Guest: Max Kellerman, David Kupelian, Dyan French Cole, Charles Slepian
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: Thanks for being with us. THE SITUATION with Tucker Carlson starts right now.
Tucker, my friend, what‘s THE SITUATION tonight?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Joe Scarborough, always great to see you.
Thanks to you at home for sticking with us tonight. We always appreciate it.
Tonight as President Bush discusses the progress being made in Iraq, and makes his case what about congressional Democrats? Are they ready for the inevitable Howard Dean backlash they‘re going to face during next year‘s mid-term elections? I‘ll debate that with Flavia Colgan.
Also, as New Orleans tries to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, is the city ready to cancel Mardi Gras? That‘s what some evacuees are now calling for. Will they get their wish and should they?
Plus, the remarkable new no-diet diet. Eat all the candy and all the chips you want when you‘re hungry, and shed pounds at the same time. That‘s the claim, anyway. We‘ll talk to the inventor of this latest sensation in just a few minutes.
We begin tonight with the tragedy on American Airlines Flight 924 in Miami. This afternoon, a federal air marshal shot and killed a 44-year-old American citizen named Rigoberto Alpizar after the man alleged claimed to have a bomb in his carry-on and then tried to run away from several marshals, who told him to stop and lie down.
According to one passenger, Alpizar‘s wife said her husband was mentally ill and off his meds.
For more on this developing story, we welcome aviation expert, Charles Slepian, who joins us live tonight from New York City.
Charles Slepian, thanks a lot for coming on.
CHARLES SLEPIAN, AVIATION EXPERT: My pleasure, Tucker.
CARLSON: The obvious question—this is a tough one to ask, maybe as hard to answer—did the air marshal do the right thing, shooting this man?
SLEPIAN: The federal air marshal service will replay this a number of times in the next day or so and they‘ll come to a conclusion as to whether he did exactly what they would have preferred that he had done, or perhaps come up with some modifications. All I can say is, based on what I have heard, I would like to think that if I were in his shoes, I would have done the exact same thing.
CARLSON: How—how unusual is it that air marshals were on this flight? They apparently travel in pairs, but reading reports about attrition among air marshals, apparently a lot of them don‘t re-up. It‘s a difficult job and not well paid. How many air marshal do we think are currently working?
SLEPIAN: I don‘t know. The last report that I saw was an evaluation of their performance, and the number that was bandied about was somewhere around 5,000, but they‘ve been absorbed into the customs service. And I think that our numbers of customs officers, who are—who go back and forth between being air marshals and customs officers, so we‘re not quite sure how many there are.
But he was on this flight. I guess that‘s a function of an estimate of the risk that this flight presented in terms of and actually something like this occurring.
CARLSON: Is there any—this is the first time, apparently, that the air marshals have used deadly force. It is the first time they‘ve used deadly force, at least in quite some time. But do we have any sense of how often they intervene with passengers on flights? You never hear about it. It‘s got to happen. Do you have any idea?
SLEPIAN: I don‘t know the numbers. It‘s very few, from what I understand, because their mission really is to interdict a hijacker or a bomber, and they don‘t want to identify themselves by getting involved in some kind of an altercation between passengers or a dispute between passengers and crews. So they probably don‘t get involved very often.
CARLSON: So I mean, you always read reports of some guy who‘s had four Xanax and three bourbons and tries to light a cigarette and punches a flight attendant. I mean, you read those practically every week. Air marshals don‘t get involved in altercations like those?
SLEPIAN: Well, they may, but it‘s not being reported if they are.
CARLSON: Interesting. Do you think, in the end—this is a subjective question—but do you think the air marshal program is effective?
SLEPIAN: Well, I think we saw today that there is still a very serious risk that somebody could penetrate our screening system and get on a plane with a bomb, and that‘s why we have them there. We have them there because we are still concerned about bombs and weapons getting on planes.
And until we are able to secure the screening stations and the whole loading process of passengers and cargo, we‘re going to need air marshals because they‘re all that‘s left, should somebody successfully make it on board the plane with a bomb.
How we are using them on board to perhaps predict in advance which passengers might be likely, that I don‘t know. But we ought to reconsider now what their role is, and perhaps something of a profiling role, something which would enable them to remove a backpack or parcel which might contain a bomb from somebody who just isn‘t quite right.
CARLSON: Of course. That‘s what some people, including me, have been calling for for a long time. Common sense. I hope they listen to you. Charles Slepian, in New York now, live, thanks.
SLEPIAN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Now to Washington, where President Bush continued his defense of the war policy in Iraq.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations today, the president gave a progress report of sorts. He claimed that economic improvements have given Iraqis hope for the future.
He also took some veiled shots, and not so veiled shots, at Democratic critics of the war, also criticizing the press‘s overall coverage of events in Iraq. Here‘s a snippet from the speech earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Many who once questioned democracy are coming off the fence. They‘re choosing the side of freedom. This is quiet, steady progress. It doesn‘t always make the headlines in the evening news. But it‘s real, and it‘s important, and it is unmistakable to those who see it close up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Joining us to discuss the president‘s progress report, as well as how some Democrats are responding to it, MSNBC political contributor Flavia Colgan. She joins us tonight live from Philadelphia.
FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Good evening. Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Here‘s news that hasn‘t been reported. This is kind of interesting. You haven‘t seen this many places today. According to the new CBS poll just out, December 2 to the sixth, the polling time, the president‘s approval rating up five points. Still pretty pathetically low, but it‘s moving up, and I‘ll tell you why I think this is. There are two reasons.
