Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Administration Lays Out Evidence Against Hussein; Should White Race Be Abolished?; Miami Votes on Legal Protection for Gays

Aired September 09, 2002 - 15:00   ET

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.
Well, we asked for it and now we are getting it. The administration is becoming more specific and alarming as it lays out its evidence against Iraq's President Saddam Hussein. The president's men and women were out in full force over the weekend. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warned we don't want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked Americans to imagine a September 11 with weapons of mass destruction.

We are going to talk about what evidence there may or may not be. And then stay tuned, because, later, you are going to meet the Harvard University professor who wants to abolish the white race.

And we'll turn our attention to Miami, where they are deciding if gay people still need legal protection from discrimination.

First: selling Iraq. Joining us in Washington is former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay.

I want to thank you for joining us today, sir.

DAVID KAY, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Happy to be here.

NEVILLE: OK.

Well, first of all, give us a laundry list of the new evidence that was found. And tell us how and why the material poses a threat to America.

KAY: Well, it's really just pulling together evidence that has been out there. After all, we have been at the process of trying to understand the Iraq weapons of mass destruction program since 1991.

Drawing the sums together today, what you have got are various reports that say Saddam Hussein has made a commitment as his absolute No. 1 priority to continuing and expanding his program for chemical biological and nuclear, in the nuclear area, specifically; that he has developed his program to such an extent that, if he were to obtain fissile material, he would have only about a six-month project to put it together into a working nuclear device.

Left to his own, it might be three to five years. Well, none of us know when that three-to-five-year period really began. It may have begun in 1998. We have also had some revelations over the weekend about new attempts of Iraq to obtain material directly related to producing the fissile material that's at the heart of a nuclear weapon.

It's frightening because all of us should recognize, you cannot expect, from intelligence, estimates that are so fine. If someone tells you, "Someone is within six months of doing something," you might as well assume he's going to be able to do it. Intelligence will never tell you until after the fact on small event like that, that he's actually done it.

NEVILLE: But, from what I'm reading, that Saddam Hussein would need help. Could he get it?

KAY: Look, he got those -- the aluminum pipes for his centrifuge from someone. He's getting help.

You forget, he has spent on his weapons program since the end of the Gulf War over $20 billion; $20 billion in the world we live in will buy you help with someone who has the critical expertise.

NEVILLE: Now, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter is in Baghdad. And, as a private citizen, he told Iraq's National Assembly the U.S. is on the verge of making a historical mistake.

Now, let's listen to how different his view is from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The burden of proof is on him. We will make a case. There is plenty of evidence and plenty of experience with who this man is and with what he is doing.

But, in the final analysis, you have to ask yourself, if you want the 100 percent certainty of what he is doing to be an attack on the United States or attack on our lives. We don't want that to be the moment at which we think: "Oh, yes, we should have connected the dots differently. There was plenty of evidence of what he was trying to do and we didn't act."

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: I'm concerned about Iraq's weapons programs. I have always been concerned. That's why I'm encouraging Iraq to allow the return, unconditional return of weapons inspectors and give them unfettered access. I wish the United States would start talking more about getting weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq and less about sending Marines into Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: So, Scott Ritter is saying: Listen, the U.S. at this point doesn't have enough evidence that warrants an attack or invasion into Iraq.

Condoleezza Rice is saying otherwise. What do you say? KAY: Well, look, we have had experience from 1991 to 1998, when Scott left, actually, and all the inspectors were withdrawn, with trying to carry out inspections in Iraq. And every time when the inspectors get close to discovery, Saddam kicked the inspectors out, closed down the inspections, frustrated the inspections.

Why you should want to continue this fruitless process while he develops his program of better and better weapons of mass destruction is beyond me. It's interesting, though, that Scott gave them an option. Let the inspectors back in. I have not seen a positive response even on that from Baghdad, nor would I expect to.

