Skip to main content
CNN.com /TRANSCRIPTS

CNN TV
EDITIONS





CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN

State Dept. Tells Americans to Leave Pakistan; Bush Believes Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Aired March 22, 2002 - 22:00   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.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.

OK, so about last night. The senior staff of this program, the three of us who kid ourselves into thinking we actually run it, were off in Washington for a nice cozy and intimate dinner for 2,000. And just as an aside, if you're planning a dinner for 2,000 at your home, do not try and do the fish. It does not really work that well.

This was the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner, one of those events where everybody gets really dressed up and pretends to like each other. The president usually comes, but he wasn't there last night. And the vice president took a pass too. But there were a lot of members of Congress and cabinet members, most of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were there. Of course, a lot of TV people were there.

So there was an extraordinary collection of ego in one room.

Now, I know you're wondering, what did we all wear? Let me tell you that David, our executive producer, looks great in a tux. But I got to tell you, he wears this really goofy little tie thing that looks like it's a souvenir from a Wyatt Earp museum. And Jennifer Bloch (ph), who's the only member of our staff you'd actually trust with the keys to your house, looked, as she always does, great.

I, however, looked like the wine steward at Denny's, and that was after the food manager came to my room to tie my bow tie. I wish more than anything I was making that up.

Anyway, after that wonderful piece of fish, or recipe that was passed down from the fine kitchens of Trans-World Airlines, I'm sure, Al Franken did some very funny stuff, which we actually wanted to use on the program tonight. It's Friday, we do things like that.

But incredibly, someone forgot to record the speech. So instead, beyond the usual news of the day and interesting guests, we have some of the most annoying music ever made by people who have been up for or won Academy Awards. It is our little tribute to the Oscars on this Friday.

But first things first, of course. Our whip around the world, the correspondents covering it. We begin in the Middle East, as we have been for a while, it seems. CNN's Mike Hanna is in Jerusalem. Mike, a headline from you.

MIKE HANNA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, another round of security talks produces no results, but against a background of ongoing violence, Israeli and Palestinian security chiefs agree to meet again on Sunday -- Aaron.

BROWN: Mike, thank you.

President Bush halfway through a swing into Latin America, tonight in Mexico at a conference on world poverty, so is CNN White House correspondent Major Garrett. So Major, a quick headline from you tonight.

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Aaron.

President Bush came to Monterrey to talk about an exciting new way to try to alleviate world poverty. But two dictators, Cuba's Fidel Castro and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, found a way to at least partially overshadow that agenda -- Aaron.

BROWN: Merit, thank you. Major, thank you. Back to you shortly.

New threats in Pakistan, new orders for Americans living there.

CNN's Andrea Koppel is at the State Department tonight. Andrea, a headline.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, that's right. Chances are right now there are a lot of Americans in Pakistan who are busy packing right now or looking for flights out of the country. That's because in a highly unusual move today, the State Department ordered all nonessential diplomatic staff and their families to get out of the country, saying it's just not safe any more for Americans to live in Pakistan.

BROWN: Andrea, back to you shortly as well.

And finally, in the whip tonight, a strange legal twist in the church sex abuse story, suing Catholic bishops with a law originally designed to attack the Mob.

CNN's David Mattingly has been working on that today, so David, the headline from you.

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Aaron.

What do sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church have in common with organized crime? Well, a lawsuit filed today tries to make a link with the RICO laws. We'll explain when we come back.

BROWN: Thank you, David. Thank all of you. Back with you shortly.

Also coming up tonight, there's a question left hanging in the balance where campaign finance is concerned. Does limiting political donations amount to limiting political speech? We'll talk with it with First Amendment -- talk about it with First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, coming up shortly.

Columnist Stanley Bing has written a book about managing the boss. I love this. He calls him or her "the elephant," and yes, trust me, sucking up does work, sometimes. Mr. Bing joins us as well.

We have another wonderful piece in our series on young entrepreneurs on the rise. Tonight, a woman who built a fashion empire out of two turntables and a sewing machine.

So that's where we're headed on this Friday night.

And we begin in the Middle East. A day in the peace process there added up to one botched suicide bombing, one shooting, and five hours at the negotiating table. Strange as it may seem, when you think of all of that, it was not a bad day, all things considered, but that does set the bar pretty low, and no one expects the situation to improve any time quickly. You could see that today in the faces at the negotiating table. It's been a long week, a long month, a long 18 months in the Middle East.

We go back to CNN's Mike Hanna in Jerusalem.

