updated 11/30/2005 5:50:06 PM ET 2005-11-30T22:50:06

Guest: Tim Kane, Mike Allen, Bruce Friedrich, Max Kellerman, Alex Boese

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”:  That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Thanks for being with us.  Tucker Carlson is up right now with THE SITUATION. 

Hey, Tucker, what‘s THE SITUATION?

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Well, Joe, many situations.  I appreciate the lead-in.  Thank you. 

Thanks to all of you at home for sticking with us.  We always appreciate it. 

Tonight, we‘ll debate an outrageous new PETA ad, entitled, “Your Daddy Kills Animals.”  It warns kids to protect their kittens and their puppies against fathers who love to fish. 

Also, we tell you about a lawsuit against Coca-Cola that could have school kids around the country up in arms. 

Plus, the greatest hoaxes of all time.  Does Bigfoot exist?  Did Mikey from those old Life cereal commercials really die from mixing Pop Rocks and soda?  We have the answers, and we reveal them in just a few minutes.

But we begin with new information that shoots down the myth, yes, the myth of the underprivileged American soldier.  On the same day President Bush was heckled by about 100 anti-war protesters at an event in Denver, Colorado, the Heritage Foundation in Washington released new data that shows pretty conclusively that the typical recruit is wealthier and better educated than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen.  This contradicts, of course, claims made for years that America‘s wars are fought by America‘s poor. 

Here to discuss these findings is Tim Kane.  He‘s an Air Force veteran and a research scholar at the Heritage Foundation.  Mr. Kane recently wrote about this in “USA Today.”  He joins us live tonight from Washington. 

Mr. Kane, thanks a lot for coming on. 

TIM KANE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION:  Hi, Tucker.  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  This, I think, is going to be hard for many to believe after, really, decades of propaganda about how enlisted men join the military because they have no options.  Were you surprised to find that that‘s not true?

KANE:  Well, I was a little surprised.  The reason I wanted to do the research was just based on personal experience in the military.  I know these troops.  They‘re smart guys, and that‘s the military we need now.  People that can make judgments in small teams. 

But I was honestly surprised when the data finally got sorted out.  It took us months to sift through it all.  We did find out that there are more recruits coming from wealthy areas into the enlisted corps, than from the poorest areas in America. 

And we found that the military looks a lot like America.  It‘s just a little bit smarter.  It comes from a little bit wealthier neighborhood.  But these are good kids.  It really isn‘t the sort of victim that the left wants to make out in their anti-war propaganda. 

CARLSON:  But I mean, it seems to me that the stereotypes, however unfair they may be, have roots in something.  I mean, this is such kind of widely accepted... 

KANE:  Sure. 

CARLSON:  ... idea, that the troops join out of desperation.  Where did it come from?

KANE:  Well, troops used to join because they were forced to.  For hundreds of years, the military pulled up the dregs of society and used men as cannon fodder. 

That really changed in America in the 1970‘s.  The military got burned by Vietnam.  They realized the draft was incredibly unpopular among the troops themselves.  And the all volunteer force has been this fantastic success. 

So there‘s a generational divide.  People from an older generation, some think the draft was a good idea.  Some think it wasn‘t.  But that‘s still how they characterize the troops themselves, and that‘s just not our military. 

CARLSON:  Well, I notice the Pentagon doesn‘t seem to think much of the draft.  You‘ve seen these calls in the last couple of years...

KANE:  Right.

CARLSON:  ... notably from Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York, to

re-institute the draft.  His argument is only poor people serve.

KANE:  Yes.

CARLSON:  The draft would force kind of an equality among the troops.  And the Pentagon in each case, each time brings this up, issues a statement saying, “We don‘t want the draft.”  Why wouldn‘t the Pentagon want the draft?

KANE:  Well, the all-volunteer force works.  We can argue perhaps that the military needs more troops, more troops in Iraq to be successful, but they need to be volunteers.  And they are right now.  So that‘s why the military takes that stance.

But I think for Congressman Rangel to come up with his statement that he‘s been making without factual basis, he needs to be called on it, and so do the other journalists that are writing that the military is filled with these poor victims; they don‘t have options.  That‘s just not true. 

The kids going into the military, the men and women going in the military, are incredibly talented.  They have tons of options.  And we should be honored that they‘re serving us. 

CARLSON:  But they‘re not from the same pool that produces America‘s newspaper columnists and news directors, I noticed.  It turns out a lot of people in the press just don‘t know any people in the services.  I think that has something to do with it. 

Here‘s an interesting, very interesting line from your study.  You say that the average soldier is more privileged than the civilian counterparts, the average anyway, but that since September 11, quote, “More volunteers have emerged from the middle and upper classes, and fewer from the lowest income groups.  Since 2001, enlistments have increased in the top 2/5 of income levels but have decreased among the lower fifth.”  Why is that?

KANE:  Well, the military did change its marketing.  It stopped talking about all the good economic benefits, and they started talking a lot more about patriotism.  But we can really only guess at the psychological motivations. 

The fact is that there are more recruits enlisting from the wealthiest neighborhoods in America than from the poorest neighborhoods.  And we can talk why until we‘re blue in the face, but the all-volunteer force is working.  Maybe they need to expand it a little bit, but it‘s not a—it‘s not a force made up of victims. 

CARLSON:  Interesting.  The Pentagon does no studies on this.  I mean, it seems like—I mean, the Pentagon studies everything, so far as I can tell. 

KANE:  Right.

CARLSON:  I‘m surprised they haven‘t been putting these numbers out themselves, because they make the military look more impressive than many people believe it is. 

KANE:  They do some work.  I don‘t think they‘ve done this exhaustive a study, focused as we did.  In fact, there are some competing studies out there that say different things, take different positions, but they tend to look at small samples. 

We looked at every recruit in ‘99 and every recruit in 2003.  So we‘re not hiding anything, and what we found was there was a pretty tremendous shift after 9/11, that you pointed out.  Not only are there tremendous amounts of troops coming from the richer areas, but it got more intense.  It was the biggest upsurge, the biggest, you‘d say, patriotic response, came from the two wealthiest quintiles. 