NEVILLE: Now, if the inspectors were allowed back in, do you think that Saddam would actually -- that you could trust him, that they would actually uncover all the materials that might be there?

KAY: The question is not letting inspectors in. It's how the Iraqis behave in terms of unrestricted, unfettered access using intrusive methods of inspection.

There's nothing in the past 11 years to indicate that Saddam will agree to that. If that were to occur -- I think it extraordinarily unlikely -- if that were to occur and the Iraqis were to stop all of their concealment efforts, all of their deception efforts, I think the inspectors could uncover a great deal. But there are a lot of ifs in that statement.

NEVILLE: Now, so far, several of the U.S. allies are saying: Listen, we need to have the inspectors go back in before we are convinced of this possible invasion.

What if the inspectors are not allowed? Is that the answer to those allies who are skeptical?

KAY: I, indeed, think that is pretty much the bargain. I think there probably will be one last effort, one last offer to Saddam. Let the inspectors in under terms that guarantee their unfettered access and let them find what they can find.

Now, either he accepts that, and they go in, and we see if he allows unfettered access or he says, "No, I won't let them in because I'm determined to keep this program and I'm worried they might find something." And then you have, in fact, I think, the coalition coming together.

NEVILLE: Now, what do you think about the scenario of: wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used?

KAY: Well, I think we are guaranteed, if we wait, the threat will grow. I'm disturbed that we have waited as long as we have; 1998 to now, four long years, is a long time in a weapons of mass destruction program, when you have essentially unrestricted amounts of money to acquire those facilities.

Strike and he will use it? I think there are ways that we can strike that we will not give him the opportunity to use it. I'm confident in the innovativeness and the strategy of the U.S. military that we can find a way to lessen the opportunities for him to use it if we go early. If we wait another four years, I think we are in a great deal of trouble.

NEVILLE: OK, I have a question here from Tony in the audience.

TONY: Yes, sir.

I'm a former Persian Gulf vet. The only thing I'm saying is, OK, back in 1991, when we were in the Persian Gulf, we had all our allies over there. It was the French over there, the United Nations. We had all our coalition over there. And now it seems like it's just Great Britain.

Now, if Saddam is bad, he is doing something bad, yes, we need to take him out. But shouldn't we make sure first? It's just like the U.S. and Britain, they want to destroy these people. Why is that? Like I said, I understand, if the guy has got they claim he's got, show the evidence first, and let's take him out.

KAY: Well, to show the evidence depends not on us. It really depends on him.

What we can show you are what I think is a lot of evidence. But we can't give you, deliver a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon, because he controls them. I think it's obvious. I, like you, would prefer to bring as many of my friends to a fight as I can. I have always felt that way. And it's a pretty good strategy.

But, ultimately, I think what we are seeing is a large number of our allies are prepared to take a free ride. They know that if the problem really develops, the U.S. will carry the burden. The U.S. has the assets. I think it's a sad commentary on alliance relationship, but not without a lot of precedent in our history of dealing with the Europeans.

NEVILLE: I have Haley (ph) now here in the audience.

HALEY: I don't personally know what we are waiting for. I think he has shown himself to be who he is: the destruction of his own people, the Kurds, the chemical weapons he has used on them; and just the evidence that we already have. The American people don't need the evidence. We are not the ones that are making the decisions. We have to trust...

NEVILLE: All right, Haley, listen, I'm going to interrupt you. Excuse me.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Right now on TALKBACK LIVE: Does the U.S. have the evidence it needs to invade Iraq?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RITTER: I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And later: A Harvard professor says it's time to neutralize white people. It's going to get hot in here. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about Iraq. Has the White House convinced you that it's time to attack?

And I'm standing here with Mike in the audience.

MIKE: Well, I think they have. Saddam needs to go. But we need the backing of our allies. If they don't back us and then they stand by and let us go in there and just do this on our own, what's going to happen with their regimes? I think you have a lot of people standing by over there just waiting to destabilize some of these other regimes.

