Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Pushing for Filibuster Reform; Venture Capital; Interview with Aaron Sorkin
Aired December 29, 2010 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Spitzer.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Tonight's stop story, I call it tyranny of the majority. Some people call it filibusters. I think it's an abuse of democracy. It has overtaken the Senate.
Take a look at the chart. We're going to show you the filibuster used to be used once in a blue moon, maybe once or twice every couple of years. Past couple of years over 100 times. What that means since you need 60 senators to defeat a filibuster. Forty-one senators representing less than 10 percent of the public can stop democracy.
The Constitution told us where you need a supermajority, Kathleen, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto. To require a supermajority on every piece of legislation is wrong, contrary to democracy.
You know what? When Congress comes back and the Senate comes back next week, I hope they reform the filibuster, perhaps even eliminate the filibuster altogether.
PARKER: But, of course, Eliot, all the Democrats returning in the first of the year have signed a letter asking Harry Reid to reform filibuster, reform filibuster. I love that they're suddenly -- it's just charming really when Democrats want reform when they feel that they have weakened and that -- where were they when they were filibustering --
SPITZER: When?
PARKER: -- Miguel Estrada for a judicial nomination?
SPITZER: That was -- you know what?
PARKER: For his fourth -- for the appellate court. So Democrats are hardly --
SPITZER: This isn't a partisan thing.
(CROSSTALK) SPITZER: No. no. This isn't a partisan thing. I don't think it's partisan either way. This is about democracy. It's about the Constitution. I would be just as critical of Democrats abusing their power, their capacity, to stop votes on major legislation. Fifty-one is a majority in the Senate. That's what the Constitution defines. That's what the Constitution stands for.
Let's go back to it. I think that would be good for democracy. And then we could make progress on the critical issues -- energy, education, the fundamental transformative issues we've got to deal with.
PARKER: Right.
SPITZER: Otherwise we're going to be --
PARKER: Right, Professor. Right, Professor. You're making it sound like I want to stop action that's so valued to the American people.
SPITZER: Sure.
PARKER: I do not. But I think it's -- you know, let's be even handed in our criticism and you just were. So I congratulate you on that.
SPITZER: Right.
PARKER: But obviously, you know, there are some things, there are some times and, as your chart showed, it's -- there's been a great bit of abuse and we've used it too much to our own detriment. I agree with that.
SPITZER: To our peril.
PARKER: I agree with that. And I think they ought to eliminate filibuster altogether for judicial nominees. Then you'll agree with it.
SPITZER: Well, you can't do it for one area.
PARKER: Wait, we're going to agree here.
SPITZER: But anyway, all right.
(LAUGHTER)
PARKER: That's called reform.
SPITZER: To talk more about what awaits the next Congress and president, let's go into "The Arena." Joining us from New Orleans, CNN political contributor James Carville, and here with us in New York, Will Cain, from the Nationalreview.com.
Welcome to both of you.
PARKER: Hi, Will. Thanks for coming. And hi, James, out yonder. How you doing?
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I'm good, I'm good. I like that discussion you all are having.
SPITZER: So were you in?
PARKER: So what do you think? Is reform a good idea?
CARVILLE: You know, I'm a little bit more agreeing with you, Kathleen, than I am agreeing with Governor Spitzer here.
SPITZER: All right. We've heard enough of you.
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: Look, many times reform, you know, there used to be 67, it's now 60. You can do some things to make it better. Maybe you can get so many in a session. I mean the Republicans were absurd with 100 and something. That's absurd.
SPITZER: So James --
CARVILLE: There's going to be some way --
SPITZER: There's going to be like the NFL coaches, you only get to throw the red flag three times per half?
CARVILLE: Right.
SPITZER: All right.
CARVILLE: They could certainly do some things. I don't know, 60 is not a (INAUDIBLE) number. I think the Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules. You've got to have over 50. It's the only thing that they require.
But, you know, the thing has not done terrible. And I don't -- be careful if you reform something. You're liable to make it worse. I'd rather -- if they wanted to approve Washington, address the way that they fund political campaigns in this system. That's a lot more corrupt and corrosive than the filibuster rule.
PARKER: All right. Will, you're a big fan of filibuster.
WILL CAIN, NATIONALREVIEW.COM: Will is awesome. Elliot is on an island, being wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
CAIN: The Senate is (INAUDIBLE). The Senate is working perfectly.
SPITZER: The Senate is working perfectly.
CAIN: Yes.
SPITZER: Will Cain is the only person in America who will take that position. But Will, that's why we love having you here.
Look. Why do you want 10 percent of the public, 41 senators to be able to bring everything into a screeching halt, even though a majority believes that a certain bill should go forward or be voted down? Anyway, get it to the floor for a vote.
CAIN: OK. Let me just back it up a little bit.
SPITZER: Sure.
CAIN: When the government acts, when it passes a law, it is an act of authoritarianism. George Washington said it best. Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force. So the founders, knowing that, put it in place structural protections to make it hard to pass law.
