|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Is Iraq Coming Clean With Weapons Inspectors?; CBS Brings 'Beverly Hillbillies' to Life
Aired January 9, 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: Is Iraq coming clean with U.N. weapons inspectors? Hans Blix tells the U.N. what's he found. Will his report add to the drumbeat for war or silence it?
Then, CBS combs Appalachia for the poor and unsophisticated, as it brings "The Beverly Hillbillies" to life in a reality series. We'll tell you why some folks in Appalachia are not smiling.
And, from The Smoking Gun Web site: famous faces in lockup: Steven Seagal's alleged run-in with gangsters. And find out what Paul McCartney reportedly won't tolerate when he's on the road.
The talk begins right now.
Hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Apparently, there are a lot of holes in Iraq's report on its weapons program, but U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix says the inspectors haven't found any smoking gun.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We still get prompt access from the Iraqi side, that the inspections are covering ever wider areas and ever more sites in Iraq, that in the course of these inspections we have not found any smoking gun. However, we are getting more and more information and better knowledge about the situation and that the declaration, regrettably, has not helped very much 4to clarify any questions marks of the past.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now, Blix made his report the other U.N. Security Council today.
CNN senior United Nations correspondent Richard Roth joins us now with more -- Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, there was some drama here with the briefing. But everybody knows there's another briefing at the end of the month. And so far, there have not been any incidents in Iraq. So, basically, things had a bit of a familiar ring to them since the last time they were here, December 19.
Blix and ElBaradei, as you saw, telling the Security Council it's a flawed report from Baghdad, 12,000 pages delivered late last year. They still have a lot of questions and they want answers. They'll try to get them when the two men go to Baghdad January 19 and 20. But there's no indication Baghdad is going to give them any further information.
Some of the more interesting tidbits here: ElBaradei, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is saying that Iraq imported illegally aluminum tubes that he says are not going to be used for enriched uranium production, but instead for rocketry. And he says, nevertheless, they aren't supposed to have them. He also expressed concerns about HMX, a high-detonation explosive that the Iraqis believe could be used for cement production and industrial use, but which the inspectors believe could be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Diplomats are on the council are split, predictably: Europeans favoring giving more time to the inspectors to do their work, no rush to work, the British ambassador even saying everyone should calm down. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Negroponte, though, is saying serious consequences still remain for Baghdad if they don't comply. And he wants answers from the Iraqi authorities within a few weeks.
He says these are serious omissions. Sometimes that's code word for war. But the U.S. is not ready to act, because they would like to have support here, Arthel, from the international arena in the full council -- back to you.
NEVILLE: Now, Richard, let's talk about January 27. Is that going to become sort of a D-Day?
ROTH: Well, there's been a lot of talk about that. But the inspectors repeatedly say this is just another interim report, that, under these complicated resolutions, they are supposed to deliver.
Unless something changes, unless there's some interference, noncooperation, it may be just overviews of where the inspectors have gone and what they've met with. It may ratchet up things. Obviously, it's getting close to winter, better fighting conditions there. But it may not be the trip wire that some thought weeks ago.
NEVILLE: OK, Richard Roth, thank you so much for joining us here.
And here to talk about the showdown with Iraq is Adam Eidinger, a Green Party activist and anti-war demonstrator. Also here is Eleana Gordon, policy director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
I want to welcome to you both.
All right, Adam, Blix says no smoking gun, gaping holes in the report, Iraq fails to answer numerous question. Is this ammunition for war or not?
ADAM EIDINGER, GREEN PARTY: It's definitely not ammunition for war. And what we have to look at is, the Iraqi inspectors are on the ground -- sorry -- the inspectors are in Iraq. And it's important for Americans not to be trigger-happy here, not to rush into a war. But if you ask most Americans what this war is really about, they think it's about oil. They think it's about U.S. interests.
ELEANA GORDON, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, before we go into oil and what this war is about, I'd like to answer the question as well.
And I think this is a case for war. It's the same case of war we've had since 1991, which is, Iraq remains in material breach of the U.N. Security Council resolution and the cease-fire. What the inspectors are telling us is that, once again, Iraq has not come clean on its weapons.
And when we talk about questions that have remained unanswered, let's talk about what these questions are. These are about biological and chemical weapons that Iraq admitted to having once and now cannot prove what they've done with them and can't account for. These are biological weapons that could destroy the world three to four times over. We're talking about 150 bombs with biological weapons.
EIDINGER: That's a complete exaggeration.
GORDON: Their job was to come clean, tell us what they have done with these weapons. And the job of the inspectors was to verify these declarations. The inspectors are coming back and saying, we have still not answered these questions. Therefore, the case for war remains.
