Return to Transcripts main page

Rick's List

President Obama's Religion; Pakistan Devastated

Aired August 20, 2010 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MAX KELLERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: President Obama is one of the great orators to occupy the White House, at least in my lifetime. So, why are so many people confused about who he is?

Let's start the LIST.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLERMAN (voice-over): Making the LIST in prime time -- 18 percent of Americans think the president is Muslim. He's not. The dreaded perception gap. Smart people on to talk about it. These are really, really smart people.

Toilet paper, cotton balls, garbage bags. Back-to-school supplies ain't just a trapper keeper and a box of number two pencils anymore. And parents say, no fair. CNN education contributor Dr. Steve Perry has answers for moms and dads going, what the?

The Internet as we know it is under attack. Is that a bad thing? Net neutrality really should have a sexier name.

And the worst natural disaster in recent memory described as a slow-motion tsunami, 20 million people affected.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KELLERMAN: Hey, everybody. I'm Max Kellerman, in for Rick Sanchez, who is on vacation taking a long weekend.

President Obama on the other hand is starting a 10-day trip tonight to Martha's Vineyard. But there's no such thing as really a complete presidential vacation, right? Here's what's on the president's plate right now.

Number one: complete the drawdown of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by midnight August 31. Number two, improve the jobs outlook. The latest unemployment report painted a gloomy picture this week. Oh, and number three, Hillary Clinton has invited the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to Washington on September 2. It would be their first peace talks in two years.

Israel's Foreign Ministry tweets that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomes the invitation. And just tonight, his Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas, accepted the invitation.

Here's the U.S. Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE MITCHELL, SPECIAL U.S. ENVOY FOR THE MIDDLE EAST: The best outcome is an agreement which results in two states living side by side in peace and security, and that the only way that can be achieved is through direct negotiations between the parties, in which the United States will be an active and sustained participant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLERMAN: So this is what's going on. The president's going on vacation, and against that backdrop, the buzz this week is this opinion, public opinion poll that shows 18 percent of Americans, you have probably seen it, this is all over the news, believe the president is Muslim, up from 11 percent who believed that a year ago.

You know, he's not. He's Christian. This should be obvious by now.

Joining me now to discuss this are two of my favorite thinkers and expositors of ideas who I follow on social media, and I'm honored to have them on RICK'S LIST tonight, UCLA professor of public policy Mark Kleiman.

Hi, Mark.

MARK KLEIMAN, UCLA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Max, it's a great pleasure.

KELLERMAN: And Reihan Salam, blogger for "The National Review" and co-author of "The Grand New Party," which I enjoyed very much, Reihan.

REIHAN SALAM, "THE NATIONAL REVIEW": Thanks for having me, Max.

KELLERMAN: Reihan, what do you make of this poll?

SALAM: Well, the thing is that lots of people in the U.S. public believe a lot of very strange things, about the supernatural, about ESP.

I think that it's not that surprising to me, partly because there's this pervasive phenomenon we call rational public ignorance. The truth is that the incentives for getting high-quality information are not very high because most people, because most don't really control public policy.

And so, a farrago of rumor and nonsense can grow pretty quickly and get pretty pervasive. And that I think is really what's behind this 18 percent number. There's just a lot of uncertainty and not real incentive to get good, high-quality information.

KELLERMAN: Professor -- see what I mean, guys? The interesting thinkers.

Professor Kleiman, why, then, have the numbers gone up since last year, do you think?

KLEIMAN: Because unemployment's bad.

I think the fundamental fact here is that people are unhappy. The economy's not getting better. People tend to blame the party in power, tend to blame the president. And that kind of bad economic news always leads to a lashing out against outsiders. So Muslims are convenient targets.

But it's important not to forget that part of this is deliberately engineered. In 2004, Republicans decided they could win an election by getting the country upset about gays. Now, despite the California court ruling, gays aren't the enemy this year. It's going to be Muslims and immigrants.

And a lot of the misinformation is being deliberately spread. The big surprise, it seems to me, is the lack of a backlash. I would have expected more people on the Republican conservative side to refudiate Sarah Palin's appeal to racism.

(LAUGHTER)

KELLERMAN: Refudiate.

KLEIMAN: But it hasn't happened.

KELLERMAN: Reihan, you are on the conservative side. How do you respond to that?

