|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Free-For-All Friday for November 15, 2002
Aired November 15, 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's "Free-For-All Friday."
Let's jump right in with another terrorist threat, this described, oddly enough, as spectacular.
Then stay tuned. You know the military needs people who can translate Arabic. But what happens if those translators happen to be gay?
Then find why out why PETA's passions were aroused by a Victoria's Secrets fashion show. The fur was flying. And we'll give you the details.
But first: the threat of a spectacular terrorist attack. A bulletin sent to law enforcement officials warns that the al Qaeda network could be planning something that will cause mass casualties and severely damage the economy.
Here to fill us in with the details from the White House is CNN correspondent Frank Buckley.
Frank, first of all, what is the White House saying about these latest threats?
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, administration officials are doing their best to try to put this new warning into some sort of context.
They say it was circulated this week as part of a weekly bulletin that goes around to law enforcement agencies around the country. But it did have some language within it that some felt was more ominous than language that's been in bulletins in the past.
Here's exactly what the bulletin said. It said: "In selecting its next target, sources suggest Al Qaeda may favor spectacular attacks that meet several criteria: high symbolic value, mass casualties, severe damage to the But.S. economy and maximum psychological trauma. The highest-priority targets remain within the aviation, petroleum and nuclear sectors, as well as significant national landmarks."
Now, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice spoke to reporters here at the White House earlier. And she said that that warning has to be put into some sort of context.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The warnings that have gone out recently really are a summary of intelligence, not a new warning. This is a summary of intelligence as we know it.
It is important that Americans know when this sort of thing comes to the attention of the administration. We would ask Americans to do what the president has asked them a number of times to do, which is remain vigilant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BUCKLEY: And now we are still at the same threat level. The administration is not raising the threat level. We are still at what is considered elevated or yellow. That mean that there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks. They did not raise it to the next level, which would have been a high risk, orange. They've left it, for now, Arthel, at the elevated, or yellow, risk level.
NEVILLE: Well, then, Frank, what led authorities to release this warning?
BUCKLEY: Well, they say that a number of things have come together. You've had the bin Laden tape, a man believed to be Osama bin Laden speaking on tape. You probably heard the tape by now circulating in the media.
That, coupled with earlier intelligence reports, including intelligence that's coming in from people who have been captured, al Qaeda operatives and leadership people who have been captured, they are providing information to intelligence sources here, coalition intelligence sources. And they're providing a better context of what might happen next and how al Qaeda operates.
And, also, the increase in chatter that you've probably heard about that the NSA and other agencies pick up people speaking. And there's been an increase in that chatter. And so all of those together has resulted in this. But, again, the administration is doing their best to try to put it into a context, saying that it's not a new specific threat, but essentially a summary of all of the intelligence that's out there.
NEVILLE: OK, Frank Buckley, thank you very much for joining us here today.
OK, it's time to meet our "Free-For-All" panel. Deroy Murdock is a fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and a syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard.
Hello, Deroy.
DEROY MURDOCK, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Arthel, how are you?
NEVILLE: Good.
Paul Alexander, a political journalist and biographer, he is the author of "Man of the People: The Life of John McCain." And he is the host of "Batchelor and Alexander" on WABC Radio. Is that right?
PAUL ALEXANDER, AUTHOR, "MAN OF THE PEOPLE": Hi, Arthel. How are you?
NEVILLE: All right, Paul. Nice to see you.
Also with us is social commentator Temperance Lance-Council.
Hi, Temperance. Nice to see you again.
TEMPERANCE LANCE-COUNCIL, SOCIAL COMMENTATOR: Hi. Nice to see you as well.
NEVILLE: And Avery Friedman, a civil rights attorney and radio talk show host in Cleveland.
Hello, Avery.
AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Nice to see you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Good. Thank you.
All right, Deroy, you're up first.
With these new threats and the recent resurrection of Osama bin Laden, senior Democratic senators are now saying that the effort to dismantle al Qaeda, it's a failure. Do you agree with this?
MURDOCK: No, I don't think it's been a failure. I think it would be wonderful to find Osama bin Laden and put his head on a stake. That's a pretty high level of success.
I think what we can applaud is the fact that we went in, we took the Taliban out, we disrupted the Afghan bases where al Qaeda was training people. And I think, in this country, we've broken up cells in Oregon, in Michigan, Upstate New York. And who know what's they may have had in store for us?