Also, if we take out Saddam, who is there waiting to take his place? In Afghanistan, at least there were people that were fighting a long time against them. There were known leaders that were willing to step up. Who is going to step up there? Is the evil we know better than the one we don't? I don't know at this point.

NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Kay, do you have anything to add to that?

KAY: Well, let me address the issue of who comes after Saddam. I think the situation is much more hopeful than it is in Afghanistan.

Most Americans don't know that Iraq had the largest middle-class population of any country in the Middle East. It's a country that had, until the Gulf War, a vibrant education system. I think once the tyranny of Saddam is removed from around the necks of the Iraqi nation, you will find many voices stepping forward, and, in fact, will assume a very important role in what I hope is a peaceful, progressive Middle East.

In many ways, Saddam is the hinge that keeps the Israeli situation, the Iranian situation all boiling. He needs to be dealt with. And I think the Iraqi people will deal with the regime succession very well.

NEVILLE: OK, David Kay, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

KAY: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And joining us now is Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and president of the Center for Security Policy; also Graham Allison, professor of government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is a former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration.

And I want to welcome both of you gentlemen.

GRAHAM ALLISON, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK, Frank Gaffney, you are up first on this one.

Do you think, in any way, that the timing of the release of this information is at all suspicious?

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I think the timing is keyed to the necessity of bringing this debate to closure, both in the Congress -- where, as the president has said, he hopes will see it resolved within the next few weeks -- and, of course, as part of his effort to bring some of the -- not probably all -- but some of the other members of the international community along with us.

I don't subscribe and I really, frankly, find demeaning the suggestion that this is really about domestic politics and trying to influence the upcoming congressional elections. I don't think that's what is at stake here, though, to be sure, we have a need to get this resolved.

NEVILLE: Not necessarily only to influence the election, but also just to sort of drive home the sales pitch, the president's sales pitch.

GAFFNEY: Well, again, you can't have it both ways, Arthel. As you said in the opening, people have been demanding more information. People have been demanding a debate to determine whether the president enjoys the support of the Congress and the American people.

I would have expected and, frankly, am pleased that the administration is beginning to put before the American people, both through official sources and presumably through leaked information, some of the data that supports its contention that we do have, at this point, no choice but to liberate the Iraqi people and end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, which can actually only be addressed by liberating the Iraqi people from his regime.

NEVILLE: Graham Allison, do you agree with that?

ALLISON: Well, I certainly agree with the proposition that, as the president makes the case for action against Iraq, that he's going to bring forth and the administration is going to bring forth the evidence that has been available to it that has not been publicly available that is part of the evidence that the American public and the public debate should have as it tries to think about this issue.

But I think the question that we are going to come up to -- and I congratulate the administration for now making this a public and serious debate -- the question for me is: How, if we are going to attack him, do we prevent his using the biological and chemical weapons that the vice president said yesterday, rightly, that he has against us and our allies? How do we prevent that from happening?

NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have a question here from Russell in the audience. I have Jerod (ph) standing by on the phone from California -- more discussion after the break.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody to TALKBACK love -- LIVE. What is wrong with my tongue today? It must be Monday. Is it?

All right, Russell, you answer this question. Have you seen enough evidence to warrant an invasion into Iraq?

RUSSELL: As of right now, I have not.

And I'm a service member. And I want to make sure before we commit ourself. And if we do commit, are we going to go all the way this time and not like we did in '91 and pull out? But I haven't seen enough. I'm waiting for Thursday, when the president is going to talk to the...

NEVILLE: United Nations.

RUSSELL: ... and see what he's got to bring to the table, what he's going to say to prove that they are doing what they say they are doing.

NEVILLE: But, Frank Gaffney, does it really matter what the president says Thursday, because the U.S. has said that they will go it alone if necessary?

GAFFNEY: Well, I think he's going to talk to the American people the night before. And I tend to think that probably matters even more. He will be talking, I'm sure, in both of these settings, in as much detail as he feels he can, about both what we know and the ominous nature of what we can't be certain of, but we have reason to believe.