EIDINGER: There's just no case for war. I think what you have to look at here is, is Iraq a threat to the region? They are not.
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: Absolutely, it is a threat.
EIDINGER: Let me get a word in.
There's not one country in the world, besides Great Britain, that is anxious to go to war. Turkey, which is a key ally if we were to go to war, is saying, we don't want U.S. troops on our soil; 90 percent of the Turkish public doesn't want us there. Public opinion does matter. Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors. They're paying billions of dollars in reparations to the Kuwaitis. They've apologized to the Kuwaitis.
I think the only country that really wants this war is Lockheed Martin and the defense contractors. They have a great interest in seeing a war in Iraq. And they want to get the oil in Iraq. That's what this is really about. It's not about weapons of mass destruction.
GORDON: That is not true.
EIDINGER: Let me say one more thing.
When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, Russia, are the two countries that possess more than anyone else. And we're not having inspections here. And we're not disarming either. We have nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.
GORDON: When you have a country that has violated 16 U.N. resolutions, that are binding under the rules of the U.N. and that should be enforced and that every member of the U.N. is obligated to enforce, and we do nothing after 10 years, this does severely test the integrity of the international system.
So, we have a duty to make Iraq comply. And to argue that we don't face a threat with a country that has aggressed its neighbors twice, that has engaged in genocide against Kurds, that has ethnically cleansed a million people in its country, that is trying to development missiles today that can reach Russia, that can reach Turkey, and that can reach Iraq, that has an ideology of regional domination, and to argue Iraq is not a threat is outrageous.
There are arguments you could use to say that we shouldn't be trigger-happy. But to argue that Iraq is not a threat is not the right argument.
EIDINGER: It's not the country that brought about 9/11. That was brought about by al Qaeda. And I wonder why the Bush administration hasn't mentioned Osama bin Laden since the summertime.
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: "The Washington Post" reported that V.X. nerve agents have fallen into the hands of al Qaeda. And we believe that Iraq is likely to have funneled them. We know that Iraq is a source of instability in the region right now. It supports Hamas. It supports Palestinian terrorism. To argue that it is not a threat is outrageous.
EIDINGER: The instability to the region will be us going to war in that region. That will bring about instability.
GORDON: That's not true.
EIDINGER: And it will also justify, in the eyes of Iraqis and other Arab countries, attacks against U.S. citizens abroad and in this country. So, we've got to ask ourselves, is it really worth it? It's not.
NEVILLE: Let me go to California and talk to bill.
Does the U.S. now have ammunition for war or not, Bill?
CALLER: We didn't hear about going to war against Iraq for a year and a half when Bush was president, until his buddy Kenny boy Lay at Enron was caught stealing billions of dollars.
Then, to deflect attention from that and from the fact that he never got Osama bin Laden, Bush promising he was, OK, he says now it's Iraq, it's Iraq. And ask the young lady if she's ever been to war? I was in Korea in '51. Where were you in war, young lady? Where?
GORDON: Well, you can already tell that I'm too young to have been in war.
CALLER: You're too...
GORDON: The issue is whether you believe it is right for Iraq to continue to tyrannize its people and to have the potential to tyrannize its people. Iraq has led a war in Iran where a million people were killed. And Iraq has the potential to lead more wars, if we don't stop it.
I don't think war is something to engage in lightly. I understand that it is horrible. But it can even be more horrible. And I would ask you, when I look forward at our future, what kind of a world do we face if Iraq is in a position to take control of all the supplies on which we rely, Iraq which has an ideology which is very similar to Nazism and believes in Arab regional supremacy. That this country should be able to gain the power to blackmail the world presents a danger that I think is unacceptable.
NEVILLE: So, Eleana, what about the idea of the U.S. going in and just taking out Saddam Hussein? I don't mean take out literally. I mean remove him from the country.
GORDON: I think it would be a good thing for the Iraqi people. I think that we're forgetting, when we talk about war, that this will leave the Iraqi people in a much better place. They have been suffering under Saddam Hussein's regime
EIDINGER: They've been suffering from the economic sanctions.
GORDON: It's one of the most tyrannical regimes in the world. And I think we should have gone and finished the war in 1991. And I can understand the anger of the Iraqi people, to the extent
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: ... that we betrayed them. Let's not betray them again.
NEVILLE: Let me get in there, because I have to go to break right now.
When we come back: Can we talk? Find out why a Democratic governor from New Mexico may be playing peacemaker in the standoff with North Korea. Andrea Koppel joins us next with the details.
