Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Is it Time for Israel to Heed the Call of its Friends?; Should Women Rush to Have Kids Before 40?; Interview with Michael Moore

Aired April 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: Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

The White House says it's time for Israel to heed the call of its friends. But it's pretty clear Prime Minister Ariel Sharon isn't ready to do what President Bush is demanding, an immediate pullout from the West Bank. We're going to be talking to CNN's Bill Hemmer about that and Secretary of State Colin Powell trip to the region in just a minute.

Now you know I have been reading all of your e-mails and I know you have a lot to say about this. So bring it on today as well. Keep your comments coming. And you know, you can call me, 1-800-310-4CNN. Now before we talk to Bill, let's take a look at what else we have in store for you today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): How much was Saddam Hussein's oil embargo cost you at the pump?

Also, is your biological clock running out of time? If you are older than 27, it's already winding down. Learn the scary truth about fertility and why so many career women are rocking empty cradles.

Then, angry white man Michael Moore takes aim at President Bush and others he calls stupid white men. He says his scathing political rant was nearly stifled by patriotism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): OK, first now, we're going to get back to the Mideast. President Bush isn't too happy about Prime Minister Sharon's unwillingness to call off his offensive. And U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni had the job of carrying that message to the prime minister. Let's find out what that is all about. CNN correspondent Bill Hemmer joins from us Jerusalem. And, Bill, of course, glad you could be here.

But before we start, Bill, I want everyone to hear what President Bush said today while on a trip to Knoxville, Tennessee. Watch this with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I meant when I said to the prime minister of Israel. I expect there to be withdrawal without delay. And I also meant when I said to the Arab world, that in order for there to be peace, nations must stand up, leaders must stand up and condemn terrorism, terrorist activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK, Bill. Sharon has said he will withdraw his troops, but when he feels it's the right time. Can he afford to ignore President Bush?

BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ultimately, no. In the near term, though, I believe Ariel Sharon stated it quite defiantly, if you want to use that word earlier today at the Knesset, a special session called today in Israel's parliament, essentially saying for now the Israeli military action will continue unabated until its goals are met, and Israel says, again, it's trying to root out the infrastructure of terrorism operating in the West Bank.

And I think the reason why we are still seeing Israel essentially telling the world we are on our own right now and we are going at it on our own is because if you look at the opinion polls in this country, at the end of last week, Arthel, on Friday, 70 percent of Israelis polled still believe that the military operation is just and should continue. And in part, the people of this country definitely behind their prime minister.

NEVILLE: And indeed, it's continuing on the ground. Give us an update of what is happening. And also, Bill, is this going to affect Colin Powell's trip in any way?

HEMMER: I think there's a lot of diplomacy working on a number of channels. I'll try and make it as simple as I can see it right now. The Palestinians say if the White House and Colin Powell were serious about a military withdrawal, they would have been here already. As it is, Colin Powell is not here. He won't arrive for a few more days time.

In the meantime, they say, the Israelis anyway, they say that Colin Powell is trying to draft more pressure from moderate Arab countries like Morocco and Egypt and Jordan to try and put more pressure on Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to try and get the terrorism to an absolute minimum. They think, if you read between the lines here, and you always hear about the words a meaningful cease-fire, they think if they can get a meaningful cease-fire from both sides, get something from Israel and something from the Palestinians, a little withdrawal from the military, terrorism knocked off on the other side, they might be able to sit down without all these outside distractions and talk about peace. That is a tall order right now, Arthel, but it appears to be what is working through the different channels across this region.

NEVILLE: Well, let's hope it works. Bill, thank you so much for joining us today.

HEMMER: Sure. You got it, Arthel. Not a problem.

NEVILLE: OK. Now, with this now, we are going to talk to some of our guests who will be joining us. We are going to meet Rich Lowry and Eric Alterman, want to welcome both of you to the program. Rich Lowry, by the way, is the editor of the "National Review", and Eric Alterman is a columnist for "The Nation" as well as other online news magazines and he's the author of several books on politics and foreign policy. Welcome to both of you, gentlemen.

Now, is Sharon's defiance a slap in George Bush's face? Eric, I'll start with you.

ERIC ALTERMAN, COLUMNIST, "THE NATION": I suppose it is. I don't see how else you could see it. Bush was pretty clear in his language, and all weekend, the Israelis were saying, well, no he doesn't really mean exactly what he said.

