|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
TALKBACK LIVE
Aired December 10, 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. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
The number of U.N. inspectors working in Baghdad is growing. So are the accusations between Iraq and Washington. Iraq says the U.S. is trying to taint its weapons report. Washington says it's just making copies of the documents for other members of the Security Council.
And stay tuned. Many of Hollywood's rich and famous are saying they're patriotic Americans who don't want to see the U.S. go to war with Iraq. They're joining anti-war activists, sending a letter to the White House protesting possible military action. Should their voices be heard more loudly than others?
Then stay with us, as the Senate majority leader tries to quiet the uproar over comments he made at a birthday party, which some say reopened some of the country's old racial wounds.
But first, let's get the latest on Iraq with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in Doha, Qatar, and CNN's Michael Okwu at the U.N.
First, though, let's get Wolf to give us the word out of the Middle East regarding Iraq's accusation of blackmail -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's no doubt that the Iraqis are very angry right now, Arthel. They are angry because the United Nations gave the United States those documents first, the documents in their unredacted or uncensored form. The United States then went ahead and made copies for the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
The Iraqis are saying that this is unprecedented blackmail by the United States of the U.N. Security Council. They didn't want the United States or the other members to get those documents without all of them getting the documents, including the 10 other nonpermanent members of the Security Council. "America aims to manipulate the U.N. documents to find a cover for aggression against Iraq." That's from a statement from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry in Baghdad.
They also say that by allowing the United States to have access first and foremost to these documents, the U.S. could manipulate the documents for its own purposes to justify going to war against war. The U.S., of course, totally denies that, the Bush administration insisting those allegations are ludicrous. Still, there is tension, obviously, between the United States and Iraq right now. On this day throughout Iraq, the U.N. weapons inspections teams continue their work, the chemical inspectors, the biological inspectors and the nuclear inspectors. The nuclear inspectors indeed drove some five miles outside Baghdad toward the Syrian border to go to an old nuclear processing plant. The Iraqis insist any opportunity to enrich uranium at the plant near the Syrian border was destroyed during the Gulf War in 1991.
The U.S. and other coalition partners, members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraq's nuclear programs, are by no means convinced. That's why these inspections are continuing -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, Wolf Blitzer, thank you very much.
And we're going to go now to Michael Okwu, who is standing by at the U.N. with reaction from there -- Michael
MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, I can tell you, Wolf is absolutely right. That is certainly having an effect here at the United Nations.
In addition to having to pore through those dossiers, U.S. officials also have to dodge verbal bullets coming out of Baghdad and at least some criticism coming from at least one nonpermanent member of the Security Council, responding to accusations, again, that the United States used some sort of -- the word was unprecedented blackmail to get an unedited copy of the declaration.
A U.S. diplomat here at the United Nations simply said: We did not blackmail anyone. Still, the Syrian ambassador not very happy at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKHAIL WEHBE, SYRIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: It's unprecedented. It's unwise decision to be taken, because usually such decisions should be taken by consensus. Even if there is one state against this decision, they should not take the decision, either by consensus or to put it on vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OKWU: Now, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix was briefed, we understand, at some point today by experts. It's unclear exactly what they were telling him and whether or not we will actually get information
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Michael, if I can interrupt you.
OKWU: Now we see Hans Blix...
NEVILLE: Good.
OKWU: ... walking up to the mikes here with Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He's been meeting with the Security Council.
Let's pause in and listen to what they have to say.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: ... with council members on the way forward, as the inspectors analyze the Iraqi declaration.
BLIX: Well, that relates to the past. We'll come back to that.
OKWU: That was chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, clearly a very busy man and somebody who everyone wants to talk to right now at the United Nations, going over some important facts now, giving us a sense of how the work on the document is going. You heard him say that he did not want to talk about the issues about disappointment over the fact that the Americans were able to get their hands on this unedited copy.
He says that's a matter for the Security Council to discuss. He also mentioned the fact that he has now been -- thinks that he will be through the main part of this document by Friday. He mentioned, again, that he's been asking the permanent five members of the council for their advice, that, by Friday, they will be sharing the information that they have.
