The Web      Powered by


Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Gary Hart

Aired April 11, 2004 - 15:00   ET



The hottest seat in the House: Meet the politician who wants to do what Condoleezza Rice did. Find out what Gary Hart would tell the September 11 Commission if only they would ask.

Plus, big drama in the little room: Jury service can be tough, but justice depends on getting it right. We're going to talk to famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz for some lessons from the Tyco trial and other high-profile cases.

And, the car with a place to park a ponytail: It took women to make an automobile with women drivers in mind. We'll learn how they did it and how it can pay off for Volvo.

Joining me today, a couple of IN THE MONEY Venter: CNN correspondent, Susan Lisovicz and "Fortune" magazine editor-at-large, Andy Serwer.

Springtime, the azaleas in bloom and playing the masters down in the Augusta, Georgia. And all eyes, again, are on Tiger Woods. He's won a majors, arguable the best player in world, but he has not a major championship in two or three years and people are beginning to suggest that if he doesn't start to turning that around and win a major, i.e., the masters, and most people say his best chance is probably at Augusta because of his game and the golf course, that perhaps his dream of breaking Jack Nicholas' record of 18 majors will never happen. Perhaps his $75 million a year in endorsement money will begin to dry up, yada, yada, yada. Now, Tiger needs more publicity. So, we'll talk about him, here. But, it's an interesting story.

ANDY SERWER, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: I mean, but the expectations on this guy, Jack, are simply unbelievable. I mean, can you imagine, that's the standard in which he's held. You've got to beat Jack Nicholas' record, and he's such a young kid still, that it's just a huge burden on him. But, the whole point you're making about endorsements and advertisers throwing so much money at someone so early in their career, it is a big risk for them.

SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, and speaks to the fact there are so few marquise professional sports players who you can count on, who are charismatic, well spoken, and don't get into trouble.

Yeah, they don't take steroids, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Right.

It's interesting, he was -- Tiger was the one who said that when he came out and turned pro, after a stellar amateur career, that he had sights set on Nicholas the career of -- record of 18 majors.

I'll tell you one thing, if he plays as well in the Masters as he did in this new American Express commercial, where he puts on all this grungy makeup and does a takeoff of the Bill Murray character from "Caddyshack." It's brilliant, and fun, and just terrific. Kudos to him, he should win -- what do they call those advertising awards?

LISOVICZ: The Cleos.

SERWER: The Cleos.

CAFFERTY: Cleo. Tiger Woods...

SERWER: That's one of the best of five best movies of all time. Right, Susan?

LISOVICZ: No. I've never seen it.

SERWER: Well, it's a good one.

CAFFERTY: The White House said that Condoleezza Rice was playing by the rules. Critics said she was playing hard to get. Whoever you believe, the national security adviser finally got in front of the 9/11 Commission this week and everybody was paying close attention to what happened next. For more on that and what's next for the commission itself, we're joined from the White House now, by CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

Jeanne, I haven't seen that much interest in anything in Washington in quite some time. It was quite a deal.


JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And it turned out to be incredible television, as well -- quite dramatic. It was a busy week for the commission. Not only did they have three hours of public testimony from Condoleezza Rice that afternoon, they then had three to four hours of testimony from former President Bill Clinton and on Friday, they heard from the former Vice President Al Gore.

Now, in Rice's testimony, you heard her talk about how 9/11 was the fault of intelligence failures, brought about by structural problems within the U.S. government. We've heard a lot about this since 9/11 and the commission is going to be exploring it in more depth next week. They're going to have in front of them the attorney general, John Ashcroft; CIA director, George Tenet; FBI director, Robert Mueller; and the predecessor, Louis Freeh. They're going to be exploring this in depth with them and officials with the commission tell us they do expect some new information, not any blockbusters, not any smoking guns, but some more examples of how critical information not shared within agencies and among the agencies of the U.S. government. The goal, of course, to figure out not only what happened in 2001, but to come up with recommendations so it doesn't happen again -- Jack.


CAFFERTY: Jeanne, thank you. CNN's Jeanne Meserve joining us from Washington, D.C.

Years before the 9/11 Commission began looking back at the events of September 11, another commission was looking forward at U.S. national security. Former Colorado senator and former presidential candidate, Gary Hart, co-chaired that first panel that was known as the U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century.

Today, Gary Hart is a senior partner at the Coudert Brothers law firm in Washington, D.C. And he's wondering why the 9/11 Commission hasn't asked to hear from him or his fellow panel members. Well, we're going to hear from him right now, today, on IN THE MONEY.