They gave us three branches of government, two legislative branches, veto power -- all of the intention of it being hard to pass a law.
SPITZER: Will, look, you're a libertarian and therefore you agree that government is usually a force for ill.
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: That's fine, I disagree with you. But the Constitution defined with great precision when a supermajority should be required. Overturning a presidential veto, ratifying a treaty. Particular circumstances where the founding fathers -- and there weren't founding mothers at the time. Founding fathers said this is where we need a super majority and we will dispense.
We have now expanded that to the point of gridlock. And I think all of us would agree, gridlock right now is the crisis we're facing on energy, on education, on substantive issues where we need resolution and the filibuster permits gridlock.
Wait, let's get James in. I think he's trying to --
CARVILLE: Just want to put it on record. I went to law school on the GI bill. I don't think it's authoritarianism. I don't think the Civil Rights legislation is authoritarianism. But I probably hold a different view.
I think the biggest problem that we face is the intersection of money and politics. And that takes something to clean that up as oppose to the filibuster rule because it's been around for a while. Like I say, they've reduced it. If they want to reduce it some more or do something or, quote, "reform it," I don't have a problem with that. I just don't think that's one of the major problems we're faced with right now.
SPITZER: Can I just -- James, look, I agree with you. If we can eliminate the influx of money and politics, I'm with you 100 percent, that's more important than the filibuster. The reason I'm raising the filibuster now is because one week from today, January 5th, when Congress comes back, the Senate will have that once-every-year opportunity to redefine its rules.
And so I think --
CARVILLE: I understand, I understand.
CAIN: Listen, the filibuster is a tool that resides within the Senate. And the Senate is inherently an anti-democratic body. The House is meant to reflect the whims and the passions of the people. The Senate is intended to be a clogging point for lawmaking.
PARKER: It's intended to slow things down.
CAIN: That's right.
PARKER: But I mean if you're going to reform filibuster, at least make it -- you know, require that you actually stand up and do your own filibuster. Don't hand it off to a clerk, right?
CAIN: That's right.
PARKER: I mean I think it's kind of -- got some nice drama in there, I think it's kind of entertaining at times.
SPITZER: All right. Look. Can we -- assuming they're going to deal with anything substantive next year, I think we've got to try to figure out what should the agenda be next year for Congress. They're going to come back in a week. They're going to try to deal with significant issues.
I'm going to put out on the table three things I want you, Will and James, to react to. Education, tax reform, energy. Does that sound like an agenda where there are potential consensus points to overcome big issues?
CAIN: No, those are commendable goals. What I would say is this. The 2011 agenda will be defined by one issue, and that is the economy. And I don't mean that as here I am a pundit on a holiday broadcast and I'm punting with the economy issue.
What I mean is, the United States has racked up an amount of debt that is unparalleled. Only paralleled at three other points in history. And the process -- that's twice in the U.S. and once in Japan. The process of deleveraging, and all those instances, has resulted in deflation. The economy and dealing with that will be defined -- will define 2011.
SPITZER: Look, we have deleveraged on the private side somewhat by shifting a lot of that debt over to the public sector. The public sector has got to deleverage worked down instead. The only way to do that, and that's why for tax reform there, is long-term tax reform and entitlement reform. We've been talking about this for months.
CAIN: I know.
SPITZER: And, James, but don't you agree for us to make progress long term, we've got to deal with our energy crisis and our education crisis?
James, is that right?
CARVILLE: They're not going to deal with the energy crisis because they don't even believe in global warming. They think it's a scientific hoax so why would you deal with it? And no Republican got elected saying they're going to come here and work with Democrats and do something about energy.
They can do something about tax reform supposedly, but most of them want to do away with the progressive income tax. So I don't know. There's a big gulf between the two parties on a lot of this stuff. And what's going to be interesting, I think, is when they go to raise the debt limit.
We're going to see what the Republicans are going to do.
CAIN: You know --
CARVILLE: I urged them to pay attention to people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and the intellectual titans of that party.
PARKER: Come on, James. Come on.
CARVILLE: And take their guidance from them.
CAIN: And James --
(CROSSTALK)
CAIN: The Obama-appointed Erskine Bowles deficit reduction panel is any -- any evidence of the gulf between the parties? It's not that great. As far as tax reform. That would be a great place to start.
SPITZER: Look --
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: I would be for -- if taxes were progressive, I have no problem with simplicity.
SPITZER: But, James, look, the thing is --
CARVILLE: Not at all.
SPITZER: But you can take the Bowles-Simpson agenda and take the parameters where they're talking about, make it more progressive, eliminate a lot of the deductions. Raise more revenues so you deal with the deficit. And on energy, James, you should have heard John Hofmeister, past president of Shell Oil, saying a lot of things that both sides of the aisle should agree with.