CARLSON:  That is so interesting.  Tim Kane from the Heritage Foundation in Washington.  It‘s really useful to know, and appreciate you coming on. 

KANE:  You bet.  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  We‘ll continue the debate now with Rachel Maddow, who beginning January 2, takes over the morning drive slot—that‘s 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.—on Air America radio. 

Congratulations, Rachel. 

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST:  Thank you.  I‘m very excited about it.

CARLSON:  So who‘s your co-host on this show?

MADDOW:  That would be me. 

CARLSON:  Just you?

MADDOW:  Just me.

CARLSON:  Alone.  Rachel Maddow for two hours. 

MADDOW:  Canadian football, for 120 minutes every day in drive time. 

It‘s going to be outstanding. 

CARLSON:  All the Rachel you can handle and more, outstanding.  That‘s really excellent.

MADDOW:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  I won‘t be up, but I know many of my left wing friends will be.  So I hope you do great.

MADDOW:  I will tape it for you.  Don‘t worry, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  I think this is a big deal, this story.  I can bet you we‘re the only show in all of television leading with this story tonight.

MADDOW:  Yes.

CARLSON:  But it‘s just one of those myth busters that, even if I didn‘t agree with it, I would still be really interested in it.  Because I think it says something kind of important. 

Nobody in the mainstream criticizes the troops, even people who hate the war.  I‘m not war the war, and I don‘t criticize troops.  No one will actually criticize the troops in public.

My theory is people pity the troops because they think they were driven to the service by desperation, and they also feel guilty, because they think, you know, if they weren‘t so privileged, they might be in the same position as the troops. 

It turns out, according to these numbers, which seemed accurate to me, believable to me, that the troops by and large are more privileged than their civilian counter-parts.  Doesn‘t this sort of give lie to the idea it‘s a pitiable group that joins the military?

MADDOW:  Well, I mean, I don‘t think that—I don‘t know anybody who pities the troops.  I mean, I think people support the troops and people are concerned when they find out about military recruiting scandals.  There have been some scandals about recruiters falsifying people‘s diplomas and drug tests and stuff.  And so that‘s a concern, but that doesn‘t mean that you think that the recruiters are preying on vulnerable individuals. 

CARLSON:  Wait a minute.  The city of San Francisco, board of supervisors, voted in the last election, just earlier this month, to symbolically, anyway, bar recruiters from San Francisco schools, because the idea they were preying on these weak and helpless kids who were too poor, too bereft of options, to know better, and they were going to join kind of against their wills because they couldn‘t get a job. 

MADDOW:  I don‘t think that‘s the same thing.  I mean, military recruiting is a—and cultural attitudes toward it are a complicated thing. 

But I do think the fact that there have been military recruiting scandals where recruiters have berated kids in ways that are illegal, that have falsified documents, that have falsified drug tests, that have falsified high school diplomas, that plays into some of that.  That‘s the other side of the debate.  So I just don‘t want you to mischaracterize the other side of the recruitment debate.

But what I think is interesting about bringing up the Heritage Foundation study, this guy Tim Kane who you just spoke with, is that this is kind of a dueling studies story.  What he‘s criticizing in this “USA Today” piece is a study by the National Priorities Project, based in Northampton, Massachusetts, near where I live.  And they looked at the same Pentagon data, and they came up with slightly different conclusions.  They both said—and Tim Kane says, “National Priority Project, their data is accurate, but I come to a different analysis on it.” 

CARLSON:  Well, he says that they actually looked at samples within the data set, and he looked at the entire data set.  He said he looked at every enlistee, every volunteer, for the years 1999 and 2003. 

MADDOW:  But if you listed—this is why—this is why I don‘t think we should be talking about this as the lead story today, and I think we should be talking about Duke Cunningham resigning instead. 

CARLSON:  Which is—we‘re due to talk about later in the show.  It‘s an interesting story. 

MADDOW:  But the reason I think is because if you listen to what Tim Kane said, he was talking about how the lowest quintile and the highest quintile, you compare them, there‘s more from that.  Fine, he‘s spinning the data in a specific way. 

But if you look at what the National Priorities Project said, which is what he‘s attacking, two-thirds of all recruits, everybody, no weird sample, nothing done wrong in the sample, he admits the data are accurate, two-thirds of all recruits, 64 percent, are from counties with below median household incomes.  That‘s still true. 

CARLSON:  But wait a second.  But wait a second.  I mean, look, without getting into all this, the bottom line is his study is much more comprehensive.  It‘s literally comprehensive, according to him.

MADDOW:  It‘s not.  Dueling studies. 

CARLSON:  And I‘m not—I‘ve never heard of the group you‘re referring to or their study.  And I think that his attacks are really against the demagogues who make up numbers purporting to show that people who join are disproportionately poor and disproportionately members of minority groups.  And we know that‘s not true.  There are Pentagon studies. 

MADDOW:  Tucker, you are—they‘re both looking at the same Pentagon data.  You‘re buying what he‘s saying about the study. 

CARLSON:  Let me...

MADDOW:  If you go read his study, he says, “I‘m contradicting what the National Priorities Project said.” 

CARLSON:  Let me read me directly from a Pentagon study from 2003, responding to Charlie Rangel‘s claims that members of the military were disproportionately members of minority groups.  They say absolutely not. 

In fact, quote, “Black soldiers tend to be concentrated in administration support jobs, not in combat jobs.”  That is the bottom line.  Combat units used to face fire, units where men are killed in large numbers, they mirror almost exactly the racial make-up of this country. 

This is not a war being fought by America‘s underclass.  There‘s no other way to read that.  That‘s from the Pentagon itself, not from a right-wing or left-wing group. 

MADDOW:  What do you make of the fact that two-thirds of all recruits are from counties with below median household income?

CARLSON:  That does not—that does—I think, as Tim Kane said, and as we know watching the news and knowing people in the military, recruits tend to be overwhelmingly or disproportionately from rural areas.  That does not mean the recruits themselves are poor.  In fact...

