tv Piers Morgan Tonight CNN April 5, 2012 3:00am-4:00am EDT
>> tonight lawyers for the man who shot and killed traf an martin tell me what they think happened. then the other side, the martin's family attorney on why they think justice has not been served. then ted nugent defends the right of every american to pack and use guns. >> anybody that wants to disarm me and drop dead. we're going to vote you out of office. >> i'd love to suck on your machine gun. the whole point of your defense is that a lot of people do drop dead precisely because you are armed to the teeth. round two, coming up. and keeping america great, the success coach, the man in oprah's life, steadman graham. >> he's somebody who is willing to stand in and stand up for you. and of that's what love is. >> only in america, why women's place is taking the tea, not that tea. the augusta national. this is piers morgan tonight. >> good evening. our big story tonight, the battle over trayvon martin. was his death a crime or self-defense? attorneys for both sides will try to make their case tonight. motor city madman, ted nugent
with a feeling it might get as heated as it did the last time he was here. >> whenever i've done interviews with guys that are inclined to be anti-gun, they always go, well, nugent wants everybody to have a machine gun. >> what does nugent want? >> not even close. >> what do you want? >> what i want is the second amendment. we, the people, free individuals, to have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. find fault with that. >> ted nugent coming up later, but first the trayvon martin case. george zimmerman's attorneys join me now. gentlemen, thank you for joining me. you've been leading this defense of george zimmerman for a while. let me ask you a difficult question. your client's been subjected now to national attention, the likes of which very few people ever have to face. the vast majority of americans
believe that it would be in the interest of american justice if he was at least to be arrested and to be properly investigated, given that on the night itself, of this incident, neither of those things appear to have happened. do you believe that it might be in your client's best interest now if he was to turn himself in? >> well, first of all, there's no warrant for him to be arrested. so there's nobody to turn himself into. if and when this ask a warrant, he will turn himself in. we're keeping track of him. law enforcement is keeping track of him. he's not hiding out. he's hiding out from the people who are trying to kill him, actually. and at this point, there's an ongoing investigation. they're doing a thorough investigation. in cases like this, they don't just say -- -- so that gives law enforcement more time to investigate the case.
so justice is being done, and the investigation is being done, so there's not an issue there, i forget what the other part of your question was. >> well, i think you've pretty well answered it it. in the case of just being done, isn't the problem is that justice has not been seen to be done properly. in the sense that george zimmerman was allowed to go home, having used a firearm to kill an unarmed teenager. and most americans believe that that was fundamentally not justice being served. >> well, justice is not being served because all the facts of that night have not been brought out. not a single thing has been brought into the media that would be admissible in court. all those facts need to be brought out and justice being done, there's been no justice for george zimmerman. he's been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion
based on facts that are not even true. things that don't add up, that don't make sense. when all the facts come out, when the police finish their investigation, you will see that george zimmerman was acting in self-defense that night. >> let me put to you some facts which i believe are facts, but you can certainly query that if you want to. one, george zimmerman was not supposed to be carrying a gun while operating as a neighborhood watch official. would you accept that as a fact? >> george zimmerman was on his way to the store, and he was allowed to legally carry a gun with him because he had a concealed weapons permit when he went to the store that night. >> but if he was actingsa a neighborhood watch official, then you would accept as a fact that he should not have been carrying a weapon, or, indeed, using it?
>> the one thing we know as a fact is that george zimmerman was attacked by trayvon martin. he was punched in the nose, his head was beaten on the ground. and he acted in self-defense when trayvon martin was shot. >> but they are sup zition, not facts. that's not a fact. that's supposition based on what george zimmerman has told you and told police. but in terms of factual evidence, that's still not clear. it's not factual evidence yet. >> that's right. that's why i'm telling everyone to wait before you rush to judgement. wait till the facts come in. wait till this case goes to court. wait till the facts come in. admissible evidence in court, not what's admissible evidence in public opinion because what's admissible in public opinion are doctored 911 tapes and whatever anyone else wanted to say about george zimmerman. it's been open season on destroying this man's credibility, destroying who he
was. he can no longer go back to the person he was, being involved in his community, mentoring children. you've destroyed him -- the media has destroyed him unfairly. and the conclusions you're drawing in your questions to me show that you've already reached that same conclusion too. what i want you to do and america to do, is to step back, use your cool head and listen to the facts. listen to what comes out. listen to what the police investigation shows. i think when you do that, you will see that george zimmerman acted in self-defense. >> right. the 911 operator that he spoke to, told him not to follow trayvon martin. yet he did. do you accept that as a fact? >> no, they did not. absolutely not. that's not a fact. >> okay. how are you -- >> and that's the way it's been spun. that's the way it's been spun, but that's not what the operator said.
