CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Are SUV Owners Supporting Terrorism?; California Redefines Rape
Aired January 8, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, we're getting revved up over an ad campaign suggesting SUV owners support terrorism. Does guilt belong in the driver's seat?
Also: your chance to talk back to radio host Michael Savage. Ask him why he thinks liberalism is a disease.
Then: California's high court redefines when sex becomes rape, leaving many men more confused than ever.
The talk starts right now.
Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
A new controversial advertising campaign has SUV owners overheating. The ad suggests that, if you drive an SUV, you are supporting terrorists. Let's take a look at it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is George. This is the gas that George bought for his SUV. This is the oil company executive who sold the gas that George bought for his SUV. These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his SUV. And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Joining me now is the woman behind these ads, syndicated columnist and author Arianna Huffington.
I want to welcome you to the show today.
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK, Arianna, you will consider your ad campaign a success if what happens?
HUFFINGTON: Well, first of all, I think it's already a success. There you are. You are airing it. We are discussing it. There's been a lot of debate. And the first time these ads were aired was last night on "The Nightly News," when Tom Brokaw discussed them. Our goal is really to get a conversation around our choices of what kind of cars we drive. We don't want to demonize SUV owners. We want to educate them, to inspire them, to help them connect the dots between the kind of cars we drive and our oil dependence, especially on the Middle East, and the fact that we already are spending $60 billion a year to fund our military presence on the Gulf, largely to protect our oil supplies there.
So, does it make sense for us to reconsider the kind of cars we drive? Especially since Detroit can right now put hybrid SUVs on the road. The technology exists. I had an SUV
NEVILLE: They're working on that, but I guess not fast enough, in your opinion, right?
HUFFINGTON: Absolutely not.
The hybrid technology has existed since 1905. And it's just that we as consumers have not really been educated about our choices. I certainly wasn't educated when, up until a year ago, I was driving a gas guzzler myself, a Lincoln Navigator, 13 miles to the gallon. I'm now driving a hybrid car, 52 miles to the gallon. And my kids love it.
NEVILLE: Arianna, let me jump in there, because you say that you feel that the ad campaign is already a success because we were talking about it. but don't you want something more to come out of this?
HUFFINGTON: Absolutely. But the first step is talking about it. The next step is people changing their car-driving habits. The other step is Detroit putting a lot more money behind the hybrid technology and behind producing hybrid cars.
And the third point is really what are our Washington elected officials going to do? There is a bill at the moment that Senators McCain and Senators Kerry are going to be reintroducing that will increase fuel efficiency. In the last Congress, it failed. We hope this time, it's going to succeed.
NEVILLE: So, that's your goal, right, Arianna? You're not saying to the folks in Detroit, the automobile industry, to stop producing SUVs altogether. You're saying make them more fuel efficient.
HUFFINGTON: We're saying make them hybrid, which means using electric and gas technologies at the same time. And, also, we need to end the tax loopholes that basically allow SUV owners, providing they are driving an SUV that is over 6,000 pounds heavy...
NEVILLE: So, give people more incentive to buy those hybrid cars.
HUFFINGTON: Exactly. Exactly.
NEVILLE: Let's talk about this, though. There are some television stations that won't run your ad. The ABC affiliate in New York, for instance, won't run it there. Art Moore, programming director there, says there were a lot statements being made that were not backed up. And they are talking about hot-button issues.
So, I ask you, do you think that your ad campaign plays more on emotion and less on fact?
HUFFINGTON: Our ad campaign is a parody of the administration's drug war campaign. You may have seen the ads where people who are taking drugs, especially young people, are saying, we are taking drugs. We are supporting terrorists.
Well, we are using the same language. We're using the same lighting, even. So, the stations that are not running our ads are really extremely hypocritical, because they have been running the administration's drug war ads. The difference is that our ads have been paid by small contributions from ordinary Americans. Those ads have been paid by the taxpayer, who had no choice in the matter.
NEVILLE: And your ad campaign, what, was $200,000?
NEVILLE: Listen, I have an e-mail coming in right now, Arianna, I want to share with you, from Sandra in Anaheim, California: "It could be suggested that not only SUVs contribute to terrorists, anyone that drives any car, boat, truck or anything that uses gas. Why single out just SUVs?"
HUFFINGTON: Well, the reason is because, right now, there are 16 million SUVs on the road. And last year alone, there was a 6 percent increase in the amount of SUVs sold. Right now, we even have the Hummer. Have you seen the Hummer?