So, this is an ongoing war. These people mean us great harm. They want more mass murders. And it's just very important for authorities to stay a couple steps ahead of them and prevent them from creating any more havoc and any more atrocities.
NEVILLE: But let me ask you this. Do you think the U.S. authorities can stay ahead of al Qaeda while still focusing on war with Iraq?
MURDOCK: I think that they're both important. I think that the fight against al Qaeda and the fight against Iraq are very much intertwined.
Iraq has been very supportive of terrorists on the West Bank. They actually send bounty money to the families of the homicide bombers who blow up buses and markets and coffee shops and so on in Israel. Iraq is basically a big funder of terrorism, as is Saudi Arabia. And I think it's very important for us to neutralize Saddam before he continues to help out al Qaeda and other terrorists who are trying to kill us and our allies.
NEVILLE: OK, Paul, let's get your thoughts on that.
ALEXANDER: Well, you know, Arthel, can I make the point on the war against al Qaeda?
I think it's time that we take what Senator Kerry has said seriously. And that is that the effort in Tora Bora was a failure, that we had the al Qaeda leadership trapped, that, because there were decisions made not to send in ground troops, we allowed the al Qaeda leadership to flee. That would include Osama bin Laden. And we're having to deal with him today because of the mistakes that we made in Tora Bora.
And I hope that we learn from those mistakes before we take this action in Iraq.
NEVILLE: So, Avery, what do you think? Do you think that the efforts to thwart or ward off attacks or any more attacks from al Qaeda, are those efforts a failure?
FRIEDMAN: Well, not necessarily.
Again, the difficulty -- and I think Paul is exactly right -- the major problem here is that we didn't pay attention at a critical point when we started this war against terrorism. Tora Bora was a turning point. And we let al Qaeda go. And I think most Americans look at what's going on now and are saying, "Look, we focused in on Osama and all of a sudden we're looking at Iraq."
So, I think we really have to define what we're doing. We have a war on two fronts. But, again, it seems like we've shifted away from Osama and now we're zeroing in on Saddam.
NEVILLE: And Temperance, I'm going to get to you in a moment, but I want to let the audience think about something for me, because I want to know just what you think. Do you want to hear about these attacks or not? Think about that and I'll get to you in a moment, OK?
In the meantime,Temperance, I haven't heard from you yet your position on this war against al Qaeda.
LANCE-COUNCIL: I think that what the president is doing is absolutely on point. We definitely need to keep our focus on Iraq as well as al Qaeda. And America is a strong enough country that we can fight both of those wars on any front necessary.
And I think the course that we are walking down thus far is absolutely correct. And I definitely concur with the first guest.
NEVILLE: OK, thanks, Temperance.
(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Listen, hang on for me, Deroy.
MURDOCK: Iraq has territory and al Qaeda doesn't. So, at least with Iraq, there is a physical place that we can target. Who knows exactly physically where al Qaeda is? That's one of the unfortunate things about this war.
NEVILLE: Oh, so, you're saying that, because there isn't necessarily a physical location at this point, a centralized location?
MURDOCK: Because there isn't a centralized location, it makes them harder to fight. But we know the physical location of a country that's been very supportive of them, which is Iraq.
NEVILLE: But what about that notion al Qaeda, that operation had cells here inside of the United States?
MURDOCK: Well, again, there are multiple components to this war. And one of them is what we're doing overseas with our military and then what we're doing at home with our law enforcements authorities. And part of that is to find these cells domestically, find them, neutralize them, arrest the people and prosecute them.
NEVILLE: OK.
Hey, listen, let's go to California now, where Andy is standing by on the phone.
Andy, what do you think about these threats being publicized?
CALLER: Arthel, how are you?
Basically, this is the way I feel. I feel Americans are constantly on an elevated level of awareness. And if they don't give us specifics about these, we have nothing in particular to look for. They need to stop being so vague and getting people worried and upset. We're already elevated on our alert. Give us some specific information and we might be able to take a little bit more to heart what's going on.
NEVILLE: Thanks, first of all, for calling in.
Reynard (ph), let's talk about what the caller just said. Do you think that you want to hear more specific, more detailed information or not?
