|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Senate Set to Pass Homeland Security Bill
Aired November 19, 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.
And we are talking homeland security. It appears the party haggling is over and the Senate may be poised to pass the Homeland Security Bill. It will mean the most massive restructuring of the federal government in a half-century. It comes as the federal government takes over security at the airports. So, will these changes make you feel safer? We're going to get to that in a minute.
And then stay tuned, because I want to know if you think this man stands a chance at a comeback.
And later: Does a monument to the 10 Commandments belong in an Alabama judicial building? A chief justice vows to fight to keep it where it is. We'll tell you his story.
But right now, we're going to start with the Senate vote on homeland security.
CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl joins us now.
And, Jonathan, if you would, tell us about some of the points the Senate is or was haggling over.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, this was really some incredible drama on the Senate floor in advance of this vote.
The Republicans have now overcome their last obstacle. And it looks like almost certain that the Homeland Security Bill will pass today. But, at the very end of the day here, what we're looking at is, there was a major showdown over seven so-called special interests provisions, at least provisions that Democrats labeled as special interests, that were in this Homeland Security Bill that were added by the of House of Representatives last week.
Now, what happened was, they came down to a vote on this. The Democrats wanted to take these provisions out. These were provisions like one that would shield pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits for faulty vaccines. The Democrats said this was payback to the pharmaceutical companies for help during the campaign. Republicans said that, if the Democrats succeeded in taking this stuff out, it would delay passage of homeland security, because the House would have to come back to town.
They would have to go through a whole 'nother round of negotiations over the issue. So it got down to this final vote. And Republicans were on the verge of losing, because a group of moderate Republicans, led by the two women senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, threatened to vote with the Democrats if they did not get a commitment from the Republican leadership that these provisions would be removed or at least modified when Congress returns next year.
They got that commitment from Trent Lott, but they still hadn't gotten a commitment from the House of Representatives from Speaker Dennis Hastert, because he was actually on a plane on his way to Turkey. And the time on the vote had expired. They still hadn't heard from Dennis Hastert. They didn't have that commitment. These moderates were ready to go out and vote with the Democrats.
And finally the call came through. They got their commitment. And the moderate sided with the Republicans. And now it looks like we will get final passage of a Homeland Security Bill on the president's terms, exactly as the president wanted when Congress finally wraps up its work here today.
NEVILLE: OK, well, that makes a whole lot more sense to me now why they called the president on Air Force One.
KARL: Yes, they called him. It seemed a little premature, because, after all, this bill hasn't finally passed.
NEVILLE: Exactly. That's why, when I saw it that I'm going: "What's going on here? Jonathan has got to tell me what's going on here."
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: But, keep in mind, the president is on his way to Prague. It's six hours later. If they had waited, it would have been the middle of the night.
And this really was the last obstacle. Now, when they finally get around to voting on this -- and we expect it will be in a few hours. You can never be sure around the Senate. But there are more than enough votes to pass this bill.
NEVILLE: OK, Jonathan Karl, thanks so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
KARL: Sure.
NEVILLE: OK.
Let's meet our guests. Sandy Rios is president of Concerned Women for America.
Hello, Sandy.
SANDY RIOS, PRESIDENT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Hello, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right.
Mark Riley is host of "Politics Live" for WLIB Radio in New York.
Hello, Mark.
MARK RILEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel. How you doing?
NEVILLE: I'm good. Thank you.
And Tammy Bruce, author of "The New Thought Police" and currently working on "The Death of Right and Wrong."
TAMMY BRUCE, AUTHOR, "THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE": Indeed. Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: There's more, though: "How the Left's Moral Vacuum Corrupts Our Culture and Threatens Our Liberty."
BRUCE: Exactly.
NEVILLE: And you're also a columnist for NewsMax.com.
BRUCE: I am indeed.
NEVILLE: Hey, how you doing today?
BRUCE: Pretty good. And I'm a registered Democrat. So, this will be an interesting discussion today on homeland security.
NEVILLE: OK, well, we will look forward to your comments, then.
And Atlanta radio talk show host and writer Mike Malloy.
MIKE MALLOY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hey, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Hello, Mike. Nice to see you.
MALLOY: Good to see you.
NEVILLE: Well, listen, guys, we're going to want to first talk about the Homeland Security Bill.
Mike, you're going to be up first here. Do you think the bill is loaded with political favors?
MALLOY: Oh, absolutely.
