Guest: Elias Bermudez, Andrew Jones, Max Kellerman, KentuckyFriedCruelty.com
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: That's all the time we have tonight. THE SITUATION with Tucker Carlson, and I mean it, it starts right now.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Right now.
SCARBOROUGH: Not ten minutes from now—right now!
CARLSON: That guy got—don't you think he kind of got punished already, though, Joe? He got spanked.
SCARBOROUGH: He did get spanked, Tucker. What's the situation tonight, Tucker?
CARLSON: Joe, thank you.
SCARBOROUGH: Thank you.
CARLSON: And thanks to you at home for watching. We appreciate it.
Tonight, putting the bull's eye on radical west wing professors. Ward Churchill, beware. We'll tell you how an alumni group is revolutionizing the way they monitor these collegiate propaganda artists.
Also, should teen runaways be classified as criminals? A controversial new bill that allows the cops to arrest kids who flee their homes. We'll bring you all the details.
Plus this former teen idol is busted with heroin. You can tell from this mug shot his career has cooled in recent years. The question is, who is he? We'll reveal his identity in just a few minutes.
We begin tonight with the status of an American journalist, Jill Carroll, who's being held hostage in Iraq by a group calling itself the Revenge Brigade.
Just yesterday an Al Jazeera video. In it, the group demanded the U.S. release all Iraqi female prisoners or Carroll would be killed within 72 hours. By coincidence or not, the BBC is reporting tonight that the Iraqi government has announced it will release six of the eight female detainees it has been holding. Will this be enough for Jill Carroll? At this point, the clock is still clicking.
Here now to discuss the kidnapping is “TIME” magazine senior correspondent, Bobby Ghosh. He's just returned from three years of reporting in Iraq, where he knew Jill Carroll. He joins us live tonight from New York.
Bobby Ghosh, thanks a lot for coming on.
APARISIM “BOBBY” GHOSH, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, “TIME” MAGAZINE: Not at all. Any time.
CARLSON: Does this, from what you know of Jill Carroll personally, does this story make sense? She left, as far as we understand it from press accounts, with her driver and her interpreter to go to a very dangerous part of Baghdad, apparently not with guards, to interview a Sunni politician. Does this sound like something that she would do?
GHOSH: Well, knowing Jill, she's been there a long time. I'm sure she would have taken every precaution she could have. She's a freelance journalist, working for the “Christian Science Monitor,” which is not the richest news organization around. So her resources, in terms of security are considerably smaller than, say, “TIME” magazine's of CBS or a news station.
But she—she knew the territory. She knew the city very well. She knew the people. She obviously trusted her own staff. I suspect she took every precaution that she could possibly have, under her circumstances.
CARLSON: A freelance reporter called David Ax (ph), who is now in Iraq, covering the media in Iraq for Salon.com, wrote this today in an online column. I'd like to get your response to it.
“Few western reporters ever leave their hotels, instead relying on local stringers to gather notes and research stories.” The point is it's so dangerous that most reporters stay in their—in their hotels. Is that true? And if it is, was she an exception, obviously, to that?
GHOSH: No, I think that is hyperbole. It is certainly true of some western journalists and more so with television crews, which is understandable, since it's very hard for a TV crew to keep a low profile. Print journalists, by and large, do tend to go out and try their best to keep as low profile as possible.
Jill certainly always went out and, more than many other journalists, she went out, hung out with ordinary Iraqis. That was the whole point of her journalism, to try and identify and tell the stories of everyday, ordinary Iraqis.
CARLSON: I've heard some people say that this sounds—this kidnapping sounds like a setup, and the implication is that someone who was working with or for Jill Carroll may have tipped off the kidnappers to her whereabouts. Is that the kind of thing you worry about when you're covering stories there? That people who work for you might sell you out?
GHOSH: The people who work for us would have put their lives at risk so many times that thought would never occur to me. And I don't think Jill's staff would be responsible.
It's possible she was set up. She was going to an appointment with somebody who wasn't there. She spent 25 to 30 minutes waiting for that person at an office. If she was set up, my suspicion would be the people who were at the office at the time, who saw her, who knew that she was going to be leaving and they may have tipped somebody off.
I would be—I would doubt very much that somebody in her own staff would have done this. Let's remember that her translator died on the spot and quite possibly trying to save her life.
CARLSON: Yes, yes. You've been in Iraq a long time, probably more than all but a handful of reporters. Reporters there must be terrified of something like this happening to them?
GHOSH: Well, when you're there, you try not to think about it, too much. Because if you do, you get paralyzed. So you—you live in a certain amount of denial. You put it away in one corner of your mind and pretend—pretend that those risks don't exist.
But you have to remind yourself to take every possible precaution. It's only when you come away from Iraq and you return to the real world that you somehow—that you remember the risks that you took. And of course, when something happens like this happens to a friend, someone you've worked with and you admire, that's when you get a wake-up call.
CARLSON: And what it does happen, what happens? Who negotiates on your behalf? Does the news organization you work for step in and try and make contact with the kidnappers? Does the U.S. government help?
GHOSH: All of the above. The U.S.—for instance, there is a hostage group that works—terrific hostage working group attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. These are people who have worked there for a long time, who have built contacts, who understand the psychology of some of these groups. I'm sure they would be actively involved.