SALAM: I have to say, I have a very different perception of what's going on here, as you might expect.

I think Professor Kleiman has offered an interesting narrative. And I don't know if it entirely fits the facts here. I think that when you're looking at the number of Americans who are uncertain about Barack Obama's religious beliefs, it actually extends to many people who are self-identified liberals and Democrats.

I think that it's not entirely hatred or resentment of Muslims. I think there are actually some people who still approve of President Obama's performance and who also believe that he's a Muslim. Again, that's a minority of the people who believe him to be a Muslim, but I think that the uncertainty isn't just about hatred of Muslims. I think that it's really about the fact that...

(CROSSTALK)

KELLERMAN: Professor Kleiman, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe you're saying that it's the right fomenting this stuff, whether it's pervasive enough to get to the left as well. Is that correct?

(CROSSTALK)

KLEIMAN: Well, I think Reihan is absolutely correct. People believe a lot of silly things about public affairs because the cost to them of believing nonsense is close to zero.

The question is, who's spreading the stories?

KELLERMAN: Well, part of the problem...

KLEIMAN: I might actually be surprised if a lot of people approve of the president's performance and think that he's not only a Muslim but a liar about it, which he would have to be. That would surprise me, but it's possible...

(CROSSTALK)

SALAM: Well, again, they don't believe that he's a liar about. They actually just don't even have the minimal information that he is in fact a Christian and that he regularly eats pork and other things that I think that devout Muslims would frown upon.

(CROSSTALK)

SALAM: And that is accessible information.

KELLERMAN: Part of the problem might be at least that the president naturally supported the rights to private property and freedom of religion in his speech concerning the planned Islamic center near Ground Zero, and then he was accused of backing off when the next day he refused to comment on other aspects of the story, like the choice of the location of the center.

What do you think that that -- what effect has that issue of the Islamic center near Ground Zero had on the president, Professor Kleiman?

KLEIMAN: It looks as if it hurt him fairly badly in the polls, a few points' movement.

I was actually delighted that he said what he said, but disappointed that he didn't draw out the logical implication of what he was saying, which is that it's not merely that the folks who are planning to build Cordoba House have a right to build it where they want to build it, but that there should be no controversy about it, right?

The whole notion that it should be controversial to build an Islamic community center a couple of blocks from the old World Trade Center site depends on the notion that somehow Islam itself is offensive, is foreign, is something that people should be disgusted by.

And what I haven't heard from anybody, even including the president, is a sufficient denunciation of that notion. Of course, the Islamic community of New York should be able to build itself a community center, and it's not anybody else's business where they build it.

KELLERMAN: Reihan, really quickly, I was down around Ground Zero earlier this week just to take a look for myself, as Nate Silver suggested people do on fivethirtyeight.com a couple weeks ago.

It actually is very, very close. The location seems -- clearly they have the right to do it and there's private property and religious freedom, but what are your thoughts quickly on this before we go?

SALAM: Well, look, Paul Vitello had a great piece in "The New York Times" about what Muslim New Yorkers think about this issue.

And what was really striking is that a lot of these Muslim New Yorkers said, heck, we absolutely have a right to build this community center. On the other hand, you know, maybe it should be somewhere else.

I was surprised by that, actually. But, interestingly, Muslim New Yorkers are a lot less ideological and a lot less kind of furious about this as a cultural war issue than folks seem to be on cable news shows like this one.

So, I think that as a Muslim New Yorker I'm broadly sympathetic to that view. Maybe there's some room for negotiation here, but I certainly don't it suddenly means that Americans have become horribly xenophobic and intolerant. There's a lot of misunderstanding here because again people don't have very good information.

KELLERMAN: Well, you guys certainly provide very good information.

And may I suggest that everyone follow both Professor Kleiman and Reihan Salam on Twitter? I love it. I don't have to go to a million defense places to get you guys. It's just the links that you guys have on your tweets that are great. Thank you very much for joining me tonight.

SALAM: Thank you.

KLEIMAN: Thanks for the invitation.

KELLERMAN: Two important stories happening in Pakistan, the massive human toll from the floods, but also a stunning announcement involving Pakistan's longtime hostile relationship with India, maybe the most important development anywhere in the world this week.