PARKER: Well, you know, you all, gentlemen, it may well be that what happens in Washington is going to be dictated by what's happening in the states. And the real leadership may emerge from what goes on in New Jersey, California and Illinois. These states are going broke. Who they're going to come to for help? The federal government. The feds are going to have to come together and figure out some solutions, because I think we're going to hit -- you know, if the crisis is coming in a bigger way than --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: But the states aren't going to dictate answers.
PARKER: No, but they're --
SPITZER: Kathleen, the states can't dictate answers.
PARKER: Because (INAUDIBLE) what happens in the states.
SPITZER: No, but because the states are facing huge budget cuts, the federal government is not going to bail them out. Chris Christie is going to do what he just did during the snowstorm. Go to Disneyworld and be on Lavaland, you know? And punt on the issue.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: You left that low-hanging fruit out there and I was just figuring who is going to pick it first.
PARKER: Well, our former governor, I think.
SPITZER: But look, I think the federal government is going to have to deal with these serious issues of education and energy and the deficit.
Will, we agree on it. But taxes -- tax reform is the way you're going to approach it.
CAIN: Yes, I think it's a great place to start. And I think you and I agreed Erskine Bowles platform is a great way to start. Let's simplify the tax code. Do away with these loopholes and deductions. And the truth is, the Erskine Bowles proposal is a net tax increase.
SPITZER: Exactly right. James, you're buying this?
CARVILLE: Look, I think they're going to tax wages and income from other things if they're saying right. There are some things in there that are good. You know I think that -- my only problem with Erskine and Senator Simpson is they're selling this thing as all a pain.
I think they should go out and say look, we've come up with this thing and it's not as hard as we thought.
SPITZER: That's exactly right.
CARVILLE: They should be sold -- I mean, look, there's ways I'm sure Will would do some things different. You and I might do things differently than Kathleen and Will, but by and large it's a starting point. We could start a discussion on this. SPITZER: James, will the president embrace this in the State of the Union and make that the agenda for the next session?
CARVILLE: I think he -- I hope -- it's his commission. And there are a lot of things in there -- again, that can provoke a discussion. I'd be surprised if he doesn't.
CAIN: James, you may hope so. And it may be his commission, but to answer Eliot's question, hell no, he's not going to use the State of the Union to start with Erskine Bowles' platform for 2011.
No, sir, it's not going to happen.
(LAUGHTER)
CARVILLE: I bet you he mentions it.
CAIN: Oh, great, he'll mention it. He'll mention it.
PARKER: Yes. It will be on.
CARVILLE: He'll mention it in a favorable way. You know at some point, we've got to -- I agree, at some point we've got to do something about this. And you've got to start somewhere. Why not there?
SPITZER: Well, look, I think it's fair to say that the rubber will meet the road in a couple of weeks when the president needs to submit his budget to the Congress. Then we're going to see where the hard decisions are being made, whether he even begins to embrace the sort of principles of what's in Bowles-Simpson and whether he says these are the sacrifices we've got to make.
If he doesn't do it in the budget, forget it, none of the rest will matter.
Anyway, Kathleen, final word for you.
PARKER: Oh gosh, thanks a lot.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: All right.
PARKER: How about this? James Carville, Will Cain, thanks for being with us.
CAIN: Thanks, Kathleen.
CARVILLE: Great. Thank you. Happy New Year.
SPITZER: Happy New Year.
PARKER: Same to you, James.
SPITZER: Stick around. We have a great show tonight. Coming up, a conversation with screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. We'll talk everything from Hollywood to social networking to politics in the "West Wing." Stay with us.
PARKER: (INAUDIBLE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: High-tech companies with household names like Microsoft, Google and Facebook began with financing from venture capital. Venture capital or VC funds look for small companies with exceptional growth potential.
One investor who's put money to 39 companies that have successfully gone public is Geoff Yang, founding partner of Redpoint Ventures. Geoff is invested in media and advertising companies like MySpace, NetFlix and TiVo.
Geoff, welcome.
GEOFF YANG, FOUNDING PARTNER, REDPOINT VENTURES: Thank you.
SPITZER: And full disclosure for the world out there, you and I were co-captains of our high school tennis team and I don't often say this, your game was better than mine.
YANG: One of the happiest days of my life.
SPITZER: Well --
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: Explain why VC firms do, what role you play in the evolution and creation of these companies that we then view as behemoths and major players in our economy?
YANG: What we do is we -- we're the money, the initial start-up money that helps fund an idea. So a couple of entrepreneurs may come to us with the next idea that hopefully will become Facebook or twitter or Groupon or what have you. And they'll come to us and we'll help them get the company started.
SPITZER: With all the conversation, every politician, every economist these days talks about the innovation economy. That will be our salvation, we know we've lost basic rote manufacturing to the rest of the world. Innovation is the key. You then are the epicenter of innovation?
YANG: Yes, one of the great things we get to do is we get the smartest people in the world who think that they can change the world and they come to us with an idea and all they really have is an idea. And we provide them with the expertise and we provide them with the knowledge and the initial dollars to get the company going.