It's payback time for those people, as Jonathan Karl reported. It's payback time for the special interests that helped put Bush in office. Any Homeland Security Bill that contains a provision that says pharmaceutical companies will not be liable if they produce a vaccine that makes people sick or die, it's an outrage. It has nothing to do with homeland security, A. B, what people don't understand, I don't think, is that the CEO of Eli Lilly, one of the major pharmaceutical companies on the planet, was on the president's advisory board to write the Homeland Security Act. So homeland security is a good idea. The way it's put together, it's become nothing but a huge sponge to soak up all the special interests that are required to pay back, those money people who put Bush in office.
NEVILLE: Sandy, do you agree with that?
RIOS: No, I'm afraid I don't take the same spin on that.
It sounds like a good case, but let me say just this. I think common sense is prevailing. What's happening is, they're trying to prevent tort lawyers, who are the one supporting the other side, the Democrats, from having freedom to sue without restraint. They have established a fund for anyone who is injured.
The problem is that pharmaceutical companies and other companies that produce things to protect us in times of war and chemical warfare need to be free to experiment. They need to be free to get things out quickly. And we may not have time to have all the normal precautions if we really get in the throes of war. This is common sense and will make sure that they stay diligent and are able to do their jobs without fear of being sued out of business.
NEVILLE: OK, one second, panel.
I'm going to go to Wisconsin now, where Gale is standing by on the phone.
I want to hear you thoughts, Gale. Go ahead.
CALLER: I'm just really appalled on how Congress and the House has been just taking advantage and running scared with passing all of these almost communistic type of bills. People don't realize that they're voting away their independence. They're voting away their abilities to be moving around. And they're turning this into a communist state. And people don't even realize how it's creeping in.
NEVILLE: And so, Gale, I ask you, if this becomes a new Homeland Security Department, would you feel safer?
CALLER: No, I wouldn't. I would be more afraid of the government as it is running now and the way it is running rampant over people's rights and people's opinions and people's views, and also dictating, in a sense, in a very, very underground way, as the Christian coalition has been trying to do, run this into a Christian state, just perpetuating religious war around the country, creating an opposition, taking on a superior view of themselves being superior on the planet.
And that's why a lot of countries and people around the planet do not like Americans anymore
(CROSSTALK)
CALLER: ... take on that superior view.
NEVILLE: OK, Gale, thank you very much for calling in. And, Tammy, I want to hear what your thoughts are.
BRUCE: Well, this is a Christian country. We were founded by Puritans, essentially. And the last time I checked, it wasn't Christians who ran airplanes into buildings in this country, into a field in Pennsylvania. The reality is, the Homeland Security Bill, which is something I doubt that your caller has actually read, does not give the government any different kind of excess power.
Judges and courts and warrants still are involved in any kind of thing that the government wants to achieve. And, frankly, this is war. And we have to accomplish it as such and deal with it as such. This is not about communism. This is about taking the best of the American character, making sure that Americans are safe. And George W. Bush is doing a great job to ensure that.
NEVILLE: OK, Mike, go ahead and respond quickly, then I got to get Mark in there, as well as Chad in the audience.
MALLOY: Oh, I don't think there's any doubt. Tammy is so misguided here. The USA Patriot Act, the organization that John Poindexter is going to control, these destroy -- these organizations, these new bureaucracies destroy basic constitutional rights.
BRUCE: How? How?
MALLOY: I don't what page Tammy's quoting from, but that's crazy talk.
BRUCE: How?
MALLOY: What do you mean how?
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: Give me a specific about how it's changed.
MALLOY: I'm not here to educate you, Tammy.
BRUCE: No, no, because you don't know. It's just rhetoric. You don't know.
MALLOY: You suggested a caller did not read the USA Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act.
BRUCE: Well, it's not finished yet.
MALLOY: I would suggest that you do that yourself.
BRUCE: I have. And the reality is, is that it doesn't change anything that the government is required to do to investigate and to deal with issues involving crime and terrorism.
It is still a system that has oversight. And the reality is, you can't cite anything where civil liberties are squashed, because it doesn't exist. NEVILLE: OK, Mark, go ahead and jump in, please.
RILEY: I couldn't disagree more with that.
I believe that these acts are in fact expanding the government's power to oversee the lives of ordinary Americans. And it may not start that way. It may not be at the very beginning. They're going to be going after terrorists. They're going to be going after people that Americans would agree with going after. But, sooner or later, it's going to come around and it's going to start to impact people who perhaps it's wasn't intended to impact.