I think David Kay described this very well in your first segment. There's ample evidence that Saddam Hussein knows how to build weapons of mass destruction, certainly has stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and has been working assiduously to get his nuclear weapons. This is the kind of thing that, as I believe Condi Rice put it, you will only know for certain he has when, in all likelihood, it is used against somebody. We can't afford to wait for that point.

And I would just say that the question of whether he uses those weapons in the event we do try to take him down will depend entirely on the people who actually have physical control of those weapons. He won't fire, in all likelihood, a single weapon at anybody. Somebody will have to transmit his orders. Somebody will have to execute his orders. And our hope and our goal has to be to try to dissuade all of those folks and, if necessary, prevent them from executing those orders. NEVILLE: Graham Allison, how likely is that, though?

ALLISON: Well, I would try to think about the problem. And I would wish and hope that there was some way to zap either those weapons themselves or to dissuade the people, because I think Frank is exactly right.

These will be launched by individuals who are part of Saddam's evil regime. There's no debate that Saddam is evil. There's no debate that Saddam is seeking and has weapons of mass destruction. The question -- this is a homicidal man. The question is whether this person is also suicidal. If we go about attacking him to kill him and everything he cares about, what is going to prevent him from attacking us in that event?

NEVILLE: OK, let me get a quick response from you, Herb.

HERB: Well, I agree. Eventually, we are going to have to deal with the man. I would rather deal with him now and get it over with than I would for him to come into my backyard and lose probably many more lives.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. That is going to be the last word on this subject.

Hey, Jerod in California, I'm sorry I didn't get to you. Stick around and speak out on the next subject.

Frank Gaffney and Graham Allison, thank you both for joining us here today.

GAFFNEY: Thank you, Arthel.

ALLISON: Thank you.

NEVILLE: All right.

And up next -- oh, boy -- meet the Harvard professor who says he intends to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. And if you are looking at the television screen, you will notice he's a white guy. What's up with that? You don't want to miss this.

Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody, to TALKBACK LIVE.

Our next guest is creating quite a bit of outrage and even disbelief with his mission to, as he says it, abolish the white race. Noel Ignatiev is a Harvard professor and the founder of a journal called "Race Traitor." He wrote in the current issue of "Harvard" magazine that abolishing the white race is an idea so desirable, only committed white supremacists would oppose it. Welcome, professor.

NOEL IGNATIEV, RACETRAITOR.ORG: Hello.

NEVILLE: OK.

IGNATIEV: I must make one correction.

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

IGNATIEV: I am not a Harvard professor. I have only an appointment as a fellow at a research institute there.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much for clarifying that. And I'm going to move on now and ask you, when did you experience the revelation of wanting to abolish the privileges that might accompany being white in America?

IGNATIEV: Well, we founded our journal back in 1992, at the end of '92. I had been thinking along these lines for a number of years before, and so, I guess that gives some rough idea of the date.

I would like to say that when we speak about abolishing the white race, we do not mean exterminating physically people of fair skin, straight hair, blue eyes and so forth.

NEVILLE: You are talking about privileges. And why don't you tell us about...

IGNATIEV: That's right.

NEVILLE: ... some of those privileges you are referring to.

IGNATIEV: Well, what we would like to do is to abolish the white race as a social category. In our view, membership in the white race, it's an assigned membership, and it carries with it, as you say or as you say quoting me, certain kinds of privileges. It means biking with your back to the wind, essentially. It means a favored access to relatively good jobs, to better neighborhoods, to good schools -- to the sorts of things that are normally understood to mean a better life in this competitive society. And many of these things are a favored access to these things is quite often or generally linked with membership in the white race. And so, that's what we would like to get rid of. And in doing so...

NEVILLE: So, you're a white man. Why do you want to get rid of it?

