Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Free-for-All Friday
Aired March 08, 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: Yes, it is definitely Friday. Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
It is free-for-all Friday. You know how it works. We're going to toss up some topics and let you and our guests chat about them. It's the end of the week so you need to free your mind. Let it go. Let it go. Give me a buzz at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at CNN, talkback@cnn.com.
Let's take a look at what we have in store today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(voice-over): The government OKs more money for the September 11 victims. So why are some of them still complaining?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got some really nasty e-mails accusing me of being a greedy bastard.
NEVILLE: Also, Charles Barkley unchained. Does this cover offend you?
CHARLES BARKLEY, FORMER PRO BASKETBALL PLAYER: If you don't like it, so be it.
NEVILLE: And golden oldies.
JOE COCKER, MUSICIAN: To be 50 and still rocking is kind of, I think we are all a bit stunned by the fact that we are still going up and doing it every night.
NEVILLE: Is it time for some of these guys to act their age and get off the stage?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(on camera): OK, we are going to begin with one of the strangest stories we have heard this week about a homeless man left to die, trapped in the windshield of a car. But before I get to that, let's meet our guests. Victoria Jones, radio talk show host in Washington; and Philadelphia, Michael Smerconish.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, COLUMNIST: How are you?
NEVILLE: Did I do OK?
SMERCONISH: You did terrific.
NEVILLE: Smerconish.
SMERCONISH: Smerconish.
NEVILLE: OK. He's a trial lawyer and columnist with the "Philadelphia Daily News." Also from Chicago, Eileen Byrne, a talk show host on WLS.
EILEEN BYRNE, WLS RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi.
NEVILLE: Hi. And with me right here in Atlanta, Tavis Smiley, host of "The Tavis Smiley Show" on National Public Radio. He's also a CNN contributor. This man is working hard. He has a book, in doing what's right -- let me get this right, Tavis -- is "Doing What's Right: How to Fight for What you Believe and Make a Difference." And you do that, don't you?
TAVIS SMILEY, HOST, "TAVIS SMILEY SHOW": Try to.
NEVILLE: All right, Tavis. We have to get your mike over there. All right.
OK, back to that story from Ft. Worth, Texas. Police say a 25- year-old nurse's aide, Chante Mallard, hit a homeless man with her car and kept him a virtual prisoner in her garage where he bled to death, trapped in the windshield of her car. Check this out from Jim Douglas of CNN affiliate WFAA.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM DOUGLAS, WFAA CORRESPONDENT: It was last October when a body was found in Cobb Park off Highway 287 in Fort Worth. It didn't make sense. He looked like an accident victim, but there was no accident reported. The death of 37-year-old Gregory Biggs remained a mystery until several days ago, when an informant told police that 25-year-old Chante Mallard not only ran over Biggs, but kept him virtual prisoner, lodged in her windshield.
LT. DAVID BURGESS, FT. WORTH POLICE: And she basically drove to her house, parked the car with him still inside of it, still alive, asking for help in the garage, shut the garage door and she basically goes and checks on him for the next two to three days.
DOUGLAS: According to an affidavit, Mallard herself told police she was scared and crying, that she went back and forth to the garage, telling Biggs she was sorry. She said he just groaned. In her statement, she said she didn't know how long it took Biggs to die because she stopped going to the garage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, oh, yes.
DOUGLAS: Mallard's attorney said it was a matter of hours, not days, and that she did not hear pleas for mercy and ignore them. MIKE HEISKELL, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: Not the animal or monster that the police are portraying her to be, not this cold, inhumane person that we've heard about.
DOUGLAS: But she got friends to help dump Biggs' body. Whether it happened over one day or three days, prosecutors say Mallard's actions add up to murder.
RICHARD ALPERT, TARRANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR: We have information that shows that the person was on their long enough that they lived, suffered and they were not given medical attention, and that it would have made a different if they were.
DOUGLAS: A jury will sort it all out. Lost in all of this is the sad story of Gregory Biggs, a former school bus driver, homeless, mentally ill, dying alone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was such a gentle man. And for such a thing to happen, I just don't understand how anybody could do this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: OK, panel, Chante Mallard's attorney claims his client was frightened and emotionally distraught after the accident and she panicked. Is her attorney delusional? Victoria, let's get to you first.
VICTORIA JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, her attorney is doing his job, but it's absolutely ridiculous. If she went and checked on him, even if he wasn't groaning, the attorney said he wasn't groaning, well, so what. He probably lost about seven pints of blood by that time. It doesn't matter what she says.
She had the presence of mind to go home, have sex with her boyfriend, check on the guy. She figured out how to dispose of the body. She got rid of the car seat from her car. This is one of the most inhumane, disgusting crimes I have come across in a long time. And they are trying to say all she did was not assist at an accident. She is the accident.