NEVILLE: Yes, I've seen the Hummer. We all have seen the Hummer.
HUFFINGTON: Nine miles per gallon.
NEVILLE: Which is too bad, I got to tell you. I wish that Hummer were a hybrid car, because I like that Hummer, but I can't buy the Hummer.
HUFFINGTON: No, please don't buy the Hummer.
NEVILLE: I'm not going to.
HUFFINGTON: But my point is that, is it really socially responsible? When we are being told every day that we are at war, that we may be going to war with Iraq, when oil prices are going up, when Venezuela is on strike, when oil supplies are not certain, is it really socially responsible for GM to be advertising the Hummer? They can't keep it in stock, because you get a $25,000 tax credit when you buy the Hummer. I hate to let you know that, because you may run and buy a Hummer now.
NEVILLE: Come on. But, Arianna, I know that there are the tax incentives, but that's not the only reason why people are buying those cars.
Let me go shift gears here for a second, because, earlier this month, in Pennsylvania, at a car dealership, some SUVs were set on fire. And that's a form of terrorism, if you will. So, do you think your ad campaign sort of inadvertently incites this type of reaction?
HUFFINGTON: Absolutely not. This is a form of terrorism. I couldn't agree with you more.
That happened before our ad campaign. It has nothing to do with us. And this is a form of terrorism. I think they should be punished in the strictest way.
NEVILLE: OK, Arianna, I have Mr. Danton (ph) here from Louisiana, Xavier University.
You say what to Ms. Arianna Huffington?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it just doesn't seem consistent, why we are focusing on SUVs, when, actually, all vehicles are using gas. Whether it be a little or a lot, they're all, actually, in your eyes, contributing to the problem. So, I'm just kind of confused in terms of, why are you just focusing on SUVs?
HUFFINGTON: You know that if we improve the fuel efficiency of cars by three miles, we save one million barrels. That's what we import from Iraq. So, all we're saying is, make the cars more fuel efficient. It's a huge difference whether you are driving a nine- mile-per-gallon Hummer or a 52-mile-per-gallon hybrid.
NEVILLE: Arianna, listen, we are out of time. We do appreciate your time here with us here on TALKBACK LIVE today. Nice to see you.
HUFFINGTON: Thank you.
Listen, you've heard Arianna's argument. But should TV stations air these anti-SUV ads? That's our "Question of the Day." So, go ahead and give me a call right now, 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And coming up next right here on TALKBACK LIVE: Radio talk show host Michael Savage explains why he thinks radical left-wing Democrats are as dangerous to America as al Qaeda. Talk back to the author of "The Savage Nation" right after this.
NEVILLE: OK, We have a story coming in to CNN right now; 31- year-old white supremacist Matt Hale, the head of a World Church of the Creator, was arrested in Chicago.
And joining us now is Jeff Flock, our Chicago bureau chief with more -- Jeff.
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, Arthel, this unfolding just as we speak here now.
As you report, Matt Hale is now in custody, federal custody. He is alleged to have arranged the murder of a U.S. district court judge. Now, if you will remember, this organization, World Church of the Creator, it's an avowed white racist organization. They're very anti- black. They're very anti-Jew.
They were in the midst of a copyright infringement lawsuit. Another church claimed rights to the name World Church of the Creator. And they had been ordered to destroy materials that had World Church of the Creator, that name on it, including what they claimed were their Bibles and other tracks.
Matt Hale was to appear in the courtroom of Judge Joan Lefkow today to answer as to why he had not done that. He was, prospectively going to be held in contempt. He was to answer charges as to why he should not be held in contempt. The Web site that World Church of the Creator maintains describes Judge Lefkow as a -- quote -- "nigger- loving, kike-loving federal judge."
There is no word whether it is Judge Lefkow who is the subject of this allegation, but that is the material that appears on the Web site. So, we've got a press conference in, I believe, about 45 minutes with a U.S. attorney, apparently going to shed some more light on this. But Matt Hale is now in federal custody -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, Jeff, we'll see you in about 45 minutes. Thank you very much.
Listen, our next guest says liberals suffer from a mental illness and are trying to destroy the America he knows and loves and he plans save it.
Michael Savage is host of the syndicated talk show host "The Savage Nation," coming out of KSFO radio station in San Francisco. And he has outlined his plan to save the country in his latest book, "The Savage Nation: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture."
MICHAEL SAVAGE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hello. What a buildup.
