updated 12/5/2005 1:45:29 PM ET 2005-12-05T18:45:29

Guest: Joseph Crowley, John Siegenthaler, Les Knight, Max Kellerman, Bruce Lubin

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  We always appreciate it.

Tonight, the truth about the widely used online encyclopedia Wikipedia.  We‘ll talk to a former newspaper publisher who says the web site ruined his reputation by claiming he was involved in the Kennedy assassinations. 

Also you‘ll meet the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.  It is what it sounds like, a group that wants to stop the birth of all children in order to preserve the environment. 

Plus, the controversy over the PETA ad attacking fishermen continues. 

If a man buys his son a tackle box, is he an accessory to murder?

All those stories in just a few minutes. 

But we begin tonight with outrage from families of 9/11 victims over the new screening rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration.  New regulations would allow passengers to carry small scissors and not so small wrenches and screwdrivers onto planes.  It‘s set to take effect December 22, just in time for the Christmas rush. 

Representatives Ed Markey and Joseph Crowley intend to introduce a bill called the Leave All Blades Behind Act.  It would keep current prohibitions on sharp scissors and knives in airliner cabins.

Here to discuss the controversy now and his proposed bill, Congressman Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York. 

Congressman, thanks a lot for coming on. 

REP. JOSEPH CROWLEY (D), NEW YORK:  Thank you, Tucker.  Great to be on your show.

CARLSON:  With all respect to you and to Congress, why does the Congress know more about airline security than the TSA, which studies it for a living?

CROWLEY:  Well, the TSA, you have to remember, is a product of the Congress.  It was created just after 9/11, after that horrific event here in New York and in Washington that really, I think, put in peril the future of the airline industry.  And Congress took that action to uniformly bring safety back to the airlines and bring confidence back to the flying public. 

So Congress has been involved in the formation of TSA from its get-go.

CARLSON:  Right.  But isn‘t that the whole point?  Congress created TSA so people could spend their entire careers thinking about how to keep airlines safe and Congress wouldn‘t have to.  You don‘t have time to be an expert on this.  Nobody in Congress does.  They study this all day long and they‘ve decided for pretty specific reasons this will make airlines safer. 

CROWLEY:  Tucker, I don‘t pretend to be an expert.  I just think it takes common sense to know that if an individual walks on a plane and has a scissor like the one I have in my hand, which I believe is what the TSA is talking about in terms of making it legal to bring back on, they can adulterate this they can turn this not into a four-inch blade but into a seven-inch blade. 

CARLSON:  Right.

CROWLEY:  And I think what we have to really think about is the safety of the flying air public as well as the flight attendants who work on those planes.  There‘s no service or purpose to having something like this in the cabin of a plane. 

The cockpit has been secured by the TSA and we congratulate them for that.  And I‘m not opposed to TSA re-evaluating what they do.  But there is simply no reason to have this in the cabin of an airplane.

CARLSON:  But that‘s not exactly the argument TSA is saying.  They‘re not—they‘re saying they have a right to bring scissors on the plane.  What they‘re saying is taking scissors away from passengers being screened actually makes the airline process less safe, because it takes the time of all those screeners, who really should be spending their time looking for plastic explosives, which are the real threat. 

CROWLEY:  Do you mean that over the last four years they haven‘t been paying as much attention than they should have been?  I don‘t think that‘s the case, Tucker.  I‘m not willing—I don‘t know if you are, Tucker—to put flight attendants and passengers at risk of a terrorist.  What does a terrorist want to do?  A terrorist doesn‘t care how many people he kills.  And he doesn‘t care about his own safety.

CARLSON:  I‘m not defending terrorism, obviously.  Consider the logic of what you‘re saying.  Airline doors have been secured.  The whole purpose from preventing people from having these possible weapons on planes was to take prevent them from taking over the plane.  Right?

CROWLEY:  Correct.

CARLSON:  That cannot happen now that the cockpits have been hardened with these new doors.

CROWLEY:  That‘s fairly accurate, yes. 

CARLSON:  Right.  So why not extend your prohibition to trains, to movie theaters, to shopping malls?  If we‘re going to prevent people from using improvised weapons in public places, and that‘s clearly what you‘re trying to do, why not prevent them in all public places?  I don‘t get it.

CROWLEY:  No.  I think, Tucker, there‘s a unique—unique sense about an airplane.  An airplane, once it takes off, is isolated in the air.  Certainly, it can land at some point.  But it only takes a matter of a moment for a passenger, a terrorist or anyone, to get up, turn this into a weapon, grab a flight attendant, cut his or her throat or cut a fellow passenger‘s throat.

CARLSON:  Right.

CROWLEY:  You know, terror is all relative.  Terror, to me, if I‘m standing next to someone who‘s being killed, that‘s a terrorist attack, as far as I‘m concerned. 

CARLSON:  Well, of course it is.  But you could say the same thing about a ballpoint pen or a broken water glass.  I mean, you could always improvise weapons.  And isn‘t—the other problem I think TSA is pointing to when they‘re talking about changing these regulations, is the cynicism that the flying public experiences after awhile when nail clipper after nail clipper is confiscated, clearly making nobody safer.  And people conclude in the end this is all a joke. 

CROWLEY:  I think, Tucker, after four years of regulation, people should know, if they don‘t know by now, they can‘t bring these items onto a plane.  And I think actually what TSA is doing is further to confound and confuse the public just before the mad rush of the Christmas and Hanukkah and the new year season when these airports are going to be full to capacity to begin with.  We‘re now going to throw into this mix some new regulations and some new protocol, including some which I agree with. 