Nice to have you with us, Mr. Hart. Thanks for joining us.


CAFFERTY: I assume you got a look at some, if not all of Condoleezza Rice's testimony. Before we get to your commission and the things that you found, what did you make of the performance before the commission?

HART: First of all, I think it would be wrong to treat it as a performance, this was suppose -- this is serious stuff, about 3,000 died...

CAFFERTY: Well, I didn't mean to...

HART: She -- no, I understand. I wasn't referring to that. It's just the way that the whole press approach to this has been. It was predictable and therefore not very satisfactory.

CAFFERTY: She said, "there was no silver bullet." You spent some time looking at U.S. security before September 11. Do you think she's right?

HART: Well, given the way they've defined silver bullet, yes. I mean, what this administration has done, as I understand it, is to say, "until someone tells us that four men are going to hijack -- four -- or 19 men going to hijack four planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at 9:00 a.m. on September the 11th, we are not accountable." That's just dumbfounding to me. That's raising the bar so high that no administration is going to have to take accountability for national security any time in the future.

SERWER: Senator Hart, two things I didn't know reading up on this situation. No. 1, you visited with Condoleezza Rice before 9/11, No. 1, and No. 2, she actually worked for you in the 1980s? Is that correct?

HART: Well, she might not -- she might not now admit that. She was a supporter of mine when I was a presidential candidate in '84. And, as a graduate student at the University of Denver and an adviser and has been a -- a friend over the years. And so, I asked to see her in September because I didn't see any movement by the administration on our warnings. And, I did get into to see her and pleaded with her for the administration to get going on homeland security. A praise, by the way, which our commission more or less invented, and she simply said, "I'll talk to the vice president about it." That was September 6, five days before the attack.

LISOVICZ: So, Senator Hart, what you're saying then is that doesn't really square with what Ms. Rice said to the 9/11 Commission, saying that this was a very high priority. You basically have a different recall of an event very close to 9/11.

HART: Well, I think that she would say that there's no incompatibility there. That we were, I guess her position is, we were concerned about missile defense, we were concerned about China, we were concerned about Saddam Hussein, and by the way, we were also concerned about al-Qaeda. That's basically what she's saying. But, the chance of China launching an attack on us, or needing missile defense, or Saddam Hussein even as a threat to the United States pales in comparison to the al-Qaeda threat which had been going on for a number of years.

CAFFERTY: One of the points she did make over and over, though, was that the administration has been more than a little attentive to national security since September 11 and in her defense and the administration's defense, there have been no other incidents of domestic terrorism. Air travel is certainly safer than it was before September 11. The Department of Homeland Security is addressing many of the issues that confronted this country beforehand. Hindsight is always a little clearer than looking forward, but how do you feel about where we are today in the ability of ourselves, our nation, to protect it from the kind of thing that happened September 11?

HART: Well, the 9/11 Commission, frankly, is meant to be hindsight and you cannot, I think as Santa Ana said, you can't prevent the mistake in the future unless you understand the past. So, people who are saying, "Let's move on, let's look forward, let's not look back," don't understand the process. You have to understand what went wrong so you can fix it. And by neglecting the past, you're bound to repeat it.

I think we've made some progress in integrating the 22 federal agencies. I think we've made very little progress at integrating the federal system -- the federal, state, and local governments. And, I think we've made no progress in bringing in the private sector and getting it -- the private sector to do its job in national security and homeland security. Talking about petro-chemical plants in urban areas, communication systems, energy distribution systems. There's no call by this president or this administration on the private sector to do its job to protect this country.

SERWER: Senator, quick last question. Any reaction from the Bush administration to your take -- to your story?

HART: Well, very little because I don't think the press has confronted them with this. You know, it's been a great mystery to me how the 9/11 Commission could get to the stage of it's work and not call on the U.S. Commission on National Security which forecast these attacks. And I don't think they're going to call on us for -- to find out why we issued these warnings unless some reporters and journalists ask them that question. Why aren't you listening to the commission that forecast this?

CAFFERTY: Have you ask them to appear?

HART: Informally. I've asked why they haven't invited us to appear. But, it's a fine line. I'm -- I don't want to be in the position of seeking any kind of publicity, that's not the point. I would be very happy for other commissioners on this commission to appear, but I think they have to do it publicly. It's been suggested to me if I wanted to drop by and talk to the staff behind the scenes they would welcome that, but that only after I had made the inquiry. I think it's totally unsatisfactory. This commission cannot be taken seriously, be asked to be taken seriously, as a commission, if it doesn't take its predecessor seriously.