And later this hour, we're going to hear why folks are furious over a planned reality series based on "The Beverly Hillbillies." Is it a mockery or just entertainment? That's our "Question of the Day." Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And we're back after this break. Stay right where you are. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Why are North Korean officials talking with a Democratic governor instead of the Bush administration? You're going to find out next.
And then later, you'll see stars behind bars as we talk to the man behind The Smoking Gun Web site, home to famous mug shots, celebrity lawsuits, and other not-so-private affairs.
It's all ahead as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
Let's turn our attention to North Korea right now, where diplomats have been sent to visit the United States. But it won't be anywhere near the White House.
CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel joins us now with the details -- Andrea.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Arthel.
Actually, it's U.N. -- North Korean diplomats from United Nations who are going to be traveling to New Mexico -- in fact, they could be on their way or they may have landed already -- to meet with Democratic Governor Bill Richardson. Now, this is a story that both the White House and the State Department have confirmed, but CNN brought it to you a few hours ago first.
The background behind this is that U.S. officials say that North Korean diplomats contacted Bill Richardson, who has a long history of having dealt with North Korean officials. They contacted him and said they wanted to meet with him. The State Department got that, because, if they want to travel, they have to get permission. The State Department gave them permission. And they're on there now to talk with Bill Richardson about what the U.S. has agreed to.
And that is to sit down with the north and talk about how to end the nuclear crisis. They say they're not going to negotiate, Arthel. They say this is not a quid pro quo. But they want to try to get the North Koreans to freeze that nuclear weapons program. And, in exchange, the U.S. has signaled that it would be willing to give, perhaps, written assurances, security assurances, to the north that the U.S. would not invade or would not attack the north.
NEVILLE: Andrea Koppel, thank you so much for that report.
And we're going to bring Adam Eidinger and Eleana Gordon back into this conversation.
Adam, so do you think the White House administration has finally heard the cries of those in South Korea, those in Japan, people saying, listen, we need to talk; let's avoid a nuclear disaster?
EIDINGER: I hope they're hearing it. I'm not sure if it's clear yet that they have.
Richardson going to North Korea, speaking to the North Koreans is a wonderful thing. Diplomacy is so much better an alternative than war. And Richardson has the experience at the United Nations that I think maybe the North Koreans respect. And that's why they've chosen him or picked him as someone to talk to.
I jut don't understand why the United States doesn't take the same approach to Iraq, or, for that matter, Iran, a country that is going to be developing nuclear weapons shortly as well, if we don't get involved.
GORDON: Here's the key difference with North Korea. North Korea does have nuclear weapons today. Iraq does not yet have nuclear weapons. North Korea has soldiers that are lined up 35 miles from Seoul. It has the ability to reach any target in Seoul. It has the ability to reach Japan. It is developing weapons that could even reach the United States.
What happens is, we are in a much more difficult situation.
NEVILLE: But, Eleana, you just finished mentioning before the break about how Iraq is depressing and suppressing, oppressing its own people.
GORDON: Right.
My point here is, Iraq is not yet where North Korea is. And, therefore, military action is a much more feasible option. It would not be as costly to civilians, by any means. It's a much more feasible war. We can win it. When we're talking about war...
NEVILLE: Why, because North Korea has such a big, a large military?
GORDON: It has an army and it's three times the size of Iraq's. It has two to six nuclear bombs. It's very powerful.
Now, that doesn't mean we have to completely exclude the military option. But when we are talking about being concerned about the cost of war, now, here's a situation we should be. And I think the lesson here is, we cannot afford to let Iraq get to the same stage as North Korea. And the reason we're in a situation where we're not immediately talking war is because it is a much -- they have a lot more leverage against us right now.
On the other hand, when we talk about diplomacy being the most effective way, you have to remember, diplomacy can only work -- it should be the first tool, but it can only work if you also have the means to enforce what you're saying. You have to have military or other sticks available to you as a last resort. So, the two have to go hand in hand. You have to work on them together.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Adam.
EIDINGER: All right.
The Bush administration is playing a double standard here. And what they're doing is actually giving an incentive to other countries to develop nuclear weapons, meaning, we will respect you once you have nuclear weapons.
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: So, do think we should go to war, Adam, then?
(CROSSTALK)
EIDINGER: Absolutely not.
I'm saying that what we've done is, we've backed ourselves into a corner. A year ago at the State of the Union, when George Bush said that Iraq, North Korea and Iran are the axis of evil, what he was doing was, is setting up a situation where we had to treat all of them the same. We should have been engaging in diplomacy then. We should never have been calling them names. We picked a fight with North Korea and we're going to lose this fight.