REYNARD: Well, we may not have put a location on it, but we have faces, bin Laden being the main face. And we're not -- there's no follow-up on that. I mean, if the American people can see some type of progress towards capturing bin Laden or any of the major leaders, well, then, it wouldn't be like crying wolf all the time, you know? After a while, we're going to go just numb to it.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Reynard, for standing up and speaking out. Listen, I wanted to know, in the meantime, panel, what do you think about the government referring to these threats as spectacular? Any thoughts?
Let's see. Paul?
ALEXANDER: You know what's interesting about the warning that you just read? It sounds exactly like what happened on 9/11.
If you go down: This is going to happen. That is going to happen. It will be spectacular. There will be casualties. It will cripple the economy. That's exactly what happened on 9/11. So, here we are, all this distance later, what have -- have we not learned enough to be more specific about what's going to happen?
(BELL RINGING)
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Oh, you know what? There's the bell. We have to move on. I'm sorry to cut you off.
But we're going to move on now to Iraq, a little bit of the same. As weapons inspectors head back, find out what the defense secretary had to say about possible military action there. And, of course, I want to hear from you as well. So go ahead and call or e-mail me now.
And we'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): It's "Free-For-All Friday" on TALKBACK LIVE. Unions scream no fair after President Bush announces plans to turn over hundreds of thousands of federal jobs to the private sector. Is it fair? Maybe you can name some jobs you think should go first.
This and more on today's "Free-For-All Friday," as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
As U.N. weapons inspectors head to Iraq, Saddam Hussein is warning his people to welcome the teams, but prepare for the worst. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a radio interview that the U.S. is concerned about a possible chemical or biological attack if the U.S. takes military action to disarm Hussein. But he also said any action against Iraq probably won't last very long and it won't be a World War III.
OK, Paul, what do you make of these remarks?
ALEXANDER: Oh, well, let's put it this way. The state of Israel is already -- they're putting into place in their medical system over there simulations to rehearse what would happen in case there's a biochemical attack in the state of Israel.
I mean, I think that Israel is ready for this to happen. I'm not sure the United States is. To pretend like this man doesn't have biochemical weapons and perhaps even nuclear weapons, it's a disgrace. And we should be prepared for whatever he's capable of throwing at us. And Israel's taking it seriously. I'm not sure that we are.
NEVILLE: Deroy, do you think the U.S. is taking that possible threat or use of biological weapons seriously?
MURDOCK: I'd like to think that our soldiers over there in the area are prepared for that kind of eventuality. I don't know actually what the logistics are of that. But I think we should be prepared for that kind of thing.
And the important thing is to neutralize him now, rather than wait another two or three or four years, when he's even more capable of creating more havoc, more destruction, and then have to worry about it then, when he's even stronger.
NEVILLE: But, in the meantime, though, Temperance, I will ask you, do you feel positive or confident that indeed the U.N. weapons inspectors will have unfettered access?
LANCE-COUNCIL: I think that we have to always, in the back of our minds, keep in mind what this man is capable of. I think that the inspectors will do the very best job that they possibly can. But we have to always remember that this is Saddam and he's a tricky little devil.
MURDOCK: I think, because he's tricky, I really hope that there's a press crew that goes along with the inspectors. A friend of mine just suggested this idea.
And that is, wherever the inspectors go, that they have camera crews with them, so that, if they get the doors slammed in their faces or they're not allowed to inspect, that we have a visual record of that and we actually can present that to the U.N. Security Council, bring it into the court of public opinion around the world, and show people that, if he's not cooperating, to have the actual visual evidence of this lack of cooperation. If he does cooperate, of course, we can illustrate that as well.
FRIEDMAN: Well, there's a motive here to cooperate.
And that is that I have no doubt in my mind, as bad a guy as Saddam is, this guy's scared to death of Donald Rumsfeld. The fact is that America is going to be prepared. And I think everyone is aware of the fact that this is a fellow that has had no limitation, no restriction in actually killing his own citizens.
So I think the reality is, we're going to be ready to go on this.