The U.S. military would be involved. The Iraqi government is involved. And clearly, a lot of effort has been—has been put in all the journalists who operate there also try their best to use their contacts, to try and find out what's happening, to try and put pressure.
I don't think it's a coincidence, for instance, that several Sunni groups, several Sunni clerics have come out and condemned this kidnapping. And I'm sure the pressure that's been brought to bear on them by news groups, by the Iraqi government, by the U.S. embassy, all of those things have helped.
Everybody who knows Jill is doing everything they can. Our—our opportunities are limited, but we do everything that we possibly can.
CARLSON: I really hope it works, truly. Bobby Ghosh, “TIME” magazine, thanks a lot.
GHOSH: Any time.
CARLSON: For more on this story, we welcome MSNBC terrorist analyst and international terrorism consultant, Adam Coleman, joining us tonight live. Thanks a lot for coming on.
ADAM COLEMAN, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: What do you make of this report in the BBC today that six of the eight female prisoners held by the Iraqi government have been released? The implication is in response to the demands of the kidnappers who took Jill Carroll. This sounds like capitulation to terrorism. Do you think the account is true? And if so, is that what it is?
Let's just first of all state that the Iraqi ministry of justice is the one that came out and announced this. The U.S. Military coalition in Iraq has not confirmed this as of yet.
And at least, according to the Iraqi ministry of justice these six women were not being released in reaction to any kind of hostage threat, but this was going to happen anyway.
I don't believe that. I think there are others that probably don't either. I think what may have happened here is that the Iraqi ministry of justice went through its records and decided that unless it had a very good reason for holding women, that it simply was just an issue that needed to go away.
Now that being said, the group that has taken Jill Carroll hostage, that has stated that this is its demand, we should be careful in emphasizing that this may not be its only demand. This group, because of the fact that it has no obvious connection to any known insurgent group, could very well be looking for money. It could be looking for a ransom. And I think that's a possibility.
CARLSON: Why do you—why do you say that? What gives you that impression?
COLEMAN: Well, first of all this video that came out, it was not released any known insurgent group. It wasn't released through the normal channels that political groups in Iraq, that Sunni insurgent groups release their material through.
What's more is that a group with a similar name, the Revenge Brigade, the al-Tha'a Brigade (ph) released the sister of Iraq's interior minister today, after capturing her and issuing the exact same demand, also releasing a video to Al Jazeera.
Now, we don't know if this is the same group, but indeed, the sister of the interior minister was released today unharmed, perhaps as a result of a ransom being paid. So I think as long as we don't know—as long as we know that al Qaeda or the Islamic army in Iraq or Ansar al-Suna didn't do this, there's still a good possibility that money is a motive.
CARLSON: What's American policy on that? I know there's a lot of huffing and puffing about how European countries pay ransoms and do other things, and the idea is that's bad, because it encourages terrorism. Do we in real life do the same thing?
COLEMAN: The White House has been insistent on this point, and not just in general but very specific to this case. They've come out and they've stated that Jill Carroll is a priority. Getting her released, obtaining her release from Iraq is a priority. However, there will be no negotiations with terrorists.
My feeling is money will likely not be exchanged, at least not directly between Iraq—excuse me, the U.S. government or the Iraqi government and these hostage takers. Perhaps it will come in through a secondary means. We know the newspaper and monitor are doing what they can.
CARLSON: What does that mean? Does that mean they're raising money.
COLEMAN: I doubt it.
CARLSON: And by the way, I'm not judging them. If she was a friend of mine, I would, you know, take a second mortgage out to pay the ransom.
COLEMAN: I mean, I doubt it. But we really don't know. I think the smart thing is what the CSM and other journalists who know Jill are know right now, which is not publicizing that kind of information, not publicizing unnecessary appeals that might jeopardize negotiations that are ongoing, that might jeopardize Jill's safety. I think underlining it all, as long as we think there may be a motive here besides mere politics. We have to hold out hope and we have to go for that.
CARLSON: So you'd rather have—you'd rather have bandits than true believers?
COLEMAN: Well, yes. Because bandits have a motive for keeping her alive. As long as Jill is alive, she's valuable to them. And I think that that's something that's going to be communicated very clearly to bandits.
Whereas if you have Islamic insurgents, Saddamist extremists, they will execute hostages if they see it in their benefit, and they will show no remorse. Now what does Jill have going in her benefit? Like I said, the sister of the interior minister was released today. Susan Ostoff, (ph), a German who was taken captive up in Mosul, a woman, was also released recently.
CARLSON: And it seemed clear the German government was involved in that negotiation?
COLEMAN: Yes. Fairly clear. And I'm sure that the U.S. government is making similar measures. I'm just—I'm pretty sure that they're not going to be paying any ransom to these folks. But perhaps there's another means to convince them that this kidnapping is not the way to achieve what they're looking for.
CARLSON: And then I hope they spend some time killing every single person responsible for this.
COLEMAN: I agree. I agree.
CARLSON: Adam Coleman, thanks a lot for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.
Still to come, we'll tell you what one college alumni group is doing to eliminate radical left-wing professors on campus. Here's a hint: it involves cold, hard cash.