NEVILLE: I'm sure you will live up to it.
So, listen, first of all, what do you think about Arianna Huffington's SUV campaign?
SAVAGE: Well, let's start with Arianna Huffington. She made her fortune -- God bless her. She's a lovely lady. I had dinner in her Washington home when she was still married to Michael, after he ran for governor, blowing $30 million of his dad's fortune.
Where did Arianna Huffington make her money? Oil and gas. So what does that tell you? Now she's attacking oil and gas?
NEVILLE: She said that now she has seen the light, basically. She used to drive a Lincoln Navigator about a year ago. She got rid of it. And now she's all about saving oil.
SAVAGE: And is she driving a Volkswagen microbus painted with turtles? What is she driving these days?
NEVILLE: Listen, you know what? I am not going to let you pick on Arianna Huffington, because she's not here to defend herself.
SAVAGE: No, I love her. She's a great lady.
I got to say this. This to me is like the Clonaid fraud. That's what I see there. If you want to buy a used clone, I can tell you where to get one.
NEVILLE: All right, Michael, you blame liberalism for pretty much everything that's wrong with the world. So, let's see. Let's talk about some issues here.
SAVAGE: Not everything, just about 90 percent.
NEVILLE: Almost everything. OK.
Let's talk about now the standoff with North Korea. How do you feel about the way the White House is handling this? They're willing to talk to North Korea, and they're willing to, perhaps, go to war with Iraq.
SAVAGE: It's a complicated riddle. And for anyone to stand up here and say they have all the answers without all the facts would be foolish.
However, as an outsider, someone who's not privy to government inside information, if I were a consultant, I would say, go to China. They're making a fortune by trading with us. They have a lot at stake. They should apply the pressure on this lunatic. He is in their sphere of influence. They do not want that Asian sphere of influence upset by a madman.
NEVILLE: So you're talking about Kim Jong Il.
SAVAGE: China should be the ones to constrain the man.
NEVILLE: OK, but what do you think about the standoff, though, with Kim Jong Il? He's not really responding to the White House's offer to discuss this issue at hand.
SAVAGE: Why should he respond, when our president, who I voted for -- quite reluctantly, incidentally -- has taken so long to strike back against al Qaeda? It's been a very, very long buildup for this strike back. And I think the longer we have waited, the weaker we look.
NEVILLE: OK, let's take a look now at some quotes from your book, little excerpts here, starting with: "Contrary to what you've been programmed to think by politicians with teleprompters, the al Qaeda network is not America's most dangerous enemy. To fight only the al Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders. Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left- winger in the country. That's who."
Why do you say that, sir?
SAVAGE: Let's start with that lawyer who John Ashcroft rightly jailed. I think her name was Lynne Stewart. She's a radical, flaming leftist lawyer who was found passing notes with the blind sheik, who was under federal guard. He's the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
She was found passing messages for him, according to the government. Why would she do that if she's an American citizen? But she's not alone. Why is it, every time our government tries to round up sleeper cells in America, the left jumps up, in a knee-jerk fashion, and says, civil rights, civil rights, civil rights?
We are all Americans. We're on the good ship America. If we go down, we go down together. We have enemies within. Let's be real. Why should the left continue the same nonsense as though everybody is innocent?
NEVILLE: Michael, let me just ask you, do you not believe that no one is entitled to civil rights?
SAVAGE: I'm an American. I'm quite outspoken. I want my civil rights protected. I want my free speech protected. I don't want anyone knocking on my door in the middle of the night and arresting me.
But if someone is in this country wanting to do it harm, I want the government to have the right to find them before they strike again. Doesn't that make sense to everybody listening?
NEVILLE: OK. That makes sense.
Cabel (ph) here in the audience has a direct question for you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
I want to know what you think about the United States' policy of considering, or at least allowing, North Korea to have weapons, when we discourage Japan, Taiwan and South Korea from doing the same?
SAVAGE: Well, you have to blame Jimmy Carter, to a certain extent. Jimmy Carter just won a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't know if most people know this, but the prize was given to Jimmy Carter for his fabulous diplomacy with North Korea in 1993, where they said they would not develop nuclear weapons.
Now, why would he get a Nobel Prize for that? That's one part of the puzzle. The other part is, Japan is a great ally of ours. They have a great warrior tradition. And there's no reason why Japan shouldn't, I believe, in self-defense, create a nuclear capability.