CAFFERTY: Senator Gary Hart, I appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much.

HART: Pleasure. Thank you.

CAFFERTY: All right. Coming up on IN THE MONEY, as we continue: A car that knows what women want. Meet one of the women who designed it.

And later, the feds take Clear Channel out to the wood shed and open up a little can of that whoop situation on them. We'll check the stock.

And, software that can keep the cheater honest: The bane of college students everywhere. Software that can pick out plagiarism before it ends up in the final project.


ANNOUNCER: Fortune 500 industry leader Eastman Kodak given the world a reason to smile, serving as the No. 1 producer of photographic film. Kodak's film products still make up 70 percent of the company's revenues, but the digital age is catching up with Kodak and they recently announced plans for a billion dollar makeover. Kodak will discontinue sales of traditional film cameras to the U.S., Canada and Western Europe and focus on developing digital cameras, imaging technology, even camera cell phones. However, the company's shift to digital also includes a 20 percent reduction in its workforce over the next three years. That on top of the stock that continues to tumble, has critics questioning Kodak's long-term staying power.



CAFFERTY: Well, for those of us married, this is not news. Women make most of the world's car buying decisions, but men make most of the world's cars. What up with that? And to a group of five women at Volvo in Sweden, the numbers simply didn't add up so they set out to design an automobile their way, and called it "Your Concept Car." The result might change the way cars look and work in the future. Lena Ekelund was the deputy technical project manager for "Your Concept Car." Her baby's on display now at the New York Auto Show. And the thing that makes this particular car intriguing is it was designed not just by women, but specifically for women.

Lena, welcome to the program, nice to have you with us.


This is fascinating. Tell me a little about what makes this car different from your average, run-of-the-mill car for both sexes -- all sexes, what ever.

EKELUND: Actually, this is for both sexes because we found that we wanted to find the most demanding customer to find in the premium segment, and it turns out to be the women. And we think that if we fulfill her needs, we fulfill the needs and wants of the guy, as well. Which, actually by giving her good solutions, everyone benefits.

LISOVICZ: And Lena, so then let me ask this because Jack and Andy have been asking me this for years. What do women want?

EKELUND: They want a car that is easy to park. And the reason for that is not that they are lousy parkers, but they have different driving patterns. They park many more times a week in unknown locations compared with men. So, that is one of the areas where women verbalize a greater need. And, women also want a car that is convenient, that is there for them and not the other way around. They not necessarily don't want to under the hood see a beautiful engine, they're just happy it works and is efficient.

LISOVICZ: And, Lena we like the fact there is a headrest for a ponytail. A guy would not have thought about this. Go ahead.

EKELUND: No, the guys have tried it. They think it's great as well, because it doesn't matter if you've got your hair is up down, it's still a very comfortable headrest. So, what we did was to -- I very often, when I drive abroad, I have rental cars and I end up driving like this. Getting clinch in the neck and seeing out properly or having to take my hair down. We said, if we easily can accommodate for it, why not do it?

SERWER: All right, first of all, Susan, that very sexist comment you made, There are men with ponytails: Steven Seagal would love that feature as well, OK? Anyway, I wanted to ask you, Lena, where does the car actually stand in terms of it being rolled out? How close are you to actually selling it in the United States, for instance?

EKELUND: Concept cars, they are carrier of ideas, they are not prototypes. So, all we've done is to identified areas where we have customers that don't see their needs fulfilled today. And we're trying to come up with solutions that we're presenting in our car and depending on the response, we're going to see it in future Volvos.

CAFFERTY: You mentioned earlier, women not being interested in looking under the hood. That's good in this case, because you can't, right? The hood won't open on this car.

EKELUND: It will open. What we have done is take away the split line, so if you need to go in and do anything in there, you actually take both the hood and fenders off in one go like you do in a racing car. Because, let's face it. Modern engines, doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man, there's not very much you'd be able to do with it anyway.

CAFFERTY: How much this thing going to sell for when you finally roll it out, roughly? I mean, is this going to be a luxury car? Something in the middle or where?

EKELUND: Concept cars don't have price tags, sorry. Can't comment on that.

LISOVICZ: Lena, I have a disclaimer, because my first car was a Volvo, which I had for many years, I'm happy to say. But, when you're a Volvo owner, you learn a lot about the history and Volvo, of course, is synonymous with safety. In fact, it really derived from a woman, if I'm not mistaken, a physician who was really horrified by what she saw from accident victims. Hmm?