But so far, there hasn't been any cost to it. It's extremely popular in Israel. Most of the threat to Sharon's survival as prime minister is coming from the right, not the left. And if Bush isn't willing to put any meat behind his words, then I don't see why Sharon can't continue to slap him in the face.

NEVILLE: Rich, how do you see it.

RICH LOWRY, "NATIONAL REVIEW": Well, I think Sharon is pretty clearly defying the administration. But in his defense, the administration hasn't been extremely clear and consistent about exactly what it wants. President Bush's original speech on Thursday made no reference to an immediate withdrawal, and Secretary of State Colin Powell the next day said, yes, indeed, we want immediate withdrawal. Then Bush sort of caught up to his secretary of state and says, yes, that's what he wanted.

Then yesterday, you had some Bush administration officials on TV sort of giving Sharon some wiggle room again, saying, you know, it takes a long time to reverse a long-planned and large military operation. So there have been some mixed signals there. But, yes, the administration clearly wants Sharon to stop.

The thing is, in international politics, if you are going to make a demand like that, you should either be sure that it's going to be complied with or if it's not complied with, have some means to actually force the party to do what you want. And there aren't those means at the moment.

NEVILLE: You're right because where is the "or what" portion of that?

LOWRY: There is none. And that's why Sharon feels free to continue with the operation as I think he should, by the way.

ALTERMAN: I think what we are seeing here is the cost, we haven't seen it until now, is the cost of electing, or not actually electing, but allowing to become president, in selection by the Supreme Court, of a president who really has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy. Up until now, he was able to basically follow a clear path because there wasn't much dissension within his administration. Now there's an enormous amount of dissension about how to handle this incredibly complicated problem and George Bush, I'm afraid, seems out of his depth.

NEVILLE: Patty from New York -- go ahead. Respond for me first.

LOWRY: Well, I think that's pretty unfair. I think Bush didn't have much foreign policy experience going into the office. Obviously, he had none, but he rose to the occasion after September 11. And what was really called for was what he had, a moral clarity and a toughness purpose in fighting terrorism.

And what's happened in the last two or three weeks, he has let his state department and the media kind of knock him around a little bit and confuse him. He knows in his heart and his gut that Yasser Arafat is a terrorist, but he's unwilling to say that forthrightly because he's afraid of the international reaction.

NEVILLE: And hold that thought for me because I do want to go there in a moment. But first, I want to let Patty from New York speak out.

PATTY: Hi. I think Israel should fight the Palestinians. They live there. They have the control of the terrorists and they are the only ones that can do it.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: So you say to him, keep on keeping on?

PATTY: Yes.

NEVILLE: OK. We've got a call -- thanks for your comment, first of all. We have a caller now I'd like to get you in on this conversation. Go ahead, caller? Al, are you there?

AL: Yes, I am. How are you?

NEVILLE: I'm great.

AL: I would like to ask the panel this, either one, considering Israel is receiving so much international pressure from the E.U., from the U.S. now, from the United Nations to withdraw, and the pictures on TV certainly aren't helpful, but unfortunately, it's the reality of war, what should Israel do considering that Arafat broke all the agreements of the Oslo Accord? What can they do to make their point, defend their people?

ALTERMAN: I don't think it's as simple as that to say Arafat broke all the agreements of the Oslo Accord. Israel didn't do a very good job of fulfilling the Oslo Accord and neither did Yasser Arafat. Both parties had to be pushed. Both parties were dragged sort of kicking and screaming after the Accords were signed.

And there was genuine progress being made, and, in fact, at Tabaa in December, we had something that looks like what will eventually be a peaceful settlement between the two sides. But when George Bush -- but the Israelis kicked out their prime minister. And when Arafat allowed the second Intifada to take place, and when George W. Bush came into office, he let all that pressure evaporate, and now the sides are much, much further away than when they started. And there doesn't seem to be any clear path to peace.

NEVILLE: I'm going to jump in there and let Bob from Illinois speak out.

BOB: Right. Let me get the people in this audience straight first and the people out in the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) land. People in this audience and in this country have said since 9/11, they are behind President Bush 100 percent. Now your president that you have been supporting 100 percent, the leader of the free world, said this morning in Tennessee he thinks that Sharon should get out of there immediately.

NEVILLE: And you think...

BOB: And in that sense, I support the president. Now the president does have something to fight back with. He's the chief of the free world. I mean, firstly, we give Israel $50 billion plus every year. Secondly, all those weapons that they are using on the Palestinians came from this country.

NEVILLE: So, you are saying cut it off and then we have some power, right?