NEVILLE: Michael, what do you have to say about all of this?
SMERCONISH: My 13-year-old is caught in that cycle of renting movies "I Know What You Did Last Summer", I know what you did last weekend, Freddy Krueger. This is worse than any of that. And the usual excuses are not going to fly in this case. The usual excuses being, well, she was abused as a kid, she came from a broken home, she's on welfare. You know you are going to hear them all, Arthel, before this is over. But they are not going to fly if this is really the way it went down.
NEVILLE: Tavis, what do you have to say about this?
SMILEY: Well, I'm not sure that Mr. Biggs was the only person who was mentally ill. It may be that we find Miss Mallard was mentally ill. For one to have done this, clearly, one had some mental issues. I think it remains to be seen. I'm not one of those persons who is prepared to pass judgment on the medical capacity of this woman until this case unfolds, we find out what her mental state was, No. 1.
Having said that, if we find out this woman was competent to stand trial or is, I should say, competent to stand trial, that it seems to me that if for nothing else, she ought to be locked up for the rest of her life for stupidity.
NEVILLE: Eileen?
BYRNE: I think this woman should get the death penalty. How in goodness name was she a nurse's aide and this is how she -- would this be how she would treat a patient?
I mean, see, with Tavis already, the excuses are starting, that, oh maybe she's mentally disturbed. It doesn't matter. She went into the garage. She knew the guy needed help. And yet she continued. It's like the movie "Misery." She just kept going in to check up on the guy, but didn't do anything to help him.
SMILEY: It's not a matter...
JONES: And there are other freaky things about this too. How did she drive home with a guy stuck in her windshield? How did she do that?
BYRNE: How did no one even stop her from doing that?
JONES: You see a guy on somebody's hood, don't you do something? This is very weird.
SMILEY: The only point I'm making is it's not a matter, of whoever it was that made that ridiculous comment, it's not a matter of Tavis making excuses. What I'm suggesting is if we still live in a place, I think called America, and one is innocent until presumed -- one is innocent until proven guilty, and all I'm suggesting is we may find out to have done something like this, not unlike Andrea Yates, you have to have some mental issues. And for some one...
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: I'm so sick and tired of all those excuses.
SMILEY: And for someone to suggest that this person ought to be given the death penalty before the case goes to trial is asinine in a place called America.
BYRNE: But you know what? I hate the excuses already, that she must have mental issues.
SMILEY: It's not an excuse. It's not an excuse.
BYRNE: Let's let the courts decide.
SMILEY: I said we might that find out. It's not an excuse.
BYRNE: I'm pretty outraged by somebody who could drive home with a man in her windshield...
SMILEY: As am I.
BYRNE: ... and not give any help to that person.
SMILEY: As am I. All I'm suggesting is she may have mental issues.
NEVILLE: OK, guys. Let me let Lori here weigh in. Lori, what do you have to say about all this?
LORI: Well, I think that if she had mental -- if she was mentally ill, her attorney I'm sure would have already cashed in on that. And so apparently, you know, that's not going to be an argument. And as far as just saying, well, she must have something wrong. Well, yes, people must have something wrong to do something heinous like that, but they do it every day and they go to prison for it. And she should go to prison for it. Call 911, something.
NEVILLE: OK, guys. I have to take a break now. Bob, I know you are standing by on the phone. I'm going to take your call when we come back. We'll talk more about this topic after the break. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to free-for-all Friday. We're talking about that Texas woman who police say left a homeless man to die while trapped inside the windshield of her car. Bob, you are in California standing by. What do you have to say?
BOB: Yes. There's a local talk show host out here in Sacramento, Kid Chris (ph), and he was trying to minimize the whole event because he had some kind of a mangina (ph) infection on his lower limb. Do you know anything about that?
NEVILLE: What are you talking about, Bob?
BOB: The body that was...
SMERCONISH: I think Bob is a crack pot.
JONES: Yes, I think Bob is a crack pot and a loser.
NEVILLE: OK, you know what, we are going to clip his phone call right about now. Let's get back to you guys here in the studio, Tavis and my other guests. Now, Mallard told police she had been drinking and using ecstasy before the accident. Does this help explain her behavior at all?
BYRNE: It makes it worse.
JONES: Well, it makes it more understandable, but it doesn't make it more acceptable for her to do this. I mean, nobody is disputing that the body was on the windshield. Nobody is disputing it was in the garage. All her lawyer is saying it took a few hours to die rather than a few days. I don't know how he thinks that is going to help his client here in terms of trying to figure out what it was that she did. Obviously, alcohol and ecstasy play into it, but I doubt she was high for three days.