MADDOW:  What I just said is true, about the household income, is true.  It is true in the Pentagon data.  And so he is spinning it one way.  Other groups spin it another way.  This dueling statistics about the same information. 

CARLSON:  Except one study is comprehensive and the other is not. 

MADDOW:  It‘s not.  That‘s his claim, but it‘s not true.  It‘s just spin.  I think that you‘ve been spun by this guy.  And I think this is dueling statistics.

CARLSON:  I can—I think you are the one, in fact, who is spinning, and I will say I will revisit this off the air.  And as I—my claim, as always, that I am honest, and I am honest. 

MADDOW:  Right.

CARLSON:  And if I am wrong on this, I will admit it on the air tomorrow, and I hope you will accept my abject apology.  I suspect that will not happen. 

MADDOW:  Be here.  All right.

CARLSON:  New Orleans, city of New Orleans, has a plan to bring back people to its urban center, provide free wifi, wireless Internet access, which the city will provide. 

MADDOW:  Yes.

CARLSON:  I don‘t think—I‘m all for wifi, and I‘m all for free wifi and for anything free, right?  I don‘t think I‘ve heard anything dumber in my life. 

MADDOW:  Why?

CARLSON:  Because this is a city that has one of the highest murder rates in the country.  This is a city that literally was flooded by Mother Nature.  OK?  They can‘t keep its own citizens dry.  It‘s a city the police department deserted in the line of duty.  It‘s a city totally mismanaged, and the answer is wifi?  I think we need to take a very close look at how New Orleans is going to be spending the reconstruction money. 

MADDOW:  I think New Orleans is to rebuild from zero, and one of the things they have to rebuild is their utilities.  I mean, Entergy, who provides power, electric power, in New Orleans, declared bankrupt very shortly after Hurricane Katrina.  And that‘s one of the things they have to do, is figure out how they‘re going to get electric power back on in a lot of the city that‘s still having trouble.

Wifi has kind of become a utility in modern urban planning.  I mean, Philadelphia—city of Philadelphia has done a wifi project.  And they brought it in, and they‘re using independent—they‘re using—they‘re using business contractors to do it. 

CARLSON:  Wifi is great.  I‘m not against wifi at all.  The bottom line, the pathetic, quite pathetic mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, is saying people are going to come to New Orleans because of the wifi. 

I merely submit, until you get a police department that actually shows up for work when there‘s an actual emergency, until you have a levee system that protects the city from becoming flooded, until you have city government that isn‘t completely out of control and corrupt, people aren‘t going to want to live there. 

MADDOW:  If you want to do the levees first and nothing else, if you want to do the police force first and nothing else, if you want to do the utility system first and nothing else, I think you‘re going to have a hard argument to make.  They need to rebuild this city from the ground up.  Part of rebuilding the city is doing the utilities in a smart way.  And wifi is now, in modern urban planning, kind of a utility. 

CARLSON:  Holy smokes.  You‘ve got to bake the cake before you put the candles on it.  That would be my view. 

MADDOW:  What are you going to do?  Put up all the wires now, and then take them down later?  It doesn‘t make sense to rebuild it. 

CARLSON:  It‘s just a sad, sad gimmick.  And that city, I hope the adults in this country make sure it‘s rebuilt correctly. 

MADDOW:  No, you rebuild it right instead of in a piece. 

CARLSON:  Rachel Maddow.  Thank you.

MADDOW:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Still to come, President Bush setting himself up for a political fall, this time over immigration.  We‘ll talk about it with “TIME” magazine‘s Mike Allen in a moment.

Plus, PETA‘s out with an ad campaign that accuses fathers who fish of being killers.  We‘ll show you the outrageous things they‘re saying when THE SITUATION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, the Miami Police Department plans to shock and awe its own residents as part of the war on terror. 

Plus, why is PETA telling kids Dad might kill the family dog?  The unbelievable answer, next on THE SITUATION. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

President Bush followed up yesterday‘s speech on immigration with a firsthand look at border security in El Paso, Texas, today.  He promised to make immigration one of his top priorities next year. 

Here to talk about whether it‘s a risky move, Mike Allen.  He‘s White House correspondent for “TIME” magazine.  He joins us live tonight from Washington. 

Mike, thanks a lot for coming on. 

MIKE ALLEN, CORRESPONDENT, “TIME” MAGAZINE:  Hey, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Now first, I want to ask you, before we even get to what the president said in El Paso today, I want to ask you about his speech tomorrow.  Boy, it‘s been a week of big speeches for Bush.  He‘s going to give a speech on Iraq, which is reputed to be sort of a big deal.  What‘s he likely to say?

ALLEN:  Well, Tucker, Democrats have been accusing him of chicanery, saying he‘s planning to cut and run, but not really acknowledging it.  So tomorrow, the president needs to do something very clever. 

About half an hour before the morning shows go on tomorrow, and I guess also half an hour before Rachel Maddow‘s radio show starts, the White House is going to put out a document called National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.  Now, there‘s nothing new in this.  It‘s a compilation of what the president has said in the past. 

The Democrats have been saying he doesn‘t have a plan.  Now he‘s going to say, “I have a navigatable plan right here.  Here it is.”  And it‘s going to talk about how, as the administration officials have been saying the last couple of days, that as Iraqi troops get more competent, that U.S.  troops will back down. 

And so this makes it possible for the president to do, maybe, what he wanted to do anyway, maybe what Democrats will say he was pressured into doing.  But this way, he‘s going to say, it‘s part of my plan.  So it‘s sort of like seeing the parade and getting in front, and saying that you‘re leading it. 

CARLSON:  Is there any hint of a time table?  I mean, t   hat is pretty much what he‘s been saying, so far as I can tell, for some time now, a couple of months anyway, we will stand up—we‘ll stand down, rather, when they stand up, et cetera, et cetera. 

ALLEN:  Right. 

CARLSON:  But is there a hint of when that might happen?

ALLEN:  Well, yes.  There‘s a hint of when it will happen.  It will happen sometime early next year, but I‘m glad you brought that up.  Because absolutely the president is going to underscore, it would be a mistake to set a date certain.  It would be a mistake to say now that you‘re going to withdraw.