BOB: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

NEVILLE: And we have power. All right, Mr. Bob, are you a preacher?

BOB: No. No, ma'am.

NEVILLE: You should have been. Thank you so much for your comment. I do appreciate it. Thank you very much, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: All right. I want to go back to a comment, I think Rich said it earlier. We were talking about terrorists. And who is to decide -- you know, Israel is saying that they are fighting against terrorism. The Palestinians are saying they are being terrorized. Who is right?

LOWRY: Well, look, in terrorism, we all know what it is, it's a deliberate targeting of civilians. And Israel had to put up with every day or every other day with a young Palestinian man or woman wandering into cafes, discotheques or pizza parlors with 40 pounds of explosives wrapped around their waist in order to blow to bits Israeli children, women and innocent civilians. That is terrorism. Yasser Arafat was up to his eyes in it. His own faction of the PLO has been involved in many, many of these attacks this year.

NEVILLE: OK, Eric, I'm running out of time, but I want to jump in and let you respond.

ALTERMAN: Yes, I think it's all together too simple to say what you think is terrorism. I mean -- Rich, let me finish. In fact, I don't think you will argue that the founders of Israel engaged in terrorism before their state was founded, Yitzhak Shamir Menachem -- both were terrorists. The United States engaged in terrorism when it wanted to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.

Terrorism is the kind of violence against civilians you don't approve of, the kind of violence against civilians you approve of and, in fact, Israel has killed far more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israel. That we don't call terrorism. So I don't think it's so simple. I think it clouds the issue.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you for the response. And I'm going to move on right now. We have to take a break.

And here's a question: Have you noticed the price of gas at the pump? Boy, has it skyrocketed in recent weeks. Now, Saddam Hussein is using oil to play pressure politics. Will it affect you and me? We need to talk about that. Don't go anywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. I have noticed, and I'm sure you have too, the price of gas has skyrocketed in recent weeks, due in part to the trouble in the Middle East. And now, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is apparently trying to flex his muscle. He says there won't be any more oil coming out of Iraq for 30 days or until Israel withdraws from Palestinian territories. It will be costly for Iraq, but can it effectively -- can it be effective for us is what we want to know.

And we have a correspondent standing by. He's a CNN Financial correspondent, Fred Katayama. And he's going to join us a moment. He's standing by live at the New York Mercantile Exchange and we'll bring him into the conversation in a moment. But Eric and Rich, let me ask you, how do you think this is going to effect us or maybe the president? Will it put pressure in any way on President Bush?

LOWRY: Saddam Hussein is actually serious about this. I mean, it would be real irony if he is because a struggle with Saddam over recent years has been the U.S. trying to prevent him from selling and smuggling oil onto the international market. And for him to unilaterally say, now I'm not going to sell oil, would be quite a turnabout. He needs to sell And the fact is he needs to sell oil in order to fund all those weapons programs that he loves so much.

NEVILLE: But, Eric, let's talk about his agenda here.

ALTERMAN: I think his agenda is largely symbolic. He's manipulating the misery of the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation to try and claim leadership over the radical Arab factions. He can't really hurt the United States. I mean, if we reduce our consumption of oil according to slightly better fuel energy standards, then we wouldn't even notice this. In fact, we won't notice it.

But even if all of the Arab countries joined him, we could protect ourselves by having more efficient cars. But the fact is is that what Saddam is saying is I'm the Palestinians only champion. I am the person who you should stick by when the threat comes to me, which inevitably it's going to.

NEVILLE: OK. I want to bring in Fred Katayama now. Fred, the bottom line is how is this going to affect us at the pumps when we go to get a little gas?

FRED KATAYAMA, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I wish I had better news to report, but not in this case. A rise in the barrel of light sweet crude is directly related to a rise in gas prices at the pump. For every one dollar increase we see in a barrel of light sweet crude, gas prices rise roughly two and a half cents. And so over the past two weeks, we have seen an eight-cent per gallon increase in gasoline prices to $1.43 a gallon.

NEVILLE: That's too much money.

KATAYAMA: Yes. Unfortunately today, crude oil prices rose one and a third percent, so that means slightly higher prices at the pump in the next few days.

NEVILLE: Fred, standby, if you will. I have got Jeff from Georgia here. I'm not sure if he has a question for you or not.