The first is, I think failure has been pretty good for the president. If you read his speech, if you watched him today, he was better than he normally is. He seemed less arrogant. He was far more detailed in the things he said about Iraq, fewer slogans, more facts, or at least what he said were facts. Was a pretty impressive performance, I thought.
Second, the debate has changed. It‘s no longer a debate about why we went to war. That debate will continue forever, and I think ultimately it‘s a debate, frankly, President Bush is going to lose, but that‘s not what we‘re debating. We‘re debating what should we do next, and that‘s a debate Bush can win. And I think his numbers are going to continue to rise as that debate progresses.
COLGAN: Well, Tucker, I hate to say I told you so, but when I was on this program last week and we talked about last week‘s speech, I said that I felt his numbers would go up slightly, an uptick, because as you recall, I said I think he‘s speaking to the former choir.
And as you said, he‘s talking to people who, on principle agree, with the war but have been very chagrinned at the execution of it. And I said once you get an uptick of 1 or 2 percent, then you‘re going to get lemmings, or not even as disparaging, people who are willing to look at the war again and give it a second look.
But I have to disagree with you in terms of the detail. I was yet again discouraged today, not only from what I thought was a lack of substance, and a lack of what Opt Truth (ph) and other of the major veterans groups have been calling for, and I certainly have been, which is not a cut and run scenario, which is a Republican canard for saying that we want a time table. I‘m talking about some sort of time table, some metrics for success, some specifics of what success would look like.
And what bothered me about the speech today, in addition to what he did last week, which was simply not matching rhetoric with reality. I get very frustrated hearing how great Iraq is going, when people and communities have to continue to see body bags coming home.
CARLSON: Hold on. Things can be...
COLGAN: And not that much progress in terms of security on the ground there.
CARLSON: Hold on. Things can be improving in Iraq, and you‘re still going to have a lot of American casualties. I‘m not excusing them. I don‘t think this war is worth American casualties, as I‘ve said.
But the kind of blanket accusation you heard from Democrats today that no, things are no better in Iraq. Nancy Pelosi saying the security situation is no better, as if Nancy Pelosi would know. She wouldn‘t. She‘s not a credible vessel for a message like that. I think reflected pretty poorly on the Democratic Party.
You don‘t see many Democrats. There are some exceptions, but rank and file Democrats who really seem like they want America to win the war, A, and B, who seem to think it‘s possible that America will win the war. That‘s a losing position politically.
COLGAN: Tucker, I agree with you. On the second point, I certainly don‘t have a crystal ball, and I don‘t know. And I was upset that Howard Dean predicted what would happen in Iraq, because I certainly don‘t know what‘s happening.
What I do know if I don‘t think things are going well. What I do know is, while I may not be a military analyst or specialist, and either is Nancy Pelosi, and as you have very humbly point out, either are you, I do know that people that do have experience, whether they people—be people in the Congress who‘ve served, but more importantly, as far as I‘m concerned, you know, former military brass, you know, have continuously been concerned.
I want to go to the Democrats in a moment. Just the one thing that I wanted to add in terms of my disappointment in Bush‘s speech today on the anniversary, you know, with the World War II speech.
I felt it was very inappropriate to compare our war in Iraq to World War II, and very inappropriate to compare 9/11, though that is a day that will live in infamy because many Americans died, to compare that to Pearl Harbor. He obviously didn‘t get the memo...
CARLSON: Wait a second. Hold on.
COLGAN: ... everyone on the 9/11 Commission thought, which is that Iraq was not connected to 9/11.
CARLSON: I think—I think most...
COLGAN: That is not analogous. Can I...
CARLSON: I think most reasonable people agree that there‘s no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. I‘ve never claimed there is, and I actually take offense at people who do claim that, because it‘s not true.
Why is it offensive to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor? It is, of course, Pearl Harbor Day today. Both were sneak attacks from enemies we weren‘t exactly sure we had. Both spurred America into a war. Both were turning points in world history. I think it‘s a pretty fair comparison.
COLGAN: Well, I completely disagree with you. I mean, looking historically at it, certainly Roosevelt took his time. We went after the people that attacked us.
If we were fighting a war in Afghanistan right now, if we were spending billions of dollars rooting out every cave, getting Osama bin Laden, the person who killed thousands of Americans, yes, I would agree with you that it was an appropriate thing. In addition to that...
COLGAN: ... we‘d have very clear metrics on what we were trying to accomplish. But let me not just pile on.
CARLSON: Hold on. I want to...
COLGAN: Let me—
CARLSON: Before you go on, I really want to get your specific response to something really interesting that Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has been talking about lately. He is—of course, has been a booster of this war from the very beginning, a very enthusiastic booster.
He said today, or the other day, he said, “It‘s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he‘ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president‘s credibility at our nation‘s peril.” Attacking Bush‘s credibility, in other words, hurts America.
And he suggested the creation of a bipartisan war council, Democrats and Republicans, getting together to advise the president on how to win this war. He‘s gotten very little Democratic support for that. Why wouldn‘t the Democratic leadership be in favor of figuring out ways to win? Maybe they‘re opposed to the war in the first place. So am I. But all of us can agree that we ought to win, can‘t we?
CARLSON: So why aren‘t Democrats behind this?