And that I think is the scary part of this entire thing. And I'm not sure at all that it's going to make anyone feel safer when it's all said and done.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Tammy, hang on for me.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Tammy, can you hear me?
BRUCE: Yes, I sure can.
NEVILLE: OK, I'm sorry.
Chad, your turn.
CHAD: Hi.
I don't think that this new agency would be a very good idea, for several reasons. But mostly, there are two reasons that I don't think it. One is that we've always had threats. We've always had things that have been done to the U.S. or to other Western countries to make them afraid, the hostage-taking in the '70s, through the '80 and the '90, lots of different acts, hijackings, that sort of thing.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Sorry, Chad, you got clipped, because that's the bell, which means I've got to move on. Time for a break right now. Thanks, Chad, for standing up.
That's how it works on free-for-all days.
Do you feel safer flying these days with our new federal screeners on the job? Give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or you can e- mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And we are back in a moment.
And later: Michael Jackson gives fans an odd thrill in Germany when he dangles a small child over a fourth-floor balcony. We'll have the story later this hour. So don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE: The feds take over the job of airport security.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think its' a good tradeoff, the security vs. a little inconvenience. Most people should realize that it's worth it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a hassle. It's a hassle, because now we actually have to start out quite a bit earlier.
NEVILLE: Share your airport security stories with us.
Also: Democrats, is this your man? Can Gore score in 2004?
The talk continues.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Security at the nation's airports is now in the hands of the feds. Many travelers say they like the efficiency of the new system, but some aren't convinced the new screeners will be any better or worse than the old ones at keeping out terrorists.
OK, Sandy, you're up first on this one. New federal screeners went through 100 hours of training. They're on the job. Will you feel safer?
RIOS: Well, I think I will, Arthel. I fly all the time. And these workers are going to be paid nearly twice as much as the other workers. And that should be a good thing. They're also U.S. citizens. And I like that. So I think maybe we're in for at least a better screening than we've had in the past.
NEVILLE: Mark, how do you see it?
RILEY: I think it's, on balance, better. I think to a large extent -- you had a group of convicted felons that were working as baggage screeners in Philadelphia not that long ago. So, the bottom line is, at least if there's better screening on the part of the federal government, people should feel a little bit safer.
But one of the bottom-line problems here is the fact that they have a deadline of New Year's Eve to screen every bag that goes on an airplane, and they're not going to meet that. I don't know whether they would have met it had there been a Homeland Security Bill in place. If this bill had been passed a year ago, I'm not sure they would have gotten the job done then, either.
NEVILLE: OK, stand by for me, Tammy and Mike, because I want to go to Texas now, where Samantha is on the phone.
And, Samantha, you are a flight attendant. I would love to hear your thoughts.
CALLER: Hi, Arthel.
Yes, I am a flight attendant. And I've been around ever since this terrible incident has happened. And ever since the feds have taken over, I really haven't seen much of a difference. One of the main difference is, is they all speak English now. I know that's a terrible thing to say. But they're all just as complacent. One time I just passed a checkpoint. There were 22 screeners for one checkpoint and half of them were standing up against the wall.
And I think it's terrible that the burden of the price to pay for the security is put on the airline industry, and there really is no change.
NEVILLE: OK, Samantha, thank you very much for calling in.
And, Tammy, I want to hear your thoughts on this one.
BRUCE: Well, I also did a lot of flying in the last few weeks. And I noticed a big difference with the federal screeners.
An important part of flying for me, of course, is the psychological comfort and getting people to feel comfortable coming back on the airlines. And nothing is going to be perfect when we're relying on human beings. But just I think yesterday, in Miami, they found a guy with a meat cleaver. There was another guy with a gun stuffed into a DVD player. So they're still out there.
And I think that, since we haven't had another incident, we've done a pretty good job so far. And I am much more comfortable.
NEVILLE: And Mike?
MALLOY: You know, Arthel, it should be mentioned the Republicans said that federal employees couldn't handle this job. It had to be done by private corporations. Once again, the Republican point of view is put to the lie.
The Homeland Security Act that was voted on today in the Senate contains a provision that the searching for bombs and luggage doesn't have to be in effect for a year. I hope your guests who talk about how safe they feel flying understand that they could be on a plane tomorrow that contains a bomb in a suitcase.
RIOS: Mike, I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. I thought it was about all Americans
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: You, too?
MALLOY: Well, it wasn't until Republicans made it a partisan issue.
RIOS: Oh, of course. Naturally.
MALLOY: Do you not remember the debate?
RIOS: No, I have no memory. No, tell me. Remind me.