But certainly, I don‘t think the protocol that changed the items that were brought onto a plane makes any sense.  Frankly, I don‘t think the flying public thinks it makes sense.

CARLSON:  Then let me just ask you one final question, Congressman.  Why do you think it is, then?  What‘s the motive behind this change?  Why would TSA, why would the Airline Pilots Association, people who know a lot about flying and airline security, why would they be for this?  What‘s the motive?

CROWLEY:  The pilots, obviously, are secured behind the cockpit door. 

CARLSON:   They don‘t care what happens to the passengers?  Is that what you‘re saying?

CROWLEY:  I wouldn‘t necessarily say that.  But the idea is that they cannot be interrupted so they can fly the plane and land that plane. 

And as I said before, I think that‘s great.  I think that‘s wonderful.

But you know, is the consequence of a flight attendant.  Who‘s there to protect her if a terrorist on that plane uses this instrument to go after her life?  Or another passenger?  Who‘s there to protect that person?

The terrorist only has to do it once to create the hysteria—hysterics in this country to really affect air transportation and the economy of our country.  I just don‘t understand why—you know, what it really is, Tucker, what holds us up at the airport?  You know, the lines are held up because people try to put bags in that don‘t fit.  And I don‘t think TSA does enough to do that, to prevent them from bringing them on in the first place.

CARLSON:  Bigger overhead bins.  That‘s the answer. 

CROWLEY:  Well, overhead.  Secondly, TSA has cut down on the number of employees they have on lines today.  They‘ve gone from six to three.  So they‘re trying in many, many different ways to try to affect change at the TSA...

CARLSON:  Right.

CROWLEY:  ... to streamline them.  I just think this is a terrible idea. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Congressman Joseph Crowley of New York.  Thanks a lot for coming on. 

CROWLEY:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  For more on the airline security question, we‘re joined from Los Angeles by MSNBC contributor Flavia Colgan. 

Hello, Flavia. 


It happens often, but it happened again.  You‘re dead wrong.  The congressman is right.  While I agree with you that...

CARLSON:  Then why don‘t you answer the question he won‘t...

COLGAN:  No, no, no.

CARLSON:  Slow down.  Why don‘t you answer the question that he didn‘t answer?  And that is why would TSA, which has every motive in the world to keep air travel safe—that‘s it‘s job—why would they be in favor of this policy change?  Because they don‘t care about passengers?  Because they‘re insane?  What‘s with the answer to that?

COLGAN:  Obviously, the Bush administration has convinced them, as they often do, that somehow we‘re incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. 

Look, now is not the time to do less.  We need to do more.  And if people have to stand in line for an extra 20 minutes during the holiday season, then so be it.  It‘s a small price to pay to live in a land that grants us so much freedom.  And while I agree with you...

CARLSON:  You‘re ignoring the argument.  Hold on. 

COLGAN:  No, I‘m not.  No, I‘m not.

CARLSON:  You‘re ignoring the argument.  There are a finite—they‘re making a very serious argument that nobody seems to be addressing.  And it is this.  They have finite resources.  They have finite time.  No money of money will change that.  They only have so much time to screen passengers, and this wastes time that could be spent looking for real threats.  What about that point? 

COLGAN:  Look, I think we should give them more resources.  But what I want to talk about, I thought the congressman brought up a very interesting point, and I completely agree with you that with steel enforced doors and air marshals on the plane, no one is bringing down any airplane with a pair of scissors. 

However, the congressman—the congressman‘s point is well taken.  Terrorism isn‘t just about acts on that level of destruction.  It‘s about inflicting fear into the hearts.  And I see no reason why scissors on a plane can‘t do just that.  I think we need to figure out how do—you know, do both.  And you know, I will add as a caveat, however, Tucker, that I do think they should allow tweezers on the plane, because I‘ve now had about three or four of them confiscated from me, and no one wants to see me on this program when I don‘t have access to my tweezers. 

CARLSON:  But see, there you go, ignoring the safety of the flying public again, Flavia.  I‘m disappointed in you.

Look, the point is there are really serious threats out there.  And when it comes to air travel, they revolve around plastic explosives.  And it seems to me, in fact, not taking airline safety very seriously, this focus on scissors.  You could bite someone to death, if that was your aim.  Right?  And you can‘t take people‘s teeth out.  The point is, you should focus on the serious threat. 

COLGAN:  Maybe—maybe you could, Tucker.  I don‘t know.

CARLSON:  Yes, but don‘t you think...

COLGAN:  I like the ballpoint pen reference.  I think you‘ve watched Hannibal Lecter one too many times.

But no, you‘re very right.  I think that should be their primary focus.  But basically admitting that they can‘t do 100 percent of their job, I think actually, you know, gives the general public not much confidence.

And while I agree with you with the emphasis, I don‘t like them coming out saying, “By the way, we basically—we just can‘t handle it.  People got to take scissors.  They‘ve got to do what they‘ve got to do.  And we‘ll focus on explosives.” 

You know what?  Let‘s do both.  Let‘s take—check container ships coming in.  Let‘s do exactly what you propose, get you know, tighter restrictions on trains.  What is more important than protecting the safety of the American public?

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  It‘s a little bit more complicated than that.  You don‘t want to tie up travel because it ties up commerce.  And then you destroy the country, and the terrorists win.  I mean, at some point, freedom of movement really matters, and that‘s what it‘s about.

Let me ask you about...

COLGAN:  Now you‘re showing how obsessed you are with capitalism, but go ahead.  I agree. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not obsessed with capitalism at all.  I just think it‘s a good thing for people to be able to move from one place to another freely.  And I don‘t want to give that up just because   we‘re under attack from terrorists.