NEVILLE: Andrian (ph), what do you say? ANDRIAN: I hope that we're prepared as a nation when we go into Iraq, because, as they said, we do know that Hussein is a very dangerous fellow. And I hope that we're prepared when we go in, because I'm not really sure that we can trust that he's going to turn everything over the way that he's saying he will.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Arthel, we have to also remember that he's had years to hide various weapons, etcetera, throughout that country. So it would be a good idea to have press coverage so that, when we have to present to the world our case for going in and annihilating this man and his evilness, then the entire world will be behind us, rightfully so.
FRIEDMAN: And there's another part of this. And that is that he's had so much time that much of the nuclear, much of the biological, much of the chemical isn't even in Iraq.
The fact is, through his colleagues and some of the other axis- of-evil participants, in you will, a lot of the material the inspectors are going to be looking for are not going to be found, because you're not going to find it in Iraq.
NEVILLE: Not just that.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Oh, boy. There's the bell. You know what, guys? Hang on for me with the bell, because I have Shalom (ph) from Israel.
And I want to hear what you have to say, sir.
SHALOM: I think that Saddam Hussein is a liar, like Yasser Arafat. He will do all the stuff that he promised. And the United States I think will have to attack him and stop the ammunition against him.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, thank you very much.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: And there's the bell again. Thanks, control booth, for ringing it again for me.
Up next: If the military desperately needs translators, why are people who speak Arabic being thrown out?
Then later, a Victoria's Secret model arouses PETA. We will watch those passions explode later this hour.
And the protest prompted today's "Question of the Day": "Would you wear animal fur?" We'll get your answers later this hour.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN NORDIN, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: We are in danger. If we cannot communicate and understand the languages spoken in areas of instability and hostility toward the U.S., we can only shout or shoot or hope and pray that they speak and understand American vernacular.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
We just heard how much the U.S. government needs Arabic translators. But, despite the shortage, several soldiers training in Middle Eastern languages got the boot when they revealed they're gay. Their admission violated the military's don't-ask/don't-tell rule. They've all been given honorable discharges, but a gay advocacy group wants the military to change its mind.
Avery, is this a case of the don't-ask/don't-tell policy gone bad?
FRIEDMAN: No, this is a policy of stupidity.
And it's because we have a priority of a war against terrorists. And we're booting out intelligence officers, translators, who can help us in this war. Now, consider this. You've got a straight intelligence officer that cannot communicate or translate Arabic and you've got a gay one that can. You know, the commander in chief is the president. He can get rid of the don't-tell/don't-ask policy.
Let's keep intelligence officers, let's keep translators in there who can help us win the war against terrorism.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, Ray in the audience has something to say.
RAY: Hi, Arthel.
This is Eric (ph). This is my spouse, Eric. We were wed in a civil service in May. And Eric was an education administrator for the U.S. military for several years. On top of that, he was a teacher. He taught on the USS Constellation and he taught on the USS John F. Kennedy teaching hundreds of Navy men for several years on those ships.
What the military did is very wasteful. We all need to pull together. We have real enemies out there. And here they, they are throwing out human resources because of homophobia and baseless fears.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
MURDOCK: I think he's absolutely correct.
There's one phrase I'd ask people to think about this who may support the don't-ask/don't-tell policy. And that's the phrase body parts. How many more body parts do we want to see as a result of terrorist violence? There was all this talk about connecting the dots and how come we weren't able to connect the dots before September 11. There's been an increase in the amount of so-called chatter from terrorist groups, and some people say about to the level that we saw September 11. And we have a number of very qualified people who could sit down, translate these dots, try to connect them to other dots so that we don't have more attacks. And what do we do? We kick them out of the military. I think this is an abominable and very dangerous policy.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on for me one second. Excuse me, Temperance.
I'm going to get Peter here in the audience.
PETER: I think the issue is not kicking a person out because they are gay. The issue becomes, if the policy is don't ask, don't tell, then why tell? If you told, then I believe you should get kicked out of the military, if you tell.
NEVILLE: Now, Temperance, I want to follow up on Peter's thought there and ask that very question, which is, if this is truly about fighting the war against terrorism, then why would they tell? I mean, I don't want to say be foolish enough to tell, but you know what I mean? Just don't say anything.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Well, Arthel, I don't think we should discriminate against anybody.
NEVILLE: Well, we're not, by the way. I want to make sure that you realize that I'm not, OK?
LANCE-COUNCIL: Right.
But we also have to understand here that there are certain codes of conduct, standards, etcetera, that the military must adhere to in order to keep the military as uniformed and run...