MALLOY: Do you not remember what the Republicans said, that it should be in the hands of private enterprise?
RIOS: And much of it is.
(CROSSTALK)
MALLOY: A very simple question, ma'am.
BRUCE: You know, Arthel, I mentioned in the last segment that it is this kind of cynicism and nihilism and fear that Democrats are feeding into the country just because they want George W. Bush to fail, not because the safety of the Americans matters and come first. This is absurd and it's insulting. And that's why the Democrats lost a few weeks ago.
(CROSSTALK)
MALLOY: Oh, please. Democrats are not injecting...
BRUCE: Hey, get with the program.
MALLOY: ... fear into this country.
(CROSSTALK)
RILEY: He's making a very important point here. If you cannot screen for bombs for another year, how safe are you, really?
BRUCE: Bombs are being screened for. Those machines are not in every single airport. But the reality is, we are in the process.
(CROSSTALK)
RILEY: It's not total.
BRUCE: And we're working toward making it total.
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: And that's not the only precaution for bombs on airplanes.
MALLOY: They are not in the 20 largest airports. They're not at Boston Logan. They are not at Washington National. Sorry.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Well, that would be the bell. So that means I have to go to a break.
And later this hour, you can weigh in our "Question of the Day": "Do federal airport screeners make you feel safer or is tighter security just a hassle?" Call me or e-mail me.
And up next, I want to talk about remaking Al Gore. "USA Today" proclaims he's back, but says Republicans are more giddy about that than Democrats. And why is that?
We'll talk about it in a minute. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Suddenly, Al Gore is back. He's everywhere, on network talk shows and newspapers. He's promoting the new book he co-authored with his wife, Tipper. It's called "Joined at the Heart." But he sounds an awful a lot like a candidate, talking politics and taking on President Bush and putting out feelers. He says he'll decide in the next couple of months whether to run for the Democratic nomination in 2004. And a lot Republican couldn't be happier.
So, Tammy, I'll start with you. Is this a book tour or a campaign
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: You know, I'm a registered Democrat. And I refuse to let people like Al Gore, who I think really needs to get a regular job, because Democrats also have said in polls that they're so tired of the party going so far to the left.
I could be tempted to switching to a Republican, but I like the Democrat Party. And I'm tired of people like Al Gore and even Nancy Pelosi shifting us into a fear-based socialistic framework of needing to essentially have this country become like group therapy. This is a book tour, but he really needs to think about getting another regular job, because it's not just America which will reject him even more handily in 2004. Democrats already are.
NEVILLE: Mike, it seems like you were about to have some sort of...
MALLOY: Oh, come on. Socialistic? What is wrong? Tammy, you ought to join the Republican Party. I think you'd be a lot happier.
BRUCE: I refuse to let people like you hijack this party.
MALLOY: Al Gore won the last election, I might remind you. He was appointed president by one vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. Al Gore should be reelected in 2004. BRUCE: I refuse to have people like you hijack this party.
(CROSSTALK)
MALLOY: So Al Gore is leftist? Nancy Pelosi is a leftist? Please.
BRUCE: She is a member of the Socialist International Group here in the United States of America.
MALLOY: Writing for NewsMax has turned your brain into Swiss cheese. These people are centrists, Tammy. Please.
BRUCE: We can have a difference of opinion without you needing to personally insult me, which is the standard of Democrats like you.
MALLOY: You left opened yourself up for it, sweetheart. You left yourself wide open.
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: Don't patronize me. This is America's Democratic Party, everyone. Listen to this man. This is what you've got.
MALLOY: Oh, you represent the Democrats, a NewsMax writer? Please, Tammy.
BRUCE: Patronizing, insulting, can't deal with the issues, has to use personal insults.
MALLOY: Tammy, go write a column. Good God.
BRUCE: That's the standard. That's the standard.
RILEY: Look, there's an issue here that goes way beyond Al Gore. The Democratic Party has to have a competing vision of this country, whether it's Al Gore or Joe-Joe the dog-faced boy that ends up becoming the presidential nominee.
The bottom line is, if they don't have one, they're going to be in trouble. And, by the way, when we talk about this last election, we ought to be clear about the fact that four out of five incumbents who voted against the resolution in Congress that gave the president the power to go after Iraq were reelected. So, we ought to be very clear about exactly where America is on all this.