EKELUND: We have a doctor at Volvo, she's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that she's ben researching a lot within accidents and we've had a group of people within the Scandinavian countries going out to scenes where we've had cars involved in accidents to make sure that we do everything we can to minimize what happens to the individuals in the cars. It should be the car that crumbles, not the passengers and the drivers.

SERWER: YOU KNOW, Willie Nelson would also like this car, by the way, because -- you know, the ponytail.

CAFFERTY: My agent for a while (UNINTELLIGIBLE) until I told him to get a haircut.

Lena, nice to have you on the program. Thank you very much.

EKELUND: Thank you.

CAFFERTY: Lena Ekelund, she's the deputy technical project manager for "Your Concept Car" of Volvo.

I told him to get a hair cut and he looked at me like -- you know, I can find other clients.

We're going to step out for a minute or two, here.

Just ahead: Radio giant Clear Channel Communications turns down the volume on shock jock Howard Stern. The kicked the lad off of six of their radio stations. We'll check the fallout for Clear Channel's stock.

Plus, celebrities and the jury system: Find out if there really is justice for all in this country.

And fire up the TV, curl up with a book, and pray: New ways to worship are becoming more and more popular and profitable. We'll take a look at why.


LISOVICZ: Now let's check the week's top stories in our "Money Minute." A federal judge nixed the plea deal to send former Enron executive Lea Fastow to jail for five months. The move will send her to trial for tax fraud instead. Lea Fastow's husband, you may recall, Andrew Fastow, was Enron's former chief financial officer, he also pleaded guilty to playing a major role in the scandal and is expected to testify against his superiors, like Jeff Skilling, the former COE.

Former Credit Suisse First Boston banker Frank Quattrone's retrial begins this coming week. Quattrone is facing obstruction of justice charges. Prosecutors say she destroyed evidence and may have proved he promoted worthless tax stocks. Quattrone's first trial ended in a hung jury, but the new judge in the new case will not shield the juror's names despite what happened to juror No. 4 in the Tyco case.

And voters in the L.A. suburb of Inglewood voted down Wal-Mart's efforts to build a superstore in the area. Wal-Mart shares fell $2 a share a day after the no-vote.

SERWER: All right, thanks, Susan.

The FCC finally broke out its ticket book yesterday and slapped a maximum indecency fine on one of the nation's largest media companies. The commission hit radio giant, Clear Channel Communications with a fine of almost half a million dollars for indecent material broadcast on, guess where, the "Howard Stern Show." Clear Channel reacted by pulling Stern off of all if its stations permanently and that's sure to cost the company a lot more than just half a million bucks in advertising revenue. It's already been a rocky few years for Clear Channel. Look at that. They're way down, that stock is, from highs set five years ago making Clear Channel Communications our stock of the week.

Didn't always look that way for the Clear Channel, though. The stock was an incredible one in the 1990s. I think, Susan, it went from like a buck to $100 almost from '92 to 2000, but since then, not so great.

LISOVICZ: Radio deregulation, a big word for Clear Channel, it's a -- you know, little known company in Texas just really made hay with that news and did really well. But in terms of Clear Channel, I -- you know, I think the news...

SERWER: Howard Stern.

LISOVICZ: Yeah, it's almost like the FCC is finally flexing its muscle. I think that's really the story, there.

CAFFERTY: Yeah. I have a question, though. I mean, Howard Stern's been hanging out doing the "Howard Stern" program for 20 years. I mean, I worked with him at -- when he was a WNBC-FM across the street here, when he was just getting started in New York. And anybody who knows Howard Stern, knows that if you turn it the "Howard Stern Show" you're going to get the "Howard Stern Show." Now, there's suddenly half a million dollar fines being meted out because of the "Howard Stern Show." Janet Jackson showed portions of her anatomy to an absolutely innocent audience during a Super Bowl. Nobody asked to see Janet Jackson's breast, it was shown to them anyway. No fines against her or no fines against CBS, no fines against MTV or any of the people responsible for that deal, but they're chasing down Howard Stern. Is there some hypocrisy at work here?

LISOVICZ: We need this.

SERWER: Well, I think there is. I mean I think there is hypocrisy at work. And you know what's interesting is you talked about Clear Channel, they're out of San Antonio, run by the Mays family. Lowry Mays -- I went down and visited them a couple of years ago. And -- you know, they are conservative people, but they've making hay off of this guy for years. All of a sudden we get this "change in environment," I'm not sure why they're going after him. It's the same thing he's been doing year after year.