they asked, are you following him? he said yes. the operator said, we don't need you to do that. now, the way that's been repeated is, he was ordered not to do that. words mean things. >> it means the same thing. >> no, it's not the same thing. for you to suggest that he's not entitled to have a fire department with him that he's licensed to carry because while he was on the way to the store, he noticed someone and undertake the responsibility of watch captain, to call the police and report it is absolutely ludicrous. >> let me stop you there. let me stop you right there. that's very interesting. so what you're saying to me is that he was acting, once he made that call to the police, to the 911, he was then acting as a neighborhood watch official? do you accept that? is that what you're saying? >> i'll accept that he was acting as a responsible citizen who happened to be the one that the newsletter for that community says, if you see something suspicious, called george zimmerman. but the fact that he notices
something while he's armed doesn't require him to put his gun in the trunk. it doesn't require a different set of rules. and by the way, he's legally entitled to defend himself. >> but he's not allowed to carry a gun as a neighborhood watch official. >> you're wrong. >> when he made the call to 911 -- well, i'm not wrong. that is the law, isn't it? >> you are wrong. you are wrong. i don't know who's talking to you about the law, but you're wrong. there's nothing in the law that says if you act as a neighborhood watch captain -- >> right. they can all go up with firearms, can they? >> absolutely. you may have a hand book that suggests that you don't, but to say it's illegal to do so, it a misstatement of the law. let me suggest something to you. it is a terrible tragedy that trayvon martin is dead. his parents are suffering unimaginable grief. that's not being helped by people coming to town, telling false hoods to raise racial
strife. that morning we had a peaceful community with blacks and whites, didn't think that we had a problem. after some folks came to down and made irresponsible speeches about murder and racial profiling, he's not a racist, it wasn't profiling. the reason trayvon martin is dead is not because he was black or wearing a hoodie or walking in the rain. it's because that 6'3" young man made a terrible decision when he decided to smack somebody in the face and break their nose, jump on them and smack their head into the ground and in doing that, put him in reasonable fear for his safety. you're going to find that there was a dispute as to what happened with the gun. he was entitled to defend himself. that's why trayvon martin is dead, not because of racial profiling. >> well, i've not suggesting racial profiling or that your client was a racist. nor am i trying to convict him. my view has been, it seems
incomp hencible to me under any law that somebody could shoot somebody who turned out to be unarmed and not even being arrested on the night. in britain where i come from, that would cause a sensation the likes of which our justice system has never seen before. florida clearly believes it's the right way forward. i don't think it is. however, understand one thing clearly, i'm not trying to convict your client. i want justice to see its course. the argument against what's happened here with your client is that on the night, the investigation was basically concluded and he was sent home because there was no evidence to disprove george zimmerman's story, that he had been acting in self-defense. the reason i wanted you guys on tonight was precisely to try to talk through some of the developments in factual information or otherwise, to try to get a clearer picture of exactly what we're dealing with here.