JEFF: Yes, I had a question. I was wondering since everyone seems to be denouncing terrorist actions and, actually Saddam Hussein putting an embargo on oil that he trades to people and eventually gets here, isn't that a non-terrorist action? And shouldn't we be actually praising Saddam for using such non-violent actions? I mean, that's what we do to Cuba. That's what we do to people who we don't agree with.

NEVILLE: Fred, do you want to take that?

KATAYAMA: Well, I'm not going to answer that question giving my personal opinion on that one...

(APPLAUSE)

... but I can tell you if you look at the over all issues, one problem that this poses, Iraqis oil embargo, is that it really Saudi Arabia and U.S. allies in a tight spot, such as Kuwait. Basically, it's easy for a country such as Saudi Arabia and OPEC member nations to make up for any shortfall in oil caused by Iraq's pullout. However, it is politically difficult to do so given the sentiment in the Arabic countries.

NEVILLE: Fred Katayama, thank you very much for joining us here today.

And back to Rich and Eric. I want to ask you guys, now I think, Eric, you mentioned this earlier about the whole idea of drilling for oil in other places, a la Alaska. Do you think this will help push along the Republican senators' argument for the need to do that?

ALTERMAN: Now, I certainly didn't mention drilling in Alaska. I said we could easily improve our fuel standard performance, and we can. I mean, this issue is a lot of nonsense. We were attacked by countries that are funded by oil money. We could very easily reduce our vulnerability, make the tiniest little sacrifice that George Bush is talking about simply by driving less, by consuming less oil and by being more efficient. But Bush is unwilling to call for genuine sacrifice of any kind. He wants us to consume more. I think it's the most hypocritical policy imaginable.

NEVILLE: He wants us to consume more, you think?

ALTERMAN: Yes. He told everybody go out and buy more cars, buy more SUVs. This drilling for oil in Alaska, you know, I'm not an expert on it. I don't know if Rich is either. But it's my understanding it's not going to produce much oil. If it were going to produce a great deal of oil, I might be in favor of it. I'm not an (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about that. I don't really care if Alaska is beautiful or not. That's not my problem.

But the fact is is that we don't make any efforts to conserve oil in this country the way every single European country does, and then we whine about our oil dependency. It's ridiculous. It's pathetic.

NEVILLE: Well, let me bring in an e-mail here because we love to hear from the people at home. Let's pop up the e-mail and share this with you. Carmine -- or Carmen -- it says, "why doesn't the U.S. counter Saddam's embargo with a statement like the U.S. may not want Iraq's oil after 30 days?" So there.

LOWRY: That would be one way to look at it. But, you know, the way we get more independent from Middle Eastern oil is obviously to have other sources of oil. And ANWAR will help a little bit, not as much as all the proponents of drilling there portray it, but the fact is in 1973 when we first had an oil embargo from the Middle East, the Middle East accounted for about 75 percent of the oil on the world market. Now it's about 40 percent.

That's because you have other sources in Africa and Russia coming on line. And we should do all we can to develop those alternate sources. The fact is the U.S. is dependent on cars in the way European culture and society isn't. Chasing people from their SUV's and making them more expensive and more dangerous to drive is not the answer.

NEVILLE: Chris from Massachusetts, what do you say?

CHRIS: Well the United States only gets 10 percent of the oil from Saudi Arabian countries, yet whose rights are we actually protecting? It's the world's oil production that we are actually protecting. I think conserving is an ideal goal and I think the United States does a good goal of doing that. But what about other countries that should also come into play there as well? What does Mr. Alterman think of that? ALTERMAN: You are absolutely right. In fact the United States has a dreadful record on conservation. It's far interior to other westernized countries and Vice President Cheney, an oil man like the president, also an oil man, doesn't even believe in it. He says it's not part of our energy policy. He thinks it's about your own morals.

I think this is really disgraceful. I think letting these oil guys run our energy policy is very dangerous for this country and the entire reason that we were attacked on 9-11 is because of the military presence in Saudi Arabia according to Mr. Bin Laden. Why are we in Saudi Arabia protecting that ridiculously anti-Democratic monarchical repressive regime?

LOWRY: That's a very good question. This is where I may find some common ground with Eric. I thin the Saudi's behavior has really been reprehensible. They fund with their money a radical Islamic network from the Philippines to Chicago and that U.S. spends money and in some cases blood to defend that monarchy is an outrage.

NEVILLE: Rich Lowry, Eric Alterman, thank you very much for being with us here this afternoon.

ALTERMAN: Thanks for having us.