LISOVICZ: Well, the change is the $495,000 fine. That's the change, there. But you know, frankly, it is funny to see Howard Stern as the martyr. What happens now? The differ -- he's comparing it to McCarthyism -- the big difference from say, 50 or 60 years ago, is that you have things like satellite radio and so there is, for all those Howard Stern fans out there, there is -- you're going to be able to can find him -- if you want him.

SERWER: Well, this company is a huge -- I mean, they own thousands and thousands of bill boards, radio stations, TV stations...

LISOVICZ: And venues.

SERWER: Yeah, that's what hurt them is getting into that rock 'n' roll business. It's the rock 'n' roll.

LISOVICZ: And antitrust.

SERWER: Right, exactly. All right, we're going to have to leave it at that. We got a lot more to come here on IN THE MONEY. Just ahead, we got a mistrial in the Tyco case. Will the Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson trials suffer the same fate? We'll talk about juries and high-profile cases with master lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

And more Americans are finding new ways to worship and connect with God. And they don't include going to church. We'll look at that new trend coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FREDERICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Fredericka Whitfield at the CNN Headquarters in Atlanta and here are latest headlines at this hour.

In Iraq, another deadly day for coalition forces, 2 U.S. soldiers were killed when their Apache attack helicopter was brought down by a surface to air missile. The attack happened just west of Baghadad International Airport.

The U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer says he's working for a stable cease-fire in Fallujah, but U.S. marines there are still being fired upon. Fallujah has had a particularly violent last week and a half or so. U.S. Brigadiere General Mark Kimmit says right now coalition troops are not moving into other areas of unrest


BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMIT, U.S. MILITARY SPOKESMAN: Right now, the remaining presence of significant Sadr Militia seems to be in the towns of Karbala and an Najaf. They are mixed in with the pilgrims that are observing Arbyeen. At this point, we don't want to go into those cities. We do have forces on the outskirts of both those cities. As and when necessary, as and when it makes sense, we will reestablish coalition control over those towns, reestablish Iraqi control over those towns.


WHITFIELD: At least one of the hostages recently taken by insurgents in Iraq has been released. The British Foreign Minitry says Gary Teeley is now free. Teeley was a contractor and he was captured last Thursday.

President Bush has awarded 10 Purple Hearts to soldiers wounded recently in Iraq. After attending Easter services at Ft. Hood, Texas, he visited with the soldiers who were recovering at an Army hospital there, saying it was quote, "a tough week," the president praised U.S. troops serving in Iraq.

I'm Fredericka Whitfield. All the days news at the top of the hour, now back to more of IN THE MONEY.

LISOVICZ: The Tyco mistrial still has a lot of people complaining about the jury system. But legal expert Alan Dershowitz thinks there were good things and bad things about the way things turned out. Mr. Dershowitz, of course, is a professor of law at Harvard University and the author of a new book, "America on Trial," which will be available on May 11.

Welcome back to the program.


LISOVICZ: I've read your article in "The Wall Street Journal." One thing I didn't know was that had the Tyco trial been held elsewhere, there would have been a conviction because it doesn't have to be a unanimous verdict.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right. Several years ago, the United States Supreme Court allowed various states, including Oregon, to have less than unanimous jury verdicts, nine to three verdicts, 10 to two verdicts. And many people feel that's in violation of the Constitution, because when the Constitution was written, the jury meant 12, and it meant unanimous. And some people were very suspicious that this nine-to-three verdict began to be introduced when more minorities and women started to serve on juries, in order to diminish the impact of minorities and women on jury verdicts. But in any event, the federal system and New York require unanimity. So when you even one juror holding out, that's a hung jury.

CAFFERTY: Alan, Jack Cafferty. This trial ended, sadly, because of the publication of the name of the woman known as juror No. 4. I believe in both "The Wall Street Journal" and in "The New York Post," much in defiance of custom, which is not to identify jurors in a trial. This thing cost somebody $12 million. I assume the taxpayers get stuck with the tab. What ought to happen to the news media in this case that were just -- couldn't have been any more irresponsible than to pull a stunt like this?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, I think there are two sides to this. You have at least one or two journalists saying that they saw her give a kind of OK sign. If that happened, that's a newsworthy event. And the public is entitled to know why somebody would give that kind of an OK sign. Of course, she denies it. The judge said it was ambiguous. Today's "Wall Street Journal," or Friday's "Wall Street Journal" has a series of letters in it from readers complaining bitterly to "The Journal" about its decision to name the person. And the marketplace applies. If you don't like your newspaper, you have a right to complain. But the law permits "The Wall Street Journal" to do this.