Plus, where's the oil from the Gulf spill? It's a question Rick has been asking for weeks. Tonight, we may have the answer. That's on our follow-up list as your national conversation in prime time gets going on this Friday night. You're watching RICK'S LIST.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLERMAN: Now for our roundup list.

Another company in Iowa is voluntarily recalling eggs from grocery store selves. Hillandale Farms says eggs shipped to as many as 14 states could be infected with salmonella. The number of recalled eggs is now up to 380 million and growing. Boy, we eat a lot of eggs in this country. Go to CNN.com for details about the recall. And if you bought the risky eggs, by the way, you can take them back in their original packaging for a full refund.

OK. Number two, scientists are revealing that they discovered a Manhattan-sized plume of oily residue below the Gulf surface back in June. We're told it spanned 22 miles and was more than 3,000 feet underwater. It was found near the BP wellhead, but has now likely moved elsewhere. The discovery could be one answer to the question about why we're not seeing a lot of the oil anymore from the spill.

Number three, remember this pair? There they go. Arizona prison escapee and his cousin/fiancee/accomplice have been on the run for nearly a month. John McCluskey and Casslyn Welch appeared in court today after a tip from an observant forest ranger led their arrest at an Arizona camp site. They vowed they wouldn't go down easily if lawmen ever caught up with them. Well, lawmen did catch up with them, and they went down pretty easily. Bonnie and Clyde are turning over in their graves.

Making our list of the most uncovered stories: the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan. The United States has just pledged $60 million more to confront the worsening crisis. There's a growing fear that if the Pakistani government can't deliver, the Taliban will.

The official death toll has climbed to 1,500, and of even greater concern are the millions of people left homeless and hungry. What's being done for them?

As part of its response, Pakistan is diverting troops from its fight against Islamic insurgents and the U.S. military is flying in tons of aid. The United States has pledged a total of $150 million, and there's talk of using money from a larger aid package meant to bolster the government in Islamabad to flood victims.

We will stay on Pakistan when we come back, because this week, Pakistani officials signaled a monumental shift in policy, or so it seems, a policy that has defined the country since its birth. I have got questions. Sajjan Gohel in London live on Skype has answers.

Also tonight, you will not believe what is on kids' school supplies lists nowadays: cleaning products, paper plates, toilet paper. We are going to get into that, but, first, far more serious business, the battle for supremacy in the Twitterverse.

Britney Spears was the undisputed champ. She had more followers on Twitter than anyone else on the planet until today. Another pop sensation, Lady Gaga, took the title earlier today, but only for a moment. But team Britney came roaring back. Let's see where things stands right now. Well, where do they stand right now? Stay tuned as this thrilling drama unfolds.

This is your national conversation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLERMAN: For the first time in its history, Pakistan's top intelligence service has released a statement that the country's biggest security challenge is not India, but rather it's a threat from within.

That's according to a report in "The Wall Street Journal." The assessment from the ISI -- think of the ISI as like the CIA on steroids in Pakistan, right? Anyway, they say that the sternest test of Pakistan's stability is posed by Islamic militants in lawless regions that border Afghanistan.

And that seems puzzling, because according to Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, whose book I just read, because Fareed Zakaria recommended that we all read it on global -- "GPS" a couple months ago -- anyway, according to Haqqani's book, the ISI has trained Islamic fundamental militants for jihad since way back.

Keep in mind, the U.S. is aiding Pakistan's fight against Islamic insurgents and has long urged Islamabad to fight harder. So, is this a sign that it will?

Joining me now via Skype from London live, Sajjan Gohel, director of international security for the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

Thank you for joining me tonight.

SAJJAN GOHEL, ASIA PACIFIC FOUNDATION: Good to be with you.

KELLERMAN: So, how significant is this reported shift by the ISI, do you think?

GOHEL: We need to be cautious.

The ISI itself has potentially realized the fact that the groups that it once supported, especially the Afghan Taliban, that had given sanctuary to its neighbors and cousins, the Pakistani Taliban, which in turn has carried out a number of attacks on the ISI inside Pakistan, I think the agency itself realizes that this Frankenstein's monster has got out of control.

But at the same time not all of them have totally accepted that. They still harbor ideological sympathies with these extremist groups and it could also be a short-term tactical strategy, especially with the terrible flooding in Pakistan. It means that their operations have somewhat been affected. And only recently there was a lot of attention along the border in Kashmir between India and Pakistan, as troops fired shots on either side.