But here‘s my question to you.

COLGAN:  OK.  I will admit you‘re not callous and you don‘t care about... 

CARLSON:  No, I care a lot.  What is the argument...

COLGAN:  I know.

CARLSON:  ... exactly against placing true news articles in Iraqi papers?  There‘s been this huge outrage.  Everybody‘s agreed it‘s a bad thing.  Nobody‘s explained why it‘s such a bad ting that the Pentagon apparently has placed news true stories, accurate, so far as we know, in Iraqi press, has paid for placement of these pieces.

I thought we were supposed to be winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world.  This seems to be an effect to do that.  Why are we supposed to be outraged about it? 

COLGAN:  Well, Tucker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you why it‘s dead wrong.  It‘s dead wrong on two counts.  One, I agree with the use of propaganda, incidentally.  I think it‘s been used in every war, and it‘s very critical. 

And in fact, I think in this war probably more critical than most. 

Because we do, like you suggested, need to win the hearts and minds. 

However, there is a very different thing between us putting out our own propaganda and us putting it out into, quote unquote, “independent newspapers.”

COLGAN:  But I‘m going to tell you four reasons right now as to why this is enormously destructive.  No. 1, it undermines the Iraqis confidence in their own newspapers, which is not good. 

No. 2, if we are going to be spreading democracy in Iraq, is not a free speech a very important part of that?  And No. 3, I think it actually allows the newspapers to do pro-insurgent messages to reach the public, in fact, somehow more effectively.  Because then, “Oh, the newspapers are a tool of the Americans, so they can‘t be right.”

And No. 4, lastly, because Rummy doesn‘t need that much help with this.  It undermines his statement this last week that one of the reasons we know we‘re winning in Iraq is because the newspapers are independently reporting about the elections.  Thank you for yet another load of garbage which turns out to not be true. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  Just quickly in order. 

No. 1, the Iraqi newspapers are by and large a joke.  I can‘t imagine that Iraqis have confidence in them.  They are in no way—they in no way resemble our papers.  They‘re filled with lies and hearsay and have always been. 

No. 2, I don‘t think it is a violation of the idea of free press paying for essentially an ad in a paper. 

COLGAN:  Without telling people?  Do you agree with Armstrong

Williams?   You thought the Armstrong Williams thing was great. 

                CARLSON:  First of all, that was taking place in the United States. 

This is taking place in Iraq, a country where we‘re at war.  If you are not necessarily undermining a free press by, you know, putting a paid placed ad in the newspaper.  And I don‘t think they should have got caught doing it. 

We helped win the Cold War through propaganda through getting out case out

there through radio.  Voice of America.  Radio Free Europe

COLGAN:  Two things, Tucker, because I want to bring up your great performance, which was your performance on “The Today Show” this morning.  And we don‘t often agree.  However, when you were talking about Christmas trees, I want to tell you, just be glad you don‘t like in Beverly Hills.

Because just the other day, when I went to the seventh store of the day where they didn‘t have Christmas things, I was told, and I quote, by a clerk, “We don‘t sell Christian things because people find it offensive.”

And let me tell you what I find offensive.  I don‘t mind them having Hanukkah things.  I don‘t mind them having Kwanzaa.  That‘s what makes this country great.  But don‘t tell me that it‘s offensive to carry Christian things around a holiday that celebrates Jesus‘ birth.  I think it‘s outrageous.  I applaud you for getting on national television and, just like you were against the Iraq war, it turns out you‘ve been right twice in the last couple years, which I think is fantastic.

CARLSON:  I actually am not so bothered by that.  I‘m willing to say I like Beverly Hills.  I think it‘s a very pretty neighborhood, and I think each neighborhood has the right to choose its own character.  And you know, there are a lot of—if you were to go into an evangelical Christian part of Texas and start, you know, I don‘t know, putting up signs extolling Islam, people would be offended.  I mean, local character, I think, is valid.

COLGAN:  Let‘s talk—Tucker, let‘s trade places.  I‘ll move in with your fabulous wife and your beautiful two kids and you can hang out out here with clerks that drive you crazy in Beverly Hills. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I‘m not going to throw out some sort of phony populous pose and pretend I don‘t like southern California, where I‘m from, all in the first place.  It‘s a really nice place, and you‘re not going to hear me beat up on it.

Flavia Colgan, thank you. 


CARLSON:  From sunny Southern California.

COLGAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Still to come, character assassination on the Web.  How the popular online site Wikipedia.com falsely linked a former journalist to the assassination of John and Bobby Kennedy.  It‘s an unbelievable story.  You‘ll hear it when we come back.

Plus, does the world need human extinction in order to survive?  We‘ll talk to a man that says it‘s obvious the intentional creation of another human being by anyone anywhere cannot be justified.  And he means it.  You‘ll meet him, next.


CARLSON:  Still to come, should 16-year-old girls really be showing up for school dressed entirely in camouflage?  Is a Bible textbook a proper tool for the classroom?  Two questions, two heated debates with Max Kellerman, “The Outsider,” when THE SITUATION comes back.


CARLSON:  Here‘s a story that proves the old adage you can‘t believe everything you read, to which we add, especially online.  Retired journalist John Siegenthaler was shocked to read his biography posted on Wikipedia.com.  That‘s the online encyclopedia that is edited by its own readers. 

The bio included the following quote, “For a brief time, he was thought to  have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby.  Nothing was ever proven.” 

Completely untrue, says John Siegenthaler.  He has yet to find out who posted the entry. 

John Siegenthaler Sr. is a longtime editor and publisher of the “National Tennessean” as well as the founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. 