NEVILLE: Up next: oops, somebody forgot to have a baby. And now it's too late. No joke though. A controversial new book tells fast- tack career women, 40 really is over the hill when it comes to fertility. Hmmm.

Then later, meet blue collar political critic Michael Moore. Find out who he is talking about in his new book, "Stupid White Men." Stay right there.

NEVILLE: I saw you. All right. Welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. It's on the cover of "TIME," "Inside USA Today," and for some career women it's scary. The truth is, if you are 27 and older your baby clock is ticking. And every year that goes by, it's picking up speed. And a new book titled "Creating A Life: Professional Women And The Quest For Children" set off the alarm.

It says a growing number of high powered career-first women are coming um empty when they finally decide it's time for a family. Here are a couple of alarming numbers. Childlessness has nearly doubled in the past 20 years. One in five women between ages of 40 and 44, that's 20 percent, don't have children. Despite what you think you once knew.

Once a woman hits the age of 42, her chances of having a baby using her own eggs are less than 10 percent. And here to talk about that, we have got Caryl Rivers who will be joining us; and -- hi Caryl. Welcome to, you first of all -- Caryl is a journalism professor at Boston University and she is the author of "Slick Spins and Fractured Facts: How Cultural Myths Distort the News." Caryl, welcome, and tell me what is wrong with this information we just heard? CARYL RIVERS, BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Well this isn't really new information. I think it's good that women understand that fertility declines, as we have known for a long time. My worry, as evidenced by the fact that we are now seeing it on CNN and seeing it on the cover of "TIME" is this is going to become another one of the scare stories saying to women, if you are too ambitious you are going to be miserable.

I think there's no need to panic about these statistics, and I think women have to realize that in their 30's their fertility is still quite good, and women after 40 are now often taking, many are getting pregnant and others are taking other directions like adopting and are being very happy.

NEVILLE: OK, now we want to bring in Nancy Pfotenhauer to talk about this as well. She's the president and CEO of Independent Women Forum. She has five children and two stepchildren. Welcome. How do you see it?

NANCY PFOTENHAUER, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM: Well, basically I think that it's very important for young women and for women approaching middle age to be fully informed of the medical risks and the potentials for success in conceiving and bearing a healthy child so they can make the most informed decision, and we shouldn't pre- judge their decision, whether it is to start having families earlier or to defer it until a later time in their life.

NEVILLE: Yeah, because there are arguments on both sides of the coin. And Christine from Canada, what do you say?

CHRISTINE: I would just say that who is to say 30 is late or early? For me it means that I have an opportunity to work. I don't have to depend on somebody else. I have my own money and then therefore I can take care of that child on my own. And so I would just say, don't wait until it's too late, but that's a personal choice.

NEVILLE: But this is what we are talking about today. What is too late? Before we were hearing that 40 isn't too late. Now we are hearing that maybe it is too late -- Nancy.

PFOTENHAUER: I'd say, the data is pretty clear that it is much more likely to conceive a child after the age of 40 and dramatically more difficult to bring a healthy baby to term. Again that's not making anybody's decision for them, but failing to focus on this doesn't change the reality, and we have to make sure that young women are aware of the fact that it's going to be more difficult to conceive and bear a healthy child later on in life.

NEVILLE: Here's a young woman, Carrie, who would like to say something.

CARRIE: It's hard for me to believe that it would ever be too late to have a child. The older you are, the more patience you have. The more idea you have about the world and the things around it and you need to be a well rounded person in order to raise a child. NEVILLE: Thank you for that comment.

PFOTENHAUER: I think it comes down to, do you want to bear the child yourself or do you want to adopt a child. Because certainly her points about maturation are well taken, but at the age of 42 I think they are saying that about 90 percent of the eggs that a woman produces are not going to be capable of reaching successful term as a fertilized egg and then an actual child. So if you want to bear the baby...

RIVERS: But remember, only two percent of babies in this country are born to women over 40.

PFOTENHAUER: Right.

RIVERS: So what we are seeing is that women as they approach 40 or are in their mid 30's are very aware of the biological clock ticking, and I think my question is, why is this a big story now? Why is it on the cover of "TIME?" I think again it's a big story because some people on the right are seizing it as an anti-feminist agenda. Yes, get the information out, but let's not scare people and make them worry, oh, my gosh, I have to have a baby by the time I am 25 or I won't have one.

PFOTENHAUER: I think it's the opposite. I thin the feminist agenda has been to try to tell women that they can have it all at any point in their life. And that sometimes they run up against things like science that tell you that life is about trade-offs and so you can choose to define your own course of fulfillment, some if which is working full time and for some people it may be taking time off and having a baby earlier on. The feminists can't rewrite medical doctrine.