COLGAN: Absolutely, Tucker. I have no idea. I might be a Democrat, but I‘m an American first, and I hope you‘re dead wrong about Democrats not wanting us to win in Iraq. And...
CARLSON: I‘m not saying that. I‘m just wondering why they haven‘t been more aggressive in thinking of ways to win.
COLGAN: Well, Senator—well, if you go into the “Huffington Post” and read my article now or my article which will appear in “Philadelphia Daily News,” I call for the same thing that Lieberman does, which is a bipartisan panel of brass, of people who are experts in the region. I completely agree with you.
Look, I was inspired the other day, and you‘re going to laugh at me. I was watching “American President,” which Michael Douglas is in. And at the climax of the movie, he says, “These are serious problems. We need serious people to solve these. I‘m done—you know, forget about the finger pointing. We need more statesmen, less politicians.”
CARLSON: I agree.
COLGAN: We need to sit down across the table and talk about these issues.
CARLSON: No, actually, I disagree with that. We need politicians.
COLGAN: Who act like statesmen.
CARLSON: ... is run by politicians.
COLGAN: Politicians who care about not the next election, but politicians who care about the next generation. There‘s a difference.
CARLSON: I don‘t think there‘s anything wrong with caring about the next election. It‘s a democratic system. You want people to be responsive to the concerns of voters. But don‘t you think that both sides ought to be invested in a single, discrete, very clear goal, victory in Iraq?
CARLSON: Victory meaning leaving a stable country?
COLGAN: Well, first, I would say, suggest that we should have a more clear goal than just leaving the country a stable country. To me, that‘s a little bit too amorphous. If I were a soldier over there, I wouldn‘t exactly know what that means. I think the Democratic Party...
CARLSON: How about averting disaster? How‘s that sound?
COLGAN: Well, I guess. I guess that‘s a good goal to have in any situation.
But I think that the Democrats are slowly coalescing around the idea that we should have strategic redeployment, that the reconstruction effort should be international. However, I have to say I was very chagrinned...
CARLSON: All right.
COLGAN: ... you know, to look at the “Washington Post” today and hear that the Democrats are trying to find a way to have it both ways, and to say, how can we leave wiggle room, so that—you know, this is not the time for wiggle room.
CARLSON: I agree.
COLGAN: I had the opportunity to be with Senator Feingold the other night in California. And let me tell you, he actually reminded me a lot of Wellstone. And the reason is good policy equals good politics.
Hillary Clinton and every Democrat who‘s watching, grow a backbone. Stand up and be counted. If you‘re Jack Murtha, don‘t worry about getting the heat. Stand up and say what you think. It‘s not enough to criticize Bush.
CARLSON: I agree.
COLGAN: There‘s ton to criticize there, but it‘s time for the Democrats to show vision, ideas, stand up and say, “This is what we believe in.” Even if the numbers don‘t show it, I want them to do it and I want them to show leadership.
CARLSON: I hope they are watching. Strategic redeployment, incidentally, my favorite new euphemism. Strategic redeployment.
Flavia Colgan, joining us live tonight from Philadelphia. Thank you.
COLGAN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Still to come, black survivors of Hurricane Katrina told Congress that racism contributed to the government‘s slow response with some likening themselves to victims of the Holocaust. Up next, I‘ll be joined live by New Orleans evacuee Dyan French Cole, who has a few questions of her own.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DYAN FRENCH COLE, NEW ORLEANS EVACUEE: Who put our disaster plan together? I‘m eight years sanitation, five years Department of Transportation, if you don‘t get the—oh, I don‘t want to say all them words. Guns, who come rescue with guns?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: She is good.
Plus, if you‘d like to wash down your 20-ounce bag of Funions with a tub of ranch dressing, do I have the diet for you. Losing weight in ways you never dreamed up, when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Coming up, are Americans falling victim to a devious advertising scheme that preys on our weaknesses? We‘ll explore the dirty world of evil marketing.
Plus, the scrumptious details of the no-diet diet. Eat Snickers and lose weight. And stay tuned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLE: New Orleans is not for sale. We ain‘t going nowhere. Roaches and black folk, they‘ve been trying to exterminate, eliminate us. We‘re still there. We plan to be there. Whatever it takes, tent city, no city, sleeping in cars, whatever we got to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was Dyan French Cole, speaking before a congressional committee investigating the government‘s response to Hurricane Katrina, yesterday.
Cole, or Mama D, as she prefers to be called, joins us live from Washington, D.C., tonight.
Thanks a lot for joining us, Dyan French Cole, Mama D. We appreciate it.
COLE: You know, darling, the children in New Orleans gave me that name. I‘m proud of it. Mama D.
CARLSON: Well, it‘s a nice name. I like it.
COLE: And they treat me with that respect. So that‘s why it‘s a preference of mine.
CARLSON: Tell me about something you said to Congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut yesterday. You said you believe the levees were blown up in New Orleans.
Now there‘s no—it just struck me as a pretty damaging thing to say, since there‘s no evidence that‘s actually true. People are going to believe you. As you said, people in New Orleans respect you, and people are going to believe that that actually happened, and it‘s going to make them more fearful than they already are. It‘s a bad thing to say.
COLE: Well, you‘re entitled to your opinion, baby. I defy America to deny anybody their opinion.
CARLSON: I‘m not trying to deny your opinion. I‘m just trying to...
COLE: No, I‘m talking about yours. That‘s your opinion, baby. That there‘s no proof.