Plus immigrants without borders. A Hispanic radio host, rally organizer and convicted felon is leading the charge in defense of illegal aliens? Why, you ask? The answer when THE SITUATION rolls on.
CARLSON: Still ahead, did Hillary Clinton hurt her presidential chances with her now infamous plantation remark? Which notable politician has now come to her defense? Find out when we come back.
CARLSON: Welcome back. While dozens of Arizona Minutemen are gearing up for patrol this weekend, my next guest is busy mobilizing illegal immigrants to stand up for their rights. And yes, he believes they have rights.
Elias Bermudez is a talk show host in Phoenix, Arizona, and the chairman of Immigrants Without Borders. He used the air waves to rally thousands of illegal immigrants to the Arizona state capitol last week. He joins us live tonight from Phoenix.
Mr. Bermudez, thanks for coming on.
ELIAS BERMUDEZ, TALK SHOW HOST: Well, thank you for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: I don't think I've been more confused by a news story in a long time. You got a group of illegal aliens who can't vote to march on the state capital for what purpose? They can't possibly influence lawmakers. They're not U.S. citizens.
BERMUDEZ: Well, I think that those illegal aliens are the people who are causing this big problem in the United States, illegal immigration is a national crisis. And we need to deal with it. And who better people to deal with it than those who are causing the problem to try to find a solution to it?
CARLSON: But wait a second. In this country we deal with problems through the legislatures, through the state legislatures and through the Congress. They make laws. And they are told what laws to make by the voters. And in order to vote, you've got to be an American citizen.
And the people you represent are not. They are by definition outside the process. So I'm not trying to be mean, but from a legislative point of view, who cares what they think?
BERMUDEZ: Well, I think that every single undocumented person or every single illegal person that you—that you mention has either a son or a brother or an aunt or an uncle who does vote. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to get those undocumented people to become a voice in telling their family—family members and relatives that now is the time to do something about this big problem.
CARLSON: But do you see a certain irony, Mr. Bermudez, in getting people who are by definition breaking the law, to influence laws? Why should our laws be influenced by people who obviously don't care about our law?
BERMUDEZ: And Tucker, that's where I disagree with you and many others who think that illegal immigration, that these people are illegally in the United States because they want to come in and defy the laws of the United States.
They're not here in defiance of laws. There is no law that will allow them to come in legally. There is no law at this time. And we still entice them to come in to do—to do many services that we need them to. And we do not allow for them the mechanism whereby they can come here legally.
CARLSON: I'm confused, Mr. Bermudez, because I know a lot of legal immigrants to this country, many from Latin America, from Mexico, from Central America, South Africa, from Europe, from—many from Africa.
They stood in line at U.S. embassies and consulates across the world—sometimes for years, in order to come here legally. They played by the rules. The people you represent, didn't. They just crossed the border, because they didn't feel like dealing with the paper work. Why should we have respect for them and listen to them?
BERMUDEZ: That is totally wrong, Tucker, and I'm sorry to have to tell you, but you're going to have to see the light in this issue.
CARLSON: Actually, it's literally correct.
BERMUDEZ: They did not come here illegally because they wanted to break the law, because they didn't want to wait. There is no waiting period for those who want to come in to work.
The president has said it. We need to be able to offer these people the opportunity to come here legally, by providing them with a legal mechanism where they can do it. Because right now we don't have one.
CARLSON: Wait a second. I'd like—I'd like to see you say that directly to many of the face to one of the many Ethiopian cab drivers or the Somali immigrants in Maine or the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of legal immigrants who fled much more dire circumstances than exist in Mexico, to come here legally. These people waited in line. They're obeying our laws. They deserve our respect. People who flout our laws don't.
BERMUDEZ: Well, sir, I'm one of those legal—legal persons, legally now.
CARLSON: Exactly. Exactly.
BERMUDEZ: But my friend, my friend, listen to this. There is no legal mechanism for them to come here legally.
CARLSON: Wait a second. You just said you were not born in this country.
CARLSON: You are now a legal resident of this country.
BERMUDEZ: That's correct.
CARLSON: You're citizens. You did it. But you are saying they can't, for reasons that are totally unclear to me.
BERMUDEZ: Well, let me tell you, I became a legal resident by marrying a U.S. citizen and becoming legal. But do you think there's going to be that many that are going to be able to afford that?
Employers cannot petition someone to become legal. We need them and we don't have the capacity. The backlogs right now in INS are up to 20 years for somebody to wait. Do you think an employer is going to wait in construction? Or in a restaurant. Is somebody to going to wait 20 years?
CARLSON: Without belaboring the point, because you know as well as I do that a lot of what you're saying is just not true. There are a people who are here legally and following the rules. Do you understand why American citizens who have nothing against Mexican or Latin American immigrants, who recognize they work hard and they're decent people, for the most part.
But do you understand why the average person has trouble respecting people who don't even attempt to obey our law, who come here and then start demanding things when they haven't bothered to abide by our laws?
BERMUDEZ: Tucker, listen, please. And I ask everyone that—of your listeners to listen. There is no law existing right now that will allow a person who wants to come in to work—not to become a legal, permanent resident, not to become a permanent citizen, just to work. We do not have the legal mechanism right now.