Mike, good evening.

HANNA: Good evening, Aaron.

Well, Palestinian and Israeli security chiefs sat down again under the mediation of special U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni. Their meeting lasted some three hours, but still no result. Their intention, to get a cease-fire in place on the ground, or rather, to agree how such a cease-fire should be implemented.

Despite the fact that there was no result, the security chiefs have agreed to meet again on Sunday.

Now, this meeting took place despite a massive terror attack in Jerusalem Thursday, and the man who carried out that attack, a Palestinian policeman, had been released from a Palestinian prison at the beginning of the month.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): A sadly familiar scene, the aftermath of yet another bomb attack in Jerusalem. Killed here, three Israelis, dozen wounded. Also dead on the scene, the man who strapped explosives to his body, packing in nails and steel nuts to cause the maximum amount of injury.

His name, Mohammed Ashaika (ph), a 22-year-old Palestinian policeman.

Among members of his family in the West Bank village of Klusa, no sympathy expressed for those killed and wounded. "I'm proud of my son," says his father, flanked by members of the Al Aqsa Brigades, of which Ashaika was a member. The brigades an armed offshoot of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement.

"We are willing to give more martyrs in order to defeat injustice and oppression," says an Al Aqsa man.

"Don't cry, don't cry," another tells the family.

"I was expecting that he would become a martyr," says Ashaika's mother, and the statement no surprise.

For even as the wounded were being treated after the bomb blast in Jerusalem, details were emerging that Ashaika had long planned a terror attack.

These pictures of him planning his suicide mission were taken in February. Shortly afterwards, Palestinian security forces, having heard of his intention, arrested him. Israeli security officials say they were informed of Ashaika's arrest and agreed that he be transferred to a prison in the West Bank city of Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority said he would be more secure.

But during the massive military offensive by Israeli forces in Ramallah earlier this month, Ashaika was allowed to go free. This fact confirmed by Palestinian security sources, who contend that he was not safe in the prison during the Israeli siege.

Once again at liberty, Ashaika evaded the Israeli forces and began planning another attack.

With the result, more Israeli deaths, more Israeli injured, more evidence, says Israel, that the Palestinian Authority must bear direct responsibility for acts of terror. Palestinians say, in this case an attack Israel helped bring upon itself.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

The Palestinian view that it's the Israeli occupation that is a direct cause of the violence, that until Israeli soldiers withdraw from Palestinian towns and villages, the conflict will continue. Israel's maintained that it's prepared to negotiate such a withdrawal, negotiate an end to the occupation, but it will not do so while terrorism continues -- Aaron.

BROWN: ... know anything about this, I guess, botched suicide attempt as good a phrase as any, that happened on Friday?

HANNA: Well, a botched suicide attempt indeed, if one could use that phrase. A man attempting to cross through an army checkpoint, an Israeli army checkpoint in the West Bank, was stopped by Israeli soldiers at that checkpoint who searched him. He then detonated an explosive device attached to his body, killing only himself, wounding a couple of soldiers who were standing by, only lightly wounding those soldiers.

The Israeli Defense Force believes that the man was on his way to carry out a terror attack in some Israeli town or city, Aaron.

BROWN: Mike, thank you. Mike Hanna in Jerusalem.

And again, the talks, the cease-fire talks, are -- will begin again on Sunday there. Thank you.

Now the president's trip to Latin America. He's in Monterrey, Mexico. There's a U.N. conference on global poverty there, the president telling world leaders that although money won't alone solve the problems of poverty, more money is in fact on the way.

President spoke to the media a short time ago as well. CNN's Major Garrett is covering the president.

Major, good evening.

GARRETT: Good evening, Aaron.

White House officials say President Bush came here to Monterrey to shake up what they regard as a very stale debate on how to alleviate poverty across the world. That is a debate where a lot of rich and developed countries pat themselves on the back for how much money they spend and never really pay much attention to what happens to that money or if it actually changes life on the ground.

President said those days are over, as long -- as far as he's concerned, bringing down here to Monterrey $10 billion in new U.S. aid, available only to countries that reform their governments, that is, get rid of corruption, open their markets to free trade, and deal specifically with issues like health and education.

But as the president talked about that agenda, a couple of dictators sort of interfered a little bit in the dialogue. One, Fidel Castro of Cuba. He left here, we are told, slightly ahead of schedule, at least a full day before the conference ended, and some of his officials hinted darkly that Mexican officials buckled to U.S. pressure and excluded him from some events.