CARLSON: But I have facts on my side, because there‘s no evidence that that happened.
COLE: Well, who did you get your facts from?
COLE: I was standing on my porch, and I heard two almost simultaneous loud explosions.
COLE: And within minutes, my street went from minimum, less than a foot of water, to, well, it was really more than six feet high, because it was rolling, like you know when you see kids on TV, what do you call it, surfing?
COLE: It was rolling like that, the water was. And then when it settled, if you come by my house, and I‘m inviting you, there‘s a large tree in front of my door. And on that tree is the marking, I will never take it down. As it wears off, I‘ll put it back, of where the water settled. It was approximately six feet in the air.
CARLSON: But here‘s my question. It‘s one of motive. I mean,
obviously, those explosions you heard most likely the sounds of the levees
of the levees collapsing.
The federal government has now pledged $90 billion to rebuild your region, $90 billion. Why would the government blow up the levees only to spend $90 billion to rebuild them?
COLE: Well, you see, you‘re bringing it to that level.
CARLSON: Yes, I am.
COLE: In the ‘20s, they blew the levee.
COLE: In the ‘60s, they blew the walls of the levee. And this time, the first two explosions, because there were three, was the 17th Street Canal and the London Street Canal, which is directly, like the descendants, whoever, the representatives was asking me yesterday. It‘s halfway between my house and my post office box. That‘s how close it is to my house.
And then not only that, but you know, people talk about the contamination in the water. We flush out the lake, and we drink out the lake, so we used to the contamination. And what was happening, when they was so vicious as to turn the water off, we had to get water to flush from the water that they were riding on.
CARLSON: Are you...
COLE: And we had to use bleach.
COLE: And sun to sanitize it enough to flush the toilet with. In my toilet bowl was the sand that lets me know that the water was coming out of the lake. But the harsh residue, the gray clay-like substance indicates something else.
CARLSON: Well, it‘s pretty—it was pretty nasty. I remember the water well. I was down there. It was disgusting and anybody...
COLE: You didn‘t come see me.
CARLSON: I didn‘t know you were there, or I would have come over for a beer. But here‘s my question. There‘s been a lot of outrage directed toward the federal government, most of which I think is valid. I think they fell down on the job, and said so. However, local government really fell down on the job.
COLE: I agree.
CARLSON: You had local—so why—why don‘t people say that? I mean...
COLE: I say that. Nobody is listening to me.
CARLSON: Good for you. Is your mayor, Ray Nagin, going to get re-elected after this? Are you supporting him?
COLE: Well, he who knows not that he knows not, I don‘t know. The guy you‘re showing, the General Honore?
COLE: See, what happened, people didn‘t pay close attention. The governor got on the television immediately and declared that she wanted to be in charge of everything.
COLE: In all the areas.
CARLSON: Didn‘t do—didn‘t do a very good job of being in charge, I noticed.
COLE: No, she didn‘t.
CARLSON: Are you supporting her?
COLE: Of course not.
CARLSON: Good for you.
COLE: Of course not. And let me just say something to you. I don‘t have any malice with the young mayor, because this has been an ongoing thing. Those who don‘t know, those who don‘t care has led him in the direction that he‘s in. Most of his appointees don‘t live in our parish, so therefore they wouldn‘t know the things unique to our particular parish.
CARLSON: Right. OK.
COLE: And that‘s a problem. And they help him choose folk who can‘t tell you what some of us could tell you about this situation.
CARLSON: Let me just—let me just ask you a final question. There were—there was a controversy that came yesterday when one of the women who was testifying before Congress from New Orleans compared the experience of evacuees from the city to that of people who were put in concentration camps during the holocaust, during the Second World War. People were offended by that. Do you understand why people were offended by that?
COLE: No. No, I don‘t understand that, darling, and let me tell you why. You know what a mutt is?
CARLSON: A mutt?
COLE: Mutt, in the animal kingdom?
CARLSON: Yes, right. Mutt, sure.
COLE: You‘re a little this and a little that. You know, I sit here, and as I trace my heritage, I can rightfully say what I want to say, because according to my father and grandfather, I have German Jew bloodline. Do they want to DNA me?
You know, we got to get out of this it‘s mine and it‘s yours. We all human beings.
COLE: At my house right now, as I‘m speaking to you, there are people from all over the world, and they‘re getting dirty. They‘re cleaning. They‘re doing everything they can do to assist the citizens of New Orleans.
And we not playing the “what color you are,” where you came from.
CARLSON: I‘m not even—I‘m not even suggesting that it‘s an ethnic or racial question. I‘m merely suggesting there‘s a difference between being a victim of a natural disaster and being the victim of an organized campaign to kill you and your people...
COLE: See, that‘s the point.
CARLSON: ... which is of course, what the Holocaust was, and Katrina was something very different.
COLE: No. That‘s the point that people want you all to believe.
COLE: This was not natural. Katrina didn‘t do this. Katrina didn‘t pull guns on us. Katrina didn‘t deny us water and food. Katrina didn‘t treat us like we were sub or nonhuman. That‘s post-Katrina.
CARLSON: Huh. But Katrina itself was not sent by the federal government.
COLE: Katrina knocked out—let me say something to you, baby.
COLE: The week prior—the week prior to Katrina...
CARLSON: All right.
COLE: ... there was another threat of another hurricane. They went through the whole gyration of evacuation. As a matter of fact, there was conflict between two mayors, the Jefferson Parish.