SPITZER: Now what do you look for? I mean how do you -- when you sit down, you see -- you know, a Mark Zuckerberg comes to you with Facebook. You know, Larry Summers is a smart guy. At least if you listen to the movie, look out, and said, this is stupid go away. But clearly you guys think you're better at it than he is. What do you look for that's going to be a key to success?
YANG: Well, you look for one founder, a couple of founders that have a vision and a passion for changing the world. And they got -- it's got to be not just a small incremental advance, but something that's kind of fundamentally different because the world is not based -- it was not created on small advances.
They're based on big visions. And then we look for something that we think can be a major social trend or a -- fund something that can fundamentally change the way business --
SPITZER: Take an example. One of the companies you invested in early. Pick any one of them, explain why you saw that as something that could be transformational.
YANG: Let's see. I guess if you look at TiVo, for example. Right? We thought that we could change the way people -- change the way people watch television. They could watch whatever they want to watch when they wanted to watch it. And then eventually we thought that we could also change the way they receive their advertising.
Companies like --
SPITZER: Let's stop with TiVo for a minute.
YANG: OK.
SPITZER: The big idea there was that you no longer needed to watch when the network told you to watch.
YANG: That's right.
SPITZER: And this was a fundamental -- a very simple idea, one you stayed, it kind of like post-in. Everybody said why didn't I think of that?
YANG: Right.
SPITZER: But it was the first person who kind of said wait a minute, you can watch tape, you can then watch it at 2:00 in the morning, not when they say, that idea, you said correct, put money into it. Do they all work?
YANG: No, they don't all work. I mean most of them don't work. But enough of them do work and enough of them can be, you know, fundamentally game-changing, you know, ideas that it more than makes up for the ones that don't work.
SPITZER: When you look at the flow of ideas coming to you know, how do you compare it to what that flow of ideas was five or 10 years ago?
YANG: You know I would say right now we're in a period of time that's as exciting as when the Internet first got started. You know, there's some fundamental growth shifts that are occurring. Now one is the rise of social media and how it's changing everything. Mobile and connected devices. You know, your tablet, iPad or your mobile phone.
You have mass consumerization of technology. You know, technology hits main street. On demand infrastructure for companies that are able to get computing, network, or storage on demand without having to buy.
It's like being able to get electricity without having to buy a generator. And then lastly, alternative energy and what's going on with that on a global basis. Those are the five things that are driving things that are just all massive.
SPITZER: Now I want to make this local or national at least.
YANG: Sure.
SPITZER: What will the VC industry do for the U.S. economy? We are in this moment where we fear we're losing our advantage to the rest of the world. Three times as much money has been raised in IPOs in Asia as in the United States this year.
Are we losing our edge in the VC world as well?
YANG: No, I don't think so. In fact, I think right now the interesting thing is more and more of the center of the universe is moving back to the U.S. You know, for innovation and technology. So if you think about the things I just mentioned. You look at social networks, really the heart of the social networking business is really in the U.S.
You look at mobile. Nokia used to be one of the leaders in the handheld connective device space. And today if you look at the -- where all the momentum is it's really between Apple and Android which is owned by Google.
You look at a whole bunch of these. You go trend by trend, and most of it is happening here in the U.S. And in fact growth is accelerated.
SPITZER: One last question. What do we need to do as a national government in terms of our economics to keep that growth here so that we can find this one bright spot in terms of our innovative future?
YANG: Well, I think the reason the entrepreneurial community works is because of ownership. You know people have ownership and they have passion. And that drives you on.
SPITZER: Risk. They have gained on the upside risk on the downside.
YANG: Right. And they feel like they own it. They're owners of their business. So they don't -- you know, they'll work 100 hours a week because they're the owners of the business.
SPITZER: Right. YANG: The second is there's not an overbearing regulatory framework for dictating how things have to be done. That lets them be innovative and spawn new business models and new ways of doing things.
And then finally, a level playing field where incumbents or very large corporations don't have a -- some kind of edge that is a smaller company doesn't have because they're able to exercise monopolistic --
SPITZER: Essentially you're talking about ensuring there's not abuse of market power --
YANG: Yes.
SPITZER: -- through monopoly power to squelch small, new ideas that can be transformative.
YANG: That's right. And I think as long as the little companies have same market access and they can compete on the power of the idea and the power of their vision, we think that -- we're willing to bet on those ideas if we think they'll be successful.
SPITZER: All right. Geoff, time is up, unfortunately. We will continue this conversation down the road. Thank you for coming in.
YANG: Thank you.
SPITZER: Geoff Yang, thank you so much. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: 2010 is the year of Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg isn't finished quite yet. Zuckerberg has been in China meeting with tech experts and many think he is poised to dive into the massive Chinese market.
PARKER: Facebook already has more than 500 million users around the world. Zuckerberg is on the Forbes 100 list and was "TIME" magazine's person of the year. He was also the subject of the blockbuster movie "The Social Network."