NEVILLE: Let me get a man in here. Art what is your perspective?

ART: I think everybody has to make her own decision on this. I know my personal decision was that I wanted to make, have children early and so we did. And it has been a very satisfying experience. I wish everyone could have such an experience.

NEVILLE: But you know what, I have to tell you, you are a man. You can't carry the baby, so you know, you have an advantage.

ART: I don't think so.

NEVILLE: Yes you do. You could produce a baby longer than I can, or a longer period of time. Isn't that true? OK, so Caryl, it seems that women can fry up the bacon, bring it home, fry it up in a pan, you know that whole little saying, but they are going to be serving it not to kids. Can women still have it all?

RIVERS: Look, the feminist agenda for a long time has not said women can have it all. What the feminists have been saying, certainly what I say, is that you can have most of it most of the time. And yes, if women wait until they are 45 to try to get pregnant, they are going to have some problems.

But one thing we do know, a major study of a childless women show that not having children didn't really have any affect on their sense of well-being. Being married did. So if you are a woman and you want children, yes, you ought to start thinking about it a little bit earlier, but also if you don't have children you can have a happy life too.

NEVILLE: Of course, that's very true. I have to take a break right now. We'll be back to talk more about this, women having babies once they are past 40.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back everybody. We are talking with Nancy Pfotenhauer and Caryl Rivers about women who put off having children until it's too late.

Ladies, before we start the discussion again I want to bring up a full screen here and share some information with you. OK, it says that among executives considered to be high achievers, one third of women had no children by 40 compared to one fourth of 40-year-old mail high achievers.

As for ultra-achievers, half of the women at 40 didn't have children, yet only 19 percent of the men in that category didn't have children. Now here's how it's broken down: If you are 28 to 40 years old and make $55,000 a year, you are a high achiever, and you are considered an ultra-achiever if you are a woman making 100,000 dollars a year and twice that if you are a man -- so in case you are wondering. OK, you know what, Nancy, a lot of women want to and have to work for that matter. How can companies help?

PFOTENHAUER: I think that there should be a much greater focus on promoting flexibility within the work force. I have the benefit of working at an all women's organization and I know right now that my top achievers perform better if I allow flexibility for them to come in after they drop the kids off from school, to leave early or pick the kids up from school then they just get back on their computer when the kids go to bed.

I feel like we need to move towards a performance standard in our workplace versus a designed standard that dictates clock punching and things like that.

NEVILLE: Be more flexible. Let me pull up an e-mail and share this with you. Caryl, I want to hear your thoughts on this one. E- mail. Douglas in Michigan: "There is different expectations for men and women. Men are expected to work right away. Women can reasonable work in their 30s after having kids."

Caryl, your thoughts on that?

RIVERS: Well, I wish that was so. I don't think it is anymore because you are seeing now that jobs are scarcer, women are starting their career arts earlier and one thing we can all agree on is that more flexibility for both men and women is essential.

It's also good to point out that of these high achievers, two- thirds did have children. So that even -- there's good news in there as well as some news that is not so good.

NEVILLE: And then you mention about having flex time for men, too. There should be paternity leave as far as I'm concerned. Much more of that in many companies.

RIVERS: Absolutely. And right now men don't take paternity leave because they are labeled, they are whimp or they are not serious if they take paternity time.

NEVILLE: No, they want to see their child grow up too.

OK, Marlis. What do you have to say?

MARLIS: I was just saying that I had 4 children before I was 30, but that was back in the late 50's and 60's and it didn't take as much money to live on. I didn't have to work until my children were maybe 10, and so it's a different kind of life now. And nobody worried about the biological clock. You just kind of had children.

NEVILLE: Early on. Right.

MARLIS: It worked fine.

NEVILLE: Worked out fine. Thank you Marlis, for your comments.

NEVILLE: So, Nancy, let me ask you this. A woman who is 40, she doesn't have a child yet. Is the game over for her?

PFOTENHAUER: I don't think the game is over. I just think that the chances of her being able to realize the dream of giving birth to a child, if that is in fact her dream, is going to be dramatically reduced. I have a good friend who used to be chief of fertility over at the Columbia Hospital for Women in Washington, D.C. who left after years in that job because he could not stand the heartbreak that he had to witness everyday for year in and year out. He said for every one child he delivered healthily, he had a couple who was devastated. He had two or three couples devastated who tried for years and spent $100,000 trying to get pregnant.