i would argue back to both of you, you've both been just as emotive in stating what you believe to be facts as other people have been on trayvon martin's side. >> as have you. >> i'm not sure that does the attorneys a lot of credit, frankly. >> let me suggest a difference president people who have been emotive at these rallies, were not there, and have not spoken to anybody who was there. the sole eyewitness to this, the only eyewitness who talked to the police that night, gave them his statement, said that he saw george martin on the ground, crying for help, being beaten by trayvon martin. that's not a supposition. that's a fact. you can choose your opinion, but you can't choose your facts. we're going to find the facts when the investigation is entirely completed. neither the sanford police department or the special prosecutor owe you or mow or the public the luxury of giving us every little fact as they do their investigation. when they're done, we'll find
out how those facts apply to the law, the florida law, not the united kingdom or ireland or with one of the other 28 states that don't have that law. the legislature have decided it's not ludicrous. the people elected to pass these laws have decided it makes sense. it doesn't have to make sense to you. it makes sense to them, and it's the law. >> let's try to get to the factual detail. when i interviewed george's brother, he told me he had sustained a broken nose, and it was still broken today. is that true and if so, why don't you simply release an x-ray of the broken nose to corroborate that? part of the problem you've been facing in perception is that there doesn't appear to have been much sign of serious injury. if you released a picture, an
x-ray of george zimmerman's nose broken, that would be helpful to your case, i would argue. >> first of all, he's already been tried and convicted in the media. we're going to try this case in court. all that evidence will be presented at that time. but not here and not tonight and not on this program. >> right. but you can state as a fact that his nose is broken? >> i can state as a fact that his nose is broken. but for me to establish it, and to have it admitted in court, that is not going to happen tonight because this is not a courtroom. you're not a judge. we're not operating under the rules of evidence under the state of florida. you're trying to get me to litigate this case right now. as i've said many times, we're not going to litigate this case in the public media. this is going to be litigated if at all in the courts of the state of florida. >> actually you've been litigating the case.
that's the point. you have been litigating a set of what you believe to be facts. you believe that george zimmerman didn't defy instructions from the 911 operator not to follow trayvon martin. you believe that he was set upon by trayvon martin, beaten so badly that he feared for his life, even though trayvon martin and the people acting for him is that your client followed him and gets instructions from the 911 operator and that maybe some altercation took place, but trayvon martin was unarmed and had been to a store to buy skittles and take them back to his father's house. he had every right and expectation to get back to his father's house. instead he was shot dead. and you, in your way, i would argue are litigating the defense for your client without the facts. these aren't facts you're giving me about the fight and what
happened. they are your supposition. >> let me stop you there. >> they are what you believe to have happened. >> that's the evidence that's been released from the police department. that's as close to fact as we have right now. but i'm confident when the rest of the facts and i'm more able to show it in a court of law, through admissible evidence, that it will show that george zimmerman was acting in self-defense and all the things that you're stating, well, he went to the -- he went to the 7-11 to get skittles, that wasn't in the police report. >> wait a minute, wait a minute, sorry, i have to jump -- >> are you going to keep interrupting me? >> let me just jump in there? of course it's not in the police report. trayvon martin was dead. how could it it be in the police report that he'd gone to buy skit ils? >> that's right.
it's not in the police report. that's not been released as a fact. the only things i've stated are things that have been released as facts from the authorities. when this case goes to trial, you will see george zimmerman acted in self-defense. and the rest of what you're telling me, do you have some other questions for us so we can move on? >> i do, do. let me ask you, why don't you aquantity me with the american legal process then. is it a fact that your client has told his version of events to the police, and that actually that is what you're basing factual evidence on, the word of george zimmerman zim to the police on the night? you have no other factual evidence to support the fact that he had been set upon by trayvon martin, do you? it is the word of your client to the police unless i'm wrong.
>> you are wrong. let me try to put this in context. first of all, his statement shouldn't be discounted immediately just because he's the one that you'd like to have convicted. second of all, we have an eyewitness. if he wasn't set upon, we have an eyewitness that says that trayvon martin was on top of him, peting him in the face, that he was on the ground crying for help. it's a fact that that statement was made. whether it's a fact or not if he's telling the truth, it's a fact. if he's telling a lie, tts not. but one thing is certain, no one came out that night and no one has come out since tho indicate that they saw this physical altercation started by george zimmerman. that's the supposition you'd like to go with. >> you keep putting words into my mouth. i'm not saying that. >> you started it. >> as far as i'm aware, there is no eyewitness that has seen trayvon martin, an eyewitness that saw trayvon martin land the first blow, is there? >> sir, i will tell you there is
evidence that will come out in a court of law, that will be admissible that will show this. let's stop litigating it. do you have another question for us? he wasn't arrested that night because based on the police investigation they didn't find probable cause to arrest him. that's what happened. is there another question that you have? >> one final question. very important sirk circles. i think the pair of you telling me that i'm trying to convict your client is a massive misreading of the truth. i'm trying to get to the truth. do you expect george zimmerman to be arrested imminently? >> no. what is imminently? how soon is that? >> in the next few days, next couple of weeks? >> i would say certainly not in the next few days. >> right.