And you can talk to INS. And you can talk to the president of the United States. We just don't have that. That's what we're working on, and that's why we want the Latino community to get galvanized and to support the president and support the efforts of John McCain, to support the efforts of Ted Kennedy, to create the legal mechanism, Tucker. And then, if we have the legal mechanism and people disobey that legal mechanism, then you can talk about it and I will help you. I will help you send those people back.
CARLSON: I'm not going to talk to the president, because I know he's on your side. I, by contrast, am not on your side, but I appreciate you coming on. Mr. Bermudez, thank you.
BERMUDEZ: I thank you very much for having me.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION tonight, surely Hillary Clinton backed off the pandering plantation comment she made on Martin Luther King Day, right? Right. When did Hillary become a preacher? I'm ask Flavia Colgan that question when THE SITUATION continues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: I believe that it is an accurate description of the kind of top down way that the House of Representatives is run, which denies meaningful debate, which has engaged in all kind of shenanigans, leaving votes open, refusing to allow people to have the opportunity to present alternatives. And I think some very bad decisions are being made for America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Some people might distance themselves from comments they made comparing members of Congress to plantation slave owners, but some people are not Hillary Clinton.
Joining me now from Philadelphia to discuss Hillary's comments as well as the senator's chances of being our next president, MSNBC political contributor, Flavia Colgan.
Flavia, I'm disappointed in Mrs. Clinton. I'm not a Hillary hater at all, as you know. However, she played the race card, as clearly as she could.
And she's not backing down from it. The No. 1 rule of outrageous statements is when you make one, and we all do—I certainly have—you recognize it, you apologize, and you move on. Instead she's digging in her heels and pandering—continuing to pander to the left, which I think is a huge mistake.
FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I agree with you, Tucker. I first have to say I want to thank you for defending me against the charge that Joe Scarborough called me matronly last night.
CARLSON: I take that as a compliment. There's nothing wrong with being matronly. A lot of hot matrons out there.
COLGAN: I agree. But I'll tell you, Tucker, I've been called a lot of things by Republicans, but matronly is a new one. I've decided I have to send all my single guy friends down to Pensacola, to see what's going on down there.
CARLSON: Come back when you find out.
COLGAN: I will. But anyway, listen. You know, I was very disappointed in Hillary Clinton's remarks. And the reason is because she's denied the American public now of having a serious debate about some of the very legitimate things she brought up about the culture of corruption, about some of the ways the Congress is being run, about the incompetence of the Bush administration on some foreign policy things and on domestic things.
And because she chose to make this comment, which I agree with you, she is not a political neophyte. This is not foot in mouth disease, like Howard Dean and others suffer from. This was a calculated attempt to throw red meat to the liberal and to some of the—of her base to raise some campaign cash. I think that's very unfortunate.
CARLSON: I don't see it that way. I think Mrs. Clinton is, if nothing else, is a great fundraiser. I mean, she really is. She's I think the top Democratic fundraiser in the country now. And I'm not surprised by that.
I don't think this was a calculated attempt at all. I think this was a reflex. This was a reaction. This was a default position. This is what Democrats can't keep themselves from doing. Democrats, when they're cornered or they're angry, they're grumpy or they didn't get enough sleep, almost under any circumstances, instinctively lash out and call the other side racist. That's what they do, and I think they ought to stop doing it, now.
COLGAN: Well, look, Tucker. Tucker, I agree with you. And maybe you're right about Senator Clinton. Maybe I'm right. I'm not sure. But first of all, let's be clear. This isn't just Democrats. Newt Gingrich used the same analogy last year.
CARLSON: I love that defense. I love that defense. Newt Gingrich said it, too, in 1994. Like the idea is if Newt Gingrich said it it's OK.
COLGAN: Tucker, my point—I mean, the vice president dropped the “F” bomb.
CARLSON: Good for him.
COLGAN: People are referring to people as Nazis. T he point is it's not—it's a bipartisan trait. I mean, the fact that people are saying that Republicans are corrupt, that you know, Republicans are hypocritical or Democrats are a lot of these things—these are across the board, both Republicans and Democrats. And it's the problem with our discourse right now, because we can't have real debate about serious issues.
CARLSON: I strongly disagree with you. I strongly disagree. I think it's totally fair to call the Republican Congress corrupt. It may be accurate.
COLGAN: I agree.
CARLSON: It may be inaccurate. But I think it's a fair charge, anyway.
COLGAN: I agree with your charge, but...
CARLSON: What I think is unfair is I think racism is the original sin of America. It's something that wounds every American, whether or not individuals were involved in perpetuating it. It's the one thing you can't be in this society. It's the one thing you're not allowed to be is a racist. It's the heaviest charge there is.
And that's why we ought to use it sparingly and only when it's deserved. So that's what I object to. If she wants to call the president a lousy president, fine. She's a Democrat. That's her right. No problem. But just don't use that phrase.
COLGAN: Look, this is my point about the elected politics. As you can see, I'm in Philly. It was Ben Franklin's birthday yesterday and Ben Franklin once said that moderates, that compromisers, that people that don't use harsh rhetoric don't make for very good heroes, but they make for great democracies and they make for people that get things done.
The problem is that big statements like that get coverage. They get people excited. And there aren't enough people getting things done in Washington, D.C., right now. There are some, but there aren't enough people that are caring about the next generation rather than the next election.