And so what he‘s going to say is it‘s conditioned on what our commanders there say and interestingly, he said to cameras today, what Iraqis tell our commanders they need or want.  He says when Iraqis are ready to take the fight to the enemy, that will be one reason for us to draw down our troops. 

Now, Tucker, as you know, a problem with that is I don‘t know anybody who thinks that Iraqi troops are ready to take the fight to the enemy or even close. 

CARLSON:  Of course not.  However, you‘ve got this election coming up in three weeks in Iraq, and we‘re already hearing rumblings from various Iraqi politicians and would-be politicians that they want the American presence in Iraq lessened, if not gone.  They‘re saying, America, out.  And you‘re going to hear that a lot more.  The White House must know this. 

ALLEN:  Right, and also, there‘s the question of whether the American presence is exacerbating things. 

But as Secretary Rumsfeld repeated today, it would be a mistake to pull out right away.  As you know, Senator McCain‘s position is we need more troops in there. 

So what the president is going to articulate tomorrow at Annapolis, with the midshipmen in the naval academy—it‘s a great venue for him.  And it‘s going to be—it‘s going to get him to be able to articulate, you know, the criteria that he‘s going to use and say to people, “Here, we have a plan.  We‘re going to follow it.”  It will make him show like—make him look like he‘s showing leadership on this, when you could say he‘s backed into a corner. 

CARLSON:  So, but back to immigration.  The president has made two sets of remarks in the last two days about it.  You had a really interesting piece in “TIME” magazine about those remarks.  I want to read you a quote from your own piece, from a Republican official close to the White House, quote, “Bush decided to give these guys”—that is, the hard-liners on immigration—“their rhetorical pound of flesh.  In return, he wants a comprehensive bill.” 

He‘s just going to lead with a lot of noise about border security.  In other words, he‘s basically pandering in a non-real and sort of a phony way to his anti-immigration base, but he doesn‘t really mean it.  He‘s kind of hoodwinking them.  That‘s an awfully cynical thing to say.  Is that what‘s happening, do you think?

ALLEN:  Tucker, I don‘t agree that it‘s phony or it‘s hoodwinking.  It‘s a matter of emphasis.  And you know in a relationship, you might make a deal by emphasizing one more or another. 

You know, the president sounded like a sheriff.  He‘s running for sheriff the last couple of days when he‘s down there, because he‘s been emphasizing the fact that any person who comes in illegally across the southwest border will be taken back, no exception. 

And this is his ticket to getting what he really wants, which is a plan to make it possible for workers who are now undocumented here to come forward, register, have their employer vouch for them, and be able to work here legally for three, six, or more years.

CARLSON:  Yes.

ALLEN:  And be able to go back and forth, home to Mexico.  This is the President Bush of ‘99 and 2000, the compassionate conservative. 

CARLSON:  Sounds like a bait and switch to me.  I mean, I‘ll believe he‘s tough on immigration when the wall with barbed wire and dogs starts going up, and that‘s not going to happen. 

Mike Allen from Washington.  Thank you very much. 

ALLEN:  Have a great week. 

CARLSON:  You too. 

Up next, a police officer roughs up a Florida teen for alleged throwing a golf ball out the window of the school bus.  Was the cop out of line?  We‘ll weigh in on that story when THE SITUATION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

A good advertisement is designed to grab people‘s attention, but PETA‘s recent campaign to stop fishing has some fishermen, very much including me, pretty annoyed.  PETA is distributing leaflets that show an angry cartoon father figure ripping apart a fish.  Plastered over the picture in big letters, it says, “Your Daddy Kills Animals.” 

Here to defend the indefensible, Bruce Friedrich.  He‘s PETA‘s director of farmed animal campaigns.  He joins us live tonight from Virginia Beach. 

Bruce, thanks a lot for coming on. 

BRUCE FRIEDRICH, DIRECTOR, PETA‘S FARMED ANIMAL CAMPAIGNS:  It‘s my pleasure.  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  I‘m offended by this.  I can‘t believe actually that you put this out.  This is an attack on fathers aimed at children.  How could you do this?

FRIEDRICH:  Well, Tucker, it‘s an attack on cruelty to animals, and our point is very, very serious.  If you fish, I can see how you‘d be offended by it, because fishing supports cruelty to animals.  If you wouldn‘t take a hook and put it through a dog‘s mouth and drag that animal behind the car, you shouldn‘t do that to fish. 

CARLSON:  Well, there are so many false statements in your last sentence, let me just pick them apart one by one. 

First, let‘s—I want to talk about this comic book here.  I don‘t know if we have it on the screen.  “Your Daddy Kills Animals.”  In here you have lines like this, “Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing.  Until your daddy learns it‘s not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him.  He‘s so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next.” 

I assume you have no children, right?  You couldn‘t.  Nobody with children would put this out, because that‘s the kind of thing that gives kids nightmares.  I mean, seriously, your daddy‘s going to kill your dog?  Come on. 

FRIEDRICH:  Tucker, we focus grouped the ad.  Kids get it.  If you watch MTV, you go to the web sites that kids like, even watch Saturday morning cartoons, this is the sort of hyperbole that kids really like.  But it makes a serious point, scientifically, biologically.  Fish feel pain in the same way that dogs and cats feel pain.  Cruelty to fish is no more morally justifiable than is cruelty to dogs or cats. 

CARLSON:  What about cruelty to children and their fathers?  I‘m serious.  I‘m totally serious.  Why go—why go after kids?  Why go after kids?  Why?  You have an adult point to make.  Why not change adult minds?

FRIEDRICH:  Well, I think it‘s important to go after both, but kids get it.  We focus-grouped the comic book with kids.  Kids, to a kid, thought that it was fantastic.  And unlike a lot of the other things that were being focused-grouped, kids could, after reading it, they remembered what they had read, because it was appealing and it was interesting. 