IGNATIEV: Well, I am what is normally called a white man in this society. That's not a term I like to have applied to myself. I want to get rid of it, because I think that the price that it extracts from us is greater than the benefit it brings. That the so-called white folks, or at least most of them, give up a great deal in return for the advantages that go with the white skin.

NEVILLE: What do you mean by that, sir? IGNATIEV: Well, I think that what they really give up is the opportunity to take part fully in the shaping of their lives and the future of their country.

You know, this country, like most parts of the world, is in a lot of ways divided into masters and slaves. And the problem in this country is a whole lot of the slaves think they are part of the master group, because they enjoy the privileges of the white skin. In my view, these privileges lead people to identify themselves racially, instead of identifying their interests with those of members of other so-called races.

And as a result, we suffer in this country from a debased political culture, an absence of serious discussion of important issues, a population that generally likes to deal in sound bytes rather than in thought. And in my view, a lot of these things are, in some sense, connected to their acceptance of an identity as white, which is apart from social privileges a meaningless identity.

NEVILLE: How do you go about changing the system?

IGNATIEV: Well, I take my cue from the civil rights movement, which directed its fire at the institutions that reproduce white supremacy. I mean, everybody knows back in the days of the civil rights movement, the exclusion of black folk from the jury box and the voting rolls and from membership in various trades and from admission into the better schools and so forth, people challenged that through courtroom initiatives, through legislative measures, and through direct action.

Now, what I propose to do is to look at the institutions in the society, which are reproducing race today, and figure out a way to challenge them and transform them or overturn them.

NEVILLE: OK, listen. I have a follow-up for you. But before I go there, I want to thank Jerod (ph) in California, who is still standing by. And you now have something to say about this topic. Go ahead, Jerod (ph).

JEROD (ph): Hi. How are you guys doing?

NEVILLE: Good.

JEROD (ph): First of all, I want to say people are people. This man's words are a little dangerous, because he is saying more than what his intent is trying to communicate to you.

I'm not offered a job on a silver platter. I don't have health insurance just given to me. I am not a black person, so I don't understand some of the horrors that they have, you know, suffered over the years. But the fact of the matter is, above and beyond anything else, people are people -- man, woman, black or white. They should be judged on that basis. They should be held accountable on that basis.

NEVILLE: Right. But, Jerod (ph), do you think that everybody is, in fact, judged on the basis of the fact that they are a person and not because of the color of their skin?

JEROD (ph): I think that anywhere you go, people are going to be biased against you for a variety of reasons. If a black person is biased against a white person, because that white person is in their community, or vice versa, it's the same thing...

NEVILLE: Because of what? I'm sorry. Because what?

JEROD (ph): It's the same thing. If I go to a black community, and they are looking at me in a bad way, they don't like my presence, it's the same thing as if a black person came to a white community. We would treat it in the same way. It's still wrong. It doesn't matter whether the roles are reversed. People are people. And if someone's rights are being taken away from them because of their color, we should prosecute them.

To say something like the white race needs to be brought down or controlled or corralled, that's problematic. That's dangerous talk. That's where semantics turn into war, if you ask me.

NEVILLE: OK. Professor, would you like to respond to that?

IGNATIEV: Well, sure. See, look, I have no problem with anybody of any complexion or whatever as an individual. I'm not trying to bring -- but it's not the fair skin that makes people socially white. It's their immersion in a society in which the fair skin carries with it certain kinds of privileges, and that's what makes a white race. Otherwise, no one speaks of a left-handed race. No one speaks of a curly-haired race, you see, because those things are of no significance.

Now, what I am trying to do is to bring about a situation, where the color of one skin and one's ancestry has no more importance than the size of your feet or the shape of your ears, you see. And that would mean the destruction of the white race as a social category. Of course, I understand that my language is problematic for some people.

NEVILLE: Professor, let me jump...

IGNATIEV: But they should think through it.

NEVILLE: Professor, hang on for me. I know we are talking about color here. Jen (ph) knows all about color. I don't know if you can tell at home, but Jen's (ph) hair is purple. I like purple, so it works for me.