NEVILLE: Daniel is standing by here. What do you say, Daniel?
DANIEL: I say that, you know, she is guilty and if she is mentally insane, what is she doing with a license? You know, I guess that's a different topic.
NEVILLE: Tavis, I want to you jump in here now because I know you have sort of been defending the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, which she is, but you're also going on the notion that perhaps she obviously has some mental issues in order to do something like this.
SMILEY: Well, you asked when Daniel asked the question how does one who is mentally insane have a driver's license. How did Ms. Yates, who was clearly mentally disturbed, still have capacity and custody, I should say, of her children? So there are people everyday in this country who have mental issues.
I said very clearly if we find out as this case develops, everybody in this audience, everybody on this panel, is already saying the woman is guilty and that she ought to be given the death penalty.
JONES: I didn't say she should get the death penalty at all.
SMILEY: What I'm suggesting is -- somebody suggested that earlier. I didn't say you said that. I said someone in the audience.
(CROSSTALK)
Might I finish please?
BYRNE: Please go ahead.
SMILEY: I didn't call your name. What I suggested was that somebody here said that she ought to be given the death penalty. I didn't call you by name. What I'm suggesting though is that if the case unfolds and we find out that she had mental issues, that is a different set of circumstances.
BYRNE: I don't think so.
SMILEY: What I said earlier, if we find out that she is competent to stand trial, she ought to be locked up for life for nothing else than stupidity.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Tavis, the country is sick and tired of all the excuses. Mental illness, we're sick of it.
(APPLAUSE)
Abuse, we are sick of it. Divorce, we are sick of it. Who gives a damn? If she had somebody poking through the windshield on the car, frankly, that's all I need to know.
SMILEY: You know what, Michael? I care. And not to change the subject here, I care about people doing stupid things.
BYRNE: You know what? I bet you wouldn't care if it was a member of your family that was up on the windshield. You wouldn't be caring then.
SMILEY: ... just like I care about the White House ignoring what happened on Enron. So, we all care about stupid things in this society as well.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
SMILEY: You know, it's all stupid.
BYRNE: You would not be caring if this was a member of the family on your windshield.
JONES: And the other piece to this is that the guy who is dead was mentally ill. We know that. I think that makes it even more tragic that he was already suffering mentally and he was apparently calling out for help. I don't know what she's guilty of, but we know that the body was in the car, in the garage and then it was dumped. That much we know. She's not disputing that.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's let Dave jump in here. Dave, go ahead. You are on the air.
DAVE: Yes. I heard the story yesterday and I thought that this had happened like within the last 72 hours or something like that. But now that I hear that it happened...
NEVILLE: October.
DAVE: October? This woman is not mentally ill. She had to have enlisted other people to obstruct justice. And I dealt with mentally ill people. They can't complete, they can maybe do one part of the act, but they can't complete the act without the assistance of others and she obviously had to have somebody repair the car.
NEVILLE: She did, in fact, call her friends to come in and help her dump the body nearby.
DAVE: OK. So you have other people who assisted her in obstructing justice. So, she had enough presence of mind to get others to assist her in obstructing this from view, which tells me that this was a very well-laid thought pattern here.
BYRNE: And those people should be charged.
DAVE: Oh, absolutely. They obstructed justice. They are complicit. It should be the felony murder rule, as far as I'm concerned, from what I'm hearing at this point. I don't know. This is -- this lack of humanity is really scaring me.
NEVILLE: Michael, what do you say to that?
SMERCONISH: It scares me as well. I agree with him. And apparently what happened here is that the lady went out on the cocktail circuit and started to talk about some of the details of the case and that led to a break.
NEVILLE: She went to a party.
SMERCONISH: Anyone who helped her in this ought to do as much time as her in my book, that's -- that is death or life imprisonment and there's nothing shy of it that's appropriate.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree.
NEVILLE: Desiree (ph), what do you say?
DESIREE: I think that somebody cannot be on drugs enough to not notice somebody in your windshield. I mean, you drove all the way home, so you know that the person is on your windshield. I mean, come on.
JONES: Look, she went out and checked on the guy. Now, whether he groaned or he didn't groan, I think is irrelevant. She went home, apparently had sex with her boyfriend. And then what did she say? Honey, I have to go and check on the guy who is bleeding out on my windshield. I'll be back in a minute. This is beyond wit. She may be mentally ill. He, we know, was mentally ill. This is some kind of a felony.
SMILEY: I don't think anybody is arguing that there's some kind of a felony here. What I'm suggesting is...
JONES: Her lawyer is.
