and foremost?
FOX: Read my latest book and you'll get the answer.
But I would like to raise a question for the audience, too, that, if we think that we are so superior, where are we at so far as cloning pets? We wouldn't clone our aunt, but some people might clone their child. We are close now to people cloning their pets. And you say, well, why give $50 dollars for an obituary and $50 to the Humane Society; people are not going to have that money? But they are going to be paying thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands, to get their pets cloned.
MALZBERG: Not everybody. Cloning your pet is kind of silly. People have the notion that it is the same animal and they are going to raise it again all over.
NEVILLE: And it's not. It's not.
MALZBERG: It is not. It is a different animal.
NEVILLE: You're right, Steve. You're right.
MALZBERG: Exactly. I couldn't disagree less.
NEVILLE: OK, let me jump in now. And I am going to get Tammy from Ontario, Canada to chime in here.
Tammy, you are on the air. Go ahead.
CALLER: Hi, this comment is for Steve.
I would like to know what the harm is in placing an obituary in the paper if that is going to help the person heal and make them feel better, give them a little keepsake. You are saying not to spend the $50 on the obituary, to give it to a shelter. It brings to mind, maybe instead of going out to the bar tonight, I should take the money and give it to the local detox center instead of being silly and spending it on alcohol. Everybody has an opinion on how you should spend your money, but if it makes them feel better, what's the harm?
MALZBERG: You are absolutely right. And what we are debating here, is it ridiculous or not ridiculous? And I think it is going way overboard. And I think it's ridiculous. And it's not a question of people don't have a right. Sure, they have a right to. And if that is what they feel is going to make them feel better, fine.
But I ask them to consider the alternative. Go save another pet's life, another animal's life, or help to save that life, before you throw money away that you may not have a lot on an obituary.
(CROSSTALK)
FOX: Quite candidly, I would like to say that I don't feel that this is ridiculous, that I think some of the discussion here is being very judgmental of how people choose to express their grief and show their gratitude.
NEVILLE: But, of course, this is open for discussion, so this is a place where people actually get to express their opinion. So it is going to come across as judgmental. It is all opinionated.
And, Joey, you get to express your opinion right now.
JOEY: Well, I can respect both sides of both parties. My wife and I slept with a 60-pound English bulldog until my son was born. So we had to put the dog outside, but, granted, she has got a two-bedroom doghouse with electricity and heat.
NEVILLE: Wow. All for your dog? Your dog lives better than my cat.
FOX: How often do you sleep out there?
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Well, listen, Dr. Fox and Steve Malzberg -- am I saying it right, Steve?
MALZBERG: It's Malzberg.
NEVILLE: Malzberg.
Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us.
And up next: Speak up or shut up. It's your last chance to be heard on today's show. And I want to hear from you. We are checking those e-mails right now -- back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. OK, this is your chance to speak up or shut up. Yesterday, we got a lot of e-mails from you regarding the Brooklyn Borough president who wants to put Brooklyn on a diet. And a lot of you responded about the comments from some people in London saying Americans are too fat.
Let's look at those e-mails right now. Bob from South Carolina, "home of great barbecue," he says: "Just what we need: a politician telling us how to eat. A short drive through Brooklyn will crush anyone's appetite."
Oh, you like that, huh, Ed?
OK, let's take a look at our other e-mail right now. There it is, coming in: "Boy, oh, boy, can't wait to hear what the fathead politicians have in store for us now. I know, a new government agency: The Twinkie Police." OK.
And then here is another one from Sarah in New York: "I think people should stop judging Americans. I was listening to the English talk about how fat the Americans are. But those people should stop talking and jump on a treadmill." My, my, my.
OK, and on another note, we have another e-mail for you right now on a different subject -- oh, it's continuing: "If they had any food in Britain that had any flavor, they would be just as chubby as we are." Dan in New Jersey wrote that.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: You guys like that comment, I see.
OK, let's move to another e-mail we had: "Yesterday, Arthel interviewed a health expert who said smoking had declined to 23 percent of the population. Good, she said. She doesn't smoke and she doesn't like to be around people who smoke. What a slap in the face to 23 percent of her audience, including me. Since she doesn't like to be around people like me, I used my remote to usher her out of my living room for good" -- William in Illinois.
Well, since William in Illinois is no longer watching, he won't hear this part. As far as my not liking to be around people who smoke, I don't like being around people while they are smoking. I have a right to be in a smoke-free environment. And, by the way, if William's neighbor is watching -- if William's neighbor is watching, since he isn't, you can tell William that he can actually smoke while he is watching me. It won't bother me at all, OK?
All right, we got a couple of more e-mails. Let's take a look: "I am a Fox News watcher, but since I've seen your first three shows, I reserved the 3:00 p.m. time period for you. One heck of a job. I'm sure O'Reilly is happy for your success. Congratulations" -- Paul in Florida.
Thank you very much, Paul, in Florida. Thank you very much.
All right. I think we have one more e-mail for you. OK, it's from Scott in Texas: "Congrats, CNN. Arthel is the best addition you have made to your revamped lineup. She represents a refreshing mix of intelligence, wit and personality. Now I'm a daily TALKBACK LIVE viewer."
Well, thanks to Scott in Texas. I love all those e-mails and phone calls. And I would love to see you guys in person as well. So, the tickets are free and you get them by just calling 1-800-410-4CNN.
That's it for today. We are out of time. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