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: We did not pick a fight with North Korea.
EIDINGER: Sure we did. When the president called the country evil and
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: Now let me tell you why we didn't.
North Korea picked a fight with us when, in 1994, after signing an agreement in which it said it would no longer engage in development of nuclear weapons, it immediately started on a secret uranium-based nuclear program. And did it for seven years.
In 1999, before this administration came into power, a committee to Congress reported North Korea is a greater threat than ever. Our policy is failing. It is because North Korea is aggressive that North Korea has picked a war with the whole world. It's because it's a regime
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: On that note, I'm going to break.
What do you think is the bigger threat, Iraq or North Korea? We're going to get to that next.
And then later: hunting for kin in Appalachia? Will the real "Beverly Hillbillies" open an unsuspecting family to nationwide ridicule, is the question. We'll talk about that later in the show.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back.
We're talking about whether New Mexico's Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, can help solve the North Korean nuclear standoff.
In the meantime, we're going now to Maryland, where Dan has a specific question for Adam.
Go ahead, Dan. Dan, what's your gentlemen?
CALLER: Yes, Adam, I have a question for you.
You say that the way we are treating the North Koreans is good negotiation, and, if we were to approach the Iraqis in the same way, negotiate with them, it would be good, too. Well, if we step off Iraq, won't we at least be giving them the possibility of a nuclear weapon? And in the past, they've proven -- they gassed the Kurds. They invaded Iran. They invaded Kuwait.
I was on board the USS Stark. That ship was attacked by Iraqis. At what point do we call it a line? At what point do we just let them have a nuke?
EIDINGER: Well, first of all, the gassing of the Kurds took place when we were allies with Iraq. And our secretary of defense, Don Rumsfeld, traveled to Iraq a year later and met with Saddam Hussein. And it was a nice visit with him.
GORDON: Well, we were wrong. We were wrong.
EIDINGER: We seem to see ignore countries like Iraq when they're our allies and when they do brutal things for their own people. But when it's convenient for us to trot that out like that's some sort of excuse to go to war, we do it.
When it comes to negotiations, you have got to offer an incentive for countries to participate. The only way to eliminate nuclear weapons on this planet is for the countries that have them to reduce them and to promise the rest of the countries that they're going to reduce them. This is what the centerpiece of the Nonproliferation Treaty is.
The U.S. right now is violating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is exactly why the North Koreans are going to get into an arms race with us. They're going to build nuclear weapons and missiles to attack the United States and try to overwhelm any defense shield that we build. It's an arms race.
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: The reason that North Korea is developing weapons is because North Korea has no industry, no economy to speak of, except for weapons sales. So, it can do one of two things. It can sell the weapons. And today, it is selling them to Middle East countries like Syria.
EIDINGER: Weapons sales are a huge things in the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: But we are not selling them to rogue states. This undermines the very nuclear proliferation system that you're defending, which is, when the international community decides that a regime is not responsible, it is not abiding the proliferation, and should not be sold arms, and a rogue state like North Korea...
EIDINGER: Like Israel?
(CROSSTALK)
GORDON: Israel is not selling weapons to rogue states.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, both of you you've made your points.
GORDON: And Israel did not sign any nonproliferation treaty. So, it's not breaking any treaties.
NEVILLE: Let me get Mike in here.
Mike, you say war is not the answer.
MIKE: War is not healthy. It's not healthy for humans and other living things. I'm a Vietnam vet, 1966 to 1968. And we don't play war with chess pieces. We don't play it on a board. People get hurt.
NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.
We have a veteran from the Korean War in our audience as well.
And, sir, I'd like your thoughts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think, after spending all this money and sending our children, sons and daughters, over there in harm's way, he'd better find some smoking guns or he's in deep doo-doo.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.
Listen, we do have to take a break right now. I want to go ahead and thank Adam Eidinger and Eleana Gordon, both of you, for joining us.
EIDINGER: Thanks.
NEVILLE: We'd love to have you back.
Up next, I want you to meet a man who is taking on CBS in its hunt through Appalachia to find the real "Beverly Hillbillies." There he is waiting in the wings.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Well, do you remember this '60s sitcom? Of course you do. That's right. There it is, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was about a poor family from the rural South who struck it rich and moved into a Beverly Hills mansion.
Well, CBS thinks it would be great fun to take a real family from Appalachia and pop them into a Beverly Hills mansion. Then, we can all sit back and watch them deal with culture shock. Great entertainment or a mockery? The Center for Rural Strategies in Whitesburg, Kentucky, has unleashed a campaign of nationwide ads opposing what's called being a hick hunt.
With us here in Atlanta is Dee Davis, president of that organization. Also with us is Michael Graham, a radio talk show host and author of "Redneck Nation: How The South Really Won The War."
I want to welcome both of you to the show. And Dee, I'll start with you. You have a problem with this concept. Why?
DEE DAVIS, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR RURAL STRATEGIES: Well, I think that -- this is my first protest campaign. I may not be doing it right. But yes, I think there is a problem with it. CBS's position is they're going to take a poor family from a rural area. They want someone with no education, hasn't traveled from home. They're going to move them in to a mansion in Beverly Hills and have 24-hour surveillance cameras looking at them.
And the jokes, according to the news reports, are we're going to laugh when they try to hire a maid or when they try to operate the appliances. I don't think this is funny. I think it's kind of going just a little bit too far. And what we're asking CBS is just come to your senses, do something different. There's no reason to create a show that just makes fun of people for being poor.
NEVILLE: So, Michael, you're OK with this idea, right?
MICHAEL GRAHAM, AUTHOR, "REDNECK NATION": Look, the whole premise of "Redneck Nation" is that the only person in America dumber than a southerner is everybody else. I grew up in the south. I'm from a small rural town, where I spent by formative years running from large, hairy people named "Bubba;" many of them women. And I don't know why Dee has a problem.
The best thing about the south in America today is we're the last people left who can take a joke. We're the ones who are saying to everybody else just lighten up. We don't need to get into the special interests, oh, my feelings are hurt politics that Dee has started down the road of. We're the last people left who are having a good time.
It's usually the northern liberals who are offended every time somebody cracks a joke. Not us.
DAVIS: Look, I think rural can take a joke. We like to laugh at our ourselves; we like to laugh at each other. We can take a punch. The question is why do we have to take so many of them?
What CBS is planning to do -- you can see these elite executives at CBS are making this decision to extract a poor family. They started the hunt in the agricultural Midwest. They've gone into the Deep South; they've gone into the Appalachian region, and they're trying to find a family that fits this stereotype.
They've been looking for months. They still don't have the family. They've got the fliers out in different parking lots of the grocery stores, $1,000 reward. Give us this family. They want to take that family and then present them as some example of rural life and they want everybody to laugh at them.
GRAHAM: If they don't have the family yet, they need to call me, because I can get my Uncle Teeny Boy (ph) and Aunt Celie (ph) from rural South Carolina. It would be perfect. I mean, what's the big deal?
I come from a place where "Deliverance" was shown as a documentary. And I don't have a problem with this at all. And the idea that we need special protection for rural southerners, why don't we start a group, fat women with no taste to defend poor Anna Nicole Smith and the way she's been exploited. How about that?
It's a joke, it's comedy, it's entertainment. Lighten up.
DAVIS: The thing is it's not "The Beverly Hillbillies." It's not actors. It's real people. And the idea is humiliation for pay. I think this is wrong. I don't blame the family.
NEVILLE: I mean, because, yes, if you're talking about a poor family, they get paid some money, you know, why not go for?
DAVIS: There are a lot of families whose backs are against the wall. You know 244 of the 250 poorest counties in this nation are rural. There are a lot of people in rural areas who are having a very tough time. If somebody comes and offers them $100,000 to go live in Hollywood, and the only price they have to pay is their dignity, that's their choice. I don't have a problem.
But I do have a problem with a giant company like Viacom, with CBS executives offering this kind of Faustian bargain. I think it goes beyond the limits.
NEVILLE: Well, let me go -- hang on for me, Michael. I want to go and insert now a statement from a CBS spokesperson, Chris Ender (ph). He says, "It's certainly not the intention of the producers and not the intention of CBS to humiliate one or perpetuate any stereotypes." And he goes on to say that, "We think that a show can be broadcast featuring a family that city folks will root for and that people from the country will be proud of." GRAHAM: Well I don't know if anyone's going to be proud of it. I just don't know why we should deny toothless goobers from West Virginia the same opportunity that Screech from "Saved By The Bell" gets, which is to drag his dead career from a B sitcom on to television to fight in "Celebrity Boxing."
Everybody who participates in these shameful shows is being exploited, but they take the money, they want to be exploited. And the idea that, as a guy who grew up in rural South Carolina, I have to be embarrassed because there's some goober who can't figure out how to hire a maid in Hollywood is ridiculous and meaningless. Don't fall into the lefty, whiny, northeast liberal trap of, anytime you offend somebody, you've done something wrong.
I'm going to start a group: people offended by offended people. Your offense offends me. I want you to stop being offended. Join POOP. Join POOP now.
NEVILLE: And POOP is what it's called. OK. All right, listen, we are going to a break right now. Jeff (ph), I know you're standing by in Texas, so I'm going to get to you after the break. OK?
Is the real "Beverly Hillbillies" a mockery or just entertainment? Now is your chance to get in on our question of the day. And then, later, from mug shots to bizarre backstage demands, find out how the smoking gun gets the stuff that drives celebrities crazy.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And we are talking about plans to revive "The Beverly Hillbillies," though this time as a reality show. Going to Texas now, where my buddy Jeff (ph) is on the line. What do you say, Jeff (ph)? Good idea or not?
JEFF: I think it's a great idea. But I think we ought to expand on it. Maybe follow around a group of illegal aliens, somebody who has a little drunk uncle in the corner. Something like that. Maybe some of these guys who are on the corners, let's go and get a laugh at him.
The funniest thing I think would be is when we get some of these people who are making millions of dollars off this show. Put them in their situations, where they have to survive on what those people that they're laughing at, feeding six or seven kids. Now that would be a show I'd love to watch.
NEVILLE: All right. Thank you so much for your call -- Earnest (ph).
EARNEST: I would like to make a comment to Michael. I think I'm very displeased with what your comments were that exploitation is OK as long as you get money. And I think that in society today, in order to advance, you have to assimilate. And just because now that we're exploiting white people, black folks were exploited as well.
So I think that we have to be really clear on what we want to put out there. And this is perpetuating stereotypes, and that's never a good idea. Because we want to put out equitable and dignifiable (ph) images of people, no matter what their race is.
GRAHAM: Are you going to be in charge of the government agency of equitable images? Are you going to be in the government office of controlling images so everyone looks flattering at all times? See what I mean, Dee? Dee, as soon as you open the victimhood path, we're going to have the victimhood train jump on board.
I don't want to have a country where we can make fun of fewer and fewer people. I want to have a country where we make fun of everybody. By the way, the caller from Texas said -- go ahead.
DAVIS: Michael, you've got a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) industry, and redneck jokes, nobody wants to step in to your business. What we're saying is, let's just think about it. If somebody went to CBS and pitched the idea, we're going to go into the barrio in L.A., we're going to find a family that just moved across the border, and we're going to put them in a mansion and everybody is going to laugh at them when they try to hire a maid or when they try to operate the microwave.
That's what CBS is saying about these rural people. Nobody would think it was funny if it was a Latino family. I certainly wouldn't. There's lots of ways to laugh without trying to injure people. There are some real injuries -- things that happen with stereotypes.
GRAHAM: You're absolutely right. There's a double standard. I don't think we solve them by having more double standards. I say let's laugh at everybody. Everybody's funny.
DAVIS: When somebody says that all southerners are racist, that's a stereotype that has real implications. There's no need for that. Sensitivities change over time, and that's not such a bad thing.
Let me just tell you one thing. In 1906, the Bronx Zoo put an African tribesman in a cage with a parrot and an orangutan and crowds filed by. There were African-American ministers who came and protested. They protested to the zoo, to the mayor. Nobody would listen to them.
They had plenty of arguments why it was OK. Why it was educational. Why it was free commerce. Well CBS has the same argument now. They've got plenty of arguments why it's OK.
NEVILLE: Hang on, guys. Earnest (ph) go ahead and jump in.
EARNEST: I have a problem that Mike said that we're in a victimhood thing. America force feeds images of racism. And we have to understand that America has such a system of power and privilege, where a group of people have the power and other people are basically suppressed or oppressed. So I don't think that people who are hillbillies and from rural areas is funny and we need to laugh at everybody. So I think he needs to get his head examined.
NEVILLE: OK. On that note -- Earnest, hang on. Michael, I'm going to Kentucky now, where Pete (ph) is standing by on the phone. Do you think this is a good idea or not, this show?
PETE: Personally, I disagree with it. I mean, it's like -- you know, like has been discussed, it marginalizes the people from the area. And here at the news circle (ph) that I work at, we get more than a few letters to the editor related to that. And the general consensus around the area, of course, is this is just not a good idea.
Now -- and I'd be inclined to agree. I mean, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, if you're going to do this for poor white, basically is what's going to be, rural Appalachian or mountain people, do it for everybody.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you so much for the call.
GRAHAM: But it's not a social experiment. It's a TV show. You don't like it, don't watch it. Send the ratings to the tank.
You talked about that African family in 1903. In the year 2003, we have Cory Feldman in a hot tub with a rap star. It's just as big a joke. But people want to watch it.
(CROSSTALK)
DAVIS: So is there not going to be any broadcast standard?
GRAHAM: We're going to start a protection group for people who have no talent who are in television?
DAVIS: Don't we want to have some broadcast standards? You know CBS at one time was the gold standard. They were the Tiffany (ph) network. They were the number one program for family entertainment, for news and information.
Now, who's making standards at CBS? What are the Viacom shareholders thinking that they could do any...
GRAHAM: There are tons of northeastern liberals who cannot wait to agree with you and say, you're right. We should control what goes out over their airwaves. They can't wait to expand government and decide who gets to have a joke told about them and who doesn't.
I just don't want to live there, and I can't believe most southerners do either. Southerners are the last bastion of individual liberty in the United States.
NEVILLE: OK. Lauren (ph), do you think this is a good idea or not?
LAUREN: It's not a good idea, because the question is, like everyone has been saying, whether you'd be willing to take another kind of disadvantaged family and put them in the same situation. And CBS wouldn't. They haven't been searching for a long time to find the right family for that from a barrio or another inner city. And you're able to pick on white people, but you're not able to pick on others.
GRAHAM: Look, that is a double standard. I say let's mock everybody. The premise of the typical liberal today, as I write in "Redneck Nation," is that the only funny people in the world are wealthy white heterosexual males. But I believe that sometimes poor black lesbians do something dumb. I reserve the right to mock them for it.
The solution is not to have the government go in and say, oh, no, no. We can't make fun of anybody. You don't like the show, don't watch it. Problem solved.
DAVIS: Nobody is asking the government to come in. All we're saying is splash some water on your face, CBS. Come on. Wake up. You don't have to do this.
You don't have to malign rural people just for being rural. You don't have to make fun of people just for being poor.
NEVILLE: I want to let Paige (ph) from South Carolina weigh in on this. What do you think, Paige (ph), good idea or not?
PAIGE: I agree with Michael. It's a television show. And if this family needs this money and it's going to help them in a great way, then they should take it. Because they know the consequences of what's going to come along with the money.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you Paige (ph) for calling. We are out of time. Dee Davis, thank you very much. And Michael Graham, thank you as well for being with us here today on TALKBACK LIVE>
And up next: police records of the rich and famous. These not so flattering mug shots are showing up on the Web, along with details of celebrity lawsuits. We'll tell you where to find them and talk to the guy who gets them right after this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, the U.N. inspectors might not have found a smoking gun, but we did right on the Internet. And this is what we found on the Web site called "The Smoking Gun." Do you recognize this mug shot? Well, it's Nick Nolte. It's just one of the many famous faces dredged up from police files to entertain site visitors and drive celebrities, well, I guess just nuts right now.
Let's meet Daniel Green, managing editor and co-founder of thesmokinggun.com. Daniel, how do you get this stuff, and do you have arrest reports, mug shots? Who gives this to you?
DANIEL GREEN, THE SMOKING GUN: A lot of it is public record. If you call the police department or the court, they'll send it to you. Some of it isn't. Some of it we get from friendly police officers or lawyers who want to see the information show up on The Smoking Gun, and they leak it to us.
NEVILLE: And you just have no problem just plastering it all over the Internet do you?
GREEN: No. We're a news organization. The same as CNN, the same as "The New York Times."
NEVILLE: Yes, OK. Nick Nolte, let's talk about Nick Nolte. You have him up there. You got that mug shot we just showed. And that has been everywhere. I've seen it on "The Tonight Show," I've seen it on "Conan O'Brien." I've seen it everywhere.
GREEN: Right. Well, the cops pulled him over and they thought he -- he was driving erratically. They were unsure if he was drinking or if he was on drugs. It turned out later he was on what is commonly referred to as the date rape drug, (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
NEVILLE: I just really want to talk about the picture. Let's just talk about the picture. Who sent that picture? Did you get this from police records or did a friendly police officer send it to you?
GREEN: Well that one came from, I believe, the sheriff or the California Highway Patrol. I think they may have mistakenly sent it to us. I think we ended up speaking to an intern that day, someone who had...
NEVILLE: You took advantage of an intern, Daniel. You have something on your Web site about Diana Ross as well.
GREEN: Right. Diana Ross was stopped for an extreme DUI in Arizona a couple of weeks ago. And what was sort of interesting about the police report is she is asked to recite the alphabet. She had a little problem. The way she did it was something to the effect of A- B-C-C-D-E-F-G-H-J-K-L-N-P, so she forgot some of the letters, she doubled some of the letters. So it didn't quite work out.
NEVILLE: OK. And it tickles your fancy to put that on the Web site, doesn't it?
GREEN: You know, Diana Ross shouldn't have been driving drunk. She could have endangered herself, she could have endangered other people, she could have...
NEVILLE: Have you ever driven drunk, Daniel? Daniel, can you hear me? Your earpiece doesn't seem to be in your ear. Can you hear me?
GREEN: Try that.
NEVILLE: Yes, let's try that. OK. Let's move on. Steven Seagal. You have something on the Web site regarding Steven Seagal?
GREEN: Yes. Steven Seagal just filed a lawsuit a few days ago against his former landlord in Germany. He was out shooting a movie called "Half Past Dead," and after he had left the house, he claimed that his landlord tried to extort money from him, ruin his good name, and, in fact, he said this landlord was a member of the German Mafia.
This is not the first time he's claimed a member of the Mafia has tried to extort money from him. In fact, he's in a criminal -- in a civil case here in the United States based on the same thing.
NEVILLE: OK. Moving on to Liza Minnelli and David Gest.
GREEN: Right. Well, David Gest was supposed to be in a reality TV show on VH1 and there was an issue in which Liza was supposed to be singing a song, and she wanted Ray Charles to sing with her. This was at her house. And VH1 apparently wanted someone else, Kelly Roland (ph), one of the younger singers to come on. They got into a fight. Now he is suing VH1 because he claims that he lost a great deal of money, that they have all this footage, and that they tried to take advantage of him.
NEVILLE: And moving on to Paul McCartney.
GREEN: Yes. Well, Paul McCartney just concluded his U.S. tour. And as a lot of people might know...
NEVILLE: A very successful tour.
GREEN: ... he's a vegetarian. Back stage he doesn't have meat or chicken. That's not a surprise. But what is a surprise is that he doesn't allow even animal prints. If you have a couch and have a fake fur or a fake leopard skin, even if it's made from non-animal material, he won't sit on it.
NEVILLE: OK. "Joe Millionaire?
GREEN: Yes. Well, "Joe Millionaire," his name is Evan Marriot (ph). And we had found a couple of things. He had been stopped in California on a speeding violation -- or I should say he went through a tollbooth without paying his toll. There he is. But we also found these photos of him modeling for an underwear and swimsuit company, and he was wearing very tight, revealing, leaves nothing to the imagination garments.
So I think that was probably an embarrassment to him and Fox. We're still looking for more things on him. I'm sure we'll have them out as soon as we can.
NEVILLE: All right Daniel. Listen, thank you so much for being with us here on TALKBACK LIVE. All right?
GREEN: Thank you very much.
NEVILLE: OK. And listen, right now we're going to get to the phones and computers. I want to hear what you have to say about today's "Question of the Day." Is a planned reality series based on "The Beverly Hillbillies" a mockery or just entertainment? Go ahead and give me a call right now at 1-800-310-4CNN, or of course you can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.
(APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And it is time for our "Question of the Day." Is the planned reality series based on "The Beverly Hillbillies" a mockery or just entertainment?
E-mails coming in now. Let's see who is writing us. Allen in West Virginia. "In West Virginia, the average salary is $17,000 a year. The economy is terrible. And for CBS or Viacom to flash money to a poor family to humiliate themselves on national TV is pathetic."
Going to Colorado. Sally (ph), you say what, mockery or entertainment?
SALLY: I would say that I would find it a much more entertaining program watching somebody like Ken Lay have to exist on $10,000 a year, or any of these other pesky executives. You find things like a $6,000 shower curtain. Frankly, I'd rather see them live like normal humans.
NEVILLE: Yes, Ken Lay on $10,000 a year, that would be a good show I think. Let's see, more e-mail coming in from Gary in Neon, Kentucky. "I deeply resent the constant stereotyping. We have no more semi-literate socially deprived poor people here than could be found in an urban ghetto or in any other rural area of our country."
Moving on now. Another e-mail coming in. He says, "My uncle was a hoot who had a ceiling fan hanging from the tree outside his Alabama trailer. Most southerners are totally endearing, educated or not, rich or poor. I think they will teach everyone something." And that is from Chris.
All right. Everybody, we are out of time. I'm Arthel Neville. Thank you all for watching. Don't forget tomorrow, the Duchess of York, Fergie, will join me here for Free-For-All Friday. And go ahead and give us a call now for advanced seating.
We'll see you tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific. And don't go anywhere, because 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
'Beverly Hillbillies' to Life>
|