So, it's something that we need to take notice of, but I think at the same time, we need to see a lot more action and cooperation in terms of rooting out terrorism before we can be sure that this is a genuine statement.

KELLERMAN: That has seemed to be the history of Pakistan since partition, since 1947, right, that the ISI, as I said, like the CIA on steroids over there, and the military say one thing that they think the West wants to hear for -- usually for aid, but in reality, the ISI is training fundamentalists for -- extremists for jihad.

So, in your opinion, is this a Frankenstein situation, as you mentioned, where now the militants truly are out of control? Or has the Pakistani -- and it's even difficult, I'm sure -- to say who is the government, right? Is it the president, the prime minister, the head of the army, the ISI?

But are Pakistani officials in the ISI, say, disappointed with foreign aid and are just saying what they think the West wants to hear?

GOHEL: It's an important point that you make, Max. During the Bush administration, whenever members of the administration got tough on Pakistan for its lack of cooperation in dealing with the Taliban or al Qaeda, they would conveniently arrest an individual that was prominent on the wanted list, especially within al Qaeda central, and would then receive aid and support.

I think what the Obama administration has tried to do, subsequently, is that -- link aid with the fact that it has to be distributed more effectively inside the country, it doesn't go into the pockets of corrupt members of the military, who then buy also armaments to use against their neighbors, like India.

I think also the problem is that the West has finally perhaps realized that the ISI maintains very murky ties with a radical and terrorist groups linked to al Qaeda. Look at the most recent case of David Headley, the U.S. citizen that had been recruited from Chicago by the ISI to take part in the Mumbai siege attacks in November 2008, in which six Americans were murdered.

So, the fact is that the agency itself has still got a lot of questions that remain as to how committed it is in terms of rooting out the extremist elements that it once supported, and also whether this is a strategy that they're playing in the short-term to gain concessions from the West, and then simply do what they want after they get the paycheck.

KELLERMAN: Sajjan Gohel, it was edifying. Thank you so much for coming on tonight.

GOHEL: My pleasure.

KELLERMAN: Just ahead:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What has the Cuban regime done to merit the lifting the any sanctions? There has been no change in Cuba.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLERMAN: The U.S. government is considering lifting the Cuban embargo, and not everyone is happy about it. Rick Sanchez makes an appearance on his own LIST with the debate. Back to school was never like this when I was growing up. Schools are hemorrhaging financially, and now the burden is shifting to parents in ways we never imagined.

Take a look at the list of the new supplies your child may have to bring to school. "The New York Times" tracked this down. Number five, garbage bags. That's right. In Moody, Alabama, kids are being told to bring cleaning supplies to school, including those trash bags.

In the small town of Nevada, Texas, population 820, the students are expected to bring cotton balls. Not really sure what that is about. Number three, in another part of the state, Joshua, Texas, kids need to bring paper plates and cups. And it doesn't stop there. Wait until I show you what is topping the list.

I'm going to ask the question, is it all going too far? Shouldn't our taxes pay for some of this? Stick around as your national conversation continues.

This is RICK'S LIST.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLERMAN: Welcome back.

We all want our kids to have whatever they need to get a proper education, of course. But these days, schools are asking students to bring a whole lot more than pencils and paper.

Check out what's topping our list of back-to-school supplies. Number two, Seattle, where some students are expected to show up with plastic forks and spoons. And number one on our list, toilet paper. That's right. If you're in Honolulu, your son or daughter will need to bring a four-pack of T.P., all because of the budget axing in so many schools.

You know what? You live in Honolulu. So, you have to buy toilet paper for schools. Stop complaining.

With me now to hash all this out is Steve Perry, CNN's education contributor and principal and founder of Capital Preparatory Magnet School in Hartford, Connecticut.

Steve, thanks for joining us.

STEVE PERRY, CNN EDUCATION CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Max.

KELLERMAN: OK. Steve, is this the right way to fill the holes left in school budgets, by putting the onus on the parents, in your opinion?

PERRY: No, no, because the parents are taxpayers. Parents should have expected that these things should have been purchased. Anything that is the responsibility of the school or for the children to have, the school should have in the school. There's no reason why the parents should be buying toilet paper. The variables in a school budget are educator salaries and transportation costs. Those are the only things that are essentially in an educator's budget.