That's a contention that Mexican and U.S. officials describe as beyond ludicrous.

Then there's that other dictator, Saddam Hussein of Iraq. At his press conference here just a few hours ago with Mexican President Vicente Fox, President Bush said that he believes Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and called it a nightmare scenario if any terrorist group were to link up with him or anyone else who possesses weapons of mass destruction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A nightmare scenario, of course, would be if a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda were to link up with a barbaric regime such as Iraq and thereby, in essence, possess weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow that to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GARRETT: Aaron, the president said there are no plans for imminent U.S. military action against Iraq. He said the United States will consult, deliberately -- deliberate, rather, with its allies in the coalition. But he made it very clear, Aaron, the president said, we'll deal with Saddam Hussein, and he knows it.

BROWN: Major, any feel for how the media in Mexico and south sees the president's saber-rattling on Iraq or other parts of the world?

GARRETT: Well, they're concerned about it, of course, but probably not as much as European allies or those moderate Arab states in the Middle East. They're watching the situation, but they also have concerns of their own.

The president will fly tomorrow from here in Monterrey to Lima, Peru, where leaders of Andean nations will be very interested to hear what the president has to say about drug interdiction efforts there, and also U.S. efforts to assist the democratically elected government in Colombia deal with its Marxist insurgency.

It's engaged in a very brutal, very debilitating civil war there. The president just today asked Congress for another $25 or $26 million to assist the Colombian government in that effort, both dealing with narcotic trafficking and the insurgents, the Marxist insurgents, in that country.

President will also make a direct appeal in the Andean region for free trade. All those issues are on the minds of Latin American leaders and Andean leaders, because they believe since the terrorist attacks of September 11, their agenda has slipped off the president's agenda a little bit, and they'd like to get it back up a little bit higher. But they know the president is dealing not only with Iraq but the overall global war on terror, and they're just going to have to take the place that the president gives them -- Aaron.

BROWN: Major, thank you. Major Garrett, traveling with the president in Mexico tonight. Thank you.

From the moment the president of Pakistan sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, there have been lots of concerns about what repercussions there might be. The Danny Pearl kidnapping and murder, last Sunday's church bombing in Pakistan, and today a warning that life in Pakistan has become so risky for Americans, they should get out of the country.

Today all nonessential diplomatic staff sent home.

Here again, CNN's Andrea Koppel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KOPPEL (voice-over): Immediately following Sunday's grenade attack that killed five people, including an American employee of the embassy and her teenage daughter, the U.S. encouraged its diplomats in Pakistan to send their families home.

But then, following a series of credible threats against Americans, the option became an order.

PHILIP REKER, DEPUTY STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We believe that the war against terrorism in Pakistan is far from over, and that we will be able to carry it on with greater focus if our dependents are not present at U.S. facilities.

KOPPEL: The U.S. also extended its words of caution to other Americans still in Pakistan.

REKER: They should maintain a strong security posture, be aware of their surroundings, avoid crowds and demonstrations, keep a low profile.

KOPPEL: The ordered departure came on the same day 11 suspects, including suspected mastermind Ahmed Omar Sayeed Sheikh, were charged with the recent kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl, a coincidence, officials say. But what they do not dispute is that Pearl's brutal murder last month and Sunday's cold-blooded attack are chilling examples of a new campaign by Islamic extremists to target American citizens in Pakistan.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And while evacuating Americans from Pakistan isn't exactly a vote of confidence for Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, the State Department says that Secretary Powell called President Musharraf today, Aaron, to try to smooth things over and to tell him that the U.S. and Pakistan are on the same side.

BROWN: Andrea, how many Americans are we talking about again?

KOPPEL: They will not go into specifics for security reasons, but presumably there are hundreds there. There are more than were there before September 11 because they've had to reassign some temporary duty officials to go there to help out with the war in Afghanistan.

BROWN: Andrea, thank you. Andrea Koppel at the State Department.

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, we'll find out the details of a lawsuit that is using the RICO law, a law designed to battle organized crime, against the Catholic Church for its handling of sexual abuse claims.

That's coming up as NEWSNIGHT continues on a Friday from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A couple of developments in the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church to report tonight. A bishop in Brooklyn, New York, apologized today for his role in things when he was the chancellor in the Boston archdiocese. Thomas Daley (ph) was talking about his handling of accusations against Father John Geoghan. Bishop Daley doesn't mention Geoghan by name, but says in hindsight he profoundly regrets certain decisions he made.