COLE: And all these guys, because he didn‘t evacuate us.
COLE: And, you know—let‘s go beyond that.
CARLSON: Well, I‘m...
COLE: If you know a week in advance that you‘re expecting something.
COLE: No. 1...
CARLSON: We‘re almost out of time here.
CARLSON: So you‘ve got to boil it right down for me, I‘m afraid.
COLE: Let me put it to you this way. Racism is alive and well.
COLE: Come to my house in New Orleans, and come spend a couple of days with us.
CARLSON: I‘d be happy to.
COLE: We clean and we clean. We‘re eating gourmet, really, because we‘re eating fresh and healthy.
CARLSON: I believe that.
COLE: Sunday before my trip here.
CARLSON: Good. Well...
COLE: The guys...
CARLSON: I‘m going to take you up on your claim that you‘re a great cook.
COLE: You promise?
CARLSON: Actually, I do promise.
COLE: All right. You‘re on public television.
CARLSON: Next time I‘m there.
CARLSON: Dyan French Cole, a.k.a., Mama D. We appreciate it.
COLE: God bless you.
CARLSON: Still to come, have Americans mastered the art of selling evil? You‘ll meet one man who says unequivocally yes when THE SITUATION comes back.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
There is no question that America‘s society is changing faster than most adults are comfortable with. Even parents who consider themselves pretty liberal stand back in horror as their kids decide which parts of their bodies to pierce next and how many sex partners at one time is just too many.
My next guest says these changes are by design, the result of a sinister marketing scheme you might not even be aware of. David Kupelian is the author of “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell us Corruption Disguised as Freedom.”
He joins us live from Washington, D.C., tonight. David Kupelian, thanks a lot for coming on.
DAVID KUPELIAN, AUTHOR, “THE MARKETING OF EVIL”: Hey, Tucker, good to be with you.
CARLSON: So give me three very quick examples of evil being marketed to us that we‘re not aware of.
KUPELIAN: Three examples. OK. Abortion. Abortion is basically an issue where one side is based completely on lies and fabrications, going way back to the beginning of the 1960‘s, and continuing until today.
CARLSON: Which side is that?
KUPELIAN: The pro-choice side instituted abortion by fabricating the most outrageous lies, that 5,000 to 10,000 women were dying every year, which did not happen. And to this day, they are...
CARLSON: Of back-alley abortions?
KUPELIAN: It was all a lie, Tucker, the whole thing about the back-alley abortions. We had to legalize abortion to save these 5,000 to 10,000 women every year who were dying, which is a pretty strong argument. The fact is, it never happened.
CARLSON: How do you know that?
KUPELIAN: Because, in the year 1972, which was—that was the last full year before Roe vs. Wade.
KUPELIAN: Do you know how many women died that year from illegal botched abortions?
CARLSON: I don‘t know.
KUPELIAN: According to the Centers for Disease Control—I‘ll give you hint. There were not 10,000. There weren‘t 5,000. There were 39.
KUPELIAN: Thirty-nine. Thirty-nine nationally, the United States of America. Even counting for underreporting, there is nobody who thinks there was more than 200 to 300 all during the ‘60s. It was just a big, huge marketing lie that the NARAL people and their other marketers fed to the public. And the media were basically convinced that this was a great cause that they—you know, it was something that we needed to do. And they went along with it uncritically.
CARLSON: Right. Well, I absolutely believe that. They do lie on that subject. That‘s true. OK, give me another.
KUPELIAN: You know, the gay rights agenda, regardless of what you think about homosexuality and the gay rights movement, basically has been implemented in America by way of a very sophisticated, long-term, public relations campaign.
There was a book written in 1988 called—I forget what it was called. But it was a book that was written by two guys named Kirk and Madsen. And it was called “After the Ball.” Excuse me.
And it is the acknowledged marketing bible, the playbook of the gay rights movement.
KUPELIAN: And this book—basically, these were very sophisticated, professional, Harvard-educated marketers. And these were guys that worked out a very in-depth campaign, using all of the latest techniques of marketing and mass manipulation. And it‘s all out there. This was a best-selling book.
CARLSON: But doesn‘t every movement, every smart ideological movement, market itself? I mean, the people who are now generating all this news coverage—which I enjoy and am actually part of that generation of news coverage—but about Christmas and being renamed, you know, holiday trees, and the attack on Christmas carols, I mean, that side, conservative Christians, are using marketing techniques...
KUPELIAN: Of course.
CARLSON: ... to get their point out there.
KUPELIAN: Hey, my book‘s not called marketing is evil. It‘s the marketing of evil. There‘s nothing wrong with marketing. I‘m a good marketer. Marketing is just good presentation. It takes brains.
But what I‘m against is marketing evil, where you take, you know, self-destructive behaviors that are going to shorten life and give you a miserable existence, and dressing that up, and perfuming it, and packaging it so that it seems like it‘s something good. That‘s what I call the marketing of evil.
CARLSON: It‘s particularly—in my view, it‘s particularly disturbing when it is repeated by the press uncritically as fact. That‘s a fascinating example about back-alley abortions.
So, Dave Kupelian, I really appreciate your coming on. “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom,” now on sale. Thanks.