CAFFERTY: I understand it permits it, but it isn't just probably very good common sense. And letting her be known as juror No. 4, whether she flashed an OK sign or not, until the verdict came in, certainly wouldn't have harmed anyone, would it?

DERSHOWITZ: No, I don't think so. And especially -- you put your finger right on it. The issue is not whether to print her name, the issue is when to print her name. I mean, for example, if there was evidence that one juror was a holdout because the juror was a racist, or a sexist, or possibly subject to a bribe. Surely that would be an interest to the public and the public has the right to know it. But probably it's better for the journalists to withhold that information until after the case is over. And there's plenty of time then to do the investigation. But you know, with 24-hour-a-day cable, competition, everybody wants to be the first out with information that the public is anxious to hear. And then of course "The New York Post" ran with it, with headlines like "The Batty Blueblood" et cetera, et cetera. And that led people to call -- or at least one person to call and write a letter. And that's what actually precipitated the mistrial. That's the tragedy, that it ended as the result of external factors, not that it ended with a hung jury. That's would have been a perfectly legitimate resolution.

SERWER: Right. Professor Dershowitz, I want to change gears here and talk about jury selection. Some say this process has gotten perverted, the whole notion of defense and prosecution selecting and hand-picking. Some say, just get the first 12 people in who don't know the person. I mean, take the Michael Jackson case, which we might be seeing, how many people don't have an opinion about Michael Jackson? What's your take on that?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, nobody ever promised Americans a perfect trial. And when you're a celebrity, and everybody has a view of you, you can't get a perfect trial. The idea is to get the best possible trial. England has a different approach to this. They basically forbid virtually all newspaper coverage of an ongoing case, and then they do pick, not quite the first 12 they come across, but they have far, far less intrusive jury investigation and selection. But because we have an open press, and because we have so much attention, you really do have to inquire a little bit of the jury to find out if they're predetermined.

You go back to the earliest age of our history when Aaron Burr was put on trial -- a former vice president, the man who killed Hamilton, he was put on trial for treason. He virtually picked the 12 jurors who were first. And he asked many of them, he conducted his own voir dire, he said to them, and this is in my new book "America on Trial," he said to them, do you think I'm guilty? And most of them said, yes, sure, we read it in the newspaper, you're guilty. He said, fine, I want you on that jury, because I want to be able to prove that what you read in the newspaper isn't true, as long as you have an open mind. And he won his case.

CAFFERTY: Proving -- oh, he did win his case, I was going to say, that would lend some credence to that old line about an attorney who has himself for a lawyer or an idiot for a client.

DERSHOWITZ: He also had a very good lawyer.

CAFFERTY: How much harm would be done by keeping the media out of these criminal proceedings until the thing is over? I understand that the media would be the first to go screaming about our constitutional right, and freedom of the press, and yadda yadda yadda. But the fact of the matter is, there are things corrupting the system and making it more expensive and bulkier and more burdensome and troublesome than perhaps it need be.

DERSHOWITZ: I think if the press were kept out of a trial, or if the television were not allowed into the trial, it would be in many ways much worse, because judges behave much better when they're under public scrutiny. And juries aren't the problem here. In many instances, judges are the problem. Judges have political ambitions. they want to be liked by the governor or the president. They want to be promoted. They're often former prosecutors. And I think the media keeps them correct. And I think a little bit of public scrutiny in a democracy of the way one of the most important branches of our government operates, is a good thing which sometimes has bad effects. And in this case, clearly the combination of factors, mostly the revelation of the name which led then to the letters which led then to the mistrial, clearly was not the right way for the system to operate. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The jury system works effectively, if you believe better 10 guilty go free, than one innocent be wrongly confined. It's a very important check on government. The fact that we have 12 strangers come in, they form a unit, then they disappear.

What I don't like is jurors now writing books, because what I'm concerned about is jurors feeling they have a stake in one outcome. I don't want to have to hear about a juror who ever says, gee, I'd have a better book contract if I voted guilty, or if I voted not guilty, that would make a more interesting story. That would truly corrupt the system.

LISOVICZ: We're going to revisit that next time, because surely there's a lot more to talk about. Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, the author of a new book called "America on Trial: The Cases that Define Our History." Thanks for joining us.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you so much.

LISOVICZ: Up ahead on IN THE MONEY, blessed are the newsmakers. We'll ask the boss of what's driving the religion boom.

And the digital cop that guards your morning paper. Find out about software that can bust a plagiarist before the stolen goods get into print.