but is there anyone expectation that at some stage george zimmerman will be arrested on your side? >> if the grand jury hears all the evidence that we know to exist and they apply the law as it exists in florida, then he will not be arrested in the next few days or weeks or ever. they'll make the determination that all of the evidence, forensic and otherwise, is consistent with his explanation of self-defense. that's what florida law calls for. it doesn't call for arrest them and make them prove their innocence in court. >> i understand that, but as far as british law is concerned, if this had happened in britain, there would be no stand your ground defense and he would have been arrested. i'm more comfortable with the way we do things. but gentlemen, thank you very much for your time. >> sure. >> when we get back, i'll get to trayvon martin's reaction to that extraordinary encounter.
>> i believe that george zimmerman hunted my son like an ap mal, tried to detain my son. my son tried to get away, and because he could not detain my son, an altercation ensued and my son was shot and killed. >> trayvon martin's mother told me last week about what she thinks happened the night her son was killed.
ben krump, attorney for the martin family. i'm sure you were listening there to my interview with the two attorneys for george zimmerman. it got heated. some strange supposition on their side that i was trying to convict george zimmerman. i'm just trying to get to the truth. when you listened to what they said, what was your reaction? >> well, obviously, they did not want to look at the facts that have been released by the police department, the fact that it is highly unusual that someone can kill someone in cold blood and that person not be armed and george zimmerman has a nine millimeter gun. even the 911 call, there are several facts that are going to come into this trial. if george zimmerman, this armed vigilante is arrested for
killing trayvon martin. the problem is, he has not been arrested. they talk about trying it in the media and have him cry on some rallies, i submit to you, had it not been for the nationwide outrage, his death would have been swept under the rug. when tracy martin called me, i believe in my heart of hearts, i told them, you don't need me. he's going to be arrested. a neighborhood watch volunteer with a nine millimeter gun, kills your unarmed teenager, and you don't think he's going to be arrested. i said, he has to be. >> tell me this. one of my points of contention with the attorneys for george zimmerman was that they clearly believe that from the moment he made the call to the 911, he was acting as a neighborhood watch. my understanding is that neighborhood watch people are not supposed to be armed. they clearly think it's
perfectly okay, that he could become a neighborhood watch official in that time frame and still have this weapon on him that he can use to kill somebody. clear that up for me legally. >> there is no neighborhood watch organization, auxilary or anything that will tell you that a neighborhood watch volunteer should carry a nine millimeter gun, or carry any kind of armed weapon. in fact, it's the direct opposite, to say that you are not to carry a gun or any other kind of weapon. you're simply supposed to do what the words say, neighborhood watch. you see something, you call the police. you let the authorities handle it. had george zimmerman simply done this, this would have never happened. he would be going about his life. more importantly trayvon martin would be living to pursue his dreams and his life goals.