KUPELIAN: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Up next, some New Orleans residents say forget Mardi Gras, focus on rebuilding. Do they have a point? We‘ll debate with “The Outsider,” next.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
W.C. Fields once said, “If you can‘t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.” We‘re joined now by a man who can do both very well. He is the “Outsider,” HBO Boxing and ESPN Radio host Max Kellerman, joining us tonight from Las Vegas—Max?
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST: And in the words of Art Carney (ph as Ed Norton, a little from column a, a little from column b.
CARLSON: You‘ve got both columns covered.
All right. Buckle your seat belt, Max. This is truly a shocking
story. From New Orleans, a city known for the slogan, “Let the good times
roll”—but since Katrina, of course, there haven‘t been many good times -
now some critics want to do something that would have been considered unthinkable: cancel Mardi Gras.
One evacuee said, quote, “They shouldn‘t be preparing for Mardi Gras. They should be trying to get families back in neighborhoods. They should be trying to get New Orleans back on its feet.”
A sentiment I agree with completely. They‘re not going to get New Orleans back on the feet, Max, until they get tens of thousands of drunk college students back on the streets of the French Quarter spending freely and reminding people that New Orleans is actually still intact, at least that part of it is. They need Mardi Gras to rebuild the city, period.
KELLERMAN: Well, I think your best argument, certainly, is that it stimulates the economy to have money from outside the city and state pouring into the city and state.
Not so much that what‘s New Orleans without the party goers, because what‘s New Orleans now—you know, New Orleans is in a bad situation. I think, though, that this is more about priorities than anything else. And people are right. There are displaced families. So who do you put first, spring breakers or displaced families? Where does the attention go?
CARLSON: Well, I mean, there‘s no reason you can‘t do both. The displaced families are already, you know, living out of the city, in many cases living out of state. We‘re pouring the equivalent of the Marshall Plan into the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. That much has been covered.
But in the end, the city cannot thrive on federal handouts. It needs to rebuild itself and become at least part of what it once was, and what it once was, was a tourist destination for drunk people. I mean, there‘s just no getting around it.
KELLERMAN: Yes, it was, but it ain‘t going to be that right now. You got to crawl before you can walk. And there are logistical problems that would go along with—first of all, hotel rooms. They claim the hotel industry hasn‘t been hit that hard. They‘ve lost about 10,000 rooms.
KELLERMAN: Most of those rooms are occupied by people reconstructing the city, essentially.
KELLERMAN: Where does everyone stay?
CARLSON: Well, that‘s the whole point of Mardi Gras. Where does everyone stay in a normal year? They don‘t have enough hotel rooms for them even pre-hurricane.
KELLERMAN: Right. They‘re sleeping face down in a pool of their own vomit.
CARLSON: That‘s exactly right. You sleep in the doorway. You sleep in your car. You get 27 people in a bathroom of a motel room. I mean, that‘s what everyone does in Mardi Gras. That‘s the whole appeal.
KELLERMAN: I think what people object to is the juxtaposition of 27 people sleeping in a bathroom because they have to right now, versus 27 people sleeping in a bathroom because they think it‘s fun, you know, because they want to.
CARLSON: That‘s exactly why they need Mardi Gras, because the Mardi Gras goers this year will share the pain of the evacuees.
KELLERMAN: I understand.
All right. Here‘s an excellent piece of news, Max: Neck ties are back! In the early 1990s, retail sales of neck ties hit a high of $1.3 billion. But as casual Friday started to spread like a virus through the workweek, sales dropped to about $750 million.
Now some experts say sales will climb back to $1.1 billion this year;
3 percent to 5 percent of that, Max: bow ties.
That‘s exactly right. Notice a dramatic pause, bow ties. The problem with—this is great news—the problem with casual Fridays is they‘re enforced. They‘re part of corporate culture. They‘re not a rebellion against the man. They are something instituted at the direction of the man, right?
So people think they‘re breaking free of the strictures of the workplace, and, instead, they all show up like lemmings dressed in their Dockers and their dorky after-work Hawaiian shirts. Do you know what I mean?
KELLERMAN: Yes. Oh, no, it‘s demoralizing.
CARLSON: It‘s basically another uniform.
KELLERMAN: It‘s actually just another way for corporate America to demoralize the work force.
KELLERMAN: Yes, if you‘ve ever seen “Office Space,” terrific movie.
It‘s all about this.
Here‘s the thing, and I understand where an impressionable young boy was once watching Orville Redenbacher and said, “I want to look just like that guy.” And sure, you know, Louis Farrakhan, yes, sure, it‘s a great look.
CARLSON: Yes, thanks.
KELLERMAN: But the problem with all ties is, it cuts off oxygen supply to the brain, Tucker.
KELLERMAN: That‘s the real problem. And you wind up in a situation where you vote for George Bush in the general election.
CARLSON: Look, I will always put form over function. I think it‘s better to look good than to feel good, OK?
CARLSON: Ties allow a man a place to express himself. Men‘s clothing is very drab. It‘s uniform. You wear the same dark blazer, the same blue shirt, day after day after day. The only place you can really break free and let your freak flag fly is around your neck, a bright burst of silk color, OK? Take that away, and everyone just looks like a suburban dork.
KELLERMAN: To quote a line from a Cohen brothers movie, you wear a bow tie, men, because it‘s points toward their genitalia. It accents that, rather than a bow tie, which accents your ears.
CARLSON: Yes, you know, they may be on to something, but, look, I‘m stuck with the bow tie. I‘m not even going to bother defending it. It‘s something I can‘t get out of. It‘s essentially a tattoo.