I saw it, it was great.
SPITZER: Indeed it was, Kathleen. It was wonderful to see. We had the film's writer Aaron Sorkin on the show. We talked about the movie, but we also asked him about one of the great all-time TV series, "The West Wing."
Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: You created in "The West Wing" -- you know, I was the prosecutor. The godfather did for organized crime figures what "The West Wing" did for politicians. It taught us how we were supposed to act.
What's wrong with the Obama White House? I mean when you compare it to the mythology you created?
AARON SORKIN, SCREENWRITER, THE SOCIAL NETWORK: First of all, remember, I had it easy. Not only do I get to decide what the president says, I get to decide how everybody is going to react to it. And so I think what a lot of people feel like they're missing is the goose bump experience that he gave us during the campaign.
And he's even -- and this is something that the Republicans don't do. They tend not to eat their own. If you're a Democrat and you're not left enough for other Democrats, they will come at you just as hard as the Republicans do, which is an honorable thing.
It's called sticking to your guns. It's just not good politics.
PARKER: As a storyteller, what do you make of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party?
SORKIN: Again, I can't --
PARKER: You don't have to be sophisticated here.
(CROSSTALK)
SORKIN: OK. I won't get sophisticated then.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: You're a country lawyer, too. I heard that one.
SORKIN: Let me make it clear, that the movie "The Social Network" has absolutely no politics in it at all.
PARKER: OK. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now you're here to promote your movie but --
SORKIN: Nobody has to agree with anything that I'm saying in order to see this movie.
PARKER: OK.
SORKIN: But.
PARKER: But?
SORKIN: Sarah Palin is an idiot. Come on. This is a remarkably --
PARKER: Pull your punches.
SORKIN: This is a remarkably, stunningly, jaw-droppingly incompetent and mean woman.
PARKER: Wow. What do you base that on? The meanness part?
SORKIN: When she talks about real Americans versus not real Americans, that's a divisive thing. PARKER: Well, you know --
SORKIN: And I'm pretty sure I've fallen to the category of a not real American from her.
PARKER: Right. You're not real. Because you have those horn rimmed glasses.
SORKIN: Because I have these glasses. Because I'm from New York and because I work in Hollywood. Let's ignore the fact that my father fought through World War II, put himself through college on the GI Bill. That his parents were immigrants who came here and my fraternal grandfather was one of the founders of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union --
SPITZER: From our perspective, you're American.
(CROSSTALK)
SORKIN: I appreciate that.
SPITZER: You're a real American. You're the real American.
PARKER: We're going to give you a lapel pin.
(LAUGHTER)
SORKIN: Thanks. Because I feel American, I feel very patriotic and a lot of the juice behind "The West Wing" was redefining patriotism in a way that for me makes more sense. Not bumper sticker patriotism, but honest to god -- I mea some people would -- might even say over romanticized or idealized patriotism. But that was the most patriotic show on television. And we began with flags waving --
(CROSSTALK)
PARKER: I've watched that show with people who wept during --
SORKIN: That's very nice of you.
PARKER: I mean just in a normal evening.
SORKIN: We would -- you know, the show would be attacked by the religious right for being anti-god, yet we had a character in the president of the United States, Martin Sheen's character who was a devout Catholic. There's a scene, he is praying on the floor of the Oval Office before he makes a decision.
That show had more religion on it than, you know, any episode of --
SPITZER: Can I make a suggestion? I think you need to make a sequel. And you know why? Because I think --
PARKER: To "The West Wing"?
SPITZER: To "The West Wing" because there was -- you're absolutely right. When people watch it, there was patriotism.
PARKER: Call it "East Wing."
SPITZER: People believed in our government. There was a sense of purpose and the government was living up to it.
(CROSSTALK)
SORKIN: OK. Well, I think you're selling me nicely.
SPITZER: Before we let you go --
SORKIN: Look, I'm sorry, but the Democrats -- since I've done it already, OK, since the cat is out of the bag and honestly --
SPITZER: Give it to us straight here.
SORKIN: The senior people at Sony are just killing me right now for what I'm saying.
SPITZER: We'll protect you.
SORKIN: But the Democrats may have moved into the center, but the Republicans have moved into a mental institution, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
SORKIN: So I'll take the Democrats.
PARKER: Thank you.
SPITZER: Before we let you, we got to watch a clip from a movie.
SORKIN: Yes, please. Thanks. And before you show the clip, please, you can really disagree with my politics. This movie has nothing to do with --
SPITZER: I promise, everybody is going to go see it.
PARKER: Thanks, Aaron. We got that.
SORKIN: I actually went on TV and lost ticket buyers.
(LAUGHTER)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?
JESSIE EISENBERG, ACTOR, "MARK ZUCKERBERG": No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think I deserve it?
EISENBERG: What?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think I deserve your full attention?