NEVILLE: One thing that is going to happen, hopefully in the years ahead is that we are making a lot of advances in fertility. For example, now you can take an ovarian strip that has pre-eggs in. Women may be able to store their eggs, so that maybe that say within say maybe 20 years this whole debate may be academic.

NEVILLE: Do you know what other debate that will bring on, Caryl?

Stop messing with God work.

RIVERS: How late can you have children?

NEVILLE: Then people start saying stop messing with God's work, right?

(CROSSTALK)

It'll continue, I'm sure. Nancy Pfotenhauer and Caryl Rivers, thank you so much for joining us here this afternoon.

PFOTENHAUER: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Sure. Michael Moore joins us up next and talks about "Stupid White Men." Oh, relax! It's the title of his new book. And we are going to get the lowdown on why he had such a hard time getting that book distributed. He thinks it had something to do with patriotism. Michael!

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. Joining us now is Michael Moore, the guy from Flint, Michigan who made a big name for himself by going after the head of General Motors in his documentary, "Roger and Me." Well, he has a new book called "Stupid White Men." There it is. Michael, welcome to you first of all.

MICHAEL MOORE, AUTHOR, "STUPID WHITE MEN": Thank you very much.

NEVILLE: And I need to know, was it difficult at all getting a book with that title, "Stupid White Men", published?

MOORE: Yes, but it wasn't the title that made it hard. The content of the book. Unfortunately, I wrote the book before September 11 and that was printed on September 10. And so the publisher held up publication for a couple of months, and then they decided they thought I should maybe change some of the -- tone down some of the humor and the dissent and the criticisms of Mr. Bush. And so I refused to do that. So they held up publication longer. And after a while, they decided to back down and release the book.

NEVILLE: And it's doing very well, of course.

MOORE: It's been No. 1 for the last month in the country. It's the No. 1 book in the country.

NEVILLE: Congratulations. Congratulations.

MOORE: Thank you very much.

NEVILLE: It's an interesting read, by the way. It's really an interesting read. Now, I mean, you used a comedic approach to touch on some very sensitive subjects. Is there anything that is off limits with you?

MOORE: No. No. Not really. NEVILLE: I kind of figured you would say that.

MOORE: Especially because I write about not only people in the bush administration, but corporate America and just, you know, guys in general, just the people that I see that are kind of messing up things right now. And so, I don't think there's anything that is off limits.

NEVILLE: Why do you care? You know, you could have written a book on anything.

MOORE: That's a good point. I guess I care because I'm a citizen of this country and I love this country and I want to see it do better. And I think we can do a lot better than what's going on right now.

NEVILLE: Yes. So we are talking about...

(APPLAUSE)

MOORE: Thanks.

NEVILLE: We are talking about your book, so I'd like to call up an excerpt right now, if we can show that on the screen. This is from your "Kill Whitey" chapter. It says, "I'm done hiring white people. By giving jobs to white people, for many of them, their first jobs in the medium, I've enabled them to go on and have successful careers. What if I had done the same for 100 black writers, editors, field producers and cinematographers on my projects over the years? Where would they be today? My guess is using their talent to effect 100 shows or movies having their voices heard."

Now, you make a valid point. Many people wouldn't go there.

MOORE: Yes. Well, I think we should go there. You know...

NEVILLE: Get no argument from me.

MOORE: Well, you know, in front of the camera, we are fortunate to have a lot of African-Americans on as news anchors and reporters or whatever. But behind the camera, if you look around here, right now even at CNN, and actually this is one of the better places, just looking around, you'll actually see one or two. But I work in an industry where it's a pretty much white industry.

And I just think, you know, instead of complaining about it, why not just do something about it. So I just started hiring black people. And boy, I tell you, it's a lot nicer in the office. White people just -- they are just so, you know, I don't know, just always giving me a lot of problems. I mean, it seems like every problem I've had in my lifetime, whether it was the teacher that flunked me or the landlord that kept my security deposit or the car salesman that sold me a lemon, it always seems to be a white guy.

And I'm thinking geez, you know, why are we afraid of black people? I have never had a black car salesman sell me a lemon. In fact, I've never seen a black car salesman. It's just like -- I have just got to start changing my point of view. But, I mean, that's the funny side of it.

But the serious side is, I mean, I just came from -- I asked the person who brought me here from the airport just now if we could stop by the King Center, by Martin Luther King's...

NEVILLE: Good for you.

MOORE: ... you know, just because I think it's important to remember our history and as Americans, regardless what color you are, I think we can do a lot better.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: And do me a favor and dispel this myth that since you do hire black people and work around a lot of black people, that old, you know, they are nugatory slatterns. They are just lazy and shiftless. They are going to show up late and all that stuff. I mean, that's not the deal.

MOORE: No. The lazy, shiftless people are the one who went to Ivy League schools, the white kids that expect the door to open for them or daddy or somebody to get them somewhere, some job. The hard- working people, as is always the history in America, are the people of color or the immigrants are the people who, you know, want to do well. And so, I have never, I have never understood that and I think, I don't know. It's just time we do something about it. And I have a lot of tips in the book, too, for like driving while black.

NEVILLE: Yes, that was cracking me up.

MOORE: You know, unfortunately, there's a lot of racial profiling on our highways. I suggest if you are black and you own a nice car, best to have like a white blow-up doll in the back seat so that the police think you are just the chauffeur because they won't pull you over. And they'll go, oh, there's a white person in the back. Let the car go.

NEVILLE: Exactly.

MOORE: Many, many suggestions.

NEVILLE: I know you know this. We have got a caller that is dying to talk to you. But, you know, black folks go to Ivy League schools, too.

MOORE: Yes, I have seen one or two there.

NEVILLE: Ron from Pennsylvania, is it?

RON: Yes.

NEVILLE: Go ahead. Speak to Michael.

RON: Michael, you are singling out black people by not mentioning them and calling all white people stupid, no matter if you're talking good or about your book, good or bad about white people, that means black people aren't included. And it's not right. It's prejudice. It's racist. You are doing something and walking backwards and you are never going to get anywhere by doing what you are doing.

(APPLAUSE)

RON: See, black people aren't included. Black people aren't included in that. So whether it's good or bad, it's wrong.

NEVILLE: Michael, go ahead and respond. Thanks, Ron.

MOORE: I have never met a stupid black person. They are all pretty smart, you know. I'm sorry you feel that way, but, you know, it's the country we live in. And unfortunately, as a white guy who's not always that smart himself, I found that it's time to really try and make a change here and I thought I would be the one to start doing that.

NEVILLE: Michael, we are over your shoulder here and I'm speaking with Neil from Virginia.

NEIL: Michael, she makes me look good, don't she? It seems to me like you are taking a situation and you are trying to make money off of it. I wish people would quit tearing down the American way by tearing up the white and black situation. Let's just all be Americans and get along.

(APPLAUSE)

MOORE: I think everyone agrees with that, Neil.

Here's the problem. Here's the problem, is that the first time they started keeping these statistics, the difference between what whites make and blacks make in this country was 1880. And the gap, the 30-percent gap or whatever between what whites make and blacks make.

The last time they took it, in the year 2000, it hasn't changed one percentage point in 120 years. Blacks still occupy the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to pay, when it comes to employment opportunities and that's just the way. So as white people, we can say can't we all just get along? And that sounds good, and I agree with you. But we have actually got to start...

NEVILLE: But I don't think he's stirring it up, Neil. I think that what he's doing is providing food for thought. And some people, you know what, Neil, and honestly, some people would listen to Michael before they would listen to somebody who looks like me state those same statistics. And so, think about that.

Right now, I want to bring in another e-mail, if I could. Pop that up for me, guys. OK. Karen in California: "Do you plan on bringing your wisdom back to television with your own show? The only one we have to tell it like it is is Jon Stewart."

MOORE: Yes, Jon Stewart is great. I hope to come back on TV at some point. We had "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth." And you can rent those now on home video, but you can't see it on TV.

NEVILLE: But you can rent those, right?

MOORE: You can rent them.

NEVILLE: Do you get a cut of that?

MOORE: No. I don't see anything of it, but if you want to see what we do on TV. It's hard to get the stuff on TV. It's like, you know, the kinds of things I do you know, it's -- it makes television executives nervous.

NEVILLE: You have got to go to cable. You got to go to cable.

MOORE: Is that what it is?

NEVILLE: That's what it is.

MOORE: We can do anything here, right?

NEVILLE: Yes.

MOORE: Why is that? Don't say because nobody is watching.

NEVILLE: No, I'm not going to say that. A lot of people are watching, I beg your pardon. I am going to have to slap you when I come back.

(LAUGHTER)

You know what, don't go anywhere. We are back in a moment.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)