KELLERMAN: Oh, no, please.
CARLSON: You know what I mean? It‘s indelible at this point.
KELLERMAN: Tucker, for you, it‘s iconic, but for another guy—if it‘s a white guy and they wear a bow tie, they‘re trying to be Tucker Carlson. If it‘s a black guy and they wear a bow tie, they‘re trying to be Louis Farrakhan. So either way, it‘s not really a statement of individuality for anyone but you and Farrakhan.
CARLSON: I have never pushed a bow tie. If my son wanted to wear a bow tie, I would stop him in his tracks. Thankfully, I don‘t think he‘ll ever want to.
Max Kellerman in Las Vegas.
KELLERMAN: How did the bow tie thing start, Tucker? I got to know.
CARLSON: That is a long story.
KELLERMAN: I‘d like to hear it.
CARLSON: We are out of time, but I want to wish you luck at the tables tonight.
KELLERMAN: Thank you very much. I need it.
CARLSON: Thank you, Max.
Still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION, including a diet that sounds too good to be true. Eat Ring Dings and Chunky Monkey ice cream and lose weight fast. We‘ll explain how it works, when THE SITUATION continues. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
All you dieters who spend thousands of dollars while depriving yourself of every food you love, you‘re going to kick yourselves when you hear about the no-diet diet. The philosophy behind it is pretty simple:
Eat whatever you want, cookies, chips, pizza, ice cream. They‘re all important staples in this diet. But can it be for real?
My next guest says so. He lost 50 pounds eating junk food. Stephen Hawks is not a crank. He‘s a professor at Brigham Young University in Utah. He joins us live from New York tonight.
Professor, thanks for coming on.
PROF. STEVEN HAWKS, LOST 50 POUNDS ON THE NO-DIET DIET: Thank you.
CARLSON: This sounds totally unbelievable. Give us a quick recap of how you lost 50 pounds. What did you eat?
HAWKS: Whatever I wanted. The key is to eat what you‘re hungry for and to stop when you‘re satisfied.
CARLSON: What were you hungry for?
HAWKS: I‘m hungry for everything. What I found by doing this is that I enjoy way more foods than I ever dared think about. I mean, I love food.
CARLSON: Right. So, but what if you‘re hungry for Funyons with ranch dressing, and, say, an entire package of Hershey‘s Kisses, and a six pack of Mountain Dew? You‘re not going to lose weight eating that stuff.
HAWKS: OK. What I am hungry for is different than what tastes good. And so, I want to wait until I know that I‘m hungry. And I can tell that physiologically.
HAWKS: And then, once I‘m hungry, I consider all possibilities, not just junk food, but what‘s really going to hit the spot, what‘s going to be satisfying, what‘s going to take the edge off the hunger. That‘s what I want to eat.
And I don‘t have to eat all of it. I just have to eat enough to be satisfied, to take the craving away, to take the edge off, and then I‘m good to go.
CARLSON: So there is a self-control element to this diet. I mean, you have to stop yourself before you eat too much.
HAWKS: Exactly. It‘s not a binge-on-junk-food diet. It‘s a diet where you very consciously, with a high level of awareness, consider what you want to eat to satisfy the hunger of the moment. And the key is satisfy, not indulge or overindulge.
CARLSON: But it is true that some foods inspire hunger. In other words, you‘re not going to want to eat a pound of Brussel sprouts unless you‘re a freak, basically, but you will want to eat an entire pizza, because one piece makes you want another piece. It‘s just the nature of pizza.
HAWKS: If you legalize pizza and all other types of food, then I don‘t believe that that‘s the case, because a lot of us overeat on foods that we think are taboo because we normally don‘t allow ourselves to eat them. Once they‘re there, then we go overboard.
CARLSON: But don‘t—I mean, that‘s like saying, you know, the best way to keep yourself from committing adultery is to work in a strip club. Temptation somehow prevents you from falling prey to temptation. But we know that‘s not true, don‘t we?
HAWKS: In this case, I think that it is true, because, with dieting in particular, if you deprive yourself of something, you create a psychological and a biological urge to binge. And once you finally give into that urge, you go way overboard. And so there is some relevance to that.
CARLSON: Huh. So head to the strip club, is basically what you‘re saying. Give us an example of what you ate on the diet. Like a day to day, you wake up, what do you eat?
HAWKS: Let me recap. When I was a dieter, skip breakfast, light lunch, and then go home starving and way overeat on everything in the fridge.
As an intuitive eater, get up, have a banana, some granola, juice, whatever sounds good, have light snacks throughout the day, a good sandwich for lunch, maybe some soup. And, by the time I get home for dinner, I‘m not hungry, or I‘m not starving. I may be hungry, but I can choose what I want to eat. If you eat what you want, you eat less of it.
CARLSON: Is there any food that‘s just verboten? I mean, is there anything that you just can‘t eat?
HAWKS: There‘s nothing that—all foods are legal. There‘s nothing that‘s forbidden, and that‘s part of the key.
CARLSON: What about—did you ever eat a Big Mac on the diet, honestly?
HAWKS: When I was dieting?
HAWKS: Yes, sure. And the fries with it, and the chocolate shake.
CARLSON: And you lost 50 pounds?