Mr. Siegenthaler, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON:  So who did this?  And if you still don‘t know, tell us what you did to try and find out?

SIEGENTHALER:  Well, I don‘t know who did it, and I want to find out.  And I‘ve tried to go to Wikipedia, where it appeared first in May.  I didn‘t find out about it until late September.  But I‘d like very much to know.  Wikipedia doesn‘t know. 

It apparently was a customer of Bell South.  Bell South says under the law, privacy provisions prevent them from telling me who it is. 

The only recourse I have is to file some John or Jane Doe lawsuit and then let whoever did it have the opportunity to quash the subpoena.  It‘s a very, very tough ordeal to break through the—through the protection that is now encasing online and Internet communications. 

CARLSON:  But Wikipedia strikes me as a little different, because it is, or it presents itself, anyway, as a reference book that people can go to for facts. 

SIEGENTHALER:  Yes, it does.  And it calls itself reliable and accountable.  Now there is a statement on the web site that it‘s not responsible for error.  But beyond that, its founder, Jimmy Wales, with whom I talked, has said on a number of occasions that they correct error in a number of minutes. 

And my—and my story, my biography—my biography, in quotes—my biography was up for four months before they brought it down. 

And I learned yesterday from a note he put on his web site that dozens of mirror web sites have picked it up.  Now, I knew about two, Answers.com and Reference.com, and they‘ve taken it down, but I don‘t know where else it is.  And you know, it‘s disturbing. 

CARLSON:  You were in journalism for decades.  Are you aware of any instances where‘s Wikipedia has been used as a source for a news story?

SIEGENTHALER:  No, I have been told—I had been told before this incident, I had been told by journalists, historians, school teachers that they used it.  School teachers tell me their students use it. 

And my only point in all this is, you know, I‘d like to unmask and confront whoever—whoever wrote it.  But my only point is that Wikipedia‘s claims of accountability and credibility are simply not valid.  And that you can read anything on there and never know whether it‘s fact or fiction. 

CARLSON:  Did you have any idea why someone would want to write something like that about you?  I know that you worked for Robert Kennedy and were his friend and were a pallbearer at his funeral.  Had you ever been accused of anything like this before?  Was this a rumor that was out there?  Was it totally out of the blue?

SIEGENTHALER:  No, it was totally out of the blue.  Nobody has ever had the—that slight thought never occurred to anybody I ever knew.  I mean, it‘s out of the whole cloth, and which makes it all the more puzzling.  The whole idea that I lived in the Soviet Union for 13 years.  I mean, who would say that?  Who would say that, you know?  Maybe I should start calling myself Ivan and my wife Natasha.  But no, I didn‘t have the slightest idea. 

CARLSON:  So over the top.  You lived in the Soviet Union.

Well, I hope you find out who did it.  And I hope when you do you‘ll come back and tell us who it is.  John Siegenthaler, thanks a lot for coming on. 

SIEGENTHALER:  Thank you so much, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thanks.

Still to come.  Are dress codes out of control?  Should a teen have been sent home for wearing a camouflage outfit her mom gave her?  We‘ll debate that next when THE SITUATION returns.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

If you think Greenpeace is radical for spray-painting baby harp seals, brace yourself.  For the sake of the environment, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement wants to eliminate the human race from the planet. 

Here to explain, the group‘s founder, Les Knight.  He joins us from Portland, Oregon.

Les, welcome.


CARLSON:  You want to eliminate the human race.  How unhappy was your childhood? 

KNIGHT:  I know, a lot of people think that.  No, no.

CARLSON:  It‘s an obvious conclusion.  Why would you want to do that? 

What would you want to be—want people to become extinct?

KNIGHT:  Well, it‘s either us or millions of other species going extinct.  You know, before we go too far, I should explain that this is through voluntarily not breeding. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KNIGHT:  We‘re not advocating...

CARLSON:  You‘re not calling for genocide.

KNIGHT:  No, or any kind of increase in death.  We‘re calling for a decrease in death, actually.

CARLSON:  OK.  But you‘re calling for people to go away.  I guess the obvious answer is what if we prefer our species to those other species?  Right?  I mean, isn‘t it fair for human beings to want to perpetuate their own species?

KNIGHT:  Well, it would be fair if that‘s all we did and if we let the others also survive and exist, if we could peacefully coexist.  But ever since we became homo sapiens, we haven‘t been able to do that.

CARLSON:  What do you mean?  I mean, there are many species of plant and animal that are thriving. 

KNIGHT:  We still haven‘t gotten to them yet.  We‘re working on it though. 

CARLSON:  But that‘s literally true.  I mean, there are all sorts of, you know, insects and algae.

KNIGHT:  You bet.

CARLSON:  There‘s a lot of living things on this Earth, and a lot of them are doing quite well. 

KNIGHT:  They are, yes, especially the ones that can adapt to our civilizations, like pigeons and rats.  But there are many species which have gone extinct, due to our increase.  There are so many of us.  Wherever we live, not much else lives. 

CARLSON:  So what‘s the point of saving the earth if there would be people around to enjoy it? 

KNIGHT:  Well, I know that‘s a question a lot of people ask.  And it‘s obvious that they‘re not thinking about all the other species.  We are just one of 10 million.  Who knows how many?  We‘ve only catalogued two million.  And to think that we—the entire planet is just for us is rather human centered. 

CARLSON:  Of course it‘s human centered.  We‘re humans.  Now you apparently, I was reading that there are parents in this group?

KNIGHT:  Sure.

CARLSON:  What do your children say?  What do you say to your kids? 