NEVILLE: OK, let's take another look at a piece of your book here: "At the top of this hierarchy is Hillary Clinton, followed by others, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. Together, they have both feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic."
And you are referring to so-called she-ocracy? Explain that.
SAVAGE: Well, look at the people in the country today. Everyone is afraid to speak out. Men are afraid to discipline their children. Women are afraid to discipline their children. Everyone has been pacified by this overbearing government of ours.
However, it wasn't put in place by Republicans, although they're not too far behind on this control of everybody. And I fear that, if we go down this road any further, we're going to become total sheeple, just sheeple, easily manipulated. This is not a racial issue. This is an issue of being an individual, being independent
NEVILLE: But is it only about women, though? You're calling this a she-ocracy.
SAVAGE: Well, OK, then let's look at the women who have assumed power in America.
I remember the year of the woman back in the '90s. We were told that when women assumed power in government, we would have a more compassionate government. Can anyone sitting here listening to this show today tell us that, under Hillary Clinton, under the other women in power, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, we have more compassion? They're like guys in women's dresses. They're no different than men. They're power-mad politicians,
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, Michael.
What's your name, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Tykila (ph)?
But I feel like a woman can discipline their child the same as a man can. And what's wrong with a woman being president? We can do the same as a man can.
SAVAGE: Well, I think that we should have an iron lady for president. I think that Margaret Thatcher would be a good model. I think she has more guts than most men. And I think that the men running the government today are too intimidated, frankly, by the political winds. And I believe that a strong woman would be a great president.
NEVILLE: OK, Michael, I've got to take a break right now.
But when we come back, I want to bring someone out here to talk with you. Our TALKBACK contributor, Charles Barkley, has been listening to what you've been saying. And we're going to find out what he thinks about it.
And don't forget, everybody. Our "Question of the Day": Should TV stations air those anti-SUV ads? Go ahead and pick up the phone, 1-800-310-4CNN or you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
The talk continues in just a moment.
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Joining me right now is the set in Atlanta is Charles Barkley, TALKBACK contributor, and host of "Listen Up" on TNT.
Hey, Charles. How you doing? Good to see you.
CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm good. Happy new year.
NEVILLE: Happy new year.
BARKLEY: We've got a lively crowd.
NEVILLE: Yes. And we are so glad to see you.
We've got to start with Arianna Huffington and her TV ad campaign regarding those SUVs. What do you say about that?
BARKLEY: I just got one.
BARKLEY: And after listening to her, I'm going to go out and buy another one, just for the hell of it.
NEVILLE: Oh, lord. Well, what did you buy? May I ask?
BARKLEY: Oh, I bought a Hummer. That's -- and I'm going to go out and buy another Hummer, just to piss her off.
NEVILLE: Oh, man. And, you know, we've been talking to Michael Savage, of course.
NEVILLE: You've been listening to that. Any thoughts on some of the comments so far?
BARKLEY: Well, the thing that's interesting to me -- and this is like my biggest complaint with the whole political process and anybody.
I'm trying to figure out -- they throw these words around like liberal, moderate, conservative. And we are like idiots. We sit here and choose sides. Man, I don't care what it is. Let's just solve these problems.
NEVILLE: It's about the people, right?
BARKLEY: Hey, it's our country. It's not -- he says his country. No, it's our country. We elect these guys to run the country. They're just not doing their job.
Man, everything gets blamed on the Clintons, every single thing in this world. I think Bill Clinton shot JFK, too.
BARKLEY: It's funny. No matter what happen in this country, somehow, now, he went back and blamed something on Jimmy Carter.
SAVAGE: If you knew your history, you'd know what I'm talking about. It's nice for you to sit there and make jokes, but...
BARKLEY: I'm not making jokes. I'm telling facts.
SAVAGE: You're just throwing stuff out without knowing your history.
BARKLEY: You want to blame everything on Bill Clinton.
SAVAGE: Jimmy Carter won his Nobel Prize for his negotiations in 1993. If you want to do a variety show, do it somewhere else,
BARKLEY: I hope you sell a lot of books. And I never heard of "The Savage Nation," don't care about "The Savage Nation." I care about this nation.
SAVAGE: Well, I don't care what you heard. I don't know who you are. I'm on 300 stations. People love me, man.
BARKLEY: So what? So what?
SAVAGE: So what? So it's a big deal to me. So it's a big deal to me.
BARKLEY: You're on 300 stations? So you got 300 listeners.
SAVAGE: I don't know who you are. What do you do?