And he also mentioned that, by Monday, they might have some sort of working test to share with the full Security Council. By Thursday, he said, the 19th, there will be some sort of preliminary assessment -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Michael, it seems like, for someone who seems to be under a lot of pressure and is quite busy, Mr. Blix seems quite upbeat. Did you notice that?
OKWU: He is. That's his style. I mean, Hans Blix was the former foreign minister of Sweden many years ago. He's a consummate diplomat. He's been trying to downplay any major tension between the United States and Iraq and among members of the Security Council. Clearly, a smooth customer -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: As are you. Michael Okwu, thank you very much for joining us on TALKBACK LIVE.
And coming up next: They're rich, they're famous and they're speaking out against the war. Will celebrity anti-war voices hit a resounding note with the White House or will they fall on deaf ears? More TALKBACK LIVE after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Celebrities like Kim Basinger, Laurence Fishburne and Matt Damon, to name just a few, are calling on the White House to end its talk of war with Iraq. They're joining other anti-war activists, using International Human Rights Day as a staging point for protests in several cities.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE FARRELL, ACTOR: War talk in Washington is alarming and unnecessary. We are patriotic Americans that share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous U.N. weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament.
However, a presumptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests. Such a war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy, and undermine our moral standing in the world. It will make us less, not more, secure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. So, do celebrity opinions or attitudes about U.S. policy carry more weight with you than those of ordinary folks?
Let's meet our panel.
Becky Norton Dunlop is with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.
Hello, Becky. Nice to see you again.
BECKY NORTON DUNLOP, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Thank you. Good to be here.
NEVILLE: All right.
Jeff Clanagan is the head of UrbanWorks Entertainment, which produces documentaries and television movies.
Hello, Jeff.
JEFF CLANAGAN, CEO, URBANWORKS ENTERTAINMENT: Hi. How you doing?
NEVILLE: All right, good.
Peter Blute is a radio talk show host with WRKO's "Blute & Ozone" in Boston and a former U.S. congressman.
Hello, Peter. Nice to have you here.
PETER BLUTE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Liz Winstead is the host of "O2B" on the Oxygen Network.
Hello, Liz.
LIZ WINSTEAD, HOST, "O2B": Hello.
NEVILLE: All right.
Let's go to Jeff first, who deals with celebrities as CEO of UrbanWorks Entertainment.
Jeff, how much impact do you think people in the limelight have on political situations like this?
CLANAGAN: In terms of when you're talking about celebrities and their impact, I think they have a lot of weight with the common viewers or the fans that actually follow celebrities.
Celebrities tend to be role models for a lot of people who go to movies, watch television, buy music. I don't think it carries a lot of impact on Capitol Hill in terms of changing policies.
NEVILLE: But, Peter, again, dealing with the average Joe blow or Jane Doe, do you think what celebrities say have a lot of impact on those people?
BLUTE: No, I don't think it has much impact.
They have the right to express themselves, like every American does. And they should when they feel strongly about something. It should be pointed out, though, that these are the same actors that opposed the first Gulf War back in the early '90s. And most people would agree that the world is a much better place because Saddam Hussein was expelled from his aggression in Kuwait.
So, they're going to come out and say that. In Hollywood, you can get good parts by being around groups like this. And it's the culture out there. Only at universities is it as liberal as Hollywood.
NEVILLE: So, Peter, are you saying that these celebrities are acting without conscience? They are just doing this as a publicity ploy?
BLUTE: No, I think they believe what they believe. But the problem is, they only talk to each other.
The agents and the producers and the directors, Rob Reiner and that whole crew are all together out there. And they have a view of the world. But it isn't, I think, the view that most Americans share.
NEVILLE: I see. So, you're saying that they get their views, their viewpoints all together there, their sort of homogenized viewpoint, and now they are sharing it with the rest of the country.
And, Liz, I want to know what you think about that statement.