“Yes, I joined a group that is opposed to you”?

KNIGHT:  No, no.  We‘re not opposed to existing children.  In fact, that‘s a large part of it.  We‘re not taking care of the children that are already here.  How can we, in good conscience, create more children when so many are dying of preventable cause?

CARLSON:  But wait a second.  What do you mean you‘re not against children?  If I‘m—if I hire an exterminator to kill the rats in my basement, I‘m against rats.  You‘re against having more children come into the world, so you‘re anti-children.  I mean, how are you not?

KNIGHT:  No, no.  We‘re pro-children once the child is here.  What we‘re against is conception. 

CARLSON:  That is so wildly anti-human.  I mean, don‘t you see beauty in the creation of human life?

KNIGHT:  Well, I see beauty in the creation of almost all lives.  There‘s a trade off here.  The more of us, the fewer of them.  I mean, baby humans are cute, but so are baby pandas. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know, how about baby maggots?  Are they as cute as a baby child? 

KNIGHT:  They may not be as cute, but you know, their existence is far more essential to the Earth‘s biosphere than homo sapiens.

CARLSON:  OK.  So you see a moral equivalence between the birth of a maggot baby and the birth of a human baby?

KNIGHT:  Well, that‘s twisting it a bit. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  I‘m trying to listen to what you think. 

KNIGHT:  When you think of the biosphere as a whole and how ecosystems interact with each other, when an exotic invader comes in, as we are, and starts disrupting the other species...

CARLSON:  Exotic.  Are you a Scientologist?  What do you mean, invader?  We‘re not invaders.  We‘re from here. 

KNIGHT:  Well, we‘ve only been on the North American continent about 20,000 years, which is pretty recent.  Each time homo sapiens move into a continent, a spasm of extinctions occur.  And we are continuing it today. 

CARLSON:  If you don‘t mind my asking, who did you vote for in the last election?

KNIGHT:  You know, I can‘t remember.  Somebody asked me that the other day.  Didn‘t seem that important. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Are you—what are your politics, generally?

KNIGHT:  I‘m an anarchist.  But you know, the full range of political thought exists within the movement.

CARLSON:  Interesting.  And there are children in the movement, too?

KNIGHT:  Yes.  You know, I think the youngest is about 10.  There

aren‘t really very many.  But a lot of people who are in the movement think

have said that they thought of this when they were 6 or 7.  It‘s not a really complicated thing to realize that Earth‘s biosphere is being disrupted by one species, and that one species is us. 

CARLSON:  I will say, that is the sickest thing I think I‘ve ever heard, but you are one of the cheeriest guests we‘ve ever had.  I don‘t know how to—how the two fit together, but I appreciate you coming on.  Thanks a lot.

KNIGHT:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thanks.

Up next, if you‘re one of the few that thinks the Pledge of Allegiance is too religious for school, prepare yourself for the Bible book.  A next textbook on the Bible could be headed to high schools near you.  We‘ll tell you all about it when we come back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  According to the Talmud, a quotation at the right moment is like bread to the famished.  Joining me now from Las Vegas, a man whose opinions feed the hungry, the Outsider, ESPN radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman—Max.   

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  And as a Talmudic scholar would say, aahh.

CARLSON:  That‘s deep. 

KELLERMAN:  See, they stroke their beard and they go “aahh” at the same time.

CARLSON:  Well, speaking of world religions, it has been decades since Bibles have made an appearance in American public schools, but the publishers of a new textbook want to change that.  The book, entitled “The Bible and Its Influence,” is designed to teach the Bible to high school students in a non-religious way as essential document of Western civilization.  On its opening page, the textbook says, quote, “You‘re going to study the Bible academically, not devotionally.  In other words, you‘ll be learning about the Bible and its role in the language and culture.”  End quote.

And end of story, as far as I‘m concerned, Max.  You can‘t understand Western civilization, like it or not, without understanding the Bible.  The Hebrew texts and the Christian texts, they are the foundation of Western art, of Western law, of Western culture.  And you don‘t really understand the West until you understand that. 

KELLERMAN:  They are the most important documents, probably including the Constitution of the United States, if you want to understand the world in which we live, and they should be taught in the schools.

But this is the devil‘s advocate position, Tucker.  They should be taught explicitly, because right now they are taught implicitly, religiously.  If you send your kid to high school right now, in history class, they learn Biblical mythology instead of actual history to the best of archaeological and historical and scientific community‘s knowledge.  They are taught Biblical mythology in place of actual history.

CARLSON:  I don‘t know what schools you are talking.  Not the schools I went to, that‘s for sure. 

KELLERMAN:  Whatever you read about...

CARLSON:  The Bible and faith in general was mocked. 

KELLERMAN:  No, it‘s not about that, but you will read about Middle Eastern history from 3,000 years ago, and it will not be based on what the latest archaeological evidence says.  And in fact, I know this from personal experience.  My brother, my youngest brother, Jack, in high school, showed me something he was studying on Middle Eastern history.  And I told him what I was learning in college at the time in an archaeology class, and he wrote it down, and the teacher sent it back, no, this is not good.  Basically the teacher said what is required of you is that you parrot Biblical mythology.  That‘s substituting as history.  This way at least they will be able to differentiate between what we know to the best of our knowledge and faith-based mythology.

CARLSON:  That just sounds like classic evangelical bias, which is, as we know, so common in Manhattan schools.  I‘m just not surprised at all.

In Massachusetts meanwhile, a high school girl who wanted to blend in with the crowd ended up standing out when she wore head-to-toe camouflage the other day.  Sixteen-year-old Silo Lewis (ph) was sent home because the school said camouflage is associated with local gangs.  Silo‘s mom doesn‘t buy it, saying, quote, “she‘s always dressed from head to toe matching, and I‘ve always encouraged it.”