EISENBERG: I have to swear an oath before we began this deposition and I don't want to perjure myself so I have a legal obligation to say no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. No. You don't think I deserve your attention?
EISENBERG: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try. But there's not a requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie.
You have part of my attention. You have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook where my colleague and I are doing things that no one in this room including and especially your clients are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.
Did I answer your condescending question?
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: It's riveting.
PARKER: Wow.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Lawyers in there, too. I feel good.
PARKER: That was a great, great scene.
SPITZER: Yes, amazing scene. One last question.
SORKIN: Yes.
SPITZER: Somewhere in the movie, I think maybe you said it, a character says obviously that 85 percent of a deposition is --
(CROSSTALK)
SORKIN: A young staffer she says with emotional testimony like this, I always assume that 85 is exaggeration. And Mark Zuckerberg says the other 15 is just perjury.
SPITZER: Awesome. Boy, every lawyer should watch this. You're right. You're right.
PARKER: I have 1,000 other questions I'd love to ask you about that movie but we're going to have to wait for the next time.
SORKIN: Well, I appreciate your having me here. Thanks very much.
PARKER: Hope you'll come back. SPITZER: Everybody is going to see this movie. I promise.
SORKIN: I hope you're right.
PARKER: We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: He's one of the greatest American tennis players in the last decade. He attended Harvard, represented the U.S. in the 2008 Olympics, has won 10 singles career titles. But James Blake's story is really one of survival.
In 2004 he slipped on a clay court and broke his neck. That same year shingles left half his face paralyzed and he lost his father to stomach cancer.
But he rebounded and two years later, went down to be ranked third in the United States, fourth in the world. James Blake is here to talk tennis, his toughest opponents, and his charity that raises money for cancer research. James, thank you for being here.
JAMES BLAKE, PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: My pleasure.
SPITZER: And as somebody who plays tennis and still does, it is an honor to meet you, and I, like so many others marveled at your comebacks at the U.S. Open here in New York City. So congratulations.
BLAKE: Thank you for having me.
SPITZER: And you are a comeback kid over and over again, the neck, the shingles. What drives you to come back every time?
BLAKE: What got this me through the neck and the shingles was my family and friends. It was such a tough time in my life, but having them there to try to make me smile. Even when the shingles affected my face, I could only half smile. I think the cliche, laughter is the best med sip. I really think having my friends got me back on the court as quickly as I did. And I'm just so thankful to them
SPITZER: You were always a fan favorite. There were people in the stands going crazy, you brought out the best in yourself, your opponents and the audience. What was that like? It was a rare moment.
BLAKE: To me, my theory on that was they see me having fun on the court, and I think they can hopefully, the fans can relate to someone out there having a good time. I put in the hard work, I've done the hours in the training room and everything to get there. It's just a matter of having a great time when I'm out there.
And I think the fans relate to that. That's the best feeling in the world. That's what I missed when I was sick and out was the fans reactions, how much they enjoy it and how much I can hopefully have a good time with them.
SPITZER: Do you think your opponents feared you because the crowd was always on your side? Did that make them tougher?
BLAKE: I think it was definitely an advantage for me. I remember thinking sometimes I played a couple of young guys on Stadium court there. At the end of the match, not during the match -- during the match there's no pity. But after the match I think, you know, that's a tough situation to walk into a crowd going that crazy for me.
SPITZER: No pity -- are you that tough on the court?
BLAKE: I think everyone out there has to be. It's almost impossible. No matter how badly you're winning, it can change in a second. You let up a little and these guys are too get. It's more of a, I think, a feeling of respect for your opponent. You can't let up ever.
SPITZER: Best win you ever had?
BLAKE: I would say probably Roger. I beat him at the Olympics. At the time I know that metropolitan a lot to him. He won gold in doubles but wanted it in singles as well. I played one of my best matches. That and Agassi in Washington to win my first title.
SPITZER: Let's talk about U.S. tennis for a minute. We were the tennis powerhouse in the world, you, Agassi, Sampras, it was a cavalcade, one after the next. Where's the next generation and what can we do to get them back?
BLAKE: I think it's going to be tough to reach that level again because the game has become so much globalized. You see Serbia in the finals of the Davis Cup. That never would have happened ten years ago. It makes it difficult for one country to dominate, I'm not sure you'll ever see an era like Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Todd Martin era.
But I hope it happens. I know it's been a difficult road. They want to change a lot of systems, trying to learn from the Spaniards. But I think you really need to find the individuals and let them grow on their own.
SPITZER: Past year, couple of injuries, not as many tournaments as you want. Staring up in January the Australian Open -- what's on the schedule for next year?
BLAKE: I played so few matches this year that I feel like it was almost a year off because there was so many knee injuries and shoulder injuries, I just want to get those healthy.
My ranking has dropped. I'm not as worried about that. As I'm getting older, I don't worry about the ranking, I worry about being healthy. As long as I'm healthy and playing my game, I'm confident if I get healthy that I can -- the rank willing fall into place, but for now I'm focused on getting healthy.