KELLERMAN: Well, let me play devil's advocate for a second. OK? Tax dollars pay for public school education, right?

PERRY: Yes.

KELLERMAN: Education, not bathroom upkeep, necessarily. Where is it written that schools must provide toilet paper?

PERRY: It's just basic decency. Can you imagine being in the fifth grade and forgetting your toilet paper in your locker? What do you do, then? It's bad enough when it happens in your house.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

KELLERMAN: I imagine it would be pretty traumatic.

PERRY: Pretty traumatic. You would not be popular.

(LAUGHTER)

KELLERMAN: No.

PERRY: So, what we have to realize is that 85 percent of our local tax dollars typically goes to the school budget. Of that remaining money, what happens is, 70 percent to 85 percent of that goes to staff and faculty salaries.

So, when, for instance, a custodian comes to open the door, just open the door -- this happened to me this week. When he comes to open the door at our school, I have to pay him three hours to come and do that. There's waste in our system, and it's making its way all the way out to the families. It's absolutely absurd that parents or a child should have to bring cotton balls in.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLERMAN: This waste extends then not only to low-income districts, right? Because I'm reading that pretty wealthy schools are strapped for cash, too. Why is that? Is that waste?

PERRY: Well, it's because, as the salaries continue to go for the teachers and principals and the superintendents, as the salaries continue to go, the revenue has gone down, because more and more people have lost their homes.

So, as more and more people lose their homes, there are less tax dollars that make it possible for there to be more money in the coffers. What we need to begin to do, what the community needs to begin to do is to ask the question, am I getting more for my money? So, parents are already paying to play sports. They're already selling -- the new thing now is cookie dough and cheesecakes, which nobody should eat. And they're using those to pay for sports. Now the parents are being asked to pay for toilet paper and wet wipes and sanitary products?

It's absolutely absurd. We need to push our educators to slow down the raises and take responsibility, like the rest of the country, and understand that there has to be some shared pain. We have to pull back.

KELLERMAN: But, before I let you go, what's up with the shot at cheesecake? No one should eat cheesecake?

PERRY: Listen, man, it's not cheesecake. I'm a big fan of cheesecake -- a little lactose-intolerant. We don't want to get into that in a toilet paper conversation.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLERMAN: Oh, oh, that's a good point. That's actually a good point.

PERRY: That's right. So what -- I'm trying to help you here.

So, the bigger issue is that the cheesecake doesn't usually come refrigerated, because the kids are not as good at that as we need them to be.

KELLERMAN: All right, very good, Steve. Thank you so much for joining me tonight and explaining this all to me.

PERRY: Thank you.

KELLERMAN: Internet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D), MINNESOTA: We can't let companies write the rules that they're supposed to follow, because, if that happens, those rules are going to be written only to protect corporations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLERMAN: Internet providers are always working to provide stronger, faster service, right? That's great. But what if I told you they wanted to provide stronger, faster service only to some people, but not you? That would make you pretty mad, right? That story is ahead.

But, first, Cuba remains closed to American investments in the half-century-old trade and travel embargo. Could these policies soon be a thing of the past? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KELLERMAN: The Obama administration is developing plans right now to ease travel restrictions to Cuba. This hasn't been announced yet, but it could happen very soon. And we have a sneak peek for you tonight on RICK'S LIST.

A senior U.S. official and congressional sources tell CNN the new policy would allow academics, corporations, humanitarian groups and probably most sports teams to travel to Cuba. The goal in all this is to increase people to people exchanges. It would also allow any American to send money to Cuba. Right now, it's only Cuban-Americans who can do that.

Now, this wouldn't lift the full Cuba travel ban for tourists or the trade embargo but it would loosen the strict rules in place since the Bush administration and this has a lot of people talking. And it's something Rick talked about with Ninoska Perez Castellon, host of Radio Mambi in Miami. And Tomas Bilbao who is executive director of the Cuba Study Group and is in Madrid right now meeting with the political prisoners just released from Cuba.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: This would not change the trade embargo and American tourists could still seek visits. So why would you be opposed to this exchange that was established during the Clinton administration, right?