Let‘s be honest, Max, Silo doesn‘t have great taste, and she doesn‘t look great in camouflage.  But the point here is, the school hates camouflage and won‘t allow it on campus not because it‘s associated with gangs, that‘s ridiculous, but because it‘s associated with what, soldiers and hunters.  It‘s a martial pattern, and it is upsetting and offensive therefore to the liberal nutjobs who run Massachusetts schools.  That‘s why they don‘t like it.

KELLERMAN:  Well, in New York City, it is associated with thugs.  If you see someone in camouflage, which is not all that uncommon, at least wasn‘t about 10 years ago, it is associated with a street culture. 

Now, let‘s assume for a second that the school is correct and that there is a gang in the area that‘s wearing camouflage, and it‘s associated with gang activity.  Well, then, one, the girl is in a gang.  Which is bad.  Send her home and make her change.  Two, she is a danger to herself by putting on the clothing if she‘s not in the gang. 

CARLSON:  Oh, come on.

KELLERMAN:  Send her home and make her change.

CARLSON:  There is nothing dangerous about girl gangs, and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.  I don‘t care how many specials you put on television about how girl gangs are taking over.  Come on, I mean, let‘s be totally real.  This girl is not a danger to anyone, herself or anyone else. 


CARLSON:  They just don‘t like camouflage because it is associated with guns, and guns are bad. 

KELLERMAN:  Not to the boys, it‘s not a danger.  But in high school, I used to have girls ask me if I could walk them to the train because there were a couple of girls—not in a gang, just tough girls from outside the school—who were looking at them.  Girl-on-girl violence, Tucker, it‘s a serious issue. 

CARLSON:  I think it is actually a pay-per-view special.  Max Kellerman, from Las Vegas tonight, speaking of pay-per-view specials.

KELLERMAN:  Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON:  Have a great weekend, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  Not everything is a liberal agenda, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  But this one is.  What‘s wrong with camouflage?  I mean, you know, honorable bow hunters across the Northeast and Midwest wear it every weekend.  I mean, there‘s nothing wrong with it.  Come on.  Anyway, stay tuned.  There‘s still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION tonight. 


CARLSON (voice-over):  You make the call.  Is the debate over holiday PC spoiling the true meaning of Christmas? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘m surprised there isn‘t a movement to call the Christmas tree arboles de navidad (ph).

CARLSON:  Plus, from the ultrasecret X-files of “The Weekly World News,” why J.Lo‘s close encounters with space aliens could unlock the mystery of black holes.


CARLSON:  Then, which of these dubious newsmakers will be the lucky recipient of this week‘s human and nonhuman SITUATION achievement awards?  It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.

LOPEZ:  So this is what it is.  You know what I mean?



CARLSON:  Welcome back.  There are a lot of newspapers out there, but there‘s only one that has the courage to tell the truth about space aliens and superstars both.  That is of course “The Weekly World News.”  Bringing us next week‘s headlines tonight, the publisher of “Bat Boy Lives!: ‘Weekly World News‘ Guide to Politics, Culture, Celebrities, Alien Abductions and the Mutant Freaks that Shape Our World,” Bruce Lubin.  Bruce. 


CARLSON:  You‘re in Miami on assignment. 

LUBIN:  Indeed I am.

CARLSON:  What are you doing down there?

LUBIN:  Well, listen, I‘m on a big assignment.  I couldn‘t send one of the cub reporters.  We believe there are aliens in J.Lo‘s butt.  So I thought I should come down here and check that out.

CARLSON:  What gave you that impression and what are they doing there?

LUBIN:  Well, I think for obvious reasons, you can understand why I got the impression.  What they‘re doing there, it remains to be seen.  I suspect there was some intergalactic miscommunication.  I believe they might have heard that, you know, J.Lo makes another bomb, and how many bombs can J.Lo make, and maybe they thought they were going to learn something about our weapons systems.  That‘s my hunch.

I think I know how the implants were made, though.  I suspect if J.Lo, like the rest of us, when she watches her movies, she falls into a deep sleep, almost a coma, and that would have been a perfect time for aliens to be implanted. 

CARLSON:  Speaking of aliens, and really, no paper, as I said a second ago, covers the alien community with quite the verve and intensity of “The Weekly World News.”  They are celebrating Christmas this year?

LUBIN:  They always celebrate Christmas.  I mean, the funny thing is that they‘re a little bit more noted this year, because they will be in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but there‘s no tourists, so they stand out more this year, Tucker.

The truth is, aliens were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born.  In fact, they were lost, and the baby savior actually pointed the way to their galaxy.  So since the beginning of then, they‘ve been celebrating Christmas.  And what happened this year is they came back, and in their galaxy, things are just not going the way they want them.  You know, the kids demand expensive lasers and satellites.  They really lost the meaning of the holiday.  And you know, the Christmas comets that they decorate this year—well, now, there is this move to change them from Christmas comets to holiday comets.  I don‘t know how you feel about that, but I think that‘s a bad idea.

CARLSON:  I totally agree.  I‘m on the aliens‘ side.  Put the aliens back in Christmas.  That‘s always been my thing.

LUBIN:  Absolutely.  You can needle-point that into a pillow, Tucker. 

That‘s a nice line.

CARLSON:  Now, like us, I have no doubt that the aliens overeat during the holiday season.  I know “The Weekly World News” has a long tradition of giving up-to-the-minute weight loss tips.  Do you have any this season? 