HAWKS: No. What I am saying is, when I was a dieter, then I would—yes, I would go out of control on occasion. Now, if I want a hamburger, then I go get a hamburger, but the portion sizes are too big. So I may eat a half of it, or I may eat a fourth of it. Or, after one bite, that may be enough and I‘m done with it.
CARLSON: Wow. I‘ve never seen anybody take a single bite of a Big Mac. It‘s like crack. I mean, you just can‘t control yourself, but you can.
HAWKS: Yes. Anybody can.
CARLSON: Wow, that is inspiring. Professor Hawks, thanks a lot for joining us. We appreciate it.
CARLSON: Still ahead on THE SITUATION, President Bush met with two of his closest advisers in the Oval Office today. Barney and Miss Beazley take over the White House, when THE SITUATION rolls on.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for our voicemail segment. All of you tempted to crank call us, go ahead. We like it.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MARLON, WATERLOO, IOWA: Hi. This is Marlon McCrue (ph) calling from Waterloo, Iowa. Why the heck would you guys have on a guy like Jesse Lee Peterson talking about black hate, when earlier this year he was on the “Larry Elder Show” and made the comment that, as an employer, he would not interview individuals that had black-sounding surnames?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: I didn‘t see that. I have no idea what a black-sounding surname is. I don‘t know that there are any black-sounding surnames. I didn‘t see that show. I thought he had a lot of interesting things to say. Incidentally, he made a real effort to get Professor Karenga, the man who created Kwanzaa in the late ‘60s, to come on the show as a counterpoint. And he‘s welcome any time, and he turned down our offer, unfortunately.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
WINNY, BRIDGEHAMPTON, NEW YORK: Hey, Tucker. It‘s Winny Hatch (ph) calling from Bridgehampton, Long Island, New York. I love the way you gave mail tonight about the Christmas songs. And I wish you‘d end your show from now on until Christmas saying, “Merry Christmas.”
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: Thank you, Winny. I liked you the second I heard your voice, which is great. Merry Christmas. I‘m going to do that every night. Thanks. Merry Christmas.
In the meantime, let me know what you‘re thinking; 877-TCARLSON is the number. That is 877-822-7576. You can also e-mail me (INAUDIBLE) tucker@MSNBC.com the address. And you can also read the blog, tucker.msnbc.com.
Coming up on THE SITUATION, nothing says the holidays like Paris Hilton in her underwear. We‘ll tell what you the neighbors think of this soft porn front-yard Christmas display when we visit the “Cutting Room Floor.” Merry Christmas.
CARLSON: Welcome back. The clouds opened a beam of light shot down from the heavens and Willie Geist appeared for the “Cutting Room Floor”—
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: That‘s a subtle introduction. You were so busy making dinner plans with Mama D we have to get right to it tonight.
CARLSON: I know we do. I‘m sorry. That was a lengthy segment.
GEIST: It‘ll be a good meal.
CARLSON: Well, it‘s Christmastime at the White House. And you know what that means: Time for the president of the United States to make a short film in which he holds meetings with his dogs. Barney and Miss Beazley gave their annual holiday tour of the White House today, but not before getting some marching orders from the commander in chief.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Both of you are an important part of our family. And you have to remember the true meaning of the holiday season. Now, you two run on. I‘ve got a lot of work to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEIST: I‘ve got to say, Tucker, I like the way the president handles himself in a meeting. Direct, tough, but compassionate. Just what he promised us in the general election.
CARLSON: There‘s a lot about Bush I like. Any man who talks to his dogs, I‘m sorry, you win my heart.
GEIST: You‘re a sympathizer. I have to say, though, we don‘t require our presidents to be good actors, but he‘s a really bad actor.
CARLSON: Yes, he‘s bad. It makes me like him more.
You can have your snowmen, your reindeer, your nativity scenes. A giant half-mural of half-nude Paris Hilton is all I need to get me in the holiday spirit. Joseph Moretti of Cranston, Rhode Island, apparently agrees. This Paris-themed holiday display in his front yard has caused quite a stir in his neighborhood. Moretti met Paris this year and thought she was great, so naturally he erected a monument to her in his yard.
GEIST: Incidentally, that‘s the least obnoxious thing in his yard.
Did you seen his other decorations?
GEIST: By the way, I have a statue of Stavros Niarchos in my yard, too, her Greek shipping heir boyfriend. It makes a lovely holiday decoration.
CARLSON: They‘re all shipping heirs, as I think we‘ve pointed out in this show before.
GEIST: That‘s right.
CARLSON: We finish tonight with a story of a Florida town that doesn‘t seem to have the holiday spirit down just right. An 83-year-old woman could lose everything she has because she owes the town of Tequesta, Florida, $1.8 million in yard fines.
For 22 years, Hattie Siegel has refused to trim overgrown vegetation. For the last five years, the town has fined her a $1,000 a day. A judge ruled yesterday Siegel must now pay the fine. To do so, she‘ll have to liquidate everything she owns.
GEIST: Tucker, you know my take is not going to be real popular. But, Granny, you don‘t want to play ball, cough up the cash. You know, $1.8 -- the juice has been running on the $1.8. Make it $2 million.
CARLSON: You know what I love about you, Willie? You‘re heartless and proud of it.
GEIST: Thank you.
CARLSON: You insulted an elderly rugby player, I believe, the other day.
GEIST: Babies and puppy dogs, too.
CARLSON: Telling it like it is, Willie Geist.
Merry Christmas from all of us here at THE SITUATION. Thanks for watching tonight.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
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.