NINOSKA PEREZ CASTELLON, HOST, RADIO MAMBI: Because this is exactly what the Clinton administration did, and the only response the Cuban regime had was downing civilian airplanes with American citizens on board in international airspace. So what has the Cuban regime done to merit the lifting of any sanctions? There has been no change in Cuba. Political prisoners that are freed have been sent into exile. Just now four that were supposed to be released, one said that he would not leave Cuba and he was sent back to prison. So what has the Cuban government done to earn the lifting of sanctions?

SANCHEZ: Mr. Bilbao, why is she wrong, if she is?

TOMAS BILBAO, CUBA STUDY GROUP: Well, because what Ninoska is suggesting is that the United States, recognizing the right of Americans to travel to Cuba and the important and positive impact that that has on Cuban civil society is somehow a reward to the Cuban regime. When in fact, Cuba's leading human rights advocates and dissidents inside the island have urged the U.S. government to go far beyond what the administration is proposing, and in fact called on Congress to pass a bill that would lift the travel ban for all Americans.

The policy of isolation that hasn't worked for the last 50 years, it's very clear we're being told by dissidents inside Cuba that that only -- isolation only serves the purposes of the regime.

SANCHEZ: Let me ask you -

BILBAO: We should contribute to the isolation by adding restrictions with our own policy.

SANCHEZ: Let me bring in Ninoska back into this conversation by asking her a question that people around the world ask all the time. Why is it if the United States can have relations with Vietnam with whom we were mortal enemies during the war, open relations with countries like China, despite the fact they still have certainly communist leanings, not still called a communist country, then why are we still stuck in our attitude of closed relations with Cuba, treating them still as if they are actively an enemy?

CASTELLON: Why was it that when there was apartheid in South Africa the embargo was not lifted until elections were held and the racist government ended? And it's the same with Cuba. The dissidents he's talking about signed a letter which is unprecedented, because how do you explain that the people who are being repressed are signing a petition to lift sanctions on those who are repressing them. A letter which most people say came from the Cuba Study Group. So what is the explanation that Castro is still repressing Cuba --

SANCHEZ: Mr. Bilbao, she's right. There are still plenty of cases and evidence that there are people in Cuba who are being mistreated simply for what they believe or think, being treated as political prisoners. And we've seen the roundups in the past. We've seen the abuses with the rapid response brigades. But I believe that the argument that you need to make or are making is that by opening up Cuba, we would work to rid Cuba of that. Is that right? Could you explain to us how that would work?

BILBAO: Well, Rick, it's not the argument that I'm making. This is the argument that the democracy advocates inside Cuba, the very people who are being repressed by the Cuban regime are making. They're telling us that by contributing to the isolation of the Cuban government has imposed on the Cuban people, we're only delaying the processes of change inside the island. So while Ninoska may not like the fact that dissidents inside the island have voiced support for the lifting of the travel restriction, that doesn't mean that that's not a fact and that the - and I'm glad, by the way, that Ninoska brought up South Africa because the United States had no travel restrictions to South Africa. In fact, it had no travel restrictions to the Soviet Union after Ronald Reagan, of all people, who no one would accuse of being soft on communism, lifted the travel ban to the Soviet Union because he believed that the contact that American citizens can have with closed societies is beneficial for the process of change. And that's the same argument that democracy advocates are making inside Cuba.

SANCHEZ: Tomas Bilbao, Ninoska Perez, thank you both so much. We appreciate your time taking us through this argument. My thanks to both of you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KELLERMAN: This has got a lot of people talking. Let's go to the Twitter board.

Joe Garcia, the director of the Cuban-American National Foundation and Democratic candidate for Congress in Florida's 25th congressional district writes, "I'm for the embargo/tough sanctions. One of the best ways to promote freedom is by helping dissidents.

Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in Florida, is also weighing in. She writes, "The president shouldn't loosen travel regulations to Cuba. Castro military runs tourism biz so money goes to thugs, not people."

Coming up, there's a war going on over the Internet right now. And if you have a computer, a BlackBerry, an iPhone or know anyone who does, this story will affect you. Plus, if someone had to rate your social networking skills, how do you think you'd fare?

A new study ranked U.S. senators based on their digital I.Q. scores, and you will never guess who's at the top. This is truly surprising.