CARLSON:  Bruce—Bruce, even in Washington, a focus group is not a moral justification.  I don‘t care what your focus group said.  How about common sense?  How about you don‘t accuse parents of wanting to kill the family pet?  I mean, that‘s so sick.  That‘s so over the top.  Totally serious, actually. 

FRIEDRICH:  I know you‘re totally serious, but you‘re underestimating these kids.  I worked for more than six years in a homeless shelter for families.  I spend a lot of time around kids.  You‘re underestimating them. 

CARLSON:  I‘ve got four kids.  Don‘t lecture me about kids.  I know I would—if someone slipped this under my door, I‘d punch them out.  I couldn‘t handle it.  Let‘s get to the...

FRIEDRICH:  You as a fisherman don‘t like it. 

CARLSON:  Hold on, first of all, I‘m a fisherman who doesn‘t ever kill fish.  I not only unhook the fish on barbless hooks, but I you know, do my best not to kill them, and they rarely die.  I‘m not attempting to justify my own fishing.  I don‘t need to. 

Here‘s the point I want to make, though, and it‘s a public policy point.  Fishermen help and save fish populations.  Where do you think the money from fishing licenses goes?  It goes to save wetlands, inland wetlands in this country, and it goes to repopulate streams, brooks, and lakes with fish.  That‘s why we have a lot of fish because of fishermen, period.  It‘s true. 

FRIEDRICH:  Tucker, fish feel pain in the same way as dogs and cats.  Impaling them on hook supports cruelty to animals, and it‘s not justifiable.  Additionally, eating fish rots your brain.  The Environmental Protection Agency says that if you eat fish as few as two times... 

CARLSON:  You‘re switching from topic to topic. 

FRIEDRICH:  Yes, but if we‘re going to be talking about what we should be offended about, we should be offended that the Environmental Protection Agency isn‘t telling you that if you‘re feeding your kid fish, you‘re feeding them poison. 

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Hold on.  Without getting, if you feed your kid poisoned fish, you‘re feeding them poison. 

FRIEDRICH:  No.

CARLSON:  If you‘re feeding them unpoisoned fish, you‘re not.  But look, I don‘t...

FRIEDRICH:  If you‘re feeding your kid tuna or salmon or fish sticks, you‘re feeding your kid poison. 

CARLSON:  Now you‘re attacking.  Now you‘re attacking.

FRIEDRICH:  The “Wall Street Journal” front page piece about a kid who was eating tuna sandwiches on a daily basis.  He went from being an honor student to being in remedial reading.  He went from being a jock to being unable to catch a football.  Front page, “Wall Street Journal,” August 1. 

CARLSON:  It must be true.  It was in the newspaper.  Of course it‘s true.  Come on, Bruce, you know that.  It‘s axiomatic. 

FRIEDRICH:  Tucker, it‘s based on the Environmental Protection Agency saying that if you eat any fish as few as two times a week, you will have measurable decrease in your cognitive function. 

CARLSON:  I guess I‘m just amazed, as I have been before.  I‘ve interviewed Ingrid Newkirk, the head of your organization.  And I‘m sympathetic.  I love animals.  I have a lot of animals. 

FRIEDRICH:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Unlike Ingrid Newkirk, who has no animals, incidentally. 

FRIEDRICH:  The point is, she cares for... 

CARLSON:  Yes, she cares, but she doesn‘t have any.  The point—the point I‘m making, you‘re very concerned about the feelings of fish.  But you don‘t care at all about the feelings of kids, or their parents.

FRIEDRICH:  That‘s not fair. 

CARLSON:  No, it‘s totally fair.  You‘re putting out this garbage.  If you cared, you wouldn‘t.

FRIEDRICH:  Tucker, kids like it.  You‘re underestimating them.  Kids like it.  It‘s focused on kids age 12 and up, and it speaks to them in a language that they understand.  No kids are going to be traumatized by this.  Kids, to a kid, think it‘s fantastic and retain the information. 

CARLSON:  Don‘t send it to my house, Bruce. 

FRIEDRICH:  OK, I won‘t. 

CARLSON:  I wouldn‘t care for it one bit.  I appreciate you coming on anyway. 

FRIEDRICH:  Thank you.  People who want to check it out, FishingHurts.com. 

CARLSON:  I can‘t let you do that, Bruce.  You know the rules. 

FRIEDRICH:  FishingHurts.com.

CARLSON:  No web sites on my show.  You know I just can‘t.  You know where to find PETA if you want to.  Thanks a lot for coming on. 

FRIEDRICH:  All right.  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Still ahead on THE SITUATION, the Miami police are planning a new shock and awe show of force to combat terrorism.  But you wouldn‘t want to be shocked and awed while you‘re waiting in line at the bank.  We‘ll debate that with “The Outsider,” next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  According to the great Seattle-born philosopher, Jimi Hendrix, “knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”  Joining me now, a man who knows whereof he speaks, the Outsider, ESPN radio and HBO boxing host, Max Kellerman.  Yes.

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  Hey, Tucker.  Hey, Joe.  Hey, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Hey, Joe.  That‘s very good, Max. 

First up, Miami‘s latest salvo in the war on terror, entirely random shows of force around the city.  The idea is to keep terrorists off guard, and remind ordinary citizens to remain vigilant.  (INAUDIBLE) for example surround a bank building, checking the IDs of everyone going in and out, and hand out leaflets about terror threats. 

The city‘s deputy police chief said, quote, “we want that shock, we want that awe.”  Though Chief of Police John Timoney says there‘s no imminent terror threat to their city, they are continuing with the shock and awe.  Meanwhile, terrorists in Miami are still holed up in their condominiums on the outskirts of town, planning acts of terror.  This is the single dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.  And meanwhile, let‘s not forget, there are ordinary, prosaic, home-grown criminals planning bank robberies and liquor store holdups and rapes.  I mean, this is so dumb. 

KELLERMAN:  No, the dumbest thing that you have heard recently is me saying hey, Joe.  It‘s not from “Hey, Joe,” and now I am bothered, because I can‘t remember where the quote is from, Jimi Hendrix. 