Today's other development is quite a turn in the story, a civil lawsuit filed against three dioceses and a former bishop accusing the defendants of violating the federal racketeering laws. That's the RICO statute.

Once again tonight, CNN's David Mattingly.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PATRICK NOAKER, PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: This morning we filed in the Marion County Circuit Court a lawsuit alleging, and we believe it stands for the problem that we're here today, regarding secrets, obstruction of justice, and concealment of child sexual abuse.

MATTINGLY (voice-over): The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the RICO act, it's called, originally created to fight organized crime. Now to be used in a new sweeping sexual abuse lawsuit against bishops and dioceses of the Catholic Church.

JEFF ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: It is to expose a conspiracy at the highest level of the Catholic Church in America, and that is the level of the bishops. Also not named as defendants but as co- conspirators are every single bishop who presides every single diocese in the U.S. of A.

MATTINGLY: The three dioceses named in the suit tell CNN they haven't seen the suit and cannot comment on its merits. The suit stems from charges of sexual abuse against former bishop Anthony O'Connell, the highest-ranking church official to resign in the church sex abuse scandal that began in Boston.

This suit by an unidentified 47-year-old Minnesota man who claims he was sexually abused by O'Connell at the age of 15 while attending seminary in Missouri.

At news conferences in Missouri and Minnesota, people claiming to be victims of sexual abuse by other priests lend their support to the RICO suit, calling for an end to church secrecy.

DALE SCHEFFLER, PRIEST ABUSE VICTIM: You don't know the pain it puts on you until you have it happen to you or someone you love. If a neighbor molested your child, they'd go to jail. Why is it different here? Why are they above the law? We have to obey the law. When are they going to obey the law?

MATTINGLY: But RICO cases filed in similar suits in the past have been unsuccessful. In 1995, a RICO charge was dismissed from a suit against the Camden diocese in New Jersey,and in 1998, a RICO charge was dropped in a suit against the Dallas diocese in Texas that eventually led to a $30 million settlement.

(END VIDEOTAPE) What the unnamed plaintiff in this new RICO case is seeking is fair and reasonable damages. What dollar figure that translates to isn't spelled out. But clearly the case specifically attacks the leadership of Catholic churches in the U.S. and broadly calls into question their handling of sexual abuse cases -- Aaron.

BROWN: David, I'm about to embarrass myself, I think. The person that we hear in the piece who talks about the pain and all of that, he is not the defendant in this? Or the plaintiff in this? I'm sorry.

MATTINGLY: That's correct, he -- he is just one person lending his support to the lawsuit. The attorneys in this case calling on people who claim to have been victims of sexual abuse by priests in the past in other cases, calling on them for their public support today as they file this lawsuit.

BROWN: And just to button this up, this allegation of a conspiracy, which is the heart of what a RICO charge is, is being brought by a single defendant, is it -- plaintiff? Again, I'm sorry.

MATTINGLY: That's correct. This relates to one single case, one single plaintiff and his sexual abuse case against the bishop.

BROWN: And do we know how long ago -- we know that the person was around 15. Do we know how long ago that was?

MATTINGLY: This was back in the 1980s, when he was a student at seminary.

BROWN: OK.

MATTINGLY: And the bishop in question was his teacher and principal.

BROWN: David, thank you very much. Trying to work through this stuff as carefully as I can. Thank you. David Mattingly tonight.

A quick note on this. Monday, Connie Chung will be sitting here, and she'll spend a considerable amount of the program talking with a victim of priest sexual abuse. We'll hear his story, talk with his parents as well. That's part of the program on Monday.

Been a while since we've talked much about the Enron scandal, other things having moved to center stage, I guess. Enron's accounting firm, the Andersen company, has been taking most of the heat both in the press and from the courts lately.

And it seems to be shrinking day by day. Many of the company's global branches seem to be jumping ship. They're looking to merge with some competitors. And at home, clients seem to be defecting in alarming numbers, at least if you're Andersen.

And then there is this matter of a federal indictment. In the world of corporate crisis management, this one's a job for Superman, and today Andersen's Superman, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, came forward with a rescue plan.

Here's CNN's financial correspondent Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Volcker's plan is to sweep out Andersen's U.S. management and put his oversight board in power to change the firm.

PAUL VOLCKER, FORMER CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD: We feel strongly enough so that we're willing to take control of the firm if some very serious conditions are met, and will certainly involve changes in leadership.