SPITZER: Tell us about the charity.
BLAKE: Charity is a memorial to my father. My father had so many friends, so many people that respected him and so many people that he was close to. And as soon as I asked some people they immediately said time and place, tell me and I'll be there.
I got the help of Andy Roddick, John Maier, all they said was where can I be and I'll be there. I thought I can't just do this once. I have too many people willing to help out that I have to do it every year.
SPITZER: James Blake, thank you so much for being here. We have the information on your charity on our blog, CNN.com "PARKER SPITZER." We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Ann Jones is a writer and photographer who's made it her mission to speak up for people who have trouble making their own voices heard. Anne has traveled around the world to help women in conflict and post-conflict areas.
For her latest book, "War is not Over When it's Over" she spent a year traveling in the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia. Ann, thank you so much for being here.
ANN JONES, AUTHOR, "WAR IS NOT OVER WHEN IT'S OVER": Thank you.
PARKER: I'm so inspired by you and your work. You were recently embedded with the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Your impressions of our president is that we're not able to accomplish what we set out to, which is to stabilize Afghanistan. You said the government of Karzai is as corrupt as the Taliban?
JONES: I'm less worried about his corruption or the corruption of the government than I am about their ideology. The problem I think is that they're as fundamentalist as the Taliban, as extreme about the Taliban, particularly in their beliefs about women.
PARKER: So let me ask you something. I'm a little -- I'm in contact with people who are members of the U.S. Afghan Women's Council and they're seeing some of the statistics of the population, 6.5 million kids are in school, and 35 percent are girls, several women running for various political offices, that sort of thing. So it seems that things have improved for women under Karzai. How could that have happened under the Taliban? And how can you say they're ideologically the same?
JONES: We have had some influence and the international community has had some influence over, for example, putting 25 percent of parliamentarian seats allotted to women. So we've been responsible for increasing that. We've been responsible for getting kids back into school, that's true. But there still is not -- not as many children in school as there were even when the Soviets were there.
PARKER: So if we do leave Air Force, what happens to the women when we leave?
JONES: I think things won't be as good for women, but things are going backwards for women now. A lot of rules have been passed. A lot of intimidation has come down from the fundamentalists who control the parliament. So since about 2005, women have kind of been moving back from the gains they had made.
But I think the whole thing about women's rights, after all, are nothing but humans rights. The right to move around, the right to have a job, all those things that men take for granted as their human rights are what we refer to when we talk about women's rights.
Every woman in Afghanistan who is exercising her rights now is doing so with the backing of a man or some men in her family, her husband, her father, her brothers. So what we're really talking about losing here is not women's rights, but the rights of all progressive people.
So I think it's very deceptive to talk just about what's going to happen to women. We should be talking about what's going to happen to the progressive element in Afghanistan if these negotiations are not handled absolutely correctly.
PARKER: Do you think there's any way that the United States can win this war to the extent that it's winnable? And how would we measure that?
JONES: I have no idea how we would measure that. But everyone seems to agree there's no military solution. And what's worrying about the political solution is that already we're hearing reports of, well, we probably can negotiate some kind of solution here, though we may have to yield some of the requirements we've put up for the Taliban.
And what is it we're going to yield? Maybe they won't have to really observe the constitution and maybe we'll have to wait on women's rights. You know, it doesn't sound so bad to most men to give up on women's rights.
And if they've framed the whole problem wrong, the information we're going to get is wrong. We're going to be told we're just going to wait for -- wait a little while longer for women and then maybe they'll get their rights.
But it's the whole democratic element of Afghanistan that's going to be affected, and Afghanistan will go back to the control of extreme fundamentalists, whether they're the mujahideen already in the government or the Taliban or after combination of both.
Because in all of these negotiations at the end of every war, the men who have been fighting each other get together at the table and divvy up the pie, jockeying for bits of power, and they call that peace negotiations.
And when they've each taken their own piece of the pie, they say now we have peace. But there hasn't been a single woman at the table, a single woman asked for her opinion. Nowhere in the world can you make a durable lasting peace unless women are involved every step of the way.
If you make peace without women, because women's interesting are the interests of civil society, very soon after that official peace, you have war again on your hands.
PARKER: Ann Jones, I can't thank you enough. You're a brave woman and you've done such important work. Thank you for joining us.
JONES: My pleasure. Thank you, Kathleen.
PARKER: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Time for the best idea. It seems education is always a political issue, whether it's the cost associated or the very material student where is learning, our children's schools have become a subject of partisan debate. What both sides can agree on is the value of a great teacher.
So tonight, I get to sit across from the teacher who profoundly impacted my life. Dan Alexander caught me history and economics in the Bronx back in the late '70s. In the summer, he was my boss up in Maine where I worked in the office. So here to give us his prescription for education, my teacher, Dan Alexander. Dan, thank you.