This is—did you ever see “Die Hard?”  Did you ever see the first “Die Hard?” 

CARLSON:  No. 

KELLERMAN:  OK, Bruce Willis—the only—maybe the only perfect movie I have ever seen. 

CARLSON:  I have heard that about it, yeah. 

KELLERMAN:  It is the greatest action movie of all time.  The villain is named Hans Gruber, and at one point, the villain—there‘s a problem, and they need a miracle.  One of the guys says, oh, it‘s going to be a miracle now to save us, the villains.  And then the FBI shows up, and goes standard operating procedure, which the terrorists are counting on, and he says, “you asked for a miracle, I give you the FBI.”

The point is, standard operating procedure for law enforcement is a terrorist‘s best friend, because all you have got to do is figure out what they are doing, and it‘s like clockwork. 

Randomness, that‘s—you want to disrupt terrorist behavior?

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  Don‘t—have no standard operating procedure. 

CARLSON:  And if Miami had a police department of, say, 150,000 officers, that might work.  But you have a country of 300 million people.  Let‘s say on the outside, there are 300 acts of terror in this country—that probably is an overstatement—let‘s just say for the sake of argument.  That means you are going to have to shock and awe a million citizens per terrorist that you find.  That is not a good average, not a good ratio.  You should instead focus on the groups most likely to spawn terrorists.  If they were doing this in areas that are known to have people from countries that have a lot of terrorists in them, I think it would be a much better (INAUDIBLE). 

KELLERMAN:  Miami, though, Miami is not only a port, but I mean, as a

matter of fact, where are the flight schools?  Where—it‘s all—where -

where is one of the entry points to this country, where terrorists can come in?   Especially if you are talking about racially profiling at all, which we have discussed on this show, say, Middle Eastern Arab Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts in this country. 

CARLSON:  I think that‘s a fair assumption, yes. 

KELLERMAN:  Although there have been, you know, like Timothy McVeigh.  But the point is, even if you say that, well, can they pass for a Latin American?  For a Cuban, for a Puerto Rican, can they come in through Miami? 

CARLSON:  Of course.  Of course.

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  Are there flight schools down there?  Yes.  And they need a place to concentrate. 

CARLSON:  They might be hiring elderly women to do their bidding for them.  They might be.  Chances are they are not.  So if you‘re going to play the odds, and you have to, if you have limited resources, and we do, then you‘re going to focus where you think they might be, not at some random downtown bank, bother a bunch of old ladies like they do at the airport.  It‘s so stupid.

KELLERMAN:  I‘m playing devil‘s advocate.  What do you want from me? 

What do you want from me?

CARLSON:  I know you are.  I couldn‘t (INAUDIBLE).

KELLERMAN:  I have to zealously—zealously defend (INAUDIBLE). 

CARLSON:  You‘re doing a good job (INAUDIBLE) for an indefensible case. 

The people who brought down big tobacco have a new target in their sights: Coca-Cola.  Several big-name lawyers are teaming up to sue Coke and other soft drink companies for selling high-calorie drinks in schools.  Their argument, soda contains caffeine, which is mildly addictive, and it hooks kids on a product that is dangerous because of its empty calories.  One of the lawyers likened soda machines to have a cigarette machine in school.  Boy, I hate lawyers.  

This is obviously—I don‘t even need to attack trial lawyers—this is just another effort for these guys, most of whom have their own planes, to enrich themselves even further, add the new wing on the summer house in Boca or whatever. 

Here‘s what I don‘t like about this.  Soda companies, Coke and Pepsi, primarily, but also others, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into America‘s public schools.  Little-known fact, but they buy concessions for their drinks, and they give a percentage of their sales, 30 percent in the case of the big soda companies, to the schools... 

KELLERMAN:  Is that right, 30 percent? 

CARLSON:  Thirty percent.

KELLERMAN:  That‘s high.

CARLSON:  It‘s huge.  A lot of these schools wouldn‘t have new gymnasiums, athletic facilities, band, if it were not for soda companies. 

KELLERMAN:  Not only that, but when you talk about empty calories, before I start my—because this is a totally indefensible position, but I will do my best.  When people say empty calories, the industrial revolution was based on empty calories.  People could reproduce and have bigger families, and mine natural gasses from the Earth, because sugar, empty calories, allowed people to live.  I mean, empty—calories are a good thing. 

CARLSON:  This country was built on Coca-Cola is what you‘re saying. 

KELLERMAN:  It was. 

CARLSON:  Good for you.

KELLERMAN:  However, here‘s the argument.  There are healthier alternatives now.  There are, you know, relative—everything is relative to your surroundings.  In this country, this is not just, you know, the industrial revolution, just hasn‘t just taken place in the United States of America.  We have much healthier alternatives, and more nutritious alternatives, and so when you put it on a scale and say where does it rank, Coca-Cola is way down here. 

CARLSON:  I agree.  I agree.  I don‘t want my kids drinking a lot of Coke, and I think it‘s fair for parents to be concerned about their kids drinking a lot of Coke, but the bottom line is, in the world, again, of limited resources, if Coke is giving $800,000 to my kids‘ school, and they can play, you know, football instead of fooseball, I am kind of Coca-Cola.  It‘s a tradeoff.   

KELLERMAN:  You know what the key to Coke is?  You tell the guy, bring it when the food comes.  You don‘t let it get sit there with the ice melting in it.  You just tell him—you can‘t eat a steak or a hamburger without a Coke. 

CARLSON:  (INAUDIBLE).

KELLERMAN:  I love Coca-Cola! 

CARLSON:  It‘s not just a debate, it‘s also like an advice column. 

You know what I mean?

KELLERMAN:  There you go. 

CARLSON:  Max Kellerman‘s guide to life.  Max Kellerman, thank you. 

KELLERMAN:  Tucker Carlson, thank you. 

CARLSON:  Stay tuned.  Still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  Hoaxers, hustlers and hucksters.  A foolish collection of history‘s greatest pranks, pranksters and prankees. 

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me—can‘t get fooled again. 

CARLSON:  Raising the bar, how the Donald plans to trump Russian bruskie know-how. 