BARKLEY: I get so tired...
SAVAGE: What do you do? I don't even know who you are. I have no idea who you are. What are your qualifications?
BARKLEY: That makes two of us.
SAVAGE: What do you do?
BARKLEY: What do I do? I work for CNN and TNT. That's what I do. What do you do?
SAVAGE: Excellent. Can you please tell me -- what's your education level?
BARKLEY: This is what I do. I went to Auburn University. I went to Auburn University.
SAVAGE: All right, great. I'm glad to hear it. But you ought to learn your history.
BARKLEY: I'm glad you mentioned that to me.
SAVAGE: Learn your history, brother. Learn your history, brother.
BARKLEY: I'm not worried about history. I'm living right now. I'm trying to make a difference right now.
SAVAGE: Well, this explains the whole thing.
SAVAGE: You're part of the ignoramus brigade.
NEVILLE: Chris, I think we have a quick audience comment and then we're going to break, quickly.
Stand up. Talk to me over here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree with Charles Barkley.
But let me tell you who he is. He is Charles Barkley. How can you not know him?
NEVILLE: All right, on that note, I am going to break, OK?
SAVAGE: You're asking me why? Because I don't follow sports.
NEVILLE: We have to take a break. We're going to continue the "Savage" debate after this.
And don't miss Friday's show. The duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, joins me here in Atlanta. She's going to talk about her new book: "What I Know Now: Simple Lessons Learned the Hard Way."
If you want to be in our studio, by the way,, you can go ahead and give us a call at 1-800-410-4CNN for tickets. We'd love to see you.
We're back in a moment.
NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody.
We're talking with radio talk show host and author Michael Savage, and TALKBACK contributor Charles Barkley. All right, Michael, lets talk about your book a little more. Another excerpt from the book: "If America is going to survive, we must close our borders to those who come to mooch and to those from all terror-sponsoring countries. Haven't we learned our lesson from 9/11? I say we must defend our borders from those who come to exploit our nation or we're cooked." Want to expound on that for me, sir?
SAVAGE: Well, I think it's self evident that a nation is defined primarily by its borders. Without borders, where's the nation? That's number one. When you have a house, your house is defined by your property line. A nation is defined by its property line. Either you defend it or you let burglars in.
We have 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. Yes, I know many immigrants are hard working, but how do you explain that 30 percent of all of our prisoners are here illegally? They didn't come here to work; they came here to work the system.
We need to do what people are doing in Europe. Even liberal Europe is closing its borders and seeing who's coming in and who's not coming in. Who do you want in your country? Do you want anybody? Do you want everybody? Do you want a selective few?
Can we afford to take in tens of millions of people when we have poor people of our own? These are questions that aren't being discussed. BARKLEY: I think there is some truth in that. I think we have to hold people accountable. I think, as far as immigration, that's always going to be a very difficult situation, because, number one, discrimination is always going to exist. There are a lot of great people here who are immigrants, who come here with goodwill. But some come here with bad will, and we just have to -- some already here have got bad will.
SAVAGE: Well, what would you deport native citizens?
BARKLEY: If they're bad people, you put them in jail.
SAVAGE: Well, we do. But now what we've got to do is see why are we letting criminals into the country? I mean, what sense does that make?
BARKLEY: Well who gets to pick and choose who we let in and who we don't let in, is the question.
SAVAGE: Well any -- hello? Every country...
NEVILLE Michael, you're mainly talking about the illegal aliens, correct? Michael?
SAVAGE: Well, of course I'm primarily focusing on those who come here illegally. But lets also focus on immigrants in general. I'm an immigrant son.
NEVILLE: Yes you are. I read that in your book.
SAVAGE: Which immigrants does a nation want? Do you want educated immigrants? Do you want poor? Do you want people with Tuberculosis? Do you want people who need heart and lung transplants that everyone has to pay for? I mean, don't...
BARKLEY: So you'll just...
SAVAGE: ... you have to decide what you want to bring into your country?
BARKLEY: No disrespect to your father -- he's an immigrant?
SAVAGE: No, he's dead.
BARKLEY: No, I'm saying he was an immigrant.
BARKLEY: So what if somebody didn't want him to come here, who was on the television station years ago saying your father was an immigrant who shouldn't...
SAVAGE: But see, again, you're missing the point. He came here legally. He didn't swim across the border.
BARKLEY: That's my point. We're not saying all immigrants who come here have goodwill, legal or illegal, but who gets to pick and choose that? That's the question.