We've got the list to get you started. Tied for numbers five and four with digital I.Q.s of 143, which in life would make them geniuses, we frequently show their tweets on air, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken and Texas Republican John Cornyn. Who else made the top five? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLERMAN: Social networking is not just for teens and college kids anymore. Parents, grandparents and, yes, even politicians use Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. A new study is out that ranks U.S. senators based on their social media savvy and frequency of use. The report found that Republicans are outpacing Democrats in terms of friends and followers on the sites. And you will be shocked, shocked, when you see who's at the top of the list.

I gave you two before the break. Here's the top three. Number three, with a digital I.Q. of 152, starting again to scary smart territory, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown. Number two, GOP senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint with 154. And coming in at number one with the highest social media I.Q. of any U.S. Senator, he's nearly 74 years old, Arizona Republican John McCain.

It was shocking, right? Come on, McCain is the highest social media I.Q.?

First, there was the invention of the printing press, then the telephone, then radio, then television, and then the Internet. There's a war for the soul of the Internet taking place right now and it goes by the unfortunate name "net neutrality." Listen to what Senator Al Franken said last night on a hearing on net neutrality.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D), MINNESOTA: We can't let companies write the rules that they're supposed to follow.

(APPLAUSE) Because if that happens, those rules are going to be written only to protect corporations. But protecting an open Internet isn't just about developing new and enforceable net neutrality standards. It's also about making sure that the Internet isn't effectively owned by a handful of companies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLERMAN: With me now is Cali Lewis, host of "GeekBeat.TV."

Cali, welcome, thanks for joining me.

CALI LEWIS, GEEKBEAT.TV: My pleasure.

KELLERMAN: OK. Explain what we're talking about here. Net neutrality.

LEWIS: It is a heated topic, as you saw from the clip. Everybody gets really up in arms about it. So, net neutrality says that carriers treat all Internet traffic the same. When data is requested, it's just sent out. It's not sped up, it's not slowed down, it's just sent.

Now, there are certain companies that have, let's say, special needs, but they have private networks, so it's not being affected or worked into the open Internet. Now --

KELLERMAN: OK, so why would changing the rules be so bad? You know, what does that change?

LEWIS: Well so, what we're talking about here is the companies that own the fiber that we use to connect to the Internet, they're wanting to be able to prioritize traffic. So essentially they're wanting to take money from people who can afford it, which leaves the little guys out in the cold. And I'm sitting here thinking this sounds a little bit like extortion to me.

KELLERMAN: Cali, but, I mean, in terms of the speed with which you get stuff and the payment for it, when it went from dial-up service to high speed, you had to pay more for high speed and it got you the information faster. What's the difference?

LEWIS: Well, we're not talking about an increase in technology here. We're talking about prioritization of the Internet. And so it's a totally different beast.

KELLERMAN: Right.

LEWIS: So, you know, the other side, the people who are against net neutrality, what they say is that the traffic is increasing exponentially. And we have a finite, you know, amount of capacity. And something has to give somewhere, somehow. And so that they have to be able to prioritize traffic.

Well, it's just a flawed, fundamentally-flawed argument. Let's take an example here. I know it's silly, but I brought a prop. KELLERMAN: Awesome.

LEWIS: So you know the ethernet cable, right?

KELLERMAN: Right.

LEWIS: So, the ethernet cable, it went from, you know, 10 mega bits to about a gigabit in about 10 years.

KELLERMAN: So how many megas in a giga again?

LEWIS: A thousand.

KELLERMAN: All right, so it's a thousand times faster in 10 years.

LEWIS: Right. Right.

KELLERMAN: A gig is a million or a billion, trillion. Sorry.

LEWIS: We don't have to get into the math, right? But, yes, I mean, it's a huge -- it's a huge amount of capacity that has changed. And the actual cable has not changed and that's 10 years.

KELLERMAN: So in other words, it's not about the hardware. It's not about the hardware. It's about the technology and your argument is that the technology will catch up to demand in terms of the packets of information that are sent back and forth. OK, here's --

LEWIS: Exactly. It's about what happens on the ends and there are companies that are working to make all of that work. And we don't need to worry --

KELLERMAN: Let me ask you something. I understand as a consumer, I like the idea of net neutrality, right? Because I want everything to be treated equally. I love this system that we have on the Internet where you can get information from anywhere and it's not prioritized, it's wherever you want to go. On the other hand, it seems to me analogous in a way to software companies when Bill Gates was a young man and the culture that had come out of the software geeks was such that, you know, you just shared it and everything. And Bill Gates was saying, no, no, wait a minute, I invested all this money in my software, you've got to pay for it. I'm not just sharing it with everybody. And made a ton of money and reinvested that money and maybe sped up the development of software, one could argue. So is your argument that the public utilities should trump private interests, simply in this case?