SMILEY: ... as the conversation continues to unfold, I think we are starting to give credence to the fact now that I raised earlier, that to do something like this, as the young lady in the audience just asked, to have driven home with somebody sticking out of your windshield clearly means you have issues. Either they are drug issues or they are mental issues. And all I'm suggesting is we ought to give chance and give time for this case to unfold in the courtroom.
NEVILLE: So, Tavis, what do you think should happen?
SMILEY: I think it depends on whether, as I say it for the third time now, whether or not we find out she is competent to stand trial, does she have mental issues? She needs to be checked out. This case is not unlike, for me, the Yates case. We need to find out what this woman's mental condition actually is.
(APPLAUSE)
BYRNE: Let's stop making excuses for people. It's ridiculous. NEVILLE: All right. Let's switch gears now. We're going to take a break. And after the break, we are going to find out why last week's cover of "Sports Illustrated" seems to be as sensational as the swimsuit edition. Take a look. Are you offended by this? I want to hear from you when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. Sir Charles is up to it again. We are talking about Charles Barkley. Some say he's outspoken and brash. Some might even call the former MVP, NBA MVP an instigator. Barkley says he's just honest. Nonetheless, Barkley gets people talking. Take a look at him now at him on a recent cover of "Sports Illustrated." The caption reads, "Charles Unchained," and there he is, breaking out of what looks like the same kind of shackles that were used on slaves.
Now, Kenny Smith is Barkley's co-anchor on the Turner sports show "Inside the NBA," and Smith let it be known on the air that he's offended by the cover.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To me, the cover perpetuates racism, a stereotype that you basically went at in the article.
CHARLES BARKLEY, FORMER NBA PLAYER: If you were at a point in our society where a black man, a black man cannot say what he wants to and do what he wants to as long as it's not illegal, we have problems. And that's why I took the photo shoot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And Barkley says it's all about free speech. What do you think about the cover? Does it offend you, Victoria?
JONES: It doesn't offend me. I think Charles Barkley is rather a pathetic little exhibitionist who isn't getting the kind of publicity that he used to get. Maybe he wanted to be in Madonna's nude book and couldn't make it, so he's doing this.
I think in doing this he's spitting on everybody and anybody who has ever genuinely worn chains as a slave or for any other reason. I think this is sad, pathetic and disgusting. He can call it free speech and if they want to put it on the cover, they can. But this is all about Charles. This is not about standing up for black men. It's about standing up for Charles Barkley.
NEVILLE: Eileen, why don't you go ahead and jump in there.
BYRNE: I agree. I think Charles Barkley is self-serving and he's doing this for publicity. And he has his right to free speech. The cover doesn't offend me, but I have free speech enough not to buy it. So I think he is exploiting slavery for his own purposes, and the topic a little bit is almost giving in to giving him more publicity, which I don't think he needs. NEVILLE: Tavis?
SMILEY: Well, I'm just glad before the show ended that Eileen and Victoria and I have found something we can agree on. I think it's reprehensible, quite frankly, that Charles Barkley would do something like this.
But differing with Eileen and Victoria, and perhaps because I'm an African-American, I do, in fact, find this cover absolutely offensive. This cover obviously appropriates slavery, which for African-Americans was absolutely the most painful thing that our ancestors could have endured. Nothing that Charles Barkley has ever endured in his life -- and quite frankly, nothing that Charles Barkley would ever encounter in his life in any way appropriates slavery.
But let me take it a step further. It's not just Charles Barkley who ought to be taken to task for this. "Sports Illustrated" ought to be slapped around for putting this picture on the cover of their magazine. It had absolutely no business, no business and no right -- never mind the issue of free speech -- to put something on a cover like this, featuring Charles Barkley or anyone else that offends so many African-Americans. I wish in this case that Charles had listened to his friends, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Ahmad Rashad (ph), Quinn Buckner (ph) and his wife, who he says in the article all told him not to do it.
NEVILLE: Michael, what do you have to say?
SMERCONISH: I guess I'm in the minority on this situation, because I look at the cover and it's not my call. It's not the way that I would have posed or had someone that I represent pose, but quite frankly I don't think it's a big deal. And I think Charles Barkley is a big guy who is free to do whatever he chooses in this country.
We had him here in Philadelphia playing ball, and to me this is Charles being Charles. But I'm not going to sit around like the PC police and say, "shame on you, Charles Barkley." He's a grown man. He can make decisions for himself. It reminds me of a couple weeks ago sitting here and talking about whether the statue at 911 should have a black or an Asian or a Jew or a white guy. Get over it already. Big deal.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Let me let Tess jump in. Excuse me one second.
JONES: There's something I want to say to that.
NEVILLE: OK. Let me get Tess in here first, though.