CHERNOFF: Volcker is hoping his prestige can save Andersen. But his proposal is contingent on conditions that may be impossible to meet. A capping of Andersen's liability in class action lawsuits, a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, dismissal or suspension of the Justice Department's suit, and support of most Andersen partners.

Partner James Patterson says he wants the firm saved.

JAMES PATTERSON, NATIONAL PARTNER, ANDERSEN: As our chairman indicated at the outset of this process, the firm would be supportive of recommendations from the Volcker commission.

CHERNOFF: In a statement, Andersen said, "This is a positive and constructive proposal that works to resolve the difficult issues with the SEC, the Department of Justice, and other claimants."

Volcker and Andersen are fighting the clock. Defections from Andersen are accelerating. On Friday alone, the firm lost clients Hartford Financial Services, Occidental Petroleum, Apache Corporation, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, ChoicePoint, as well as Waste Management, the firm whose cooked books Andersen had approved several years ago.

And the list of Andersen partnership defections is growing, New Zealand partners saying they'll join with Ernst and Young following similar defections in Russia, Hong Kong, and China.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

At the beginning of the week, Andersen Worldwide said its non- U.S. partners were planning to join another firm, KPMG. But as the company's problems mount here in the U.S., the attitude at Andersen offices around the globe appears to be, every man for himself -- Aaron.

BROWN: And it sounds like if we wait another week, we could buy Andersen with pocket change.

This proposal today -- maybe this is unfair, but it sounds like an act almost of desperation. CHERNOFF: No question about it. Mr. Volcker realizes that Andersen is going down very rapidly, and David Borman, your executive producer, called it a Hail Mary pass. He's throwing it, he's trying to catch it too.

BROWN: Yes, we generally don't believe much of what David says. Kind of like Enron and Andersen, as it turns out.

Look, every -- everyone who owns stock in America, they get a proxy every year, I guess. And one of the things you never pay attention to, honestly, is the selection of auditors. Is that what's driving these companies to dump Andersen? They don't want to go to their shareholders and say, Oh, no, we're cool with them?

CHERNOFF: They certainly don't want any black marks, because accounting issues, that's probably been the biggest black mark of the past year, and companies want to steer clear of that to protect their stock price.

BROWN: Allan, thanks. Thanks for coming in.

The Andersen -- it's an interesting twist in the Enron story (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to me. Thank you.

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT for Friday, how to handle the 800-pound gorilla known as your boss. Here's a hint -- think elephant, not gorilla. And then up next, someone who thinks campaign finance reform is a bad idea, in fact, an unconstitutional idea.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: This week, after seven years, the Senate passed a campaign financing bill. The idea, of course, to make the system less corrupt, or not corrupt, by eliminating some of the money that's donated to candidates and parties.

But the bill, in fact, does more than that. And one of the arguments being made by opponents -- and it's not an argument easily dismissed -- is that certain provisions of the law may turn out to be unconstitutional because, in fact, they limit speech, political speech.

Opponents have assembled an extraordinary group of lawyers, conservative and liberal, including Ken Starr and our next guest, the highly respected First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who we're delighted to have back with us.

Nice to see you, sir.

FLOYD ABRAMS, ATTORNEY: Good to see you.

BROWN: All right, we need to kind of walk through this a little bit. There's a provision in the law that says 30 days or 60 days, depending on whether it's a primary or general election, soft money can't be used. Right?

ABRAMS: Right. And 30 to 60 days because soft money can't be used if groups like the NRA or the Sierra Club or the ACLU puts on an issue ad, but which has the picture of a candidate for president or vice president or Senate or whatever, that's a crime.

BROWN: All right, these are the sort of ads that go call senator so and so and tell him to stop being a thief. Or whatever.

ABRAMS: Or tell them to vote against something. Whatever it is.

BROWN: OK, those sorts of ads.

ABRAMS: Right, those sorts of ads, some of which come very close to saying, you know, we really think you shouldn't elect this guy. Some of them farther away. And what this bill does is really to put everyone that puts out an ad like that in this most important time period, this is not the least.

BROWN: Right.

ABRAMS: This is the most important time period that shuts them up. And that's why it's a problem.

BROWN: All right. Now what the law does, I believe, is it says you can't use soft money to do that. There's nothing that says you can't use small donation hard money to do that, right?

ABRAMS: Yes. You can't -- an organization can't use any money, except that it's counted against the candidate. And it's counted as if you're spending like the $2,000 a person. There's a limit to how much anyone can spend, right?