And this is not just a left-right issue. This is an issue of coming up with a competing vision for the future of this country, whether it's Al Gore, whether it's John Edwards of North Carolina, whoever becomes the Democratic nominee.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Sandy, just one second, if you would. Hold on for me, because I have some e-mails coming in now I want to share with you. From Mike in Aurora, Ontario: "Thank God Gore didn't win last time. Poor Al should bow out now and stop making such a fool of himself and his party."
Next e-mail coming in now from Anne: "Gore should definitely run in 2004. It is time to balance the country's emotions and the economy."
Sandy, you say what?
RIOS: I just can't believe that Mike or Mark, either one, would want Al Gore to represent their party. That tells me more about them than it does me him.
RILEY: It's not about Al Gore representing the party. That's not the issue.
RIOS: Oh, really? What would he represent if he were president?
RILEY: No, it's not the issue. The issue is the vision of the party.
RIOS: In his vision?
(CROSSTALK)
RILEY: Whoever heads the party has to have a very specific vision that is going to be different than the Republicans. If people have a choice between Republicans and Democrats that act like Republicans, they're going to vote Republican.
RIOS: You know what?
NEVILLE: OK, let's here what Lou has to say. Lou is going to speak out.
LOU: I would be delighted to see Al Gore run with Hillary, because I think the Republican Party would have no problems beating that ticket.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: So, I take it you're on the Republican side of the fence?
LOU: Absolutely. Let him go recreate the Internet.
(LAUGHTER)
RIOS: How could you say such a thing?
Oh, Mark and Mike, you're not laughing.
RILEY: No, because I think that, when people...
RIOS: You guys need a better candidate than Al Gore. Come on, if you're going to win, don't pick Al Gore.
RILEY: ... get into this whole of cult-of-personality thing, it is not about Al Gore.
RIOS: He has no personality.
RILEY: Al Gore won the popular vote by a half-million.
RIOS: Oh, OK. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: There's the bell.
I want to let you know, speaking of Al Gore, you'll have a chance to tell him what you think, because Al and Tipper Gore will be Larry King's guests tonight at 9:00 Eastern. So make sure you check that out.
And when we come back: an odd moment for fans when Michael Jackson dangles a small child over a hotel balcony in Berlin.
We'll have the story and get your reaction when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
I have an amazing tape I want to show you again. Earlier today in Berlin, singer Michael Jackson dangled a baby over the railing of his fourth story hotel room so fans could see the infant. And the baby, as you can see, had a white towel over his head, and it appears that Michael is holding the infant with one hand.
A spokesman for Jackson says he was traveling with his children. He has three children. Sandy, what was Michael thinking?
RIOS: You know, Arthel, I don't know what he was thinking. I think his life is one of the most bizarre episodes we've ever seen unfold. You know that scene right there looked like an adolescent who was caught up in a moment of hilarity, carelessly -- you know you see the baby's legs banging on the rail. And it's like he's like a child caught up in the moment. This is bizarre.
NEVILLE: Let's see what Clint (ph) in the audience says.
CLINT: Clearly, Michael Jackson is a genius musically. But there are some problems upstairs. He is doing crazy things like hanging a baby over a balcony. That's weird, it's really weird.
NEVILLE: Mr. Malloy, what do you think?
MIKE MALLOY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it looked to me like Michael Jackson was involved in some sort of ritual that NewsMax writers get involved in, having to do with live child sacrifice. It appears as though he's smothering the child. Maybe the writer for NewsMax can explain this to us -- or Concerned Women for America.
NEVILLE: Tammy -- hang on -- Tammy, I'm going to take up for you right here. Don't get sucked into that, OK? You just go ahead and respond and give us your thoughts on that video and don't bother with Mike right now.
BRUCE: Yes, I think Mike speaks for himself. I saw that footage earlier, and I have to tell you that the effort -- and it's one thing -- we know it's bizarre, but the problem here is that children are being effected. That there are three children in the control of that man. There clearly seems to be evidence and concerns from law enforcement from years ago that he's a danger to children. And when he gets back in this country, child protective services had better get involved in dealing with the impact this man is having on children in his life.
NEVILLE: Mark, how do you see it?
RILEY: I have to say that from what I see in that video, if I were in Berlin, if I was a cop, I would arrest him for endangering the welfare of a child. I have a blind spot when it comes to a child. You don't put a child in harm's way by hanging he or she over a balcony like that.
It goes beyond bizarre behavior. And it would seem to me as though the man has somehow decided to deliberately endanger his own child. Had he slipped, had anything taken place, the child kicked the side of that thing, had the child gotten out of his grip, the child could very well have been killed.