WINSTEAD: Well, I think that that's not necessarily true.
A lot of -- you're thinking that actors just socialize with other actors. I did stand-up comedy for 18 years on the road, 42 weeks a year, entertaining 1,000 people a week, and putting my opinion out there about politics in the world. And a lot of people share the view of these actors. And I think a bigger thing we need to look at is that: How many people actually do have a voice in this country? And it's really actors and it seems like corporate interests.
NEVILLE: That's right.
Peter, perhaps you would be one of those same people who would say something if the celebrities said or did nothing?
BLUTE: No, I think they have every right to speak out as Americans. All Americans should speak out on such an important issue as war and peace. No doubt.
But I just think that they tend to be knee-jerk in their approach to our foreign policy. It seems that America is always too aggressive, always wrong. And I think, frankly, they were wrong about the first Gulf War. So, we should take that into consideration when they speak out about this situation.
NEVILLE: OK, Julia.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Liz.
DUNLOP: Peter is exactly right, Arthel.
This is part of the blame-America-first crowd. We've seen them before. We'll see them again. They're idle rich. And the conversations that we have around our coffee tables and our living rooms are far more important than what the Hollywood people have to say. So, we have to recognize that they're getting the attention because they can afford to buy full-page ads in "The Washington Post" and in "The New York Times."
And they get covered by the media because they're famous actors and actresses in Hollywood.
(BELL RINGING)
DUNLOP: But we've been there before. We'll be there again. Every time: Blame America first.
NEVILLE: All right, listen, I have to move on.
Up next: Senator Trent Lott apologizes for his birthday remarks to Strom Thurmond. But members of the Congressional Black Caucus say his apology is not enough.
What do you think of the controversy? That's our "Question of the Day." Give us a call or e-mail us your comments.
We're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is trying to climb out of a serious hole he has dug for himself over comments he made at retiring Senator Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Lott has now apologized for his remarks, which seemed to support Thurmond's 1948 segregationist views, saying -- quote -- "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. And I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement" -- end quote.
CNN's Jonathan Karl joins us now from Capitol Hill with more on this story.
And, Jonathan, did Lott apologize under any pressure?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what's interesting is, it also seems like Senator Lott is under more pressure now after his apology than he was before it.
There was some pressure out there. Former Vice President Al Gore, on an interview yesterday on CNN, said that Lott should apologize and that, if he doesn't, that the Senate should censure him. And there were some other voices, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, that were critical. But Lott was getting a pass from a lot of top Democrats, who said either nothing about him or said that they accepted his explanation.
One of those was the Senate's top Democrat, Tom Daschle, who yesterday, when we asked him about it at a press conference, said that he accepted Lott's explanation. And he said: Look, sometimes, those of us in public life go before the microphones and say things we wish we hadn't said.
And he pretty much gave Lott a pass on all that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: I understand that Senator Lott has made an apology. Now, he can apologize all he wants. It doesn't remove the sentiment that escaped his mouth that day at that party. And I find it something that is unacceptable. I don't know what the remedy is to it, but I do know what Senator Lott said. I know that it was completely inappropriate. I don't know if any apology is adequate.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KARL: Well, Arthel, what you had there was Nancy Pelosi, who is obviously the top Democrat in the House. Those were comments that she made today, obviously after Senator Lott apologized.
But what's interesting is, she was before the television cameras just yesterday, before reporters, and said nothing about Senator Lott's comments. So it seems like Lott, in many ways, is in more hot water now after he apologized than he was before he apologized.
There are also a lot of Republicans up here who are privately questioning why it took Senator Lott so long to apologize. They really believe that he could have put this behind himself if he had come out immediately, as soon as the story was reported over the weekend, and apologized and put it behind him. But, by waiting so long, he's fueled this story and added fire.
NEVILLE: And, Jonathan, this is such a hot button that I would imagine that many politicians are posturing as to how they're going to come out on this particular issue.
KARL: Yes, no question.
And this is something that Republicans know they can anticipate will be used against them in future elections, especially in areas affecting African-American voters. African-American voters will be reminded by Democrats about Senator Lott's comments.