and his mother and father wouldn't be grieving and really not even have the time to grief because they have to push for him to be arrested. >> let me jump in. let me be fair and balanced about this, because let's assume for argument's sake here, that george zimmerman in defiance of the instructions he was given by the 911 operator, begins to follow trayvon martin. he then says, he lost track of him and began to walk back to his vehicle. and at that point, trayvon martin attacked him, wrestled him to the ground, was punching him repeatedly and he feared for his life. could that actually be what happened? could trayvon martin have been so unnerved and scared by what was going on that he did defend himself, exercising, many would argue, his own right to stand his own ground, his own right to
self-defense, and got in first against somebody who was following him, who he may have been was armed, had no identification as a neighborhood watch or anything else. could it be that he did attack and jump on george zimmerman? >> well, i don't think we can say attacked. we could say he defended himself because trayvon martin had every right to defend himself against george zimmerman who approached him. george zimmerman didn't have a badge or anything official. he had on a sweatshirt and some jeans. we've all seen the video now. we believe trayvon martin went to his death not knowing who this strange man was that was approaching him. i want to clear one thing up, piers. you have to really, really use your common sense. he says, going back to his vehicle and that's why he's attacked. the problem with that is, where trayvon martin's body is found
is many, many yards away from his vehicle. it supports the contention that he had pursued trayvon martin. trayvon martin was about 70 yards from the back door of his father's girlfriend's house. he was almost home. what do they find? the lawyers made a big point of saying we don't know what he went to the store for. they found a bag of skittles and a can of arizona iced tea. that is in the report. it was found in his possession. >> let me jump in again. >> okay. >> on the florida stand your ground law, if we assume that george zimmerman is telling the truth and that he was heading back to his vehicle and trayvon perhaps freaked by what was happening, attacked him, and a fight ensued, and he got on top of him and was beating him repeatedly, is it possible under the law that is particular to florida, under the stand your
ground law, that that created a set of circumstances where george zimmerman, fearing that he may be under threat to his life, was able, under the law, to pull his gun out and use it? can you accept that that could be a possibility? >> certainly that's what he wants to assert, but we have george zimmerman's version and factually it just doesn't work for george zimmerman. when you look at the objective facts, not what he's saying, but the objective facts, like if he's at his car, how does trayvon martin get those hundred yards away or so to be in the backyard of mary kuchins' house dead? if trayvon martin attacked him at his car and it's just not logical. we hear the 911 tapes. it connects the dots. the other thing is, he's on the phone with a young lady,
talking, and it is clear that if he's on the phone at 7:12, that call lasts for four minutes. george zimmerman calls 911 at 7:11. we're trying to find out where is it where all those things that trayvon has supposedly said to him, why isn't that recorded anywhere? that's george zimmerman's word and nobody else. and one more important fact. when you think about this self-defense claim, you've heard his father say his head was beat into the concrete repeatedly over a minute, and then his nose was broke. that videotape, i submit to you, was taken about 35 minutes later, and you know, they tried to enhance it, and try to find a cut on his head, but how bad is it, if they didn't even put a bandaid on it, piers? how much force was asserted? why didn't he go to the hospital if he was beat up that bad?
it's one of those things, trayvon martin is dead. he is dead. and you are saying to everybody in the world, i had to kill him because he had busted my head and broke my nose. so we're trying to look at that and it doesn't appear to be there. we are not asking that he is convicted. we only want to have him arrested, so we will have our day in court, and this won't be swept under the rug. that's just simple justice. that is all his mother and father have asked for from the very beginning. you beg the question that, why is it this double standard with trayvon martin give -- would trayvon martin been given this consideration had he been the trigger man? >> we'll have to leave it there. and trayvon martin is the one who lost his life and that should never be forgotten. thank you for joining me.
him for joining me tonight. last time we were having a jockular debate about all this. but this is too serious for all that. you've heard the attorneys on both sides there. what do you make of this case in its entirety? >> well, first of all, thanks for going after this very tragic situation, piers, and thank you for having me on, but let me clarify one thing. very important that you alluded to earlier in your program that you believe that the vast majority of americans want zimmerman arrested. let me tell you what the vast majority of americans want. we're saying prayers for the martin family and all the other black youths that are slaughtered every week, those are the people we cry out for. so be careful what you assume. those of us that love life and respect life, we don't see any color. but we wonder where the outcry is when every week these youths are slaughtered across the streets of america.