LEWIS: Well, you know, the Internet is -- this is really a philosophical question more than a technical question or whether it's OK for -- we're talking philosophically here in what your question is proposing. Is the Internet a right to everyone? Is it important that equality is on the Internet? Is it important for people to, you know, poor people to be able to drink the same clean water that rich people can drink? KELLERMAN: Well, except it's like printing books and the telephone and the television, none of those things were rights. Right? Why is the -- in other words, this culture has grown up around us --

LEWIS: But it is already --

KELLERMAN: -- so we're used to it. Who is to say that that necessarily means it should stay that way? I'm trying to come up with the strongest devil's advocate position I can.

LEWIS: I know and it's going to be so hard for you, because the Internet is a right now. You know, it wasn't -- before the Internet existed it wasn't a right. But it became available and it is essentially a right. At this point in time, it is part of all of our lives. It is worldwide communication that opens up so many possibilities. For example, my show was not possible before the Internet existed because everything was controlled by TV, network, TV networks, radio, newspapers. But now I have the ability to communicate worldwide and have a very large audience. But now, we're talking about the fact that CNN.com could pay more than me and be able to, you know, kind of push me down and --

KELLERMAN: Cali Lewis, thank you very much.

LEWIS: It is a right now.

KELLERMAN: We're running out of time, but thank you very much for your explanation here. I thank you for your time. Thanks for coming on.

LEWIS: My pleasure.

KELLERMAN: I'm not sure about this rights thing. I don't know.

This is amazing. Moments like these that show the personal side and sacrifice of war. I mean, you saw this footage yesterday. I got choked up as soon as the little girl -- I have a little girl at home -- and when she was running to her dad on RICK'S LIST, you saw that footage yesterday, you know, it chokes you up. Troops from all over the country coming from Iraq. Just ahead we'll bring you more of these emotional reunions. I love them. Look at how good is this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLERMAN: A new dawn in Iraq, and the beginning of the end of the drawdown of U.S. combat troops stationed there. For the next few weeks, we'll see emotional reunions like these as our troops return to U.S. soil. So far, more than 90,000 U.S. troops have left Iraq in the past 18 months. So who are these troops, and how long have they been away? Here's a look at just a few of those brigades on our list of troops we're welcoming home.

We'll start with the last to leave. Eighteen hundred soldiers of the 4th Stryker Brigade, Second Infantry Division, were the last combat brigade to pull out of Iraq. They've been deployed for a year and will be returning to Fort Lewis, Washington through September. Three hundred Fort Bliss soldiers from the 1st Heavy Brigade combat team of the First Armored Division arrived Thursday at Biggs Army Field, Air Field in Texas. They've been deployed since November 2009. We'll see other troops we're welcoming home next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLERMAN: Thousands of U.S. troops are in Kuwait and in between missions. They're part of the drawdown of U.S. combat operations in Iraq. Thousands more are returning home and reuniting with their families after months apart. Let's take a closer look at some of the troops returning home.

More than 250 soldiers from the Louisiana National Guard's 256th Infantry Brigade Team recently returned home after an eight-month deployment in Iraq. And last night, hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, returned to Fort Benning, Georgia. They have been deployed since October 2009.

This week we finally have the honor of welcoming home the last of the combat troops from Iraq. It's been 7 1/2 years since we first sent our troops into battle there. But for the families waiting for their loved ones in uniform to return home, the war in Iraq felt much longer than that. For them, it felt like a lifetime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Left a couple weeks right after she was born, so I'm really excited. This is the first time I get to see her like this now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How does she look?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She looks beautiful and amazing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just glad to be back in Georgia, next to my wife and kids, and hopefully I don't have to go back over there anytime soon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just happy to be home.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So good to see you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You look good. You look good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLERMAN: The pictures of the little girls going home to their daddies, or the daddies coming home to the little girls gets me.

That's our show for tonight. I'm Max Kellerman. Thanks for joining me. Rick Sanchez is back Monday and "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.