TESS: It has never offended me with this cover, although I haven't read the story. Charles I think is planning on running for office somewhere down the line. Maybe he needs this. But I'm not offended, because I have never been offended by chains and slavery. Just shows me what we as black people have been through, where we can go if we want to, and, no, I am not offended by, or will I ever let anyone label black people and keep them in that label to extend their goals in life. No, I'm not offended.
NEVILLE: Let me go ahead and say right here that in addition, inside on the article, if you can stay with me here, Charles says: "Every black kid thinks the only way he can be successful is through athletics. That is a terrible thing." So basically, could the chains represent breaking away from stereotypes?
TESS: And athletics. That would be my take on it. You know, maybe someone else has a deeper, maybe more -- they internalize it more. I don't know. But I don't, not at all. And I don't think -- my son has seen it, and he doesn't at all, because I talked to him about it.
NEVILLE: Victoria, you wanted to jump in? Go ahead.
JONES: I think that Charles is completely exploiting the slavery issue for his own ends. This is not about Charles Barkley trying to explain to kids how they can break free from chains. That's not what it's about, because he doesn't explain that properly. But I do think we have to accept that until the ugly, revolting specter of slavery is once and forever gotten rid of from our country, this has to be disgusting, and to just say "get over it already" is not to me an acceptable response when we are talking about slavery.
SMERCONISH: We have gotten beyond slavery in this country! We have gotten beyond it, Victoria, already.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Michael, there are still repercussions that we are still dealing with. That is a fact. Robert, what do you have to say?
ROBERT: Well, I don't agree we have gotten past slavery. You can look at America, you can look at the economic disbursement of income and you can look at color, and you can see that we have some more issues to deal with. The thing I have a problem with is, I like to see black people being strong. I want to see black people being successful. Why do we have to show Charles Barkley in chains? Why can't we show where he lives? Why can't we hear him speak? Why can't we see some...
NEVILLE: Charles Barkley chose that.
ROBERT: Well, I agree. I think Charles Barkley makes his own decisions, but I look at "Sports Illustrated," that's a large organization. How did that article get through all the many different departments? I heard this argument on the radio. How did that article get through so many different departments and not have enough people speak up and say this is not something we need to put on an article?
SMILEY: There are two answers to that -- there are two answers, number one, because magazines -- because magazines will do anything they can to make money, number one. That's capitalism, number one. And number two, because the truth of the matter is, there are not enough people of color -- let me be specific -- there are not enough African-Americans in decision-making positions at "Sports Illustrated" to stop this kind of nonsense from being on the cover. That's the reason why.
NEVILLE: We have a caller now. Robert, go ahead?
ROBERT: I was just saying that this right here I have a question and a comment too. This is Charles Barkley, and Charles Barkley has always been like this, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), outspoken. So with him being in chains or what it was or whatever, it's Charles Barkley. He always has been outspoken. This cover right here just represents who Charles is. Charles is outspoken, and he won't let nobody chain him up or tie him down. That's Charles Barkley. I respect the article.
NEVILLE: William, what are your thoughts?
WILLIAM: Well, I think that black people are stereotyped in the sports arena. I think what Charles Barkley is trying to say is that we must have some other avenues that we can be looked at. What about the arts and sciences in colleges?
NEVILLE: Right.
And Charles also said -- on his show, he said listen, "I want people to pay attention to what I have to say." So he realizes that the cover is shocking. And it's getting people talking. And he just wants his information to get out there.
What do you guys say to that?
BYRNE: He wants to sell magazines. That's the bottom line. He's exploiting the issue of slavery and using it to just bolster himself, and using people's -- people have very serious feelings about this. He's exploiting it all for his own good. It's all about Sir Charles. He's on the cover.
And the thing is, if it does bother you, don't buy the magazine. Don't play into it.
JONES: And what are people talking about? We are not talking about the article. We are not talking about what he's talking about in the article. We are only talking about the cover. And he's a savvy enough guy that he had to know that. He cannot be so stupid as to think that we would talk about the inside.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: Perhaps it's because you misreading what the cover represents. I think a possible interpretation is that he is saying, you have got to break out of this mold, African-Americans, where only athletics can be viewed as a rise up the economic ladder. I think there's a positive message in what Charles is depicting in that picture.
NEVILLE: That's what Churchall (ph) says he's trying to get across.
But right now, it's time for a break. We're going to go to the news. And then later: The government offers the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks even more money. But some say it's still not enough. How much do taxpayers owe them?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNETH FEINBERG, SPECIAL MASTER, VICTIMS COMPENSATION FUND: Now that the final rule has been announced, I suspect, over the next few weeks, we will see the vast number of families -- at least I hope so -- we will see the vast number of families taking advantage of this program, which will pay them within 120 days, and they will come into the fund.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, that was Kenneth Feinberg talking about the final rules for disbursing the federal compensation fund to the victims of September 11 terrorist attacks.