LUBIN:  I do.  A team of dietitians really tested all the major diets, and I can say unequivocally, Tucker, Atkins Shmatkins.  If you want to lose weight, try the flesh eating bacteria plan.  You remember the disease from a few years back? 


LUBIN:  It‘s been tamed now.  OK, and yes, it stings a little bit, but let me tell you, what price—a small price to lose a few pounds.  What doctors have done is they figured a way to make the bacteria eat just the fat cells.  And they are somewhat successful.  So there is really a good chance that, you know, it‘s not going to eat through your liver or your spleen, and certainly you could have a six-pack at the end of the day.  There is something to be worried about, though.  It isn‘t 100 percent safe.  I understand that Paris Hilton actually went on this diet, but after a couple of days, she went off, because she couldn‘t get the bacteria to eat her.  And you know, draw your own conclusions.

CARLSON:  Even single-celled organisms have standards.

Now, Bruce, finally, no conversation about the holiday season would be complete without a conversation about new religions.  They start all the time, and “The Weekly World News” has discovered one.  Tell us about it.

LUBIN:  We found an African tribe that worships Salma Hayek‘s breasts.  And Tucker, I‘ve got to say, this is bad news for us.  This is bad news, because think about it, first it was Shanghai, then Bangalore, and now Gambia.  It seems as if all the big ideas and the great thinking is coming from offshore from these third-world nations.  I mean, what is wrong with Americans that we can‘t find our own tribe to worship Salma Hayek‘s breasts? 

CARLSON:  But it‘s good for the Mandinko tribe of the Gambia—I want to read a quote from one of the villages, a 22-year-old craftsman named Ganji.  He says: “Worshiping Salma Hayek‘s breasts has added meaning, direction and wonder to my life.”  That‘s touching. 

LUBIN:  Are you surprised by any of that?  You know, the point I want to make is, Thomas Friedman wrote a great book called “The World Is Flat,” which really laid this out, and I‘ll tell you, Salma Hayek‘s breasts are really proving that the world is in fact flat. 

I should tell you one other thing.  I have met with the tribe, and tell the crew that they are accepting applications.  So I have a handful of them, and next time I see you, I‘ll be sure to drop them off.

CARLSON:  Well, we won‘t have a single cameraman left by that point. 

LUBIN:  Of course not.

CARLSON:  You want news?  Bruce Lubin has got news, from “The Weekly World News,” with a weekly update.  Thanks, Bruce. 

LUBIN:  All right, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Coming up, a story that‘s got you all fired up.  The blind marksman.  How can a man who can‘t see be armed?  SITUATION viewers speak out on that continuing controversy when we come back. 


CARLSON:  Hello.  Time for our voicemail segment.  Many of you called. 

This is what you said.  First up. 


JOHN:  Hi, Tucker.  This is John Bufordale (ph) in beautiful Prescott, Arizona.  You know, with the way our so-called born-again Christian president and his administration are handling our border security situation, I‘m surprised there isn‘t a movement to call the Christmas tree arboles de navidad (ph).  Feliz Navidad, mi amigo.


CARLSON:  Well, Feliz Navidad to you, too.  I have to agree with part of what you said.  This is an administration that panders to the government of Mexico in the hopes that somehow they are going to win a lot of votes from Hispanic voters in 2008, as if Hispanic voters are for illegal immigration.  I can‘t believe that‘s true.  I think it‘s failed, and I don‘t think they are protecting our borders the way they should, and that annoys me to death.

Next up.  


ROBERT:  Robert Fittner (ph) from Des Moines, Iowa.  I just read your article on PETA.  It‘s absurd.  The simple fact that I take my son fishing, it‘s time that we get to spend bonding.  And these people are trying to tell me and my son that I‘m a killer, and he potentially (INAUDIBLE).  PETA has overstepped the line here, and I believe they should be stopped. 


CARLSON:  I don‘t know how we‘d stop them, Robert, but if you can think of a way, give me a call.  Actually, I would be on PETA‘s side.  I love animals.  But they‘re lunatics.  They go so far over the line that they make even potential allies like me despise them.  Attacking fishing with your kid—no quicker way to make me mad. 

Next up. 


LORI:  This is Lori from (INAUDIBLE), California.  I have a question about the man that you say is carrying a gun that is totally blind.  Did he have vision before?  I ask you that because I‘m totally blind, never seen a thing in my life, and I find these stories that there‘s people that have had vision before.  So I was curious.  I will be waiting, I listen to you every night.


CARLSON:  Thanks, Lori.  Yes, to answer your question, he did have vision before.  I believe he lost it when he was in his early teens, but in that time, the target he‘s firing at has moved.  So it still doesn‘t answer the question how does a man who cannot see anything hit a target?  We talked to him for about five minutes last night, and I still didn‘t get the answer.  I‘d love to see it.  Next time he‘s in the New York area, I hope he‘ll come by with his handgun and demonstrate it for us right here at MSNBC. 

Next up.


ROD:  This is Rod McDougal (ph) from Kingston, New Hampshire.  Tucker, I‘m wondering how one week you can claim that the ADA should be repealed, and then the next week claim that an obese trucker should be allowed to screw his employer, who fired him for being too fat. 


CARLSON:  I wasn‘t saying he ought to sue his employer.  I‘m almost never in favor of anybody suing anybody.  I can‘t stand lawsuits.  I honestly believe they are destroying America.  I just think it was wrong that they canned him for being fat.  It doesn‘t mean he should sue.  Doesn‘t mean he should get any money for it.  But I just don‘t think they should have done it.  I think it‘s wrong.  His fat is not hurting anybody.  Other people‘s fatness doesn‘t hurt you.  Something to keep in mind.