That is something that, if it happened in New York City and a single mother had done something like that in public, she would have been arrested. And I think Michael Jackson should be also.
BRUCE: Absolutely. Absolutely.
NEVILLE: Let's share an e-mail that's coming across right now from Jack in Las Vegas. "Michael Jackson dangled a baby over a balcony? If it were me, I'd be arrested for child endangerment. Throw him in jail and loses the key."
And, Lindsey (ph), I want to hear your reaction to that videotape.
LINDSEY: I agree with the guy over there. He's just bizarre. And he's -- I mean I like him back in the "Thriller" days, but he's gone over the edge. He really has a skin problem, you know. He just needs to get professional help.
NEVILLE: OK. Well, thank you for speaking up. I think someone over here wanted to say something. Yes, Jay (ph), stand up for me, sir. JAY: Hello. Basically, I saw the tape, too, and was just completely dumbfounded. Still, he probably stands a better chance than Al Gore in getting elected in 2004 as well. And I'll be interested in seeing how this thing comes out. And he may actually be an alien. I have no idea what's going on there.
NEVILLE: All right. Listen, there's the bell. We just wanted to get that little discussion there quickly. We're going to take a break right now.
And still ahead, is there room for the law of Moses in a building dedicated to the laws of man? A federal court commands an Alabama judge, thou shall not display the Ten Commandments. But wait until you hear why. We'll get to that in a moment.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
The Ten Commandments are taking a knew knocks this week. Today, a federal court ordered monuments displaying the old testament could be removed from the grounds of four high schools in Ohio. And in Montgomery, Alabama, a monument displaying the commandments has been ordered removed from the state judicial building. It's an order that Alabama's chief justice isn't inclined to obey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY MOORE, ALABAMA CHIEF JUSTICE: I am sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. Those constitutions are premised on a belief in god. I am vowed by my conscience to acknowledge that god from whom that oath depends. I'm committed to do my duty.
I would never disregard my conscience. I would never forsake my oath. I would never neglect my duty. But if I could do all these things, I would never disacknowledge god.
I have no plans to remove the monument. And when and if I do, I'll let you know personally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. federal judge Myron Thompson (ph) says he doesn't believe all the displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings are illegal, but this one, Thompson (ph) says, looks too much like an open bible on a podium. And Tammy, I'll start with you on this. Is this offensive, and should he have to remove the monument?
BRUCE: Well, I don't think so. And I'm not a religious person. But reality is, our laws are based in the Judeo-Christian ethic. The fact is the Ten Commandments are also displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court building. We open the Senate with a prayer.
And I've noticed the tendency in this country, the efforts by the left, to wipe out the idea of religion, and the importance of the universal values. You know our law stems from, and most other laws as well around the world, stem from those general basic principles in the Ten Commandments, which I don't think anyone, other than maybe Michael Jackson, would disagree with.
RILEY: Now this is -- did you notice how many times he said "I" and "my" in that little clip that you just played? He's talking about his own conscience, his own situation, my, my, my. He is the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. That means he has a responsibility larger than to mine.
Do people seriously think, for example, that a Muslim or a Daoist or a Buddhist could walk into that rotunda and feel that he or she is going to get equal justice under the law when they see this kind of display? It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. That display should never have been put up.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's see what Jim (ph) has to say.
JIM: Yes. I'm a Christian minister, Presbyterian. No, I don't believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in the court than any other religious document. Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, atheists are all called into court for a number of reasons, and they would be -- have prejudice against them if they see that document there, the Ten Commandments, when they came into court.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Jim (ph). And I'm going to go to Louisiana now because Ginger (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Ginger (ph), you're live. No, she isn't. Ginger (ph) hung up. I'm going to get Paris (ph) here in the audience from Maryland who wants to speak out. Go ahead, sir.
PARIS: I just think this is a case of rendering on to Caesar what is god and rendering on to god what is Caesar's. It's a clear- cut separation between religion and matters of state.
NEVILLE: So does this monument, should it be gone, in your opinion?
PARIS: I think that a person's religion should be personal, and I think that if you believe in the Ten Commandments, display it all over your home.
NEVILLE: But not in the federal building?
PARIS: But not in something that's meant to govern the whole.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much.
RILEY: Arthel, I think one of the things that's most strange or most ironic about this, is, at the same time this discussion is going on, there are students in Iran who are protesting a death sentence that has been given to, I believe, an academic there that had the temerity to stand up and say that people should not blindly follow religion.
I don't think this country wants to have a situation where people are pushed toward any particular religion. And particularly where we -- you know someone mentioned earlier this is supposed to be a Christian country. It is, but it may also be or should also be a place that is tolerant of other religions.
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: If I could just add very briefly, that considering the decisions we've seen come out of justice system in this country, we clearly are embracing a religion of moral relativism. And if there's going to be some kind of guiding light within our justice system, I would like it to be something based in a Judeo-Christian ethic, as opposed to the moral relativism we see rising in this country.
MALLOY: Boy, there she goes again.
(CROSSTALK)
RILEY: What more relativism are we talking about?
RIOS: Let me also tell you, that since the time this country was founded, we have been operating in a Judeo-Christian ethic. And let me also point out that other faiths have flourished, because in Christianity, they do not believe in forced conversion. You are free to practice your religion.
The fact that we have such plurality is a tribute to Christianity. So to erase our history, erase our roots, serves no purpose other than to secularize our society and remove god from the public square. I don't think at a time of war, we really want that to be the case.
MALLOY: At a time of war? Interesting that you would say at a time of war. Nobody is trying to secularize this country, but why not have the Code of Hammurabi in the Alabama Supreme Court? Because the Code of Hammurabi predates the Ten Commandments.
RIOS: What is the damage of having the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court?
MALLOY: It's a ridiculous argument.
RIOS: It's not. You're the ridiculous argument, Mike.
MALLOY: Christians have -- so many right wing Christians are so fearful of having their own ability to have faith in their own religion, they want to force it on other people. You can't force religion on other people.
RILEY: We're talking about...
RIOS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Supreme Court for 100 years. No one has been forced to do anything, Mark and Mike. RILEY: We're talking about an edifice that was put up in a place where justice is supposed to be dispensed without regard to religion, without regard to any of these other things. And the bottom line is it should not be there, because we should not say that our judicial system favors any one religion over another, period.
MALLOY: Absolutely.
RIOS: It is true that our judicial system is based on Judeo- Christian ethics. You can say all day it isn't, but it is.
NEVILLE: OK. And here I'm jumping in. Excuse me, Sandy, because Jack (ph) from New York is going to speak out.
JACK: I only have one opinion. I think that the Ten Commandments is only an ability or a guideline for everybody to feel good about themselves, about doing the right thing to people. And as far as anybody saying no religion, I never met nobody in a fox hole that didn't look for god. I'll tell you that.
MALLOY: It's the Ten Commandments, not the ten suggestions. OK? There's a big difference.
RIOS: And there's why you're so afraid of it, isn't it?
MALLOY: This is supposed to be the law of god.
RILEY: It's not a question of being afraid. It's a question of whether or not people should do this...
NEVILLE: There is the bell. There is the bell.
OK. Get ready. Coming up next, a flash round. We'll be talking about Eminem, ice cream and whether Tiger Woods should boycott the Masters and a whole bunch of other good topics. So don't go anywhere. We will continue after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. It's time for our free-for-all flash round. First up, no women, no Tiger? A "New York Times" editorial advises Tiger Woods to sit out the Masters unless Augusta National Golf Club accepts women. The paper says a boycott would send the message discrimination is not good for golf. What do you say, Sandy?
RIOS: Get a life. Let Tiger play his golf game. Who cares? Women can form their own clubs.
NEVILLE: Mark?
RILEY: How hypocritical is this? You have all of these people on the PGA tour, and out of all of them they pick on Tiger Woods. The bottom line is, Davis (ph), Love (ph), Nicholson (ph) and all the rest of them should boycott as a group. They shouldn't be talking just about just Tiger, they should be talking about all the people on the tour.
NEVILLE: Tammy.
BRUCE: Well, Tiger actually set himself in a position to be asked to do this, because he took a very aggressive stand when it came to racial discrimination at clubs, used his father, did Nike commercials about it. And when asked about the discrimination against women at clubs, he said, it's tradition, there's nothing you can do about it.
So he needs to be consistent. And I talked about his own hypocrisy. And in the meantime, private clubs I think should do whatever they want to.
NEVILLE: Mike?
MALLOY: Well Tiger Woods and none of the other golfers should be asked to boycott. If they really want to change things at Augusta National, talk to the advertisers who pump $20 million into that tournament. Without the advertisers, it's just another golf tournament.
NEVILLE: OK. Next up, rap superstar Eminem's boyhood home is up for sale on e-Bay. The suburban Detroit home is valued at $91,000. The bidding is now over $1 million, with several days to go. Would you buy it, Sandy?
RIOS: I wouldn't spend five cents to go to his movie, much less buy his house. I don't think so.
NEVILLE: Mark?
RILEY: I wouldn't buy it with your money. I tell you, Arthel, this is insane. The whole controversy about Eminem is a little whack, as far as I'm concerned. But the bottom line is, a $91,000 house for $1 million, someone is getting suckered.
NEVILLE: Tammy?
BRUCE: Well clearly Eminem is an indication of how wrought has seeped into our culture. And the fact that he's being glamorized is really, I think, appalling.
NEVILLE: Mike?
MALLOY: I wonder if Tammy sees anything but wrought. As far as Eminem is concerned, a $91,000 house, I agree with Mark, for $1 million, that's insane, but this is America.
NEVILLE: All right. Up next, are ice cream lovers getting fewer scoops? Rising costs have prompted some ice cream makers to replace the traditional half-gallon container with a smaller carton. They say it's better to reduce size than raise the price. Are they right, Sandy?
RIOS: Yes. Oh, you want me to talk about that? NEVILLE: If you care to. Mark?
RILEY: I'm a sorbet kind of guy myself. Ice cream isn't going to rock my world one way or the other. But these kind of things I think end up hurting the business in the end.
NEVILLE: Tammy.
BRUCE: I think places like Haagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry's have gotten Americans used really used to the little pint-sized containers. But the problem is you can have a tendency to sit down in one sitting and eat the whole thing. I think whatever Americans are willing to buy, I think they should be willing to market.
NEVILLE: Mike?
MALLOY: I think that ice cream companies are probably owned by Republicans and this is just their way of screwing up an American tradition.
NEVILLE: All right.
RIOS: That's actually what I was going to say. I figured Mike would say it was a Republican plot. You're right, Mike, I agree.
NEVILLE: All right. Finally...
RILEY: It's interesting that, on the one hand, you say Americans should buy what they want. That's exactly what happened with Eminem.
NEVILLE: Do we have time for this last one? Yes, we do?
OK. And finally, the queen showed up for the London premiere of "Die Another Day," the last 007. Pierce Brosnan was there, along with three former bonds. Sir Sean Connery was the only Bond who did not show. Does anybody do better than Brosnan, or do you prefer another Bond? Sandy?
RIOS: Sean Connery does it the best, no question. Hands down.
NEVILLE: Mark?
RILEY: This is just the kind of violence that has rotted America's culture from the inside out.
RIOS: And it's a Republican plot.
NEVILLE: Tammy.
BRUCE: Sean Connery, the best, number one, for sure.
NEVILLE: Mike?
MALLOY: Pierce Brosnan, but I think the queen's family could probably oust 007. Trust me on that. NEVILLE: All right. Listen, that is it for our flash round today. I want to thank our guests, Sandy Rios, thank you so much. Mike Riley, thank you very much. Tammy Bruce, thank you very much. And Mike Malloy, thanks to you so much for joining me here today.
When we come back, you can answer our question of the day. Do federal airport screeners make you feel safer or is tighter security just a hassle? Give me a call or e-mail and we'll be back to hear your answers after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Back to TALKBACK LIVE.
It's time for our question of the day. Do federal airport screeners make you feel safer, or is tighter security just a hassle? And let's pop up an e-mail and see what our viewers have to say.
OK. Will in Atlanta, Georgia, he says, "I'd feel safer if the screeners would screen the people who have exhibited themselves to be the problem, instead of old men, women in wheelchairs and two-year-old children."
OK. Thank you. Ma'am, you say what?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it will improve. I think it will take a little bit of time. And I certainly agree with your caller about old men and women in wheelchairs, but I think it's a matter of time. I think we need it. And, as I said before, we've just come back from China...
NEVILLE: And you feel safer, yes or no?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel safer.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's see, one more e-mail. Thank you, ma'am. One more e-mail.
OK. Pam in Baltimore Maryland, "I do not feel safer when the outer areas of airports are not secure. When the people entering airports are screened, then securities will exist."
And I think that is going to do it. I think that's all the time we have for today. I'm Arthel Neville. Thanks so much for joining me.
Tomorrow, attorney Johnnie Cochran joins me here on the set in Atlanta. You don't want to miss that, along with our regular Wednesday guest, CNN contributor Charles Barkley. And you don't want to miss that, either.
And guess what else you don't want to miss? The vote. The Senate vote will happen tonight between 7:00 and 8:30 Eastern Time. You want to stay tuned for CNN for that. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