NEVILLE: OK, but, Temperance, they need Arabic translators.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Yes, they do. Yes, they do. And we also have to remember, we shouldn't constantly undermine our U.S. military. We're fighting a war.
NEVILLE: What does this have to do with that issue right now, Temperance?
LANCE-COUNCIL: Well, I'll get to that. I'll get to that.
NEVILLE: Can you get to it for me now?
(LAUGHTER)
LANCE-COUNCIL: Yes, yes. Sorry, Arthel.
What I'm trying to say is, we shouldn't constantly try, try to undermine the military for doing some of the things that it does. FRIEDMAN: Well, she didn't answer the question.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Oh, yes, I did.
(CROSSTALK)
MURDOCK: ... is to preserve the security, the physical security and safety of American citizens.
And this policy, it would be bad enough if these were Spanish- language specialists. But Arab-language specialists don't grow on trees. They're very rare. These gentlemen, I talked to one of them, Alastair Gamble, yesterday, for a column I did for Scripps Howard. And he took seven hours per day of Arabic for 30 weeks.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, panel. Here comes Maddox in the audience.
MADDOX: Was there a stipulation that said they only wanted nongay linguists? I don't think so.
FRIEDMAN: No, of course not.
MADDOX: Well, then the whole thing is ridiculous.
FRIEDMAN: I agree.
LANCE-COUNCIL: But don't we need to know more about it, before we as people outside of the military begin to make all sorts of decisions about what's right and what's wrong?
(CROSSTALK)
FRIEDMAN: We're fighting a war against terrorists.
LANCE-COUNCIL: We don't have all of the information that the military had to make that decision. And I do not condone discrimination against anybody. Let me make that very clear.
NEVILLE: But this is ridiculous.
Go ahead, Vinsincia (ph).
VINSINCIA: Yes.
This is America. And America is built and founded on differences in education and race. Why should sexual orientation be any different, especially at a time like this?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Exactly. Stand up here, David.
DAVID: I just feel that the U.S. went through so much to issuing the don't ask, don't tell. So I feel that they should have got kicked out, because they did tell. They shouldn't have ran their mouth, letting people know their sexual orientation, when they already know that that's the consequences of their actions, if they do that.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: One at a time. Deroy, you first.
MURDOCK: What often happens in these cases, in fact, the cases at the Defense Language Students, it's not that they're going out and making big announcements to people.
They're often asked by their supervisors, "Are you gay?" And rather than lie about it, they tell the truth. And they say: "All right, well, you told the truth. Now you're out of here." And in addition to people who speak Arabic, we found out just a few weeks ago that North Korea apparently has the atomic bomb. Two Korean-language specialists have been booted.
NEVILLE: That's right, got kicked out as well.
MURDOCK: That could be very helpful to us in our struggle with North Korea.
NEVILLE: That's right.
Avery, go ahead, quickly.
FRIEDMAN: Well, the key is getting the priorities straight.
You have a commander in chief. You have this policy against homosexuals and you have a policy against terrorism. Which one is more important? I think this is a no-brainer. This is real easy. Get rid of the gay policy issues and let's deal with terrorists.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Well, there's the bell. That is the bell. That means we're going to move on.
And up next, I will tell you why a plan to trim the federal payroll is outraging unions and making some government workers very, very uncomfortable. Are there some federal jobs you would like to see privatized?
Give me a call, 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And we are back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
The Bush administration says almost half of all civilian federal jobs could soon be part of the private sector. And that has unions upset. Some 850,000 positions are at stake. Republicans say they're trying to streamline the government and make it work more efficiently by improving service and reducing costs.
Now the private sector would be allowed to bid on a variety of services, including landscaping, laundry and clerical jobs. And Avery, I ask you, are you for or against the president's plan?
FRIEDMAN: This is a way to get rid of the unions, to get rid of employee protection. Everybody has had an idiot for a boss. And when you get rid of civil service and the unions, there's no protection. It's not going to streamline. Privatization is going to wind up increasing costs. And what do the employees have? Absolutely nothing.
NEVILLE: Hang on. I have Mae (ph) here in the audience who is nodding her head.