CARLSON: So—so give me your 20-second analysis on this. Is Mrs. Clinton poised to be the Democratic nominee? I know it's a long route, but it's actually not that far out. What do you think right now?
COLGAN: Well, look, I mean, you know—I've said it before on this program, having worked for a governor, I you know, very much favor governors. I think that they've, you know, had to cut taxes. They've had to create jobs.
I would prefer an executive in the White House. I look to a guy like Warner, who I think is a stronger candidate.
I have been very disappointed in Senator Clinton not being able to take a very clear stand on Iraq, which I think is the most important issue facing our nation right now. I mean, Tucker, you've taken a clear stance on Iraq. Why can't the Democratic Party stand up and have a vision and have some leadership on an issue that the Bush administration has completely bungled?
I mean, so Senator Clinton, at this point in time, unless I see some movement, is not the candidate that I would choose. And look I'm very excited that Laura Bush feels that there will be a female president in our near future. I hope and pray that that is true. The polling data says it is.
But I have to say, and I don't mean to be a cynic about this, but I have to say I don't believe that people are always honest to pollsters when, if they have to say I won't vote for a Democrat—I mean, a woman or I won't vote for a black, they have to admit that they're bigoted or that they are discriminating in some way. So I don't know that this America is ready for an American president.
CARLSON: It's unknowable. I think America is, but genders don't get elected. Individuals do.
COLGAN: I agree.
CARLSON: And so, you know, electing a woman is impossible. Electing a specific woman is possible, and the question is which specific woman, if not Hillary? Barbara Boxer? Dianne Feinstein? Ha! I don't think so.
COLGAN: I wish Jennifer Granholm were American, the governor of Michigan, because I think she's fantastic.
CARLSON: Not. She's a Canadian. She's a secret Canadian. Can't run.
COLGAN: But listen, you bring up a great point, which is there is somewhat of a leadership vacuum in Washington right now. So I think that if a Democratic woman came along...
COLGAN: ... that was strong, people would vote for them.
CARLSON: OK. It could be you. Flavia Colgan for president, 2012. Flavia, thanks a lot for joining us tonight.
COLGAN: Thank you so much, Tucker, for having me.
CARLSON: Still ahead, if you're a teenager considering running away from home, you may want to rethink that plan. A controversial new bill could lead to your arrest. The details when we come back.
CARLSON: Welcome back. A former UCLA student has a novel and controversial way of making colleges a little bit less liberal, possibly a tiny bit more mainstream. His solution, put out bounties on radical professors. Andrew Jones is the head of the Bruin Alumni Association. He is offering students up to $100 to report on professors pushing who push their left-wing agendas in class. He joins me live tonight from Burbank, California.
Andrew Jones, thanks for coming on.
ANDREW JONES, CHAIRMAN, UCLA BRUIN ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: Delighted to be here, as always.
CARLSON: So you're trying to make citizen reporters out of students it sounds like. For our viewers who haven't been in college for a while, give us some examples of what it's like to be a student sitting in class being harangued by a left-wing professor about his political views.
JONES: Well, I can tell you as recently as 2002 I experienced it myself. I was in a class with Ramona Ripston, who is the executive—sorry, actually president of the ACLU Southern California, and I had to sit there and listen to her present a one-sided view on issues as diverse as affirmative action, abortion, racial profiling. Of course, in her view and the way she presented it, there could only be one answer and there was only going to be the presentation of one answer to that.
CARLSON: Wait, what about free inquiry? What about the idea that, you know, all this stuff, everything is up for questioning and we ought to open our minds and let the truth filter down? Was that not the atmosphere?
JONES: You know, I really actually like the idea of free inquiry, letting students be students, letting professors actually profess things. However, there needs to be a movement here to respect both the academic freedom rights of professors, who are already well protected, and the academic freedom rights of students, who have a right to hear all sides of an issue. And again, we are not talking about bringing every single last person to the table, but when 50 percent of this country in a lot of classes does not hear their beliefs, it's a real shortchanging of UCLA students that they don't have this happen.
CARLSON: Well, and a huge misuse of taxpayer and parents' money, as far as I'm concerned. So what are you doing? So you're paying students to report on classes. What exactly does that mean?
JONES: Well, when students come to us and they say, I've got a professor who will not shut up about politics, especially politics that aren't germane to the class, or even in a class that is politically oriented, there's only one side of the issue presented, then we say, you know what, we are going to go ahead and offer you a nominal fee for your extra hard work to go ahead and take extra notes, to take them in extra diligent fashion, to show up to every class session, which for college students, every class session, that's a challenge.
And then if you want to go ahead earn the extra fee, we're going to require the extra work on top of that of going ahead and taping every single class lecture. And that is going to be the independent third-party evidence that will either show in comprehensive fashion that there is a problem, or I would actually hope to find that a lot of these professors that are absolutely out of control outside of the classroom are, you know, veritable Sojourner Truths inside the classroom.
CARLSON: Well, I'm sure that the professors must love this then. Because, I mean, this—you're not doing anything other than representing what they literally said in class. They must welcome this, right?