so that's the most important statement i want to make right here. >> look, there are always, with all these cases, enewhamerable other cases that can be thrown in, why don't you care as much about that? the reality of this case is that i believe it's popped in america as a big cause because of the precise nature of what happened after trayvon martin was killed. that is this extreme version of stand your ground. you have to use that phrase because it is in florida. it's particularly wide-ranging and it has allowed a situation where somebody can shoot an unarmed teenager and be allowed to go home that night without even being arrested. that's why i understand people feeling exercised about why he wasn't arrested on the night. shouldn't he have been? even for someone like you that believes in right to bear arms? shouldn't he have been arrested? >> you saw the tape. i saw the tape where he was handcuffed, piers. that's arrested. he was arrested.
he was questioned. the stand your ground law does have specific ramifications. but i want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of that you said earlier. you don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground you referenced your homelands of england where if someone invades your home, an english homeowner has to retreat. i offer to you that that's anti-human, that disrespects the gift of life and encourages criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground. piers, you're in america now and we have a second amendment right and we value life more than sheep do and we don't back down. so the stand your law is common sense, logical, and it's the right thing to do. >> right. but american has 270 million guns by common estimation. britain, i think has about two million. >> i think more than that. >> well, maybe more than that.
okay. the last record said 9,484 homicides involving guns in the last year recorded. britain had 68. i suppose my point is this. i don't defend all the laws in britain, many of them are ridiculous. i don't defend or attack all the laws in america. to me some are ridiculous, some are fair and balanced. it's a great country with a great legal system. but on the stand your ground law income, it seems to me, unbelievable that a young, unarmed teenager in america today, can be shot dead for possession of a bag of skittles, on his way home to his father's girlfriend's house. my point was, when they were mocking british law, by the way, they started this. i said back in britain, that wouldn't have happened. you couldn't do that without being arrested and almost certainly charged. now i think many americans -- let's not say the majority, but
many americans feel uncomfortable that this could happen in modern america and that george zimmerman would be allowed to go home that night when trayvon martin goes to a coffin. >> piers, you have expressed that you don't want to try this on television. i also do not want to try this on television. i think we both agree that there's a tragedy, that it is being tried and that zimmerman has been convicted across the media in many instances. so let's not do that here. let me propose a scenario they think you can grasp and support. you must be aware and if not i'll inform you now, how many professional law enforcement heroes are killed every year with their own weapon. i'm not juxtaposing this with the trayvon and the zimmerman situation. but it does happen where an assaultant will start beating a person so badly that those of us that are armed, we have a responsibility to keep that new assault from taking our weapon because if the assault escalates
to that degree, certainly the fist can go into a deadly situation if they get a hold of the gun bearer's gun. we have to be cognizant of that. if it wasn't for backup guns in law enforcement and civilians hands that the perpetrator and the person getting beat up and killed with his own gun. so let's not dismiss that reality that sell documented over and over again across this country. >> but do you believe that a neighborhood watch official acting in that capacity should be armed and using that firearm? >> yes. >> okay. well, ted, we'll agree to disagree over that. i hope we can do that again in an extended way soon because your opinions are always very interesting to hear. thank you for joining me. >> thank you, piers. my family sends their best and our prayers are with the martin family. next, oprah steadman stops by.
♪ why do you whisper, green grass? ♪ [ all ] shh! ♪ why tell the trees what ain't so? ♪ [ male announcer ] dow solutions use vibration reduction technology to help reduce track noise so trains move quieter through urban areas all over the world. together, the elements of science and the human element can solve anything. [ all ] shh! [ male announcer ] solutionism. the new optimism. how they'll live tomorrow. for more than 116 years, ameriprise financial has worked for their clients' futures. helping millions of americans retire on their terms. when they want. where they want. doing what they want. ameriprise. the strength of a leader in retirement planning. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you one-to-one. together for your future. ♪
your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's new glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have 6 grams of sugars. with 15 grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight. [ male announcer ] new glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. the sleep number bed. the magic of this bed is that you're sleeping on something that conforms to your individual shape. wow! that feels really good. you can adjust it to whatever your needs are. so whatever you feel like, the sleep number bed's going to provide it for you. now, sleep number redefines memory foam, combining coolfit gel foam with sleep number adjustability! during our white sale, receive $400 in free bedding. only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699.