MAE: Yes. I'm from San Antonio. And I have personally saw the negative effects that privatization has had on the military bases. Kelly Air Force Base went to the privatization and we saw affects on the economy and we also saw people lose their jobs. So I don't think that's a very good idea.
MURDOCK: Well I think it would be delightful if we could afford to pay people whatever it is the unions want to get. The fact is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we pay, say, $145 billion federal deficit next year. That's $145 billion that we don't have. And the question is how do we start saving some of this money without having to go and raise people's taxes or something ridiculous like that, particularly in a slow economy?
I think a very sensible way is to have competitions between the government and private sector businesses, and by some estimates we could reduce the cost to taxpayers by 30 percent. And if we're saving taxpayers' money and getting better service, I think it's an excellent thing that we ought to implement. So I salute the White House for the step forward.
NEVILLE: Deroy, the White House also says that indeed this would reduce the amount of time that it takes to get a bid on government jobs from about two to four years down to 12 months.
MURDOCK: That's just one example of the better efficiency you see. You have a faster and more flexible response to public policy problems at a lower cost, and I think a higher quality service. So I think this is a long time coming. I'm glad the Bush administration is doing it.
FRIEDMAN: Well what do we do? We throw out 850,000 workers? Is that what happens? They're out of a job, they're going to have to re- bid for jobs, we just get rid of them? Is that it?
MURDOCK: I think a great idea is, for example...
FRIEDMAN: Really? MURDOCK: Yes -- let the postal workers, for example -- turn the post office over to the postal workers and let them actually own it and actually run that and make whatever money they can make. And let them operate that as their own business. I think that's a great...
NEVILLE: Avery, what do you think about that idea?
FRIEDMAN: It's a fantasy. The reality is that we're dealing with a mega-bureaucracy. And the reality is that you can't privatize that. It's not going to work. There are going to be 850,000 federal employees without protection, they're going to be out of a job. And you know what? The private companies that will take their place probably won't even hire them back. So this is a disaster.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Paul.
MURDOCK: Are you saying a bureaucracy should remain a mega- bureaucracy?
(CROSSTALK)
FRIEDMAN: Oh, no. There are more than two ways of streamlining a bureaucracy. But it isn't getting rid of 850,000 workers. That's the wrong way to go.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Why are we always -- excuse me for a second. Why are we always so quick to say, no, no, no. That can never work? I mean, sometimes we ought to just say, you know what, maybe it's good to try a different approach.
If this is going to save the government, you know, X amount of tax dollars, we should be in favor of this. I really think that we need to stop...
FRIEDMAN: By getting rid of 850,000 workers? I think there are a lot better ways of saving money.
LANCE-COUNCIL: No, it's not necessarily so that we're getting rid of the 850,000 jobs.
FRIEDMAN: Oh, sure we are.
LANCE-COUNCIL: No, no, no, no.
NEVILLE: Rick (ph) in the audience -- hang on panel. Rick (ph)?
RICK: I would just like to say that America has had to work real hard in our nation's history to fight for what they have. The rights they have, the benefits they have.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And to give that control over to the government, whether you have a union or not, is really -- it's just terrible. I mean, to...
NEVILLE: Paul, I haven't heard from you -- thank you, Rick (ph).
ALEXANDER: Arthel, I'd like to make a crass political point here. I think that there is -- coming from the Bush administration, I wonder about this, because it immediately is going to put the Democrats in the position that they're going to have to go out and defend the unions. And you know going into the 2004 elections, that's what they're going to -- they want the Democrats to look like their owned by the unions. So I'm very suspicious about this plan coming out at this time.
MURDOCK: Well the Democrats to defend the taxpayers (UNINTELLIGIBLE), that would be very smart for them to do politically.
NEVILLE: OK. Mike (ph) from Kansas.
MIKE: Well, I think anybody who really believes we're going to lose 850,000 jobs, they're not living in reality.
LANCE-COUNCIL: I agree.
MIKE: I mean these people that have those jobs now are professional experts. Anyone who comes in as a private contractor will have to use their skills. The private contractor will tend to get rid of the dead wood. This country was built on competition, and competition is what's going to carry us through it.
NEVILLE: OK. And Scott (ph) is on the line now from Ohio -- Scott (ph), what do you say about all of this?
CALLER: Well, I agree completely with privatization, because it's a proven fact that competition, when in place, works out the best for both the workers and the consumers.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Scott (ph). Delia (ph) in the audience from Virginia.