SAVAGE: Who? Who gets to pick and choose? A nation has a dialogue about it and we say we can't take in anymore people. We have our own poor. If we want any more immigrants, we need to find out if they're criminals, if they're healthy.
We used to have an Ellis Island, where people if they had a disease they were quarantined. We have people coming in today with tuberculosis. We certainly can't agree that that's a good thing for America. Can we?
BARKLEY: Well, I will agree with you on that. I think we have to do a better job of screening, but also, just to be fair. And the system right now is not fair.
NEVILLE: Moja (ph).
MOJA: Yes. It sounds like that Mr. Savage ought to be called pass the buck Savage. It doesn't seem like that he wants to stand the responsibility for our actions. When you talk about North Korea, he wants China to take care of it. When you talk about the agreement with everybody, and the US is over in Iraq talking about jumping on Iraq. Nothing has been found, and we are sure that North Korea is proliferating nuclear weapons.
So I would say that the priority is in North Korea instead of in Iraq. And if you want to be the world's police, then be the world's police. If not, then change the policy to where we get along with everybody, and not let...
NEVILLE: Let me get Mr. Savage a chance to go ahead and respond to that.
SAVAGE: Well, you don't understand the first thing about geopolitics with that statement. You're trying to have it both ways. You're saying the US is aggressive for being the world's policemen, for attacking Iraq, or about to attack Iraq. But you're saying the US should attack North Korea, when I'm saying they shouldn't attack North Korea.
This can be settled peacefully, in my humble opinion, by taking that giant nation called China, which controls the Asian sphere of influence, and they can control North Korea. That can be done very peacefully.
NEVILLE: I have an interesting guest, Michael, in the audience. Olga (ph) from Cuba -- an immigrant.
OLGA: Yes. I came here 47 years ago legally as a resident. Before I came here I went through all the legal...
NEVILLE: All the procedures?
OLGA: Procedures, right. Blood tests, X-ray...
NEVILLE: And then what happened? OLGA: Legal paper (ph) that was never arrested (ph). And now the people from my country get in to Iraq, and cross the ocean there and get accepted over here, and they...
NEVILLE: So you feel that's unfair? You had to go through all of this?
OLGA: It's very unfair. I agree that people should be legal. They should be...
NEVILLE: Go through all proper channels?
OLGA: And scrutinized that they are legal. But all those people, that they are not troublemakers, and that they are going to come here to work.
SAVAGE: Absolutely. That's what we're -- what she -- she and I agree. She's answering Mr. Barkley's question. We're talking about who should come here, who should decide. Wouldn't common decency say that you don't want criminals? The woman did it the right way. She's what we want here.
We don't want people to come here illegally. If they're criminals or if they're (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with tuberculosis. That's what we're talking about.
BARKLEY: First of all, I'm not disagreeing with you that we have to be more restrictive as far as immigration. But how do you -- who knows who is going to be a crook when they get here and who's going to be a hardworking person is my question. Who gets to choose?
SAVAGE: Well, I think we have quite a database of illegal aliens who are not permitted into the country. And we certainly want to keep them out. My main point is that our border with Mexico is not guarded sufficiently. You have got citizens trying to protect their farms.
I think we ought to put troops on the border with Mexico. Not continue to leave it as an open sieve. What if terrorists want to walk across that boder?
NEVILLE: So are you saying specifically that Mexicans are the ones who come over here to do harm or that border is soft?
SAVAGE: Well, I didn't say which races because I haven't studied it. However, if you look at your prison population, and you know that 30 percent of the prisoners are illegal aliens, you'd have to break that down by country of origin. So I haven't done that. I haven't seen that data.
The fact is that the border with Mexico is quite porous and terrorists are known to come into a country through a porous border. They caught them in the Canadian border. The Mexican border is wide open. The government ought to look into that and help the border patrol with some US troops. I think we ought to take our troops out of South Korea and put them on the border with Mexico.
BARKLEY: You know it's interesting. You said 30 percent of the criminals are illegal aliens. Is that what you said?
SAVAGE: That's when I read.
BARKLEY: It sounds like -- so 70 percent of our own people.
BARKLEY: That's my point. You're blaming 30 percent of the people for the problem, when 70 percent of the people, they're friends of ours, they're our family members. Why are you blaming a small 30 percent and not blaming that 70 percent?
SAVAGE: I have no idea what you're talking about. Your logic seems to be so screwed up, you can't even present an argument. I don't know what you are saying.