It breaks down something like this. They will get a quarter- million dollars for pain and suffering. Each surviving spouse and child gets $100,000. And then, depending on age and salary of the deceased, plus the number of dependent children left behind, the victim's families will collect anywhere from $300,000 to more than $4.5 million, the idea being the government is factoring in potential earnings of the victim.
OK, panel, factoring in all of these figures, the average award will be about $1.85 million. That's about $200,000 more than under previous guidelines. Are the awards getting out of hand?
Eileen, let's start with you.
BYRNE: Well, I think, in terms of these awards, I don't think the government should be in the business of giving out money. The taxpayers are not to blame for September 11. Osama bin Laden is. And I would really like for maybe a class action lawsuit to take some of his money. He's got millions of it.
In addition, he makes all this money from the tanzanite trade. Let's get some of that money. Why do the taxpayers have to shell out of our money to pay them? Believe me, I have friends that have lost people. And I feel very sorry for the victims of 9/11. But why are the taxpayers to blame?
JONES: For a very good reason: because Congress passed a law two weeks after September the 11th, as it kowtowed to the airline lobby, which it always does, which bailed out the airlines for $15 billion.
As part of that, they set up this compensation fund, in return for which the survivors and the victims' families cannot sue the airline. This wasn't something set up by the victims. This wasn't something set up by or agreed to by the taxpayers. This was a deal between Congress and the airlines to bail out the airlines. This is not people being greedy.
BYRNE: I don't agree with it.
JONES: Well, that's exactly what happened. You can agree with it or not.
(CROSSTALK)
BYRNE: But, in my opinion, I think that there should be a class action lawsuit against the airlines.
JONES: There already is. There already is against Osama bin Laden.
BYRNE: I know. I have talked to them. And I think that's the way it should proceed.
NEVILLE: OK, Betty, let's get your opinion in here.
BETTY: OK, quite frankly, I think that everybody here can agree that September the 11th was a very tragic accident. And me, personally, I feel like the compensation is there. The government is doing their part. It's the appropriation of the funds. And it more or less goes back to the actual public. Who is being greedy and who is being sincere?
The greedy people are the ones that are compensating most of that money and making the victims actually look bad. And I feel as though, if everybody would do their part as far as making sure that the money is appropriated to the right people, then there would be no question about: Is there money being wasted on the victims of September the 11th incident?
NEVILLE: So you feel like the victims are being victimized once again by having to be subjected to this.
BETTY: Exactly. I honestly do.
And it's one thing to lose a family member. It's one thing to lose both of your parents. And it's another thing to lose maybe your child or anything. And it's another thing to not actually be fully compensated for those losses. So now you have kids that are orphans. And then, on top of that, you have kids without money that can't even take care of themselves. So what happens to them?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Let me let William -- he's over here he's shaking his head.
Stand up, William, and tell me what you are thinking.
WILLIAM: How can we place a monetary value on a human life? That's my only comment. NEVILLE: Go ahead, Michael.
SMERCONISH: If I could get in this, I think that, first of all, what the audience needs to know is that a lawyer in Philadelphia named Jim Beasley filed a lawsuit against Osama bin Laden. It was the first in the country. And it's pending.
What I don't like about Ken Feinberg's proposal is that those individuals who had life insurance are still having that amount of life insurance deducted from the award. In other words, if you had had life insurance, you are being penalized. And I don't think that's fair, because they are not doing the same thing with regard to charitable contributions. And there's no excuse for that disparity.
Why punish the families who were smart enough to have life insurance?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on, guys. I have got Chantile here (ph). I would like to let her jump in here.
CHANTILE: I want to say that there is an issue at hand.
We are not just talking about the people in the World Trade Center. You are talking about people who were on the airlines. And the airline industry somehow has found a way to get out of taking full responsibility for everything that has occurred on September 11. We were all under the impression, those of us who fly frequently, that there are certain safety precautions that are taken into consideration: that you can't bring a knife, that you can't bring a box cutter, that you can't have any kind of weapon on the plane.
And yet, somehow or another, they got past all that. These are the kind of incidents that happen every day. They continue to happen: where somebody has managed to sneak things in. There should have been money set aside to make sure that we were all protected. And I believe that those victims who were on those planes should be the first ones who should be getting money. There is no way you can say that they shouldn't be allowed to be compensated for that, because they were the ones who were probably victimized the most in all of this.
(APPLAUSE)
BYRNE: Get it from the airlines.
NEVILLE: Let's take a look now at an e-mail that just came in. Let's put that up on the screen.