Anyway, we are talking about color -- not the color of your hair, the color of your skin -- and what benefits that go along with that.

And also, we're going to find out what a man, who wrote "The Day Whitey Died," he has a few things to say about this idea we are talking about here. He wants to talk to the professor. We're going to let them get it on when TALKBACK LIVE continues. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, a professor says white people have it too good, and he wants to change that.

And in Miami, it's against the law to discriminate against gay people. Find out why some want to change the rules.

TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... go ahead and get rid of whites. It should be the racism issue that should be destroyed, and I can't disagree with him on that.

NEVILLE: Well, OK. Well, what we are talking about is -- we are talking to a professor, Noel Ignatiev, and he wrote an essay calling for the abolishing of the white race. And you just heard our audience member over there.

Now, I want to get to Jen (ph) and get your comments on this subject.

JEN (ph): Yes, I think his comments about abolishing white as a category is really dangerous. As a white person, it's what we live with. It's our reality. We have categories. We have different ethnicities and races. So let's acknowledge them, and let's acknowledge all of the privileges and the institutional categorization that goes on.

There are a lot of institutional and systematic privileges that we face, and it's not as simple as walking into a job or into a store and who gets preferential treatment. It's about who has power in the government. It's about who our legislators are. It's about who the CEOs of our corporations are. It's about who has control over the Capitol in this society.

NEVILLE: So, having said that, do you agree with the professor that he wants to go ahead and abolish some of the privileges that he says accompany being white in America?

JEN (ph): I definitely agree with getting rid of the privileges, and that's something that I would call anti-racism. But I don't agree with his motive in doing it.

NEVILLE: OK, well, thanks, Jen (ph).

Listen, joining us now is syndicated talk show host, Lowell Ponte. Now, Lowell is on the Talk American Network and wrote a piece called, "The Day Whitey Died" for frontpagemagazine.com. And welcome, Lowell.

LOWELL PONTE, FRONTLINEMAGAZINE.COM: Hey, good to be with you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right, listen, you have been hearing this conversation here. What do you have to say about all of this? PONTE: Well, I am delighted, because Dr. Ignatiev has, of course, said that the alternative to whiteness or the white race is humanity. And therefore, I am sure he wants to get rid of the real privilege in society, the government-enforced, government-imposed racial quotas, set-asides and preferences that favor people of some skin colors over others.

Interestingly, when he first began publishing "Race Traitor" back in 1993, Dr. Ignatiev said, "We must abolish the white race by any means necessary." You know, this sounds very innocuous, but, in fact, he's the mirror image of David Duke.

NEVILLE: Professor...

PONTE: No, but understand what I'm saying, Arthel. He is saying -- he is engendering hatred toward white people. He is saying, those who do not give up their whiteness are evil and should be viewed as evil. And this is just the opposite of what David Duke does.

NEVILLE: Professor, I'd like you to respond to that, please.

IGNATIEV: Well, it sounds like Mr. Ponte claims to agree with my goals, and he just doesn't like my language. If that's all the problem is, then it's not worth arguing about.

On the matter of quotas, you see, I understand that many whites now believe that black folk get the advantage because of quotas and affirmative action. What I would say in response to that is that the United States is a giant engine for delivering affirmative action to black folk through a whole variety of connections and networks and backgrounds and all of the other things.

And so, the few little gestures toward affirmative action to try and redress the balance, in my view, are too little and too late. I would like to bring about a society in which race does not exist as a category, in which no kinds of quotas and other things are necessary. But we are not there yet.

You know, Arthel, I think it was you in the -- I hate to disagree with my host or correct her -- but you said that I said that white people in America have it too good, and I want to put an end to that. That's really not what I think. I don't think that either white people or black people in America have it so good, compared to the way we might have it.