NEVILLE: Oh, come on, Michael. Oh, come on, Michael.
BARKLEY: You know what Michael is? Michael is one of them guys who is really, really smart, who's a (EXPLETIVE). Like, he wants...
NEVILLE: Wait, wait, wait. Listen, no, no, no. I am jumping here in.
SAVAGE: I don't know who you are. Look, I could call you -- what are you an ignorant basketball player? You're a dummy.
NEVILLE: Michael Savage, thank you very much for joining us here today.
SAVAGE: Yeah, you're a dumb basketball player. Go dribble a ball. Go dribble a ball. You couldn't shine my shoes, buster.
NEVILLE: Hey, hey. Both of you, time out. We're back in a moment. Cut. Cut. We're back in a moment.
NEVILLE: OK. Welcome back, everybody.
Now, if a woman consents to sex, but in the course of passion changes her mind, is it rape if a man continues? Well, according to the California Supreme Court, it is rape. And the court said the woman may change her mind at any time along the way.
Now the tricky part is, when does male persistence become force? Right now, we're going to introduce our guest, Wendy Murphy is a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School and the director of the victim advocacy and research group. She wrote the brief supporting a woman's right to withdraw consent which was used in the court ruling.
Also with us is criminal defense attorney Robert Dunn. I want to welcome both of you to the show for me. Wendy, starting with you, what does this ruling say in your opinion?
WENDY MURPHY, VICTIM ADVOCACY AND RESEARCH GROUP: Well, what this ruling says, Arthel, that's really very simple and appropriate is that rape law is designed to protect women's personal autonomy and bodily integrity. As a result, a woman always has the right to say no, and there is no point in time after which the man is entitled to commit an act of sexual violence.
The woman's right to control her body, to decide what to do with it, begins and never ends, even if the guy thinks he's not yet done. And what's important about this ruling, and I think we really have to emphasize this, is that the fact that one gives permission to an initiated act of intercourse means that it was OK at the beginning. It was OK with the woman to start the act.
But look, what if it hurt? What if it really hurt this woman after the act was initiated? Does that mean because the guy has already begun the act that she has no choice but to continue? The court just used common sense and said a woman never loses the right to decide what to do with her body.
NEVILLE: Robert Dunn, doesn't no mean no?
ROBERT DUNN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I mean, I don't think anyone can challenge whether or not a woman has the right at any point in time, or a man for that matter, has a right to say that I may have consented in the first instance, but I now wish to change my mind on that. But I don't believe that's the issue, because I think that that's already been in play before this decision.
What this decision does is puts the Supreme Court's good housekeeping seal of approval on disregarding all of the evidence that would be used to make a determination as to whether or not the issue was one of force or consent. By that, I mean to say that one might ordinarily look to are all of the events leading up to the penultimate act. Being they went out together, they were seen hugging and kissing, they were seen arm in arm going into a car. He opens the door, he let's her in, they kiss.
They get to the apartment, people see them going in. Everything is looking like it's an amorous situation, everything is looking like it's entirely consensual. There isn't anyone else in the room with these two people at a given instance.
NEVILLE: So you feel, Robert, that there is too much of a fine line here? It becomes a her word against his?
DUNN: Yes, I think so. And if I may, also, this is a very poor case to have made a decision on, because this is...
NEVILLE: A 17-year-old.
DUNN: ... a circumstance where a young lady initially gave her consent to have sex. Then she indicates that, well, gee, it's getting late. I've got to get home. Not like, it hurt, as Wendy said. This is painful. Please stop. No. MURPHY: Come on. Don't misstate the facts.
DUNN: I've got to get home. I've got to get home. And then he says, well, can you give me a few more minutes before he pulls out.
MURPHY: He forced her down. He forced her on top of him. She did consent to some of the early stages of the sexual conduct, then she tried to push herself off. He held her down.
She said, "Please, I want to go home." He said, "No, just let me finish. Give me a minute." And you know what, Robert? The law does not exist, as you suggest it should, which is that a guy has the right to finish just because he's begun an act he had...
DUNN: No. No one is saying, Wendy, that he has a right to finish. It's -- the fact of this case...
MURPHY: Then he should have stopped when she said stop.
DUNN: Can I respond? The fact of this case really speaks to the evidentiary matters obtained here. By that, I mean to say, what type of evidence would be allowed to persuade a jury that this or that did not occur? And...