But at the same time that there's that limit, anyone is allowed to say anything he wants in unlimited speech for unlimited amount of money about issues. And the problem here, and it's not an easy problem, the problem is if the government can't get involved in saying stop that speech about issues.

BROWN: Right.

ABRAMS: How much can it get involved on the eve of an election, when you're saying I really care about this issue. You know. President Bush, please leave the article alone. Are you allowed to say that or not?

BROWN: But the court, well -- man, let me tell you how nervous I am to argue these sort of points with you, sir. But the courts have said, I believe, we will not control -- you can not control what people say. That's unacceptable limitation on political speech. But you can, the Congress can, limit what people can spend. Why is this not simply a limitation on what people can spend?

ABRAMS: Because spending allows you to say it. If you can't take...

BROWN: But the court knew that in 1976.

ABRAMS: Right. And in 1976 in this area in particular, they gave a lot more protection, a lot more First Amendment protection than the Congress has just recognized. What the court said then was only if you say in the ad vote for somebody, or elect somebody, or throw the bum out.

BROWN: Right.

ABRAMS: Are we going to count that as an election ad. And short of that, the Supreme Court said, even though we understand that ads have two purposes, one about the issue, the other about the election, we're going to treat it as an issue ad. A position, because if we don't, we have big time First Amendment problems.

BROWN: One of the things that you argue, and I do find this part quite persuasive, is that look, the answer to this is that people simply need to know who gives the money.

ABRAMS: Yes.

BROWN: OK. But what one of the things that happens, Mr. Abrams, is the money is donated by the National Association for Really Clean Air, which turns out to be in fact the National Association for Industrial Polluters. You don't know.

ABRAMS: No. And you may not know. And maybe we need to clean that up more with more disclosures. And maybe we need to have more bribery prosecutions. I mean, if we think Congress is bought, I don't, but if people really think it's bought, we ought to have some indictments.

What we're doing here, in my view, is cracking down on speech in the guise of cracking down on money because we know you can't get on television without paying for it.

BROWN: Yeah, I hear that.

ABRAMS: So we hear.

BROWN: Yeah.

ABRAMS: And that's one of the big problems here.

BROWN: In five seconds, I asked you outside if you thought this was a slam dunk either way. What'd you say?

ABRAMS: I don't think it's a slam dunk. This is a tough case for both sides. Supreme Court hasn't visited this area for a quarter of a century. And I think they're going to do it.

BROWN: Nice to see you again. Thanks for coming in.

ABRAMS: Good to see you.

BROWN: Argue the law with you. What am I, nuts here tonight? As NEWSNIGHT continues, a really big Oscar segment which involves really bad music, rest assured. The accordian guy is not here tonight. But up next, how the tame the rampaging beast known as your boss. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK, we've all had that boss, the one that we really don't how to deal with. I just want to say this in all honesty, that no one on the NEWSNIGHT staff has any trouble with any of their bosses. The little people, as we like to think of them, love us and respect us so very, very much. Now others aren't as lucky as the people in the NEWSNIGHT staff. And for them, and perhaps that means you, there's now help in dealing with that egomaniacal, pig headed, espresso drinking, smirking person you report to. Hey, who wrote this page. The book is called "Throwing the Elephant Zen and the Art of Managing Up." It's by Stanley Bing. Mr. Bing is here tonight.

It's nice to see you.

STANLEY BING, AUTHOR, "THROWING THE ELEPHANT": Nice to see you too, Aaron.

BROWN: Why elephant?

BING: The elephant is a big, you know, heavy, immovable object that sits in the corner office. It's a nice animal though. You don't necessarily have a negative reaction to an elephant the way you would to a gorilla or a snake. And it's -- but it still has enormous needs.

It needs to be fede, watered, and obviously cleaned up after occasionally. So it's a helpful metaphor, and I think kind of a pleasantly neutral one, unless the elephant is sort of sticking you in the ear with its tusks.

BROWN: Yes, that's always a bad thing, I think. Does sucking up work actually?

BING: Yes, yes. Sucking up is necessary and a healthy part of elephant management. I myself am a sort of a small to medium sized elephant. And you know, and being aware of it. When people suck up to me, I appreciate it. I like it.

BROWN: But you necessarily, you know, value them more?

BING: Well, you don't value them less unless they do too much of it.

BROWN: Right because you know that person. I mean, there is a person.