This is a very rich country, and people in this country do not lead rich lives. They have a lot of toys, but on the other hand, they very often lead impoverished lives. The white skin does not bring them freedom and dignity. It is for many people a substitute for freedom and dignity. And I am trying to get the white folks in America, who are my concern, to wake up, to forget about clinging to these advantages of white, and start using your imagination on how could we build a better world for everyone of any color whatever.

NEVILLE: Professor, I'm jumping in there. I'm going to ask you: Have you ever used being white to your advantage? IGNATIEV: I am sure I have. I try not to. I do it, I think, as little as I can. But of course, I, too, benefit from being white. I know very well that I can say whatever I want to say here in this forum, but when I go out in the street, no policeman will throw me up against the wall and pat me down, because of the way I look. I am aware that my Harvard education and that my academic job has something to do with the educational opportunities that I got as a young fellow that others were secluded from. Of course, I do.

NEVILLE: OK.

IGNATIEV: And I could not live without using these advantages.

NEVILLE: Thank you for answering that question, sir.

IGNATIEV: I am trying to bring about...

NEVILLE: I am running out of time here. I want to interrupt you if I may. Rosemary (ph) here from Georgia wants to jump in.

ROSEMARY (ph): I just want to find out what privileges is he specifically talking about when he was mentioning them in the beginning of the segment? What privileges do the white race have that nobody else has, to be more specific?

NEVILLE: Actually, professor, I think you did address that, and because I am running out of time here, I'm going to have to let Lowell jump in.

IGNATIEV: Income gap.

PONTE: Well, interestingly, there is there is an alternative way to get rid of the white race if that skin color that we are talking about. At Monash University in Australia, they have now been developing a means, whereby with a monthly injection, white people could achieve a very dark tan of the same melanin that, today, makes African-Americans black. And therefore, at a mere cost of $256 billion a year for monthly treatments, for the 214 million, or 75 percent, of Americans who are white, we could turn all Americans into people of color. And that would go a long way toward abolishing this notion that there are white people and black people.

But of course, what Dr. Ignatiev is really concerned with is that racial awareness, or free enterprise for that matter, gets in the way of class consciousness, and thereby prevents Marxist revolution here.

NEVILLE: Guess what?

PONTE: And that's his real objective.

NEVILLE: Lowell, you just got the last word, because I am out of time. Noel Ignatiev and Lowell Ponte, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

PONTE: My pleasure. NEVILLE: OK, we're going to move on, and ask you this: Do gay people need legal protection from discrimination? Find out why this question poses a real problem for some Miami voters.

It's all next on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

Do gays and lesbians need laws to protect them from discrimination? Miami-Dade voters will go to the polls tomorrow to decide if a 1998 civil rights ordinance protecting homosexuals should be repealed. A group called Take Back Miami-Dade is behind that campaign.

The group's attorney, Rosa Armesto de Gonzalez, joins us, along with Betsy Gressler, associate political director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Welcome, ladies.

ROSA ARMESTO DE GONZALEZ, TAKE BACK MIAMI-DADE: Thank you.

BETSY GRESSLER, NATL. GAY & LESBIAN TASK FORCE: Thank you.

GONZALEZ: Thank you for having me on.

NEVILLE: OK, well, listen, Ms. Gonzalez, you're up first. Who wants the law repealed, and why?

GONZALEZ: We have to look at that civil rights legislation was enacted to remedy past legal discrimination. In this case and in America, it has never been legal discrimination against anyone based on their sexual orientation or sexual preference. Basically, there is no necessity for this, because discrimination in these areas, where the amendment seeks to cover -- for instance, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or preference in the areas of housing or credit or finance or employment or public accommodations -- it has never been demonstrated that that type of discrimination exists in Miami-Dade County or anywhere in the state.

NEVILLE: Ms. Gonzalez, do you really, really believe that?