MURPHY: That is not true. That is not true. The jury is allowed to consider all the evidence.
DUNN: What the Supreme Court is saying is that, even though evidence has been shown that it was consensual going up to a certain point, you can just throw that out the window if this individual says, you know, without any...
MURPHY: You're misstating it, Robert. The jury was allowed to consider everything she did up to the moment of intercourse. They heard it all. And they said she had a right to say no.
DUNN: Well let me ask you something. Wendy, how would -- in a case where a woman is bringing a false claim, and you have circumstances that indicate that she is in agreement with this, that she's given her consent, and everything that we can look at, other than what occurs in the bedroom between the two of them, which nobody else really knows about, all of the other evidence indicates that she gave her consent, then how are we then to be able to disprove a false case?
MURPHY: That's what the jury (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is all about.
NEVILLE: And hang on right there for me, Wendy. I do want to explore that a little bit later, but have to take a break right now.
In the meantime, go ahead and give us a call or e-mail us now and answer the question of the day on another subject, which is the Detroit project is airing ads suggesting that SUV owners are supporting terrorism because of all of the gas they use. Should TV stations air these ads? We're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
NEVILLE: OK. We were talking with Wendy Murphy and Robert Dunn about a California State Supreme Court ruling on rape. And I want to share with you now a quote from the only dissenting justice in this case, Janice Rogers Brown. "Laura..." -- it's not the name, but -- "Laura's silent and ineffectual movements could easily be misinterpreted," she said. "And none of her statements are unequivocal. They could reasonably be understood as requests for reassurance or demands for speed."
Now, Robert, that's what you were talking about before we went to break.
DUNN: That's exactly what I'm talking about.
NEVILLE: If it's not clear. And this is where I want to bring Charles Barkley in here. Not necessarily saying you, Charles, of course, but in people of your stature, celebrities, and professional athletes in particular, there are situations -- and I'm a woman, and of course, I'm on the side of the women here. Of course, rape is horrible. But there are times when women do consent all the way to the end, but then after the fact, for reasons that perhaps you would understand a little bit more, claim that they were indeed forced.
BARKLEY: Yeah. Well I think it's interesting, because I think they both are right. I think the girl is right, Wendy's right, because no, means no. But I think the brother's right also. But it's not really fair to put this in the hands of a jury or the Supreme Court. Because now they're basing a guy's reputation...
NEVILLE: Precisely. Here's a 17-year-old boy now, Wendy, who now has a record as being a rapist.
DUNN: As being a sexual offender. He has to register as a sexual offender.
MURPHY: And I hope that that young man and other young men understand one of the most important messages from this case is this: if you're not damn sure you have permission to be where you are with your body parts, you better got out. Or you run the risk you're going to be...
BARKLEY: Yeah, but he had permission.
NEVILLE: But, you know what, he had permission in the beginning, Charles, but she changed her mind. And perhaps that is the lesson for men and women. Women make it absolutely clear when you say no, you say no, no, no. And guys, you hear that.
BARKLEY: But in fairness, she said yes, though, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Charles, I got to take a break. I'm going to talk to you in this break, OK? All right, listen, Wendy Murphy and Robert Dunn and Charles Barkley, thank you so much for joining us here. It's time for a break. Up next: now's your last chance to get in on our "Question of the Day." Should TV air those anti-SUV ads?
Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com. We are back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
NEVILLE: Time for our "Question of the Day." Should TV stations be airing those ads that suggest SUV owners support terrorists? And we are getting some e-mails coming in regarding this question. Kathleen in Austin, Texas. "People who purchase SUVs are no different than those Americans who purchase cars, trucks or vans. I am more concerned about war, the economy, and jobs for those without. Aren't you?" Thanks, Kathleen.
And coming from in Atlanta, Steven says, "Unless you really require the carrying space, or a four-wheel drive, owning an SUV is making a greater than necessary contribution to the terrorist cash pool." OK. Thank you very much.
More e-mails coming in now I want to share with you. Coming in from, let's see, Ellen in Annapolis, Maryland. OK. "People should think about how dangerous they are and the detrimental effect they have on others not being able to see around them, and our environment." OK, Ellen. Thank you very much.
And I think that is it. That's all the time we have. Charles is still here. You still want to talk to me about that story, don't you?
BARKLEY: No. No means no. Thank you, Sir Charles. Thank you so much for watching.
I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific with more TALKBACK LIVE. Judy Woodruff is next with "INSIDE POLITICS."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com