It says: "No one can deny that the World Trade Center disaster was horrendous. But the taxpayers are not at fault and should not foot the bill that will make the survivors instant millionaires." And that is from Karen in Idaho.
Tavis, haven't heard from you on this one. SMILEY: Well, I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong. This is one of those issues that I admit to having some ambivalence on.
I certainly think that those persons who are survivors are due some compensation. The amount, I do not know. I agree with one of the persons in the audience who suggested earlier that it's very difficult to put a price on the life of a loved one. I do think, though, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future when the government is at fault. And I think, in this case, the government was at fault.
The airline industry is at fault in this case. The intelligence reports that our government should have received and should have been on top of, they were lacking. So there are all kinds of folks to blame for this. And I guess this conversation isn't about assessing blame or casting aspersion on any one particular person.
But I do think it sets a dangerous precedent in the future for our government being at fault and being hit equally hard for money when they are found responsible in the future for something else similar to this that may happen.
NEVILLE: So, do you think, Tavis, that the government is setting a dangerous precedent here by compensating so heavily, and maybe other victims of other tragedies may come forth and say, "Hey, listen, we need money, too"?
SMILEY: This isn't -- let's face it -- this isn't the last tragedy that this country is ever going to endure. We all pray that we will never witness the kind of diabolical attacks that we witnessed on September the 11th, with planes crashing into buildings.
But, sooner or later, even if it's just a national disaster, sooner or later, there is going to be another tragedy visited upon this country. And any time people point the finger at the government -- certainly, not for a natural disaster -- but any time the finger is pointed at government and people start asking for money, they point back to September the 11th.
So, at the very least, it sets a dangerous precedent. And, again, I admit to some ambivalence about this. I think they are due something; $1.8 million, I'm not so sure. And that's on top of many moneys that these folks have already received.
NEVILLE: That's correct. That's correct.
SMILEY: So, I don't know. It's a lot of money.
NEVILLE: All right, Tavis, you get the last word on that one.
It is time for to us move on right now. And, apparently, that's the message "Entertainment Weekly" is sending the Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Allman Brothers. "Move on," they are saying. Do you think these guys are too old to rock? Hmm. Send me an e-mail or call me and tell me what you think. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Go, Daddy. Go, Daddy. You were just listening to the Neville Brothers. Yes, I'm related. Aaron, Charles, Cyril, they are my uncles. And my dad, you just heard him singing, Art Neville.
Now, the reason for mentioning that is this. "Entertainment Weekly" has a list of entertainers it says should hang it up, throw in the towel. "EW" say artists like the Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd and The Who are just too old to rock 'n' roll.
Well, guess what? You already know that I am biased. I say rock 'till you drop, because, you know what? If all these veterans were to quit, it would be a sad, sad day in the world of music.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: And, Tavis, I'm going to start with you. What do you think about all this?
SMILEY: I'm the wrong person to start with, because now I'm going to to -- after bashing Charles Barkley earlier, I'm going to be irreverent like Charles Barkley, and might I say: Who cares?
NEVILLE: OK, come on. Play along. Lighten up. Play along, Tavis.
SMILEY: I don't think anybody cares. I agree with you, though. I think these persons ought to rock until they drop, if that's what they want to do. But I think for "Entertainment Weekly" to do a whole magazine cover about whether or not these folks ought to rock until they drop is ridiculous. It's a waste of press.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Lighten up, Tavis.
SMILEY: If that's what they want to do, let them rock.
NEVILLE: Lighten up.
Michael, go ahead.
SMILEY: I could care less, personally.
SMERCONISH: I would read this magazine a lot sooner than I would read "Sports Illustrated."
And I have a bias myself. In the last year, I have seen Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, The Who, Peter Frampton, The Guess Who, Joe Cocker. And, tonight, I'm going to see Al Stewart in Philadelphia, who sang "Year of the Cat" when I was in high school. I love all these guys.
NEVILLE: That's right.
Alexis, what do you think?
ALEXIS: Well, I think, as long as they have something good to say and, you know, as long as the music is good and it's got a good message and it makes you feel good, they have the right. They have been around longer than most of us have been alive. So, you know, they deserve the magazine.
NEVILLE: How old are you, Alexis?
ALEXIS: I'm 13.
NEVILLE: Thirteen. And you don't mind listening to music from the old school, as they say.
ALEXIS: I like it. I mean, it's good. And it makes you feel good. And, as long as they have something good to say that we all can agree with and that makes us feel good, they have a right.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
ALEXIS: They have been around so long.
NEVILLE: Stand up for me here. I'm going to come here and reach over behind you. So keep your face here. And I'm going to bring you the mike in and get your opinion here, Philip. What do you have to say?