DELIA: Yes. I am very concerned about this privatization of these jobs, because I think it's a slap in the face to workers of America.
NEVILLE: OK. And that is the final word. You know why? Because the bell ran off and I didn't want to cut you off. But now I have to. Thank you very much, Delia (ph).
All right. Listen, in the meantime, we're going to talk about this next. A jury fines a gun distributor for making a dangerous weapon. I'm going to give you the details after that, so stay right there, because TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
A Florida jury ordered has ordered a gun distributor to pay more than $1 million to the widow of the teacher shot by a 13-year-old student. The jury found the distributor five percent responsible for the killing of Barry Gruno (ph) two years ago. The suit contended the distributor was to blame, because the gun, known as a Saturday night special, does not va child-proof gun lock and was small enough to be associated with a toy.
The distributor argued the .25 caliber raven (ph) handgun did exactly what it was designed to do. So Paul, I ask you, should the gun manufacture bear any responsibility?
ALEXANDER: I don't know, Arthel. I mean, really. We're now blaming people for going into McDonald's and asking to have their food supersized. I mean when are we going to stop?
You know people have to take responsibility for their own actions. It wasn't the gun company that caused that gun to be used. They manufactured a gun. They sold it. Somebody bought it and they used it in a harmful way. How is the company responsible for that any more than McDonald's is responsible for you going in and asking for too much food?
NEVILLE: Avery, how do you see it?
FRIEDMAN: Arthel, Paul missed the whole point. The fact is, that this is an important case. The Valor (ph) company, which is ironically the name of the supplier, was held responsible, five percent, but responsible because it didn't provide gun locks. It's nothing more than that.
The school board was responsible. The shooter was primarily responsible. But this tells gun distributors that if you're going to do it, you better make sure you have that lock on there. I think this is a great decision, and we'll see more of them coming.
NEVILLE: Right. The Palm Beach County school board was held 45 percent responsible for allowing Nathaniel Brazil (ph) to bring the gun into school.
ALEXANDER: What's five percent?
FRIEDMAN: Well the five percent is $1.2 million. And I think that will teach somebody a lesson.
ALEXANDER: The shooter was not held responsible in terms of...
FRIEDMAN: Oh, the shooter, of course, is responsible.
ALEXANDER: What I find fascinating about this, is let's say that instead of going in to a home and stealing a gun, which he did, of a family friend. Let's say he got into somebody's house, broke into the person's garage, hot-wired the car, and then ran his teacher over with the car. Would GM or Ford now be five percent liable? Would we be going to Detroit and asking them to pay damages for the criminal and malicious and homicidal use of an automobile?
(CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody is to blame here except the gunman.
FRIEDMAN: No, that's not true.
LANCE-COUNCIL: The shooter is always responsible once he or she pulls the trigger.
ALEXANDER: That's right.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Safety lock, no safety lock. That's it. Take responsibility, please, for your actions.
NEVILLE: OK. All right. Well, there's the bell. Sorry. I got to go on.
That means we have to move on. Up next, from separating the sexes in the classroom to who has better sex, married folks or singles? Ooh. We'll talk about that when we come back, because the flash round is up next. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. It's time for our flash round.
First up, does separating boys and girls mean they concentrate more on the ABC's than on the birds and the bees? A Virginia public school experimenting with same-sex classrooms says they are a success. The National Organization for Women calls it a giant step backward and say girls will get an inferior education. Who's right -- Deroy?
MURDOCK: It seems that girls do better on standardized tests and so on. So I kind of wonder if N.O.W. is right on this one. I kind of doubt it.
NEVILLE: Paul?
ALEXANDER: I have a 23-year-old daughter and I made sure she went to an all-girl prep school and an all-girl college. I'm all for all-girl schools.
NEVILLE: OK. Temperance?
LANCE-COUNCIL: This is an experiment that I still have a few questions about. I'm going to sit back and see what happens here.
NEVILLE: OK. Avery?
FRIEDMAN: It violates the American Constitution. Forget about it.
NEVILLE: OK. moving on now, is marriage good for your sex life? Two-thirds of married women surveyed in a British health magazine say it is. They say they are having the best sex of their lives with their husbands, but would most men agree? Deroy?