First, I have to apologize. You may not have known based on my performance that you were having a great impact on me. I didn't appear to do the homework, I didn't appear to pay attention. But you did, and I want to thank you for it.
DAN ALEXANDER, ELIOT'S HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER: I appreciate that. I think your classroom demeanor is something I anticipated.
SPITZER: Do we have to get into that now?
ALEXANDER: Not right now.
SPITZER: You have to tell the whole world how I behaved in a classroom?
ALEXANDER: You were good. You learned to listen, and I think that was important.
SPITZER: Some people around here don't think I do that so well.
(LAUGHTER)
But let's get down to brass tacks. You became a teacher when?
ALEXANDER: I became a teacher -- I did go to the Wharton School and went to the Marine Corps. I went into business and found it didn't appeal to me. So I went to teacher's college and I got an opportunity to coach soccer in 1957. And then Dr. Gratwick hired me in the spring of '58, and I started teaching in the fall of '58.
SPITZER: And taught until?
ALEXANDER: Christmas of 1997. SPITZER: You had a profound impact on generations of students who went through school. What was it that drew you to it? What was the critical aspect that made you a figure in the classroom?
ALEXANDER: I appreciate the accolades. I think as a teacher you have to first of all care about the kids. And I think kids pick that up. There's a sincerity that you need to convey, there's a realness that I think is very important. And that carries through in your relationship with kids.
SPITZER: Did your style of teaching change over time?
ALEXANDER: I don't think I became too involved in technology. There was a give and take. It was an attempt to stimulate people to think. I think that's rather important.
SPITZER: That is one of the underlying tensions. There are those who drill facts and dates and numbers into students, and there are those like you actually forced us to think, absorb the material, but then understand it. Is this sort of an underlying tension in the way you approach a history class or economics class?
ALEXANDER: Well, I think you try to find something that's interesting. I admitted initially that I was an economic determinist. So that was a bias and people would recognize that.
SPITZER: What do you mean by that?
ALEXANDER: Well, I think economics influenced almost everything that takes place in society. And I would take "The New York Times" and suggest let's look at the articles on the front page and how many relate in some way to economics.
SPITZER: It's funny you say these things, because those around both here at CNN and those at home hearing you say this say now we know where Eliot got all this from. You read the article, how does economics impact our day to day existence.
When you look at where we are as a nation, other nations jumping so far ahead of us, what would you say we need to do?
ALEXANDER: Well, I think what's critical is you decide what students need to know. And how do you determine that? I mean, if you're just feeding them material, how are they going to use that material? I think you have to try and try and make kids want to American. There has to be some sort of reward. There has to be a feeling that if this is important and I have to learn it, what am I going to get out of it?
And I think you have to make things interesting. In terms of changing the classroom, there certainly is a lot of technology. There's a new devices that are being used. I think still the teacher is critical in all of these.
SPITZER: Look, having spent time in government, looked at education, trying to figure out as a governor where do you invest, it always came back to the teacher as the single most central determinant factor. Good teachers motivate students.
And yet in our society I was extraordinarily fortunate to have teachers like you, but in so many of our schools these days we're not somehow getting teachers whom we can say have the excitement and energy that you have. So what can we do to do that?
ALEXANDER: Well, I think over the years there's been a stigma attached to teaching. I don't think it rates very high in terms of lawyers or doctors or technicians or people of that sort. I think you have to pay them well. I think you have you have to permit them a degree of freedom. I'm not sure how you handle merit pay. I think that's another --
SPITZER: Can it work?
ALEXANDER: I don't know how you quantify quality. I think that's hard. And it can't be too subjective because then certain people may be rewarded when, in fact, it's because of their association with people that --
SPITZER: On the other hand, you can't do it all numerically because that simply doesn't work.
ALEXANDER: No. You can't do, how well did my kid do on a test? Then you're teaching tests. There has to be a realistic approach to how a merit type of pay is provided
SPITZER: I think conceptually merit pay works, and implementing it is extraordinary difficult. You talk about teacher pay. I think there's no question we want to move teaching up in the hierarchy of what we respect in our society. We always say we love teachers, but we don't pay them very well.
ALEXANDER: Absolutely.
SPITZER: And in this day and age, we should be able to get the best of our students to go into teaching as an honored profession. We have to figure that out.
ALEXANDER: And we have found out that individuals, after being in professions, have decided to go into teaching. So they've left some fairly high paying professions to do that, and hopefully they've been successful.
SPITZER: I've said before, I wish we could pay teachers what we pay investment bankers, because there's no question in my mind that it's the teachers who forge the next generation.
ALEXANDER: And hopefully the investment bankers would believe that.
SPITZER: I don't think they would, but that's a separate issue. Thank you, Dan. I didn't say it often enough when I was a student. Dan Alexander, Thank you for being here. We'll be right back.
ALEXANDER: Thanks for having me. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Thanks for joining us, and be sure to tune in tomorrow.
SPITZER: Goodnight from New York. "LARRY KING" starts right now.