One thing, also, I should let you know is, the NAACP, who has been very critical of Lott on this score, came out today with a statement. The president of the NAACP, Kweisi Mfume, saying that Lott should resign from his post as majority leader and the Republicans should put somebody in there whose moral compass is pointed towards improving race relations, not dredging up some of the racial issues of the past.
NEVILLE: Jonathan Karl, thank you very much for that report.
In the meantime, we want to go to break. And I want to ask you, do you think Trent Lott should resign? Give me a call or e-mail me. And we're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody, to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. I'm going to go directly now to Michigan, where Kyle (ph) is standing by on the phone. And Kyle (ph), I'll ask you, do you think Trent Lott should resign?
KYLE: Oh, I believe Trent Lott should definitely resign. I also believe that all the other Republicans that disagree with what he said should come out and voice their opinions too, because I believe he was completely wrong.
NEVILLE: OK, Kyle (ph). Thank you so much for calling in. We're discussing Trent Lott's apology regarding remarks some found offensive. And Peter, I go to you now, saying to you, as a former GOP congressman, do you think that an elected official should always be aware of semantics and simply avoid misspeaking?
PETER BLUTE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don't think Trent Lott is a racist in any way. I don't think it's part of his fiber. I've known him and worked with him in Washington. But, having said that, I do think he made a tremendous political error here. A lot of capital has been spent by Republicans, like President Bush, J.C. Watts, and others, to reach out to African-American voters, to try to correct a real bad situation for African-Americans.
They're so overly dependent in the Democratic Party that the Democrats take them for granted and the Republican Party ignores them. That's not good. All of those outreach efforts I think are positive, but Trent Lott has set them back. And I don't think he should step down, but I do think he should give a major speech on his views on race in America and how we can improve the lot of African-Americans in America.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you. Yvonne (ph), here in the audience, you're from South Carolina. Do you think Trent Lott is a racist?
YVONNE: Oh, yes. I grew up in South Carolina and I remember Strom Thurmond back in those days. And, lucky for us, he changed with the times and apologized for it. However, Trent Lott is a racist. In this day and age, he still feels that way. I was not surprised by his statement, because this is who Trent Lott is and I've always seen him this way.
NEVILLE: Jeff, is it too little too late?
JEFF CLANAGAN, CEO URBANWORKS ENTERTAINMENT: I think it's a little too late. I mean, he made the statements. And unfortunately, being a public official, you can't make those type of statements. I mean, all the apologies in the world are not going to retract what he said at the party.
NEVILLE: All right. Thanks, Jeff. I have Philippe (ph) here in the audience. Do you think Trent Lott should resign, sir?
PHILIPPE: I do not necessarily think he should resign. Obviously, he has the freedom of speech, and we also have the freedom to vote. So next time it comes around, we just vote him out.
NEVILLE: Now, Peter, I'm going back to you now. Members of the Black Caucus say they don't accept Lott's apology. What do you think that they can do to make their concerns felt?
BLUTE: Well, I think they're going to speak out on the floor of the House and make an issue of this. We're going to hear about this a lot in the next couple of years, leading up to the next election. I think President Bush will probably be asked about it in a political context.
But again, I think Trent Lott owes us more than just apologizing. I think he should give a major speech. He's the Senate majority leader, he has a voice, he's one of the most powerful people in the country. What he said was hurtful to African-Americans and those of us who think the civil rights movement was a positive thing in America. So I think he -- we need more. We need to hear more from Trent Lott.
NEVILLE: We have an e-mail coming in right now I want share with you, coming in from William in North Carolina. "I'm an African- American Republican and I'm very concerned with Lott's comments. He not only owes the public an apology, but he needs to resign his post." Thank you so much for the e-mail.
We are moving on now. We want to hear what you have to say about this a little later. Our question of the day is, what do you think of Senator Lot's comments?
And coming up, flames burning on a wooden cross. Most people would say it's a sign of racial hatred. So why is the Supreme Court looking at protecting those who did it? Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Cross burning: it's a symbol of racism or is it a disturbing display of free speech? That question is before the Supreme Court, as it debates the constitutionality of a Virginia ban on cross burning. The law is being challenged by three young men who were convicted after they tried to set a cross on fire on their neighbor's lawn and a Virginia Ku Klux Klan leader who burned a cross at a private rally on private property.
Now, the ACLU is arguing the Constitution protects cross burning as free speech. What do you think, Liz? Is this an expression of freedom or free speech?
LIZ WINSTEAD, HOST, "O2B": Well, I have to say that when there is cross burning, usually there, in turn, follows lynching and, you know, destruction of property and intimidation to actually exercise your civil rights. And you cross a line when your actions impede upon other people's civil rights. There's laws against stalking, because stalking and, like, massively writing letters to people that are threatening, is against the law. I don't understand the difference.
NEVILLE: Intimidation, exactly. Let's see now what the Virginia attorney general has to say about all this. He says that "A burning cross -- standing alone and without explanation -- is understood in our society in our society as a message of intimidation." So, Becky, does that eliminate the freedom of speech protection?
BECKY NORTON DUNLOP, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, Attorney General Kilgore has an excellent point with his statement, and I think that will be important as the Supreme Court deals with this. But the real question is, is it freedom of speech? And I suspect that, based on previous cases, they may rule that this is freedom of speech, but I think we cannot forget, Arthel, that to many people in our country the cross is a sign of hope and salvation. And so it's very offensive, and burning a cross should always be condemned, regardless of what the court finds.
NEVILLE: Peter, what does a burning cross signal to you?
BLUTE: It's a very offensive form of speech, no doubt about it. But I think to the extent that these ignorant people do it on their own property and not involve other people, then it's not, I think, a large matter. To the extent that they go on somebody else's property, they violate that person's property, they should be arrested. To the extent that they start a fire on private or public property that's not their own, then that's against the law now in most principalities. So, you know, if they do it in their back yard, if they want to get around in a circle, you know you can't legislate against ignorance.
NEVILLE: Let's take an e-mail coming in right now, coming from Danielle in Pennsylvania. "Cross burning should not be singled out. What about name calling, finger pointing or giving the bird? Where do these laws stop?" And let's see what the lawyers for the three men charged had to say.
He says, "It is but a short step from the banning of offending symbols such as burning crosses or burning flags to the burning of offending words. And Jeff, I want to get you in here and ask you, is there a difference between burning a cross at a KKK rally and burning a cross on someone's front lawn? Are they both considered intimidating?
CLANAGAN: They're both intimidating. If you burn a cross across the street from me on your own property, that's a sign of intimidation, even though you're on your own property. Historically, cross burning has been associated with the KKK and has been followed by violence. I don't care if it's in a KKK rally or on somebody's property. It is a sign of intimidation and should be dealt with.
NORTON DUNLOP: Well what about the court cases that said that you could have a parade in Skokie, Illinois and carry the Nazi flag? I mean, we have to keep in mind that America still is a free country, and there are many of our fellow citizens who say and do things we find offensive and that are intimidating. But our country has been one to say, we permit that until they cross the line and harm other people.
CLANAGAN: Well, what's crossing the line?
NORTON DUNLOP: Harming other people. Infringing on the rights of another individual or their properties.
CLANAGAN: Burning a cross is crossing a line. It's a form of intimidation. It's crossing the line.
NEVILLE: Becky...
NORTON DUNLOP: Well I think we'll find out when the court speaks, but I don't think that you can make that -- I don't think you can take that point today if you can say that having a parade and carrying a Nazi flag down the streets of Skokie, Illinois, is freedom of speech.
NEVILLE: Let me ask Whitney (ph) here in the audience, do you think Americans should have a right to burn a cross on their lawn if they choose to?
WHITNEY: Yes. I feel that is their right. If they don't believe in god and they want to act it out by burning a cross, that is their right, as long as they're not infringing on anyone else.
NEVILLE: But what if they burn the cross on somebody else's lawn.
WHITNEY: Then it would be wrong. But as long as they're not hurting anyone else by doing it, I feel that it's OK. I don't condone it, but it's their right.
NEVILLE: If someone burned a cross on your lawn -- hang on, let me ask her. I think somebody -- Liz is going to go there. If someone burned a cross on your lawn, how would you feel?
WHITNEY: Then it would be wrong, because it would been infringing on my rights if they did it in my yard on my property. As long as...
NEVILLE: So it's only about your property? It's not about that it would intimidate you?
WHITNEY: I might do things that might intimidate someone else, like somebody else said before, like if you stick up your middle finger, or if somebody is an atheist or something. I believe in god, that's hurting me. But it is their right to believe what they want.
NEVILLE: Interesting. How old are you?
WHITNEY: Sixteen.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, ma'am. Liz, I think you were trying to jump in there.
WINSTEAD: Yeah, I was just going to say, historically, burning a cross intimidated groups of people to not exercise their rights to go vote and their rights to ask for what is rights that they have as American citizens. And I don't understand why, if you -- if the basis is, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it causes mass hysteria, isn't that what happens? It causes mass intimidation.
NEVILLE: OK.
NORTON DUNLOP: Well Liz, I think there's a difference between intimidating people and stopping them from engaging in their rights. And it is true that there was a time in our country when people did fear for their lives. Now, I think, our African-American brothers and sisters know that most of us will stand up for their rights and that they will be taken care of in a court of law if that line is crossed. WINSTEAD: I would talk to more African-American citizens, then, because a lot of -- that is not true.
BLUTE: But is this a real problem, that African-Americans face in America today? Are these the real challenges, cross burning? I don't think so.
NEVILLE: But Peter, it's another form of racism. That's the deal here. Time for a break right now. When we come back, what is the AMA asking broadcasters to do to stop underage drinking? We'll tell you right after the break, so don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK. It appears our audience has a few more things to say about the cross-burning story, starting with this young lady. Go ahead and get to your point for me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my gosh. Oh, well, like I said during the break, that I am from Indiana, and where I stay in is in northwest Indiana, where KKK has already -- was originated in Indiana, southern Indiana. And where I had stayed -- where I stay is...
NEVILLE: And how do you feel about cross burning?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, cross burning, I feel that it's wrong. You shouldn't do anything like that. And it's 20002, and it's like racism should be already gone and left. And for it to be still here and to show that, oh, I'm racist, I'm going to stick my middle finger up or I'm going to call you the "N" word, they feel that it's still freely accepted, and it's not.
NEVILLE: Quickly, Whitney (ph).
WHITNEY: I don't think that -- I don't believe in racism, but I think what she's saying is unrealistic. Racism is here, and it's been here and it's always going to be here. People are going to feel how they feel regardless. So I think you have to face the facts, because they're always going to feel the way they feel about racism.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Yvonne (ph).
YVONNE: I think Whitney (ph) needs to go back and just look at some history. She needs to talk to her parents, because she doesn't understand what that cross represents. Burning a cross is pure racism. That represents hatred. That represents you do not belong here so get out. That's what the cross represents.
Go back and learn some history, Whitney (ph). Talk to your parents.
WHITNEY: I'd like to start by saying that my parents taught me well and they taught me how to face reality. I'm not saying that I agree with cross burning or anything like that. What I'm saying is that racism is real, and the way it's looking now, it's got not going anywhere. I don't believe in racism and I don't practice it or anything like that. I'm just saying that it is here and they're not going to change their ways.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much for that conversation, audience. And we're going to move on now.
Big news from the American Medical Association today. It wants TV broadcasters and cable networks to ban all ads for beer, wine and liquor before 10:00 PM. They say underage drinking damages adolescent brains, damage that is long term and possibly irreversible.
Liz, now you created "The Daily Show," which has a lot of underage viewers. Would you have banned alcohol ads from the show if it were on earlier?
WINSTEAD: You know, it's interesting when this came up, because I have not noticed that there is a lot of alcohol ads on television. Maybe I'm just a total space out and I walk out of a room when commercials come on, but I feel like...
NEVILLE: You know, like those Zuma (ph) ads and things like that.
WINSTEAD: Well, yeah. But I think the thing that -- they don't really promote alcohol to me. They promote sex. Every single one of those ads promotes like, if you drink this beer, the hottest chick in the world is going to take you home.
And it gets to the point too where like, now it's gum, it's frozen foods. No matter what the ad is, I have to wait until the end to see the product, because it's people having sex and then it's like Michelin tires. And you're like, what?
NEVILLE: You make a good point there. Listen, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 56 percent of students in grades five through 12 say alcohol advertising encourages them to drink. Jeff, does this surprise you?
CLANAGAN: No, it doesn't surprise me. I think, like she was just saying, the ads are really cool, and they're almost lifestyle ads. And it makes it very cool to drink when you look at a lot of the beer ads, because they're tapping right into the youth of our society with the music and with the people that they have on the ads.
NEVILLE: Now, Becky, the AMA also wants to stop the usage of mascots and cartoon characters in alcohol commercials. Again, will this make a difference?
NORTON DUNLOP: Well, I think we have another situation, where we're asking government to step in and do something that really gets right back to parental responsibility and making choices in our own families. I say turn the television off or pick the programs that you want your children to watch. Likely, the programs that parents want their children to watch will have advertisers that do not focus on this kind of product. But I don't think we can continue to have more regulation and more regulation and more regulation to try to tell people how to live their lives.
NEVILLE: OK. Chris (ph), here in the audience, should alcohol ads be banned before 10:00 PM?
CHRIS: I don't think it matters. I think a better benefit to society would be to direct the consumer ads from attorneys and from the drug companies.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Listen, I want to thank our panel: Becky Norton, Jeff Clanagan, Peter Blute and Liz Winstead. Thanks so much for being with us today.
And coming up, we're going to hear what you're saying about our question of the day concerning Senator Lott's comments. We'll hear from you when TALKBACK LIVE returns after this short break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Right now, let's take a look at your responses to our question of the day. We asked what you think about incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's comments. And you say what, Stacy (ph)?
STACY: Very simply, the majority leader should be representing the majority. And by his comments, he's not representing the majority.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And we have some e-mails coming in now I want to share with you. Worth in North Carolina: "Lott was trying to pay tribute to Strom. Despite what Strom's views may have been back then, he should still be recognized today for his service to our country."
And Louis in Louisiana: "Senator Lott should not have apologized. It was a relatively small comment. This is another example of making a mountain out of a molehill."
And that is the time we have. We're leaving you today. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back again tomorrow, though, with more TALKBACK LIVE. And coming up next, Judy Woodruff brings you part two of her interview with former Vice President Al Gore. "INSIDE POLITICS" up next.
(APPLAUSE)
JUDY WOODRUFF, ANCHOR: Thanks, Arthel. Next on INSIDE POLITICS, Trent Lott says he's sorry, but an apology apparently isn't enough. The continuing controversy over his comments coming up.
Louisiana lessons. What can the Democrats learn from the December runoff in Dixie? I'll ask Mary Landrieu for the secret to her success.
Plus, speaking out and acting out against an attack on Iraq. Protesters take to the streets across the country.
INSIDE POLITICS begins in 60 seconds. First, this NEWS ALERT.
(NEWS ALERT)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was a shocking, if you will, piercing voice through the fabric of black America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Trent Lott says he did not mean to sound like a segregationist, but black Democrats say sorry isn't good enough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can guarantee action will be taken.
ANNOUNCER: Al Gore has more to tell us about Lott's remarks and about his own decision on running for the White House.
She's the new poster girl of Democrat's eager to end their losing streak. Mary Landrieu joins us to share her winning ways.
What a doll, but does he have a way with words?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now he's not going to actually let the doll take his place for certain press conferences, is he?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.
WOODRUFF: Thank you for joining us...
|