MURDOCK: Yeah. I don't have any particular opinion on this, particularly with my mother and father watching.
NEVILLE: Oh, please! How old are you, Deroy? You're old enough -- well, never mind. Paul?
ALEXANDER: Sex is best when you're having sex with somebody you love and the piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
NEVILLE: All right. Temperance?
LANCE-COUNCIL: I think marriage is always good and sex within the confines of marriage is much better. I should know.
NEVILLE: You're married, I take it.
LANCE-COUNCIL: I'm married to a wonderful, wonderful man.
NEVILLE: All right. Avery?
FRIEDMAN: That's a frightening question, and I refuse to answer it.
NEVILLE: That's fair enough. That's fair enough.
Next up, if you're headed to Texas, there is a new tourist attraction. The Texas prison museum opened this week and the most popular exhibit seems to be Old Sarky (ph), the Texas electric chair. Bad taste or why not? Deroy?
MURDOCK: Well capital punishment is a serious issue. And I think actually looking at the electric chair could be educational for people. I mean nobody's actually being executed at the time. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
NEVILLE: Paul?
ALEXANDER: It is a piece of American history. They kill more people in Texas than anywhere else. So, yes, it seems appropriate.
NEVILLE: Temperance?
LANCE-COUNCIL: Nothing's wrong with it.
NEVILLE: Avery?
FRIEDMAN: It's right next to the cow girl hall of fame. And I'm going to that one instead.
NEVILLE: And finally, "Potter" mania is back. The second installment of the "Harry Potter" stories, "Chamber of Secrets" opens tonight in theaters around the country. Will you be lining up to see the boy wizard? Deroy?
MURDOCK: I'm going to save my $10 and wait to see the new James Bond movie.
NEVILLE: Paul?
ALEXANDER: I have to work, or I would be there. Absolutely.
NEVILLE: Temperance?
LANCE-COUNCIL: Passing on Harry. Good-bye.
NEVILLE: Avery?
FRIEDMAN: I'll be with the 13-year-olds standing in line.
NEVILLE: I'll be with you. All right. I think that's all we have for this particular round.
I want to go ahead and thank Paul Alexander, Temperance -- oh there's the bell. Paul Alexander, Temperance Lance-Council, Avery Friedman and Deroy Murdock. Nice to see all of you again. Thanks so much for joining us on our free-for-all today.
And everyone else, stay right there. I want you to watch a Victoria's Secret fashion show. Well, not all of it. But I want to show you one model who generated a whole lot of heat. It's all part of a PETA protest, which I'll explain in a minute. Well, those pictures, you don't want to miss that.
But before I go, I want to ask the question of our day: Would you or do you wear animal fur? I'll take your calls and e-mails after this break. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
A Victoria's Secret fashion show creates its own form of excitement. But things got heated on the runway last night when supermodel Giselle strolled onstage. PETA protesters pounced on the catwalk to denounce the model who is a spokesperson for fur designer Black Gama (ph).
As you can see, they were literally swept from the stage. Giselle was surprised but composed. She denies wearing fur herself and claims the contract with Black Gama (ph) is just a job. Hmm.
And that leads us to our question of the day. Would you wear animal fur? Calling in now from Texas is Courtney (ph). What do you say, Courtney (ph)?
CALLER: Arthel, I say I wouldn't wear fur if my life depended on it. I think anyone who wants to buy a fur coat should have to look at the animal in its natural habitat. And then if they still want to wear it, it's on their conscience.
NEVILLE: OK, Laura (ph)?
LAURA: All I want for Christmas is a full-length fur.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would not wear a fur. It's inhumane just for a fashion statement. And there's plent ofy faux fur out there that looks great, too.
NEVILLE: OK. And let's check our e-mail that's coming in now. Who's it coming from? From Al (ph) in Alaska. "My beaver hat keeps my toasty at 50 below. I wouldn't trade it for anything. Furs have kept man warm for over 1,000 years."
All right. Well, that's it. We are out of time. Thanks so much for watching.
I'm Arthel Neville. Hey, guess what? I want you to join me this weekend while you're having your coffee or cafe au lait, for CNN Saturday and Sunday morning. I'll be on from 7:00 to 10:00 AM Eastern giving you all the latest from Iraq to "Harry Potter."
Good-bye for now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
