Guest: Joan Molinaro, Brad Blakeman, Gary Vodicka, Julie Jansen, Ellen
Johnson, Max Kellerman
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: THE SITUATION WITH
TUCKER CARLSON starts right now. Hey, Tucker, what's the situation tonight?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thanks, Joe. And I want to especially thank your wife for watching our show every night. We appreciate it.
SCARBOROUGH: Every night. Every night.
CARLSON: Amen. We can't lose with that. Thanks.
Tonight, Osama bin Laden vows he will never be captured alive. Should we grant his wish or should we bring the U.S.—the world's best known mass murderer to trial? We'll debate that.
And people evicted from their homes in Texas after an eminent domain ruling, and all in the name of George W. Bush. The irony: we'll explain it.
Plus, billboards are usually reserved for the faces of sketchy doctors, ambulance-chasing trial lawyers and dubious looking used car salesmen. Get ready for mug shots of rapists and sex offenders. It will happen on a highway near you. It's about to happen. We'll tell you where in a few minutes.
We begin tonight with more outrage over the Bush's administration decision to allow an Arab-owned company to manage six of America's largest ports. Lawmakers in both parties say ownership by the Dubai based operation could allow terrorists to infiltrate our ports, which are located in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.
The Bush administration argues the deal will not harm national security, but that has not reassured Joan Molinaro, who lost her son on September 11. Mrs. Molinaro is currently a member of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. She joins us live tonight from Pittston, Pennsylvania.
Joan Molinaro, thanks a lot for coming on.
JOAN MOLINARO, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR A SECURE AMERICA: Thank you very much for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: So what is wrong and what bothers you about this plan to allow a Dubai-owned company to control six U.S. ports?
MOLINARO: Well, it's the United Arab Emirates. Osama bin Laden funneled money through them and terrorists—two terrorists came through that. It just—you know, since 9/11, we've been -- 9/11 Families for a Secure America has been fighting to secure the borders. And President Bush is now giving our ports away? That's ridiculous. What—what would stop them from smuggling in 1,000 terrorists to do damage to this country?
CARLSON: Well, the Bush administration responds to points like that by saying, “Look, security is not going to be the hands of the United Arab Emirates, but in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. And so we're going to make sure that that doesn't happen, because that's our job.”
MOLINARO: No, because if they have control of the operations of the ports, they will also be responsible for the security of the ports. And homeland security has not been doing its job too well anyway, so that's not a guarantee for me.
CARLSON: So what—what are the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, the group of which you're a member, what's the group going go to do about this? Are you all taking your case to Congress?
MOLINARO: Definitely. We'll be in Washington starting Monday, the 27th, since Congress is on vacation this week. We will be there next week.
I mean, it's—this is common sense issues. President Bush would not outsource the operations of the White House to any Arab country. Why in the world is he going to open our ports to such danger is beyond comprehension.
CARLSON: Well, the case you're going to hear—and I think you're already hearing whisperings of it now, but I think it's going to become louder in coming days—is essentially, you're making a racist point. I mean, just because they are Arabs, doesn't mean they're terrorists. In fact, the UAE has been our ally, at least officially, in the war on terror. And aren't you painting all Arabs with a pretty broad brush? And isn't that unfair? That's what you're going to hear. How do you respond to that?
MOLINARO: Well, when the race card is pulled, it simply tells me that they don't have a legitimate argument, so the only argument they can pick on is race. And if the United Arab Emirates were really helping us, they have the paper trail. Tell us where Osama bin Laden is.
CARLSON: So you think that the government of the UAE knows where Osama bin Laden is but is not telling us?
MOLINARO: Without a doubt. They know where the money is going, who's giving it to them, and—yes, without a doubt.
CARLSON: Why would the Bush administration, which I think is genuine in its desire to get Osama bin Laden—why wouldn't it be—why would they be allowing this deal to go through, do you think?
MOLINARO: Well, because the Bush family is big into the oil business. And right after 9/11, I asked the question, how many barrels of oil was my son's life worth? And I'll ask it again.
We cannot worry about the bottom dollar here. The bottom line cannot be money. It needs to be lives, American lives.
CARLSON: All right.
MOLINARO: Do we need to lose 10,000, 20,000? I can't for the life of me understand this.
CARLSON: All right, Joan Molinaro. I'm not sure I understand your point about the oil, but I appreciate you coming on anyway. Thanks a lot.
Well, for the flip side of this debate, we bring in former deputy assistant to President Bush, Brad Blakeman. He joins us live tonight from Washington.
Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot for coming on.
BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Pleasure.
CARLSON: So why is—I mean, at the very least, this is, as one Republican politician described it today, politically tone deaf to allow a company owned by the government the UAE—not just a UAE-owned company but literally the emirates, the seven emirates of the UAE own this company—to manage six of our biggest ports. What's the story?
BLAKEMAN: Well, this is—they're an ally. Our government looked fully at this, the 12-member panel of the Foreign Investment Council.
And there is no stronger defender of this country than the president of the United States and the cabinet which comprises our executive branch. You think they're going to surrender the security of our ports to an entity that will do potential damage to the United States? This is a contract for a logistics company.
CARLSON: No, no. And I don't—I don't think the president or anybody working in White House or even the U.S. government wants to see the United States harmed by foreign forces. Of course not.
But the argument that, “Hey, it's the government. They say is it's OK, let's trust them,” kind of evaporated after the Iraq invasion. This is the government that I, among others, trusted to find weapons of mass destruction, and they totally blew it. Why should I trust them in this case?
BLAKEMAN: No, they did not blow it. This was not a war over weapons of mass destruction. This was a war based on a dictator...
CARLSON: OK. I'm sorry, Brad. Without getting—I don't want to reargue Iraq. Very specific point and this is this. Hold on. They said there were WMD in their country. We invaded; there were no WMD.
BLAKEMAN: There was WMD in that country. He used it against thousands of his citizens. We just haven't founded it.
CARLSON: OK. Right. All right. That's what the U.S. government says. Without getting into all that, which is a very interesting debate on its own terms, but as I understand it, your point is if the government says it's OK, let's trust the government? Is that the point that you're making?
BLAKEMAN: If the government says it's OK, the United Arab Emirates are not debarred from bidding on these type of contracts. In fact, they're known throughout the world as one of the foremost leaders in this type of endeavor, in contracting out port commercial operations.
And they're buying a British company, P and O, that has been doing this for five years in our country. So I mean, nothing is going to change. It's up to the United States to defend our ports and secure the ports. And that's what's going to happen.
CARLSON: OK. This is a country, that being the United States, that is currently checking about seven percent of all cargo containers coming into its ports. Seven percent of all cargo containers. So, I mean it's not a government that is doing a very comprehensive job in maintaining port security. You can't be, with seven percent of the cargo containers checked? Please.
BLAKEMAN: There are nine million containers that come through our country every year. And you're right; we have to do a better job in port security.
BLAKEMAN: And we have to do a better job in our airports. Take a look at our airports, Tucker. There are literally tens of thousands of flights that come in.
BLAKEMAN: Of those tens of thousands of flights, many of those airlines are owned by governments, many are owned by commercial entities.
BLAKEMAN: And you know, we're doing the best we can in a free society to move our commerce.
CARLSON: Right, so you're suggesting—OK, no. A free society does not require foreign ownership of our industries of our ports of entry.
BLAKEMAN: No. We haven't had an American company bid on this contract either.
CARLSON: Here's—here's part of the problem, and I'm sure that you're aware of it. It's not that the government of the UAE wishes us harm. I don't think they do. I think Dubai is a pretty civilized place, considering where it is. And I'm sure the government doesn't hate us.
The people of Dubai and the UAE do hate us, however. How do we know that? Because we've got a lot of polling on their attitudes, done by Zogby, a pretty reputable poll. Let me read you a couple of the numbers.
2005, 73 percent of the residents of UAE asked, said they had an unfavorable opinion of our country. Things are bad and they're getting worse. Fifty-eight percent of those residents said their opinion had become worse of the United States in the past year.
The point is, you're going to see workers from the United Arab Emirates in this country, and they're more likely, by definition, to be sympathetic to terrorism. Isn't that a problem?
BLAKEMAN: No, it is not a problem, because the facts you've stated are not likely to occur. The people who are going to hold these jobs are the same people who have these jobs today.
The bought a successor and interest company of a British company. P and O employees are still going to be there. They're just going to be paid by a different entity. American workers are still going to be there.
So don't make it sound like all of a sudden the ports are going to be flooded by United Arab Emirates citizens. That's not going to happen. It hasn't happened in the last five years under a British company, which—which relies on a lot of—an Arab work force.
CARLSON: Fred—Fred, we don't—first of all, we don't know it's not going to happen. Unless we have it in writing, they're free to make it happen. I guess they would be.
BLAKEMAN: They're not free to make it happen. They don't have an automatic right to have foreigners enter our country and work in our ports.
CARLSON: So people who run the port don't have the right to decide who works for them.
Here's what I think is really going on, and I think you're aware of this. The United States has given this contract to the UAE. The UAE is our ally, in name anyway, in the war of terror. The U.S. government is fearful of alienating the UAE. I understand that.
Here's what bothers me. I think that this administration sometimes has an almost reflexive—has a habit, anyway, of sucking up to people in the region. I want to read you a quote from Karen Hughes, our chief diplomat to the Islamic world. This is from today's account. She was speaking in the Islamic world today.
Quote, “Many American newspapers chose not to reprint the cartoons depicting the prophet because they recognize those cartoons are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious convictions of our Muslim friends.
Precious convictions of our Muslim friends. You tell me that an administration that sucks up to people that hate us in the way that Karen Hughes is, showing naivete that's really just kind of shocking, is going to be vigilant against workers from the UAE, who hate us, coming here? I don't believe it. Who work in the UAE?
BLAKEMAN: First of all, you pointed out in the setup to this piece, that unfortunately, there is a racist attitude against Arabs in our country. So are we surprised when the Arabs have this kind of hatred towards the United States?
CARLSON: Oh, so they hate us because we're racist? Is that what you're saying?
BLAKEMAN: No. There has to be a better understanding between the United States and the Muslim world and the Arab world and vice versa.
CARLSON: It's our fault. It's actually our fault. It's our fault. I understand why they hate us, because we're racist. I'm voting independent after that.
BLAKEMAN: No, you said it—you said it in the setup to the piece. You said, isn't it racist when you asked that woman—isn't it racist to be against thing...
CARLSON: No. Brad...
BLAKEMAN: ... just because they're Arabs?
CARLSON: What I said was, this is an argument that is being whispered now. Very soon you will hear it spoken out loud. And my prophecy came true. You just said it out loud.
BLAKEMAN: I'm repeating what you said.
CARLSON: No. You suggested they hate us. Isn't that “no wonder they hate us; because we're racist.”
BLAKEMAN: No, I didn't say that. I said—I said there's got to be understanding on both sides. It's a very troubled area of the world, and there's got to be better understanding about the United States' views of the Arab world and vice versa.
CARLSON: OK. Well, I predict you're going to hear more people allied
to the Bush administration suggest critics of this deal are somehow
bigoted, just as you heard when critics of Harriet Miers were called
sexist. It's the last refuge of people who have no argument. And I'm just
· I hope we don't hear it, but I bet we're going to.
Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot for coming on...
BLAKEMAN: Thanks Tucker.
CARLSON: ... and defending the difficult.
Still to come, Osama bin Laden is heard from yet again, this time vowing never to be caught alive. Should we take him at his word?
Plus people will actually lose their homes if a proposed library dedicated to the president is built in Texas. A remarkable eminent domain decision that has infuriated some otherwise loyal Republicans. We'll tell you all about it when we come back.
CARLSON: Still to come, would you be offended by highway bill boards plastered with the faces of sex offenders?
Plus, Osama speaks, but should we even listen? That's the question.
We'll answer it. Stay tuned.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Osama bin Laden is back in the news, this time for vowing never to be captured alive. He made that promise on an audiotape today. Portions of that tape were first heard broadcast on Al Jazeera last month.
Here to talk about the tape and whether the U.S. ought to grant bin Laden his wish, kill him when we find him, is Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow—Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: OK. So NBC News is reporting that, in fact, U.S. officials, unnamed, have been thinking about this for, obviously, more than four years. And they are inclined to kill the guy, because in fact, finding a place to keep him before his trial, putting him on trial would all be probably really bad for the war against terror, they believe, and probably more expedient to kill him. Here he comes out and says he wants to be killed. Should we just kill him?
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST: If I personally get to kill him, yes, we should kill him. I mean, every American wants to get their hands on the guy and wring his neck.
MADDOW: I think it's better for America if we don't kill them.
Because terrorist leaders, when they've got a big price on their head and
they're wanted forever and ever. And there's the most powerful armies in
the world trying to get them and they don't get caught, it creates this
aura that they're invincible, that they're somehow omniscient and that they
· it makes them seem more powerful than they are. It makes them seem like this mythic character.
Once he gets caught, if he's in jail, there's nothing that makes somebody look small like putting him in jail stripes, giving him three hots and a cot, having him be bored all day.
I think that it's actually better for us, it humanizes him more, to catch him.
CARLSON: I don't know, though. Look at his Uday and Qusay, right? Or John Dillinger or Pablo Escobar or a number of wanted men whose, you know, final images you can recall immediately of them, you know, lying in a heap with holes in them. Bugsy Siegel. I mean any—think of anybody who's met a bloody end. They seem much less powerful at that point. A person who's standing defiantly in a courtroom seems—you know, like a prisoner of conscience.
MADDOW: Look what happened—like the Shining Path in Peru, reign of terror in Peru.
CARLSON: Abimael Guzman.
MADDOW: And when they got him, what did they do? They put him in the public square in a cage in jail stripes and, instead of seeming like this near mythical figure for the people who were terrified of Shining Path, he's this little raving fat man. And his power is gone and it completely destroyed the cult of personality around him.
There's a huge cult of personality among Islamist fanatics about Osama bin Laden. Bringing him down to size by just saying, “Listen, he's just prisoner No. 737, actually makes him seem more—less powerful to those people who would idolize him.
CARLSON: That is, I think, an interesting point. In fact, you may be right. I disagree with you, but I don't think you're making a stupid point at all.
Here's Howard Dean's position on this. Quote, “I still have this old-fashioned notion that, even with people like Osama, who's very likely to be found guilty”—Dean will grant us that—“we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, prejudge jury trials.” We shouldn't prejudge Osama bin Laden.
It seems to me you are better off just, from a political point of view
· just coming out for killing the guy, in cold blood. Actually, damn the consequences. Live with them then. Than coming out and saying Osama bin Laden should be presumed innocent before his jury trial.
MADDOW: Well, yes, you put—listen, anybody in the world, you put them on trial. It was somebody like Osama, somebody like Saddam, you can be pretty sure if you let the trial rune its course, they're going to be found guilty. There's a lot of evidence against these guys.
And then you treat them like any common criminal. Let them spend the rest of their life bored with three hots and a cot. That's the way to even remove their power.
CARLSON: Well, you can't. You don't, though, because you know, Mumia Abu Jamal killed some cop and he's still, you know, broadcasting tapes. He still has all these—I mean, you can't silence someone from behind bars.
But I want to get back to what Howard Dean said: you should not prejudge jury trials. Is—I mean, is that a useful position for the Democratic Party, to say we're not going to prejudge?
Or is it better to just say, actually, we are prejudging, and this guy is guilty as hell”?
MADDOW: Obviously, it's the same with Saddam. Yes, like Saddam, total monster. Ought he be on trial? Yes. Should the U.S. get out of the way and let it be a trial that actually runs and doesn't make him into a martyr? Yes.
These guys being brought down to size is the thing that's going to reduce their power to their followers. Osama bin Laden doesn't have power over us because we think he's great. He has power over us because we're afraid of him. Making him not an object of fear anymore makes—takes it away.
CARLSON: But see, there's a difference. He's not someone who is feared in the Islamic world. He is someone who's revered.
MADDOW: Yes. Feared by us, though.
CARLSON: The only people harmed is Americans. So whereas, when you put Saddam on trial, the people he repressed for lo those many years, rejoice in seeing him diminished. But Osama bin Laden is not hated, so far as I can tell, in the Islamic world. So having him on trial, how does that hurt him or doesn't it?
MADDOW: If he dies in an air strike, if we take the alternate route and we just say we found Osama bin Laden, boom, he's a martyr forever. He died in combat against the U.S. forces. He never compromised. He was never brought down to size. He's the greatest figure he ever was in the Muslim world. You know what? That doesn't help us in the long run in defeating the people who follow his ideology.
CARLSON: Boy, I disagree, but I don't think—again, I don't think what you're saying is crazy or anything.
MADDOW: Well, thanks.
CARLSON: Thank you.
MADDOW: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Actually, it was meant at as a compliment. It didn't quite come out that way.
MADDOW: I understand.
CARLSON: Yes. Up next, the face of crime, but are those faces ugly or cute? We'll tell you what looks have to do with lockups when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
In the next few weeks, we'll find out where the presidential library for George W. Bush will be built. My next guest hopes it's not in his back yard, literally.
Gary Vodicka is one of the few remaining condominium owners in University Gardens. He said Southern Methodist University, SMU, is using heavy-handed tactics to force him out so it can build President Bush's library on his property.
Gary Vodicka joins us live tonight from Dallas to talk about his case.
Gary, thanks a lot for coming on.
GARY VODICKA, WORRIED ABOUT LOSING HOME TO EMINENT DOMAIN: Thank you, Carlson—I mean, Tucker, for having me. And I wanted to say, first off, yours is one of the shows that I do enjoy watching on TV. We share a lot of the same political thoughts, opinions and ideas.
CARLSON: I appreciate it. And you stay up late, which I appreciate, and you sound pretty sober.
VODICKA: I know. Well, I've been up since 5 a.m. So I mean, it's been a long day.
CARLSON: So tell me, you own a condominium in University Gardens which is a complex that SMU wants to tear down potentially to build this library?
VODICKA: Yes. Yes. I'm the last—there's only two of us left, two owners. And I'm the only owner that lives there now and it's my homestead. And I rent three of the other units to my tenants. And SMU wants to tear it down starting Wednesday.
VODICKA: Tear part of it down. And I have the letter right here from their lawyer if you care to look at it. We start our court hearings tomorrow over the inspection of the property.
CARLSON: I can't read by satellite. If you own it, if it be longs to you, these are not apartments, condos, you have the deed, how can you tear down where you live?
BODES%: The only possible way they could do it is they went through this little loophole, supposed loophole in the declaration and by-laws which says upon its object sole essence, then they could sell the complex. My lawsuit alleges it's not obsolete or last June when they said it was.
And it hasn't been since 1976.
I've got video footage of 30 or 40 people on tape, some of their employees saying how much they loved living there. Some of these old ladies wanted to live there until the day they died, but like so many of them, they didn't have the wherewithal. They weren't lawyers. They didn't have the money to engage in a long legal battle, expensive legal battle with them. And so they...
CARLSON: With them being SMU, Southern Medicine University. But—but if you own it, if you own your property, then how can they determine that your property is, as you put it, obsolescent—I guess that means obsolete—and tear it down? I still don't get that. Under what law can they do that?
VODICKA: They can't. Because the provision in the declaration says upon its obsolete, then the board can sell the entire premises.
When they took over majority control, they stacked the whole board with their all their employees, which are non-owners, nonresidents. And so they had their own board sell the whole premises back to them, you know, nice little sweet deal, they thought. But they can only do that if it's obsolete.
And so what they're trying to do tomorrow is start tearing down the property and start removing some of the property to preclude my experts that I've hired and dropped thousands of dollars to, to go in and inspect the property to dispute their little limited, noncomprehensive engineering report that they gave us last June, which in the report itself, didn't even say it was obsolete.
CARLSON: OK, so what are you going to do as of Wednesday? I mean, are you going to stockpile weapons and take a stand, or what are you going to do?
VODICKA: No. Well, I've sued them as of last August, me and Bob Tafle (ph), and we have—the hearings and the fireworks start tomorrow. We have a motion that is set in Judge Ashby's court, 134. She's a seasoned judge—and to inspect the property. Under federal law, you have an unconditional right to support the property.
In Texas law, you don't have to have good cause to inspect the property. They dropped the good clause requirement in 1970, the Texas Supreme Court, that is. So we have the right to inspect it, and they're trying to destroy the evidence before we can even have our experts go in and show that no, it's not obsolete.
CARLSON: On Wednesday, if it's obsolete and you're still living there. That's interesting. Gary Vodicka, living in in a condo complex that may be torn down. We will follow what happens.
Still to come, should Mississippi plaster pictures of its worst sex offenders on huge billboards across the state?
Are you pulling your hair out because you can't stomach your office mates anymore? We will tell you how to survive an abusive box or a competent co-worker, next.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
George Washington once said, “Associate yourself with men of good quality, if you esteem your own reputation, for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.” Joining me now, a man who's always good company, “The Outsider.” He is ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: Me?
CARLSON: That would be you, Max.
KELLERMAN: Oh, excellent.
CARLSON: Take a compliment.
KELLERMAN: Thank you very much.
CARLSON: First up, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but the state of Mississippi is about to prove that old adage wrong. The Department of Human Services want to put up 100 billboards along that state's highways with pictures and names of sex offenders who are currently in prison, along with details of what they did.
Critics say the plan is a waste of money, since the convicts are already behind bars.
Justice is never wasteful. That's my point. These guys deserve to be shamed even beyond the shame of going to prison. And I think this will have a deterrent effect, because it will remind people that not only could you get busted for committing a sex crime but you'll be embarrassed for committing a sex crime.
KELLERMAN: Justice is never wasteful. Would you agree that government at times is wasteful?
CARLSON: Yes, I would. Yes I would support (ph) that idea.
KELLERMAN: Well, I mean, the people are already in jail.
KELLERMAN: These guys are in jail. Not only do we know where they are—it's not like they have ankle bracelets in the house or they go to the supermarket. No, they're in jail.
CARLSON: You know what we call this, Max? We call this piling on.
And you can't pile on too hard.
KELLERMAN: More like campaigning. Were I—listen, were I arguing -
· I'm here arguing the devil's advocate point of view.
KELLERMAN: And therefore, that position is, the head of the state Department for Human Services is making a political move to show how tough he is on crime. Not saying that's actually the case, but were I arguing that portion, which I am, that's the argument I'd make.
CARLSON: Well, I think in your heart you know you're wrong. So that's good enough. We'll move to the next one.
There's nothing pretty about crime, and apparently, the same holds true for criminals. According to a new study by a pair of economists, ugly teenagers are more likely to commit crimes than good looking teenagers. The researchers also point to other studies that suggest ugly people are less likely to be hired and that they earn less money, which may steer some of them to crime.
But, Max, that's not the cause. It's not. Poverty doesn't drive crime. The Great Depression saw the lowest crime rates in modern American history. Being poor does not make you a criminal.
Being ugly does drive people to crime, because ugliness results in social ostracism, in my view. And so society is so geared toward rewarding the good looking that people aren't kind of get left out and so they become anti-social.
KELLERMAN: So you believe the idea that the less attractive are more likely to commit crimes?
CARLSON: I think that's absolutely right.
KELLERMAN: What if it were the case that the more attractive—the more attractive—are less likely to be convicted of those crimes? And then it becomes a real self-perpetuating or sustaining situation, because really—what does it really—we're talking about attractive.
CARLSON: So it's tyranny of the cute?
KELLERMAN: If that's the case. We're talking about attractive people getting away with stuff, right?
KELLERMAN: Which really makes them less attractive in reality, but—but the perception is they become even more attractive. That the way they look is a reflection of their soul, right?
KELLERMAN: And that the less attractive have—kind of are weaker, more on characters.
KELLERMAN: But if that's not true, then what's really happening is an outrageous miscarriage of justice...
CARLSON: It is.
KELLERMAN: ... against the left to practice (ph).
CARLSON: Actually, to counter both of our arguments, I want to throw up a picture of two pretty handsome murderers, both of whom were convicted and received the death penalty. Scott Peterson and Ted Bundy. There's Scott Peterson right there, actually, not looking as handsome as he always did.
And of course, Ted Bundy, who was executed.
On the other hand most—these guys are anomalies. Most criminals actually are pretty unattractive. We've got a picture here.
KELLERMAN: They are unattractive on the inside. My problem with the whole idea is that it's the manifestation—the manifestation of their kind of soul in their physical being. Right? Look, they're ugly on the inside, and therefore they're—they've punished with an ugly face. I don't buy it.
CARLSON: You don't buy it?
KELLERMAN; No. The good looking are getting away with it. That's what I'm saying.
KELLERMAN: He has a big forehead.
CARLSON: Max Kellerman, thank you.
KELLERMAN: I don't know if he's good looking. Does he count as good looking?
CARLSON: I guess he does. I don't know. A lot of women thought so.
Max Kellerman, thank you.
KELLERMAN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION, if you have a clueless boss and you work with a bunch of lunatics, you can relate to the characters on “The Office.” Don't quit your job just yet. We've got a cure for miserable work places when THE SITUATION rolls on.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Black Americans can vote; women are running fortune 500 companies and gay people have been elected to high office. So who is discriminated against now? According to my next guest, atheists. Ellen Johnson is the president of American Atheists. She joins us tonight in the studio to tell us why equality for atheists ought to be the America's next civil rights movement.
Ellen Johnson, thanks a lot for coming on.
ELLEN JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Here's my problem with atheism. The pitch is tough. OK?
So Christians say when you die you go to heaven.
CARLSON: Muslims say when you die, you go to paradise and get the virgins, under certain circumstances.
JOHNSON: Right, right.
CARLSON: Atheists say you die and you rot.
CARLSON: Kind of hard to proselytize with that.
JOHNSON: I can't promise you life after death. I can't promise you miracles. I can't promise anything like that. I can restore to you your dignity and your sense of reason and humanity. And I think that's pretty good. I think that people instinctually know atheism makes sense and they're proud of that.
CARLSON: Because when I think of dignity, I think of religious people. I mean, it wasn't atheists who stopped the slave trade, for instance, it was a holy Christian institution.
JOHNSON: Don't go into slavery. I mean, slavery was a holy Christian institution.
CARLSON: Absolutely. And certainly a Muslim one, and still is.
JOHNSON: Every single institution today that is exempt from abiding by anti-discrimination laws in America are the churches.
CARLSON: However, you don't think of—and that's right. All sorts of horrible things have been done and are done in the name of religion. But you don't think of atheists as moved to commit great acts on behalf of humanity, to lay down their lives for their friends or for their nation.
JOHNSON: Those are the things that don't get told about and talked about. We ought to really have, you know, Atheist History Month in the same way that blacks do.
JOHNSON: No, truly, Andrew Carnegie and, you know, Mark Twain and Thomas Edison and so many people, famous atheists that we need to talk about more.
CARLSON: How do you—you are a part of a group that seeks to have a greater political influence in America?
CARLSON: How do you, when you talk to members of Congress, assuming they let you in the office?