BING: You don't want to be the suck up, but occasionally everybody does suck up. I mean it's part of the necessary -- sort of one of the skills that you need in order to stay on top of the elephant and manage the elephant. But if that's all you do, and if you do too publicly, then you're just a suck up. And people think you're a nerd and you've got to go.

BROWN: Are you trying to manage this person or manipulate this person?

BING: Manage. If possible, manage. It doesn't have to be Machiavellian relationship. I mean, one of the things about the elephant that's so lovable is that the elephant has these prodigious needs. And if you can meet those needs for the elephant, then the elephant comes to appreciate what you do.

I won't say love, because I don't think elephants really love the way that, you know, human beings do, but they appreciate it. They say, you know, I needed a muffin and there it was. I needed a report and there it was. I needed a number. I needed somebody to get yelled at. Whatever the need is, it was met by this marvelous creature that serves me. And that kind of relationship ultimately confers power on the servant.

BROWN: I was thinking of every boss I've ever had in my life. Are they -- is the elephant by and large an insecure species?

BING: Yes. Sure. I think -- first of all, I think all species are to some extent or another insecure. And because the elephant is so large and heavy and unsightly in many ways, the elephant can be very insecure. And this is another lever that these small...

BROWN: Every member of the staff of the program now is pointing fingers at monitors here. This is terrible.

BING: Yeah, I know. It really is true. It's really applicable to every elephant. And you know, I mean, we're both elephants in one way or another and probably beloved elephants. But you know, you need to recognize your elephant nature if you're going to move forward.

BROWN: What was the throwing the elephant.

BING: Yes.

BROWN: Explain the term.

BING: Well, the elephant supposedly has this incredible weight. It's heavy. But my book, if you purchase it and read it carefully, will confer the power upon you to lighten the elephant. To make it lighter. To make it ultimately have very little weight. So that a truly skillful elephant handler can lift the elephant, and hoist it into the air, and ultimately throw it, play catch with it, bat it around, do it what he or she will.

BROWN: Name three greatle elephants out there in the world.

BING: Well, you know, there are so many. There are some that are retiring now, which I find interesting. You know, the Lou Gertsners, the Jack Welch, who has certainly retired with some flare.

You know, there's great elephants that are still with us like Bill Gates. Martha Stewart is one of my favorite elephants, who is constantly surprising us with the size of her ambition and her energy.

I mean, these are all even creatures that need to be managed by people. And with the power of the zen contemplation, which is the -- you know, that's the basis of the book, you can become just the kind of person that can manage and maybe even manipulate that elephant.

BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It's nice to meet you.

BING: Nice to meet you, too.

BROWN: Stanley Bing, "Throwing the Elephant" is the name of the book. It's out there. And it's kind of a little book, so you can take it with you wherever you go.

BING: It is. It's a pocket sized.

BROWN: Yes, wherever you go. And you'll need it all the time.

Coming up later in the program, another in our series of on the rise, a look at young people who are making lots of doe with interesting ideas. Up next, the Academy Awards and really bad music. This is so us, isn't it? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, if you are a viewer of television news, and crazy us we think you might be, you may have noticed that all news programs on all of the networks have, as required by federal law, been talking about the Oscars which will finally be awarded this Sunday.

Frankly, this puts us in a somewhat difficult position because the accordian guy was not available. What? Like he had another job, right? But the annoying music guy is. And for the first time anywhere right here, right now, Jim Nader is here with his list of top 10 that we never get through all 10. Most annoying Academy Award winning krooners in history.

Hello, Jim.

JIM NADER: Hello, Aaron. I've got 103 Academy Award fever. I hope you do, too.

BROWN: Oh, yes.

NADER: By Sunday, it'll be 105, I think.

BROWN: Basically, this is the idea here is people have been up for or won Academy awards.

NADER: No, actually, these are people who have won Academy Awards.

BROWN: Won Academy Awards.

NADER: We don't want any losers on here.

BROWN: OK, go ahead.

NADER: Go ahead.

BROWN: No.

NADER: Many times it's acclaimed singers, see if you can recognize this guy. He comes in at number two on our list.

BROWN: Yes, that would be pretty good. You don't think of Bing and the Beatles necessarily, do you?

NADER: Yes, this is Joe Richey? You know Joe Richey? Why am I shouting? I guess because you're in New York and I'm in Chicago. This is Joe Richey before he became Joe Pecci.

BROWN: Man.

NADER: I think he won for "Good Fellows," didn't he?

BROWN: Yes.