JONES: Well, they call it a blacklist. And I've been very well-acquainted with the thin skin of academics. You know, back when I was a student journalist with The Daily Bruin, that if you ever happen to mention them and call these professors on their belief in any kind of small way, oh, my gosh, you've just done a terrible, terrible thing. So the question is, was I expecting this sort of stuff to happen? Yes.
Should people believe it? I invite them to look at the Web site, uclaprofs.com, and decide for themselves. I think they're going to find that our charges, unfortunately, are only too true.
CARLSON: And I hope people will. You know, you always hear college students talk about fighting the power. Andrew Jones, you are fighting the power and I hope you're rewarded for it. Good for you. Thanks. Thanks for coming on.
JONES: Well, thank you.
CARLSON: Stay tuned, there is still plenty more ahead tonight on THE SITUATION.
CARLSON (voice-over): When hairdos good bad, some cutting remarks about who's really to blame for that over-the-top trim.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm having some Don King issues.
CARLSON: And another fallen idol mugs for the camera. Can this guy ever turn over a new leaf?
Plus, a new Enterprise for Captain Kirk. Wait until you hear why he's using discarded body parts to raise cash.
And for the unconventional bride and groom, a truly bone-chilling way to say, I do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's very exclusive to our relationship.
CARLSON: It's all ahead on THE SITUATION.
WILLIAM SHATNER, ACTOR: It was a joy to be on that show.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Winston Churchill once said, men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Joining me in our nightly search for the Truth with a capital T, the outsider, ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN: The greatest man of the 20th Century.
CARLSON: A pretty amazing guy, and actually a great...
KELLERMAN: Is he your number one on Tucker's greatest of the 20th Century?
CARLSON: He's up there, and a great painter, too. His watercolors were actually incredible.
KELLERMAN: Mickey Walker, too, a former welterweight, middleweight champion, a surprisingly good painter later in life.
CARLSON: First up, a Colorado lawmaker is proposing a bill that would turn thousands of American kids into criminals. If passed, the bill would make running away from home a misdemeanor. Kids younger than 17 who leave home without permission and don't return within six hours could be charged, but the parents would have the option of having the charges dismissed if it is the child's first offense.
Representative Ted Harvey said his constituent asked him to introduce the bill because cops now have no authority to get involved in such cases, for a reason, Max. And that is that family disputes, unless they involve violence, are not the business of the government in any way.
You don't want government intervening in family life. It's the sacred sphere that is most of the time immune from government involvement, and it ought to remain that way.
KELLERMAN: Well, I will defend this on the grounds that it points out how hypocritical the law is to children. For instance, if your 7- or 8-year-old runs away, you would want the cops to go pick them up and forcibly bring them back, right?
KELLERMAN: This is a child. And certainly there would never be a law that saws if they run away they're going to be put in jail, it's a 7- or 8-year-old. Because that is a child. A 15-year-old is not a child, is under the eyes of the law, which is totally hypocritical. They're old enough to go to jail for running away, but they're not old enough to decide that they don't want to be living at home?
CARLSON: That's an excellent question and it's another reason why this law is ridiculous, actually. But the most important principle at stake here, as far as I'm concerned, is the family and the sanctity of it. And that's just not some evangelical talking point. Oh, the family.
It's a real point. You need to keep the law out of your house, right? Because within the house, the parents—and with respect to the child, the parents are the law, right, for a reason.
KELLERMAN: Well, however, the kid is demonstrating actually that that law may not have teeth unless the government does get involved, because the law says, don't you leave this house, and then the kid walks right out of the house.
CARLSON: So whose fault is that? I mean, it's up to the parents to adjudicate the situation from that point on.
KELLERMAN: Have you seen how big some of these 15-year-olds are nowadays?
CARLSON: Yes, they are big, but—they are big, but...
KELLERMAN: And all the steroids in the chicken and the beef and everything, you know they're seven feet tall.
CARLSON: But still it's your job to keep them under control.
KELLERMAN: Of course.
CARLSON: There are some haircuts that are so bad it's criminal. Exhibit A, this inexplicable 'do on Rosie O'Donnell. Michael Bolton clearly is a hair don't. And Christina Aguilera's nightmare white girl 'fro. But can a haircut actually be a crime?
A court in the U.K. has ruled that a man who forcibly cut his girlfriend's hair can face assault charges. And amen. Here is what I believe, Max. In the relationship between the hairdresser and the client, the hairdresser has all the cards, the hairdresser is in control, the hairdresser is the parent. They are not equals. When the hairdresser misuses that power he or she has been given, he or she ought to be held to account by the law. You screw up someone's hair, you've committed assault, buddy, you ought to go to jail.
KELLERMAN: We're talking about women, here, right? Because a hairdresser—I don't know any guys who go to hairdressers. So we're talking about messing up a woman's hair specifically?
CARLSON: Yes, or a man's hair...
CARLSON: Look at Michael Bolton. Someone needs be held accountable for that. And it's not Michael Bolton. I would not blame the victim in this case.
KELLERMAN: Well, see, in the U.K., what is interesting to is it was assault because the guy forcibly cut his girlfriend's hair. He held her down and cut her. So the hair cut itself is just, you know, evidence of the assault. It's physical evidence.
CARLSON: That's right.