PHILIP: I think that all the old bands, I enjoy listening to all the oldies. I think, if they are going to rock on, have at it.
NEVILLE: That's right, because a lot of the new music is -- they sample a lot of the music from the old-schoolers. And I'm not saying they are old, OK? Let's just get that straight. I don't want my daddy getting mad at me.
OK, let's take look now at the poll from "EW." Let's pop it up on the screen. OK, it says that old-time rock 'n,' roll, hang it up. They are talking about the Rolling Stones, The Who, the Allman Brothers, Lynyrd Skynyrd. And the ones, they say, that should hang in there: Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Santana, Motorhead.
Eileen, what are your thoughts in all this?
BYRNE: I think the audience is ultimately going to decide, because it takes a lot of money to put on a concert. And if people want to spend the money to go and see it, they will.
I think there is a difference, though, between -- Paul McCartney is coming here in Chicago on April 10, and I'm dying to see him. But then you have got to compare Paul McCartney maybe with Mick Jagger, who is, like, he's on the stage and he's trying to act -- he's old and he's acting like he's 25. So I think there is a difference between these. Some of these guys have to grow up and act their age.
NEVILLE: But wait a minute. What does that mean? Are you telling me somebody 60 or older, or 50 or older, that they can't dance and rock 'n' roll? Are you saying that?
BYRNE: No, I think they can.
(CROSSTALK)
BYRNE: With my own parents, when they try to act like young and hip, or if my mother is going to wear a leather mini-skirt, it's like, "Mom, you had your day." That's what this is about.
NEVILLE: Tell her don't wear the leather mini-skirt.
Phoebe, what do you have to say?
PHOEBE: As someone who just turned 50, I feel inspired to see people my age on TV, on the stage. People like Santana, it inspire me.
NEVILLE: And you look great, by the way.
PHOEBE: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
So, Michael, what do you have say about all of this? You are with me on this, right?
SMERCONISH: Oh, man, I am so in with you, you have no idea. I have seen all the bands that you put on the screen. I want them all to stay in business. And I would go see them all tomorrow if I had the chance.
NEVILLE: Victoria.
JONES: My 15-year-old nephew has already been to see Motorhead. I think this is about what people want to see, what people will pay money to go and see. If they can rock, they should rock. And, also, I think there is some ageism going on at "EW." Maybe there's some 20- somethings who didn't have anything else to write about.
And I think some people are embarrassed about seeing older people having a good time. Why should Mick Jagger grow up? He gets girls in their 20s. Why should he grow up?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Steph (ph) is here.
And, Steph, go ahead. You're going to get the last word this time.
STEPH: Well, I'm still growing up. My parents still have all their CDs. And, frankly,, me and my sister always take their CDs because we love listening to them. And I think they set the stage for the rock bands. And they should still go.
NEVILLE: All right, thank you very much. Rock on. Rock on. All right, my thanks to Tavis Smiley, Michael Smerconish, Victoria Jones, and Eileen Byrne, for joining us here on "Free-For-All Friday."
Up next: "Speak Up or Shut Up." I'm checking those e-mails, so, if you don't forget, include your phone number if you want, because, you know what? I told you already I might give you a call back. I might just do that -- back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. I'm Arthel Neville.
It's time for part of the show where you get to "Speak Up or Shut Up."
David Brenner was here yesterday complaining about airport security. And a couple of you wrote in regarding that subject. Let's take a look at your e-mails. David, Windsor, New York says: "Criticism is easy, Brenner. Let's hear your solutions."
And the next one says: "There are no Swedish or Swiss terrorists. Searching little old ladies and talking nail-clippers away from them is lunacy. That is the reality of what the idiots working airport security are doing now," Daniel in California says.
And we are going to switch topics now, too, because we also discussed that whole "Letterman" vs. "Nightline" thing. And this is how you guys weighed in on that subject.
Paul in Detroit: "If Koppel goes, I will boycott anything that ABC does. Remember, there are many more news programs to watch than ABC, and good ones at that."
And here we go, one more: "ABC is crazy. The money is in the hands of people over 35. Keep Ted and advertise to the appropriate age group" -- because they were saying that maybe Ted Koppel's audience was too old.
OK, a lot of you also weighed in on my hair. A couple of days ago, I had a little fancy hairdo. And some you complained that they didn't like it. But then some other people came back and said this: "Arthel, oh, dear Arthel, you are quite a lovely bell. I don't know why anyone dare pick on your lovely hair."
Thank you, Rich, in Simi Valley, California.
All right, well, that is it for today. I'm Arthel Neville. So glad you could join me today on TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday." Have a great, great weekend. I'll be back here Monday at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific. I would love to hear from you guys. I would love to have you guys in the audience.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