NADER: I've got a little surprise. I've got a Paula Ashcroft. You probably don't even remember her, but she won an Academy Award. And let's see if that's working here. That's not Paula. You know, Aaron, I made a mistake. It's my John Ashcroft album.

BROWN: Yes.

NADER: It's Ashcroft and Bacon. They later were Seals and Krofts. But this is Ashcroft and Bacon.

BROWN: All right, go back to the bit. I knew you wanted to do that, you know. I did know you wanted to do that John Ashcroft album. He was like the auditor in Missouri at the time or something.

NADER: The state auditor, right. And he teamed up with Mr. Bacon, who is a Democrat, by the way.

BROWN: Yes, the bipartisan bad album. About a minute here.

NADER: How much time do we have left because I do want to play the number one annoying song. It's by a woman who really gets around. Oh, God that's awful. It's Sally Field, who has won two Academy Awards.

BROWN: Well, they love here. They really love her.

NADER: No, we don't like her. We really don't like her here. They wouldn't let us show an Academy Award but trust me, there's one here. The copyright or the trademarks or whatever they are. We had many to choose from.

BROWN: Thank you, Jim. This Mr. Downs, who we like very much and of course no one sings country western better than Joey Bishop. It's the annoying music show and Jim Nader. And it's always nice to have you on the program. We enjoy it. NADER: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you, sir.

NADER: Hope you have some listeners left.

BROWN: Thank you sir very much. I do, too. Just a couple would be nice.

Up next on NEWSNIGHT, you still with us? OK. On the rise. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally from us tonight, getting rich. It may be that the biggest obstacle to getting rich is working too hard, which would mean the crew here is on its way to make a million. The path to wealth may be to take your hobby, something that by definition you just love to do or you do for fun and make it a business.

OK, it probably won't work if your hobby is something like collecting sea shells, but consider the person in this story. A woman who just liked clothes. So she made some and sold some. And she's done so well that she's tonight's installment of our occasional series of young entrepreneurs called "On the Rise".

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I started when I was 19. It basically evolved from nothing. I mean, literally nothing. I lived in my store. I had a sewing machine, which was just my art and my livelihood. And I opened the doors to friends. You know, I was making clothes for friends.

And then, I think I remember the first time one of my friends said oh, my God I saw it on someone you don't know. That was such a big thing to like see it on someone we didn't know. I realized wow, this is a business. You know, I had people waiting for me to sew up stuff. They're putting it in a box and they're taking it over to Japan, or picking it up for their store over here in Soho.

You know, so I was like, hmm, I guess this is a business now. I got to get it together. It's really like this universal global streetwear lifestyle. I think when you come in here, it kind of has an art gallery sensibility. It's got what's happening in New York City. It's just really intact.

You can come in, see this. You can hear the new music that's being played or out there or just released. You can sea the artwork that's being displayed. It just paints a picture of the lifestyle. It's mainstream, but it's still really underground. It's, like, I think we're getting more mainstream only because we're getting out in more stores.

We've expanded into Europe. We're really popular in Japan. We have three stores in Japan. And we have a store in Hong Kong. Williamsburg.

People are amazed by our offices. They're just like wow! The office is really different from the store, but at the same time, there's still that sense of openness. We wanted a space that was open so like designers are next to production people, next to sales people. So everyone kind of understands the language of the company.

And I think that's what really works well for us. The fact that everyone's involved with everything. I have a really good crew of people and a lot of great managers. I'm not sitting there all night literally like making it happen. I'm confident that they can handle it.

I think it's such a cute design that we don't even need the back.

It's lifestyle brand. It's not just hip-hop. The definition of street wear is basically clothing that has function and utility, that you can rock all day long and into the night and feel comfortable and relaxed. I think that's what (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is all about. If that's an answer.

Music is really important. I think music and fashion definitely go hand in hand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the party from Stones Throw Records. We're starting to do a lot of stuff for Stones Throw in terms of marketing and promotion. We kind of have like these relationships where we flow people gear.

What's does everybody wear? Double Xs?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We give them the music. They give us the clothes. It's a good relationship.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are keeping our eye on certain up and coming artists. But we just approach them. And they're like really psyched to work with us. Now I'm just looking into other creative projects like (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'd love to get some tripified soul sounds going on and tripified soul homeware or. And then me, personally, I'm working on outside creative projects, just myself, because it's like that renaissance time of creating again and not trying to get to business minded all the time or I'll go crazy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Have a good weekend. Good night.

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



Believes Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction>


 
 
 
 


 Search   

Back to the top