>> i think it comes down to one word, which is race. i know in my life i've been defined by the color of my skin. so i teach identity because i've discovered it's not about the color of your skin. it's about who you are and it's about being able to develop yourself, take information, make it relevant to your life, to your skills, and then naf gat the system of socially constructed messages and boxes that keep you sometimes from having the opportunity because of the color of your skin. so the message here tonight is not -- it's not how other people define you. it's really how you define yourself. the question is, do you have the tools, and can you navigate the sometimes systemic process put in place to keep certain people down? can you navigate that system to be able to self-actualize your potential as a human being? that not only applies to race. it applies to gender, to relationships, as people try to put me in a box.
it applies to your parents if they gave you a message and put you in a box because of that. you're defined by your house, your car, your job, all of those things. so again, the question is it's not how other people define you, it's do you have the tools to define yourself and to benefit from the american freedom process and what this world has to offer. >> what do you believe has gone fundamentally wrong with the american business model? >> well, i think we're stuck in a box doing the same thing over and over every single day. so if you did the same thing as you did yesterday, as you will do tomorrow and the next day, what have you done? nothing. the system is set up for tasks. in educational system, if i ask a student what they learn, they probably say i forgot. so if you're doing the same thing over every day, which is not much, everything you learn, which is not much, you lose
control of your ability to self-actualize your talents and skills. and you end up, just not being able to transform from a follower to a leader, from a slave mentality to an owner, from a consumer, to a producer. so what happens when we have this new world or whatever, we have this new normal, and the world is getting larger and we're getting smaller. we lose control of our lives because we can't innovate, we can't create and people become enslaved to the lack of ownership in their own development because they're not actually thinking. our school system doesn't teach us how to think. we're stuck in the robotic way of living, doing the same thing over and over and we're stuck in these boxes. then we're socially -- in these socially constructed boxes that teach us that we have to be programmed based on the box we're in.
>> the premise of your book, the passport to success, do you believe enough americans take personal responsibility these days, for their lives, for their careers, for their economic stability and so on? >> well, we don't really know how to do that. that's why i wrote this book because i've been searching for this all my life, how to become equal. you're not going to become equal asking for equality. you're not going to become i quality asking for freedom. on the inside and developing yourself and educating yourself and a taking charge of your development. so that you are able to take information, education, make it relevant to your purpose in life, transfer it back to your mind so you're able to think and then transfer it to the american free enterprise system to create your own. we near the 21st century today. this is a period of ownership. it's a period of
self-development. it's a period of leadership, entrepreneurship and creating small businesses and taking charge of your open development. again, the basis of that is having an identity which allows you to again work on your talents, work on your skills, work on your passions, focus on what you love and there's no better time than the time we live in today to be able to do that. >> well, a fascinating book. i shall be working to work out my identity which is taking a bit of a whacking tonight, but debate is healthy in the modern world. thank you for joining me, stedman. >> thank you for having me. coming up, only in america, the masters and augusta's outrageous refusal to let won in the club. polar shifts will re the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space. which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd,
aspercreme. well, tonight, the green jackets, the headline is about gender, not golf. the famed tournament is hosted by the augusta national. a notoriously private club, but only began allowing black members in 1990. that was bad enough, but still light years ahead when it comes to woman's rights because it's still incredibly refuses to let women become members. an archaic act that faces the first serious challenge. here's the problem for the sexist augusta male pigs. traditionally they have made the ceo of the long-time sponsor ibm an automatic member. the last four ceos got handed that famed emerald blazer. but they were all men. this year, she's a woman, virginia rometty.
it's causing all sorts of psychological hell for the augusta national's chairman, billy payne. he can't bring himself to say if he's ready to let ms. rometty in or not. >> well, as has been the case, mike, whenever that question is asked, all issues of membership are now and have been historically subject to the private deliberations of the members and that statement remains accurate and remains my statement. >> not a hard question, unless you're a decaying old dinosaur. shame on you, president billy payne, and shame on the other people too. the male players who still turn up for the event, but make no complaint about the no women ban. the male fan to hoot and holler about a two-foot putt. not about an issue that should offend their very senses and shame on the male executives at