DONALD TRUMP:  It is a monster job. 

CARLSON:  Plus, a field of dreams.  One man‘s unusual tribute to the mother of all Eagles fans. 

And, how one young celebrity is bearing the brunt of growing up in the national spotlight.  It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.

TRUMP:  People are going to really enjoy it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Before there was such a thing as Tom Cruise, and there was a time, there was “The War of the Worlds.”  In 1938, Orson Welles orchestrated the most elaborate hoax in history when he broadcast the news that Martians had landed on Earth to start a war of the worlds.  The country was sent into a panic.  The story was, of course, a creation of Welles‘ imagination. 

My next guest is an expert in such hoaxes.  He calls himself a hoaxpert.  Alex Boese is the curator of the online museum of hoaxes.  He‘s also the author of the book of the same title.  He‘s also written the upcoming book, “Hippo Eats Dwarf.”  He joins me now live from San Diego. 

Alex, hippo did not eat dwarf, is that the implication? 

ALEX BOESE, CURATOR, MUSEUM OF HOAXES:  That‘s what I am going with, right. 

CARLSON:  There‘s some breaking news.  Sort of sad, sad news, not as sad, though, as your climb that Bigfoot is a hoax. 

BOESE:  You know, I think if Bigfoot wasn‘t a hoax, we might have found a Bigfoot who had maybe had gotten run over by a car or something... 

CARLSON:  But there‘s film of Bigfoot.  We‘ve got it right on the screen right now.  I mean, I have seen Bigfoot on film. 

BOESE:  Well, if you have seen him on film, then it has to be real, doesn‘t it? 

CARLSON:  That‘s kind of the implication, yes.  I work in TV.  That‘s my assumption.  Tell me why it‘s not. 

BOESE:  I think there was a guy who came out about a year ago, who said he was actually the one who dressed up in the Bigfoot suit.  And there have also been theories that maybe John Chambers, who worked on “The Planet of the Apes” movies, may have had a hand in that whole Bigfoot film. 

CARLSON:  That‘s depressing. 

BOESE:  And the Loch Ness Monster, I was unaware until doing research for this segment today that the famous picture taken by a physician, as I recall, of—there it is right there on the screen. 

BOESE:  Yes, he was a gynecologist, actually. 

CARLSON:  Right.  The surgeon‘s photo, as it‘s known.  That is not real, are we sure? 

BOESE:  That was revealed to be a hoax in the 1990s.  What you are actually seeing is a toy submarine with a kind of fake serpent‘s head attached to it.  And it‘s kind of obvious, if you look at the picture, because you got this little sea serpent surrounded by these big waves.  And you can kind of tell, there‘s just these little ripples, and so you‘d be looking at this tiny Loch Ness monster, which wouldn‘t quite make sense. 

CARLSON:  No.  Well, it would certainly be a lot less scary.  Now, one...

BOESE:  Right. 

CARLSON:  ... sort of heartening fact I learned from you today is that Buckwheat from “Little Rascals” did not meet this depressing end as a grocery bagger in New Mexico.  Or—tell us the story. 

BOESE:  This was an example of the news really, the media doing its fact-checking, and I think, you know, I think the network was ABC.  I could be wrong.  I don‘t have that quite at my fingertips, but they did this story that, you know, Buckwheat, from the “Little Rascals,” had ended up as a grocery bagger in Tempe, Arizona, and it was kind of a heart-breaking story.  And it turned out that they had been totally taken in by this impostor who had been claiming for years that he had been Buckwheat, whereas the real actor who‘d been Buckwheat had actually, you know, had a perfectly respectable career after “Little Rascals.”  He had worked as a film editor.  He had died in his 40s from a heart attack. 

And so obviously, you know, his family was a little upset to have this thing aired about him being a grocery bagger. 

CARLSON:  Yeah, though it‘s so believable, you expect child actors to wind up in prison, or bagging groceries. 

Why do people commit hoaxes? 

BOESE:  Well, there‘s two basic kinds of hoaxes.  You have your hoaxes done by pranksters, and basically, what is going on there, as you know, they are trying to maybe make fun of somebody who they think is too pompous, or just make a joke, maybe attract a little attention. 

And then you have your second kind of hoax, which are the hoaxes committed by con artists.  And there the motive is more purely greed, maybe trying to make a little bit of money, get ahead in their career, et cetera, et cetera. 

CARLSON:  Now, what about poor Mikey?  Mikey was the star, of course, of the famous Life cereal television spots from the ‘70s.  And Mikey supposedly died after his internal organs were ruptured when he drank Coca-Cola and ate pop rocks at the same time.  Is that true? 

BOESE:  I don‘t think that‘s true.  And what you are actually talking

about there is not strictly a hoax; it‘s actually an urban legend.  And the

difference between hoaxes and urban legends are hoaxes are purposefully

deceptive.  There‘s a hoaxster out there, who is making up a story, he is -

he or she is deliberately trying to fool people, whereas urban legends are these weird kind of rumors that float around in society, and nobody knows who kind of created the story.  It‘s just like, you know how sometimes you hear a joke, and you have no idea who made up the joke.  It‘s the exact same way with urban legends, they are just rumors that float around out there. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Alex Boese from San Diego, the man who perhaps would be most surprised when Bigfoot is finally captured.  Thanks a lot for joining us tonight. 