Let me know what you‘re thinking.  You can call 1-877-TCARLSON. 

That‘s 877-822-7576.  You can also e-mail.  The address, tucker@msnbc.com.  And as if that‘s not enough, you can read the blog, tucker.msnbc.com.  It‘s pretty good.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, “Forbes” magazine has released its list of the wealthiest fictional people in the world.  Now we know why St. Nick is so jolly.  We‘ll investigate Santa‘s vast fortune as we visit “The Cutting Room Floor,” next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for a very special Friday night “Cutting Room Floor.”  Willie Geist is here to deliver it to us. 

WILLIE GEIST, THE SITUATION:  Hey, Tucker.  The chill is still running down my spine from the human extinction guest.  

CARLSON:  Possibly the creepiest guest we ever had, but he was in a great mood.

GEIST:  He was.  He was a very smily guy. 

CARLSON:  Yes, he was.

GEIST:  (INAUDIBLE) human race ends.

CARLSON:  When you‘re facing human extinction, kind of makes you feel good. 

GEIST:  That‘s right.

CARLSON:  “Forbes” has released its list of the wealthiest fictional people in the world.  At the top of the list, Santa Claus, that reclusive toy and candy tycoon based at the North Pole.  The fortune of the 1,651-year-old St. Nick is so vast, the magazine was unable to tabulate it accurately.  Daddy Warbucks of “Annie” fame is second, with $27 billion.  Willie Wonka is 10th on the list.  He‘s worth $2.3 billion. 

GEIST:  First of all, this list is illegitimate, because Santa is obviously not a fictional person.  He‘s very real. 

CARLSON:  Well, I agree with that.

GEIST:  Of course.  But also, you would be stinking rich, too, if you were paying your elves in candy canes, running a sweatshop at the North Pole.

CARLSON:  Exactly right.

GEIST:  He has no overhead.  Has anyone ever questioned where he‘s getting the money to make these toys? 

CARLSON:  I don‘t—I heard Medellin mentioned, but that‘s it.

GEIST:  Arms dealer, my friends. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I believe it.

Our viewers who do their gardening at night, and we know there are many of them, will appreciate this next creation.  A Dutch florist has engineered real flowers that glow in the dark.  They are roses, treated with a substance that makes the luminescent.  The chemicals apparently don‘t hurt the flowers. 

There was no immediate information available about why you would want your flowers to glow in the dark. 

GEIST:  You know, they managed to make roses tacky, and that‘s quite an achievement, I have to say.

CARLSON:  Yes, it is.

GEIST:  I think if you‘re gardening at night, though, there are bigger problems. 

CARLSON:  I agree with that.

GEIST:  If you‘re out in the garden at night, you should probably call the poison control center or something. 

CARLSON:  If you‘re that obsessed?  That‘s what television is for, to give you something to do at night. 

They say there is no personal athletic achievement more gratifying than finishing a marathon.  I‘m not sure what they say about finishing a mini-marathon in your underpants.  This is a warm-up event for a triathlon in Israel.  It looks like tidy whities are the underwear of choice for the Israeli triathlete set.  The triathlon starts today.  

GEIST:  What is it about triathletes and the little underwear thing? 

Even when they are running in the races, they have the banana hammock on. 


GEIST:  It seems so an uncomfortable way to run a race. 


CARLSON:  I guess if you‘re running a triathlon, you just don‘t care. 

Well, it‘s time to meet our human of the week.  We couldn‘t resist showing this video again.  It‘s Sadayoshi Morita, who is still playing rugby in Japan at the age of 90.  Morita joined his university‘s rugby team in 1934 and hasn‘t stopped playing.  He was recognized this month as the oldest active rugby player in the world.  We recognize him as our human of the week. 

GEIST:  Sadayoshi has lost a step if you look at him out there.  I said it the other day...

CARLSON:  Well, he‘s 90 years old. 

GEIST:  I said it the other way and I‘ll say it again.  He‘s a side show, a distraction to his team.  If he was unselfish, he would give his spot up to somebody who could actually do something on the field. 

CARLSON:  You‘re going straight to hell in case I haven‘t pointed that out. 

GEIST:  I‘ll see you there.

CARLSON:  OK, thank you, Willie.

Well, we keep it in Japan for our nonhuman of the week this week.  He is Columbo, the Japanese dog who has been dyed to look like a Japanese panda.  The dog is naturally white, but his owner put black dye around his eyes, ears and legs to make him look like a panda.  Of course, it borders on the inhumane, but how can you not stop and look at this?  To answer your question, yes, the dog is named after the TV detective Columbo.

GEIST:  We talked about it the other night.  There are just so many things to say.  You could start with Columbo, naming after Peter Falk character.  This is cute, but I think as a rule, we shouldn‘t spray-paint dogs.  How do you feel about that?

CARLSON:  I think as a federal law, we shouldn‘t spray-paint dogs. 

GEIST:  Unfortunately, Japan‘s federal laws might be a little bit different than ours. 

CARLSON:  I think our law no longer extends to Japan, ever since we withdrew after the occupation. 

GEIST:  That‘s right.

CARLSON:  It‘s one of the problems of losing (INAUDIBLE)...

GEIST:  They have no laws of decency, unfortunately.

CARLSON:  No, they don‘t.

Willie Geist!  Have a great weekend.

GEIST:  You too.

CARLSON:  That‘s it for THE SITUATION for tonight and for the week.  Thank you for watching.  Up next, “COUNTDOWN” with Keith.  Have a great weekend.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

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


Discussion comments