SERWER: For a 2000-year-old news story, Christianity is grabbing a lot of air time and headlines these days. everything from the front of "Time" magazine, that's a Time Warner property like us, to coverage of Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." But it's not just Christianity. Religion and spirituality of all kinds is booming. And Steven Waldman, the editor-in-chief of, is going to tell us what's up.

So Steven, is it really true that there is a resurgence of religious belief in this country and worldwide?

STEVEN WALDMAN, BELIEFNET.COM: I think actually the intensity of feeling about faith and spirituality has been pretty consistent for not only the last 10 years, but probably the last few thousand years. What I do think you're seeing, though, is the media and popular culture in general embracing religion on a very broad scale.

LISOVICZ: And that brings me to my question, Steven, because I am so late out of the gate. I'm finally reading "The Da Vinci Code." And everybody's been talking about "The Passion." But Catholic churches are actually hand handing out leaflets after Mass, a Catholic response to "The Da Vinci Code." So there is just all of this popular culture or popular media out there that are talking about different facets that in some cases we didn't know about, in some cases enlightening, in some cases not. What's your thinking on that?

WALDMAN: Well, "The Da Vinci Code" isn't even the best-selling religion book of the last year. There's another one called "The Purpose-Driven Life" that has sold way more than "The Da Vinci Code." So books, magazines, TV, movies. ABC News the other night had a three- hour prime time special on Jesus and Paul. All of the other networks have as well. It's really enormous. And it is kind of across the board. You see it most in Christian topics. But in Eastern religions there's a tremendous interest. Kabala, as I'm sure anyone who follows Madonna knows, is very popular as well.

CAFFERTY: Unfortunately, I can't have that discussion with you.


CAFFERTY: However, talk about the media driving an increased awareness of spirituality in this country, media tends to reflect what's going on in society. And what's going on in society is the biggest segment of the population, the Baby Boomers, are beginning to deal with their own mortality, which would seem to give, as a natural extension, rise to some increased awareness of things beyond our own mortal selves.

WALDMAN: I really think that is a lot of what's going on here. The Baby Boomers, as you said, the upper end of the range is dealing with their own mortality, themselves or their parents. The younger end of the range is getting married and having kids, which also forces you to deal with how you're going to raise them, how you're going to teach them values, and also just the miracle of having kids and raising them.

And so you have the pig and the python, so to speak, that part of the population that naturally is going to be more interested in spiritual matters is huge and moving into that realm.

SERWER: All right. So that explains why maybe popular culture is picking up more on religious themes these days, Steven. But I want to ask about fundamentalism. You're seeing a rise in fundamentalism across the globe. Obviously with Islam being a large part of what I'm talking about, what does that have to do with it?

WALDMAN: The rise of fundamentalism in the rest of the world seems to have more to do with the end of the Cold War and in general, a fear on their part of Western culture permeating and attacking their cultures. And so it's to some extent a reaction to that. So I think that's more the issue there than it is the aging of the Baby Boomers.

CAFFERTY: Steven, we're going to leave it there. I appreciate you joining us on the program. Steven Waldman is the CEO, editor-in- chief of BeliefNet. Thank you.

WALDMAN: My pleasure.

CAFFERTY: Lots more to come on this tidy little program, including guys like Jayson Blair copying other people's work. How do you go about catching them before they can do the damage? Well, there's a solution and we'll reveal what it is. It's not something college kids are going to want to hear about, however.

And we may not have any solutions to your problems, but at least we can listen. Don't expect solutions, that's not why we're here. You can e-you're your thoughts to

First, though, Susan has got this week's edition of "Money & Family."

LISOVICZ: April 15 is just around the corner. If you still haven't started your tax return, it's time to get going. Last week, we began discussing tax tips from the IRS that might take some of the pain out of the filing process. Here are a few more suggestions. First, if you have questions about your return, the IRS can help. By calling the IRS toll-free hotline, you can access messages on over 150 tax topics. If you need one-on-one assistance, the IRS has a staff help line that will be up and running through April 15.

Second, stop by the IRS office that's nearest to you. These offices provide free tax assistance. They can also help you find locations for volunteer income tax assistance and tax counseling for the elderly. To find the IRS location nearest you, contact the IRS toll-free help line.

Third, save time by filing your return online. The IRS e-file is the quickest and most accurate way to get your taxes done. And if you file online, you'll receive your tax return in half the time it would take if you had sent it in by mail.

I'm Susan Lisovicz for "Money & Family."