BOESE:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Coming up, television research shows that baby pandas are, in fact, the number one way to keep people watching the TV show.  Here‘s one now.  We will show you this little guy‘s coming out party as THE SITUATION rolls on. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Ho-ho-ho, merry voicemail!  It‘s that time to hear what you‘ve got to say.  First up. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIANNE:  This is Marianne from Ohio.  You‘re constantly saying you‘re not a Republican.  You slam the Democrats.  No matter what Bush does, you defend him.  And any time you get a chance to slam Clinton, you do that.  If Clinton were a Republican, you would vote for him.  Give me a break.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Marianne, not watching very carefully, are you?  Yes, of course I slam Clinton.  I think he was not a great president.  I often attack the Democrats.  I‘m not one.  I didn‘t vote for Bush, because I disagreed with him on Iraq, on immigration and a bunch of other things.  So look, I vote my conscience, period.  I don‘t care if Clinton became the head of the Libertarian Party.  I would not vote for him, because I don‘t agree with his ideas.  Period.  Call me what you want, a crackpot, but I‘m not partisan.  Next up. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANONYMOUS:  I think people should leave Representative Cunningham from California alone.  He‘s a good man who made some mistakes and then lied about it.  I think the Democrats should let it be. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  I like Duke Cunningham and I respect his war service.  But the guy took $2.5 million in bribes, he‘s got to go to prison.  Also, the Republicans came to power in 1994 on the idea they weren‘t corrupt like the Democrats were.  And being corrupt is a certain way to lose power.  And I don‘t think there is any defending what Cunningham did, sadly.  Next up. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT:  Hey, Tucker, it‘s Robert.  I‘m calling from Pittsburgh.  It‘s about the 13-year-old girl who threw the golf ball out the bus window.  This girl should definitely be handcuffed and thrown in jail.  What she did is dangerous to all of us driving on the road.  And one of us is going to get killed because of her.  So throw her in the pokey.  Thanks, Tucker. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Lighten up, Robert.  That is ridiculous.  Actually, it turns out this girl, we showed you the tape there, who was handcuffed by the police on the school bus, isn‘t the one who threw the golf ball, but even if she was, does a cop, a big, strapping, tough, weight-lifting police officer really need to handcuff a 13-year-old girl?  Come on, tough guy.  Handcuffs?  I‘m just not for it.  It always seems excessive to me and embarrassing.  If you‘re a grown man handcuffing a little girl, you know, you need to take a deep look inside yourself, in my view. 

Let me know what you‘re thinking.  Call 1-877-TCARLSON.  That‘s 877-822-7576.  You can also e-mail tucker@msnbc.com.  And if that weren‘t enough, I have a daily column available at tucker@msnbc.com.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, this guy might look like your average jackass running onto the field during a football game.  In fact, he‘s honoring his mom‘s dying wishes.  We‘ll explain when we visit “The Cutting Room Floor.”  Next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.”  The great Willie Geist has shown up for work again.  There he is.

WILLIE GEIST, THE SITUATION:  Once again.  Three days in a row.  I‘m on a roll.

CARLSON:  Amazing.

GEIST:  I have to point something out.  There are certain concerned members of my family who feel that in this block we do too many stories about strippers.  We did one last night.  And I‘ve had to explain to them that Tucker is the managing editor of the show...

CARLSON:  That is true.

GEIST:  ... and he has the last word.  So when he...

CARLSON:  Full editorial control.

GEIST:  ... wants stripper stories, then I have no choice, contractually. 

CARLSON:  Yes, and I‘m sure everyone in your family is going to believe that, Willie. 

GEIST:  Go ahead.

CARLSON:  Last night, we showed you a Japanese dog dyed to look like a panda.  Tonight, we‘re happy to show you a real panda.  This is little Tai Shan making his debut at Washington‘s National Zoo today.  The 5-month-old baby panda goes on public display next week; 13,000 tickets to see Tai Shan have already been sold. 

GEIST:  Wow.  You know what, Tai Shan, enjoy that honeymoon with the D.C. press corps, because it‘s ugly from here on out. 

CARLSON:  I know, it is.

GEIST:  They are vicious. 

CARLSON:  But the second term is always the worst. 

GEIST:  I hope this youngster knows what he‘s getting into. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t think he does.

GEIST:  As you know, D.C. is a tough town.

CARLSON:  He‘ll be having lunch with Bob Woodward (INAUDIBLE). 

Usually when a fan runs out onto the field during a football game, he‘s drunk and trying to win a bet with his buddies in the stands.  This guy may very well have been drunk, but his cause was more noble than a bet.  He was spreading his mother‘s ashes at the Philadelphia Eagles‘ home stadium.  Christopher Noteboom ran onto the field with a plastic bag holding his mom‘s remains during Sunday‘s game between the Eagles and the Green Bay Packers.  The Eagles were his mom‘s favorite team.  That is touching.

GEIST:  That‘s a sweet story.  Tucker, I just hope that I can go out with as much dignity as his mother did.  To have my ashes sprinkled as the 4-6 Eagles battle the 2-8 Packers.  It just doesn‘t get any better than that. 

CARLSON:  It really doesn‘t.  I know that she‘s looking down from on high... 

GEIST:  And her soul can rest peacefully, knowing that 300-pound men are trampling her physical remains.  Isn‘t that nice? 

CARLSON:  (INAUDIBLE).  Actually, honestly, there is a kind of sweetness to that. 

GEIST:  Let him go.  I agree.

CARLSON:  Oh, there‘s no way, he‘ll never be convicted in Philadelphia, ever. 

There are very few remaining industries Donald Trump hasn‘t conquered, at least according to him.  His latest triumph is in the liquor business.  Trump announced today he‘ll lend his name to a new brand of vodka, cleverly called Trump, the world‘s finest super premium vodka.  The booze will be in stores in May.  Trump said, quote, “By the summer of ‘06, I fully expect to be the most called-for cocktail in America.  It will be called the TNT, the Trump and Tonic.” 

GEIST:  I‘ll have one.  Could they get a few more adjectives in the title? 

CARLSON:  It‘s unbelievable.

GEIST:  Super premium, greatest, best of all time.  You know the kind of love that 16-year-olds have where they are just blind to everything else? 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

GEIST:  That‘s how I feel about Donald Trump.

CARLSON:  That‘s how Donald Trump feels about himself.  I have to point out that vodka is merely grain alcohol and water.

GEIST:  Right, exactly.  You know what else it will be?  It will be classy.

CARLSON:  Yes, very classy.  Classy grain alcohol.

Willie Geist!

GEIST:  All right, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Thank you. 

That‘s it for THE SITUATION tonight.  Thank you for watching.  Up next, “COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN.”  Have a great night.

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

END   

Watch The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,