KELLERMAN: Look, look at the hair, no one would possibly cut it this way. But the ruling in the U.K. came down that the hair is so importance to a woman's appearance and her ego or whatever else, that you cut it and it could have damaging—I mean, look, that's the crime. Not that you forcibly held someone down and did something that they didn't want? That you damaged her hair?
CARLSON: Look, the Michael Bolton picture is right behind you. And I—that right there is evidence—that's all the evidence you need that a bad hairstyle can in fact destroy your career. Have you bought a Michael Bolton CD recently? No. And I point to his hair, I point to his hair as the reason why.
KELLERMAN: I will say this, if you walk into a barber shop and leave with a mullet, there can be a law that—I will agree that a law should protect people from walking out of...
CARLSON: No, but not just a mullet, not just a mullets, a butt cut too.
KELLERMAN: I don't know what that is.
CARLSON: You know, parted right in the middle, circa 1977.
KELLERMAN: Now something tells me this is coming from a place in that resents...
CARLSON: It is, I grew up in Southern California in the 1970s. I've seen how bad it can be. Max Kellerman.
KELLERMAN: See you tomorrow.
CARLSON: Great to see you.
Coming up on THE SITUATION, what would possess someone to legally change his name to KFC.com. It turns out there's actually a semiserious reason. We will talk to the man who did it when THE SITUATION rolls on.
CARLSON: Welcome back. One thing you've got to say about Chris Garnett, he is dedicated to his cause. He is a 19-year-old member of PETA who has legally changed his name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com. That's his name. As you may have gathered from that name, PETA, he is protesting Kentucky Fried Chicken's treatment of birds at a processing plant. The artist formerly known as Chris Garnett and currently known as KentuckyFriedCruelty.com, joins us live tonight from Virginia Beach, Virginia.
KentuckyFriedCruelty.com, thanks for joining us.
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM, PETA STAFFER LEGALLY CHANGED NAME TO PROTEST KFC: Thanks for having me, Tucker, I appreciate it.
CARLSON: What do you go by?
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Pretty much everyone still calls me Chris, some of the people at the office call me Ken or Tuck. But the funny thing about the name change is, regardless of what people call me, every time I go to pay for something, I show someone my ID, I'm able to tell them about how KFC is, you know, cutting the beaks off baby birds and how their workers are slamming chickens in a wall, kicking them like footballs and laughing about it. And people are pretty shocked to hear about this sort of thing.
CARLSON: Well, that sounds like a fun conversation starter. How does that go over when you're at The Gap buying a new pair of Dockers? I mean, does it help with the salesmen? Are they excited to hear about it?
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Yes, actually people are really supportive. They think it's odd at first. But—and it definitely is. I mean, I did change my name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com, after all. But people are—once I tell them what KFC exactly is doing, all the sorts of cruelties, they are shocked to hear about these sort of things. And they say they're going to go to the Web site and check it out and watch our undercover investigation footage and hopefully they join our boycott against KFC after watching it.
CARLSON: Well, I mean, I understand that you are committed to this cause, you're a PETA member, a PETA employee, apparently, but your name is central to who you are. Kind of a heavy step to give your entire identity over to a political cause or social cause, don't you think?
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Oh actually my mom thought it was pretty weird at first, too, because obviously she gave me my name, Chris Garnett. But after I showed her the Web site and she saw chickens living in these sheds, 10,000 at a time, literally living in their own filth, my mom was appalled, as most people are.
And so she's really supportive of it now. My mom is really cool, and she wishes me all the best. But I did have to promise her that I would change my name back to Chris Garnett once our campaign against KFC is over.
CARLSON: Yes, but why is it PETA the one group that seems to go to lengths like this? I mean, you don't see people changing their names to StoptheGenocideinRwanda.com, or TheHolocaustWasBad.com, I mean, two sentiments that are undeniably true and admirable and all that, but people don't change their names?
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Well, you know, PETA, you know, sometimes we do colorful things to get people's attention towards a more serious issue. And I came up with this idea. And I thought it would just be a great way to get some attention towards our KFC campaign and hopefully get more people to join our boycott against KFC.
CARLSON: I guess what I'm implying, KentuckyFriedCruelty.com, is that PETA sounds a little cult-like. I mean, you're 19 and you changed your name. Were you abducted by PETA and are you being held against your will by them?
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: No, not at all. Actually, you know, I came up with the idea myself. And it's just something that I wanted to do. I've always been very passionate about animal rights and I've always cared about animals. So I just thought this was a funny and interesting way to get, you know, like I said, attention towards a more serious issue and to get people to hopefully join our boycott.
CARLSON: Well, since you're 19, you're presumably also passionate about girls or dating in any case. How do the ladies like the new handle, like in bars and stuff? Hi, I'm KentuckyFriedCruelty.com.
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: My girlfriend Liz is actually really supportive. She thinks it's funny and she herself is an animal rights activist, and she thinks it's great. So she's very supportive of it.
CARLSON: Well, one of my producers just said in my ear that Pamela Anderson herself has said she likes your new name. So, I mean, you know, who am I to judge? Now what—I mean, what—you said you are going to change your name in the future. Are you thinking of going with, you know, Wal-MartIsBad.com, WendysSucks.com? What are future Web names you might call yourself?