CAFFERTY: With all the plagiarism in newspaper journalism lately, news directors and newspaper editors need help making sure their reporters aren't stealing material. But never fear, the computer folks have just the thing for them. Our Web master Allen Wastler explains.

I've got a daughter in college who will be heartbroken to hear about this. Not suggesting that Lea isn't an honest person.

ALLEN WASTLER, MONEY.COM: This is just coming to light now. But actually since 1996, these programs have been around. They've been used mostly in college and universities. And now newspapers are saying, oh, can we borrow that for a minute? And what it is, is its software. iParadigms does one called iThenticate. But other outfits do it too, CFL, Glad (ph) and what-not. And what it does is, you know how you do keyword searches on search engines? It goes a little bit beyond that to make like a whole cyber fingerprint of a piece of work. And then it can take that and compare that through the Internet to different things and different databases and come up with rough matches to it. And you go, oh bingo. Aha, we want to talk to you about this little piece right here that you copied.

SERWER: Are editors really going to do that, I mean, spend the time to go through stories like that? WASTLER: Actually "USA Today" apparently used one of these programs to help on the Jack Kelly investigation.

SERWER: Right.

CAFFERTY: They may use it over at "The Times."

WASTLER: They probably should.

CAFFERTY: After Jayson Blair got through with them.

WASTLER: Apparently the software-makers are saying a lot of their new clients want, shhh, this is just between us that we're using this, OK, because they don't want a whole lot of publicity...

CAFFERTY: How about down there in Washington. They might be able to sell some of that software down there in Washington, Joe Biden, and some of those guys might...

WASTLER: I think it can have a lot of applications. And actually they did a survey of 30,000 college students, 36 percent of them admitted to some sort of cut and pasting type thing. You just saw Jayson Blair, too. They won a Pulitzer Prize this year, right? "The New York Times"? I think -- I was talking to a colleague. It should be like the NCAA. If you have that big a problem with the team, you shouldn't be in the competition. All right, for those college kids that are having so much fun, we've got Book-A-Minute Classics. OK? Why read the whole thing? We'll give you -- OK? Here, "The Sun Also Rises," by Ernest Hemingway. It was in Europe after the war, we were depressed, we drank a lot, we were still depressed. There, that's the book.

CAFFERTY: I like that.

WASTLER: "Beowulf." A wonderful epic, OK? Hey, let's build a big old dining hall, and call it Herot. Cool. Grendel comes, kills people, Beowulf kills Grendel, you rule, Beowulf, all right!

SERWER: It's like the Cliff's Notes of the Cliff's Notes, right?

LISOVICZ: You should teach literature.


CAFFERTY: What's the name of it?

WASTLER: It's Book-A-Minute Classics.

CAFFERTY: Book-a-Minute Classics. All right, thanks, Allen.

Well, we've heard what the legal experts have to say. What do you think about the jury system in this country? Coming up, we'll read some of your e-mails. that was our "Question of the Week." And if you want to weigh in on any other issues that may be troubling you, Bunky, the address is


CAFFERTY: Time now to get your thoughts on the American jury system and how to fix it, assuming you think it's broken.

Robert wrote this: "Let's create jobs and solve the jury problem all at once. It's time to have professional juries. Just imagine, a jury that understands things like DNA and evidence rules. But I realize this wouldn't be popular with lawyers who usually try to confuse juries." That's their job.

Lucy from Signal Mountain, Tennessee writes in with this: "It's getting more difficult to get a jury of one's peers and harder to get unbiased judgment. I'd prefer bench trials or have my fate determined by a legally trained panel."

And Larry from Princeton, Texas wrote this: "Why blame juries, when the Tyco case was declared a mistrial because of the media? After juror No. 4's name was revealed in the newspapers, the case was dead. Just like police immorality let O.J. go free, the media's immorality destroyed this case."

Time now for our e-mail question for this week. But let me just warn you, if you don't have anything nice to say we may not read your letter next week. "What is the next best move for the U.S. to make in Iraq?" Send your answers and other comments to

Also you can check out our show page at That's where you can learn more about the show, get the address of the fun site of the week.

Thank you for joining us for this edition of IN THE MONEY. Thanks to the regular gang, CNN financial correspondent Susan Lisovicz, "Fortune" Magazine editor-at-large Andy Serwer, and managing editor Allen Wastler.

Join us next week on Saturday at 1:00 Eastern time and Sunday at 3:00 Eastern. Or you can catch Andy and me all week long on "AMERICAN MORNING" which begins at 7:00 Eastern time.

Hope to see you at some point down the road. Until then, have a good week.


   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.