GONZALEZ: Yes, I do. And if I am wrong, then I would ask, and I have been asking, please tell me which are those banks, institutions, credit institutions that are denying homosexuals loans. On the contrary, as a group statistically speaking, homosexuals are homeowners in greater numbers than any other group in the population. So where is that discrimination? Statistically speaking, homosexuals have a greater income, almost double the income of the average national income. So where have they been discriminated...

NEVILLE: Betsy Gressler...

GONZALEZ: ... as far as economic power? NEVILLE: Betsy Gressler...

GONZALEZ: As far as political power...

NEVILLE: Hang on, Ms. Gonzalez, hold on. I want to let Ms. Gressler get in there.

GRESSLER: The law that exists right now is quite simple. It bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's against the law to discriminate against someone in housing, employment or public accommodations. It's the law today, and we want it to be the law tomorrow.

To date, over 70 complaints have been filed with the EEOC. It's not historical discrimination. It's pervasive, and it's happening today, and it's happening all around the country. That's why more than 230 cities -- in 12 cities, plus the District of Columbia, currently ban such discrimination, and that's why people are voting no on Measure 14.

NEVILLE: OK, wow! That was great.

GONZALEZ: It's obvious...

NEVILLE: Hang on, Ms. Gonzalez. Guess what? I have to jump in here. We know you have a whole lot more to say about this. And I will, of course, give you a chance in a minute.

But first, Judy Woodruff is here to tell us what she has planned for "INSIDE POLITICS".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And this word just in to CNN. We are told that Sacramento Kings star, Chris Webber, was indicted on charges that he lied to a grand jury about his dealings with the University of Michigan basketball booster. We are told that Webber, a Detroit area prep standout who led Michigan's "Fab Five" team to a victory in the 1993 national title, is charged with obstruction of justice and making a false declaration before a grand jury.

We are also told Webber's father, Mayce Webber, was also indicted.

Webber has publicly denied taking significant amounts of money.

TALKBACK LIVE continues.

NEVILLE: OK, thanks a lot, Kyra. And welcome back, everybody.

Ms. Gonzalez, I want to resume with you. Now, one Miami pastor says this is not about discrimination. This is about choice, saying if they want to be gay, that's their choice.

GONZALEZ: Correct. It is a choice. That's why it cannot be considered a discriminatory group or a minority group, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically explains that to be considered a minority group or a group that has been discriminated against, you must possess an immutable characteristic, and it should be visible, such as race or color. And you don't see this.

Someone who calls himself or alleges or claims to be a lesbian, you would not know that unless they made that allegation. It's not an immutable characteristic. It's not visible. And it is subject to change.

So it's not a basis to give someone a legal right to bring claims in court based on something that is so privately -- and should be privately held, and should not be advanced as a way to get a legal demand or to be considered a civil rights. Civil rights are not based on our sexual preferences.

NEVILLE: OK, Betsy, I have to give you a chance to respond.

GRESSLER: Well, I don't think an immutable characteristic is necessary. A person's religious or a person's different disabilities, whether or not they are visible, still entitle them to protection under the law. And as we know right now, elected officials, people of faith, all over Miami-Dade are coming out to vote against Measure 14. It's a very simple law. It protects people from job discrimination, so they can't be fired. It protects them from being evicted from their apartment, and it affords them the basic dignity that people need. And voting no on Measure 14 will keep the measure in place, keep the human rights ordinance in place the way it is now in Miami- Dade.

NEVILLE: Betsy, did you rehearse all of this?

GRESSLER: No.

NEVILLE: Listen, I'm out of time here. I want to thank both of you...

GONZALEZ: Thank you.

NEVILLE: ... for being here.

GRESSLER: Thank you for voting no on 14.

NEVILLE: I'm not in Miami. OK, listen, thank you very much.

GRESSLER: Those that are should vote yes to repeal.

NEVILLE: You know what? We're going to pass out campaign buttons here after the show. OK? Now, listen, thanks to you both.

Thanks a lot for watching everybody. I'm Arthel Neville, and I'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE.

"INSIDE POLITICS" is next.

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