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Well, actually, we had similar campaigns just like this against Wendy's, and they've improved their animal welfare standards, so now we're after...
CARLSON: I was—see, this is—I'm sorry to interrupt, but you just have proved something to me. I just made that up. I was joking. I was mocking you, and you said, actually, we thought of that at PETA.
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Yes, like I said, you know, we had a similar campaign and they improved their animal welfare standards. So now we're asking KFC to do the same thing. But like I said, I did have to promise my mom that, you know, once KFC eliminates the very worst abuses for these chickens, such as stop cutting the beaks off of these birds when they're days old, that she was—you know, I was going to have to change my name back to Chris Garnett again.
CARLSON: All right. KFC.com. My wish is that you are liberated and deprogrammed sometime soon. In the meantime, it was great to talk to you. Thanks for joining us.
KENTUCKYFRIEDCRUELTY.COM: Thanks for having me, Tucker, I appreciate it.
Still ahead on THE SITUATION, name the celebrity mugshot you're looking at right now. Which one-time teen heartthrob has added another sad chapter to his true Hollywood story? The answer, as always, lies on the “Cutting Room Floor.”
CARLSON: Welcome back. We're proud to be joined by Willie Geist.com, for the “Cutting Room Floor.”
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: That is right, Tucker. Is KentuckyFriedCruelty.com—is that the first name? How does that work? Or is it—is it just a one-name...
CARLSON: That's his whole—he's like...
CARLSON: ... he has just one name.
GEIST: That has got to be hell on the driver's license, too, KentuckyFriedCruelty.com. Very odd.
CARLSON: PETA is like Scientology, but funnier, I'll give them that.
GEIST: Much funnier.
CARLSON: Much funnier.
GEIST: A sense of humor about themselves, important.
CARLSON: This is how we want to remember Leif Garrett, and by we I mean screaming teenage girls of the 1970s. He was a singing teen heartthrob who made girls' knees weak in dozens of movies. This is Leif Garret now. The 44-year-old was charged in Los Angeles today with heroin possession.
Police picked him up trying to catch a free ride on the subway. When they searched him they found the dope. Garrett is already on probation for another drug-related offense. He's not looking much like a teen heartthrob there.
GEIST: And boy, he just keeps adding to the pages of that teen idol disaster handbook, doesn't he?
CARLSON: Really, it's just like living out a script, isn't it?
GEIST: Yes, he's just the stereotype. If you look side by side at these pictures, he has fallen quite far, don't you think?
CARLSON: Yes. But you know what, this is only a chapter. There's another chapter after that, which is redemption and his own talk show. I'm serious.
GEIST: And maybe a reality show.
CARLSON: I hope so. I hope so. We're rooting for you.
GEIST: I actually have never heard of him until this. That says something about me I guess.
CARLSON: You may not remember the '70s. If I told you someone paid 25 grand for a celebrity's kidney stone, you would probably think it was the most absurd thing you had ever heard. But if I told you that celebrity was William Shatner, $25,000 suddenly sounds like a steal, doesn't it? Shatner sold his kidney stone at the online gambling site GoldenPalace.com. He will donate the money to Habitat for Humanity.
GEIST: All right, Tucker, how good is life if you're Bill Shatner? You want to put an addition on the house, send your kids to college? You just shoot out a kidney stone and sell it.
CARLSON: He's not giving that money to Habitat for Humanity.
GEIST: Of course not.
GEIST: He's going to the dog track.
CARLSON: You pass a kidney stone, you've earned that money.
Most jewelers would tell you and engagement ring ought to be made of gold or platinum. Most jewelers don't know what they're talking about. If you really want to show someone you care, do it with human bone tissue. A new trend in England has people making rings out of their own bones. A British company takes a sample of your bone tissue and carves it into a lovely ring.
GEIST: Oh my lord. If you're trying to save a few bucks on the engagement ring, I understand, I've been there, go to Zales. Don't extract bone tissue from your leg or your arm or anything else. There are fine discount jewelers.
CARLSON: Honestly, I think it's kind of cool.
GEIST: It's not cool.
CARLSON: I do. I do. Painful though.
There's more evidence today that crime does not pay, especially when the crime is planting a severed finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili and then attempting to sue the restaurant over it. Anna Ayala was sentenced to nine years in prison today. Her husband got more than 12 years. Wendy's estimates it lost 21 million when the false news of the finger in the chili spread across the country.
GEIST: All right, Tucker, clearly it's not cool to put a finger in the chili, but 12 years in prison?
GEIST: Isn't that a little outrageous? I bet they're glad they didn't go with the whole hand, they would be getting the gas chamber.
CARLSON: I'm totally for it. I'm always on the side of like, you know, the poor pot peddler who gets life, but these people deserve hard time.
GEIST: Nine years?
CARLSON: I'm serious. I have not eaten a bowl of Wendy's chili since.
GEIST: Can you now that you know it's not true?
CARLSON: No, I'm scarred. I've got like post-traumatic stress disorder from this whole story.
GEIST: Wendy's, best fast food out there, bad fries, though.
CARLSON: Couldn't agree—Willie Geist, thank you.
And that's it for THE SITUATION tonight. Thank you for watching. Up next, Keith. We'll see you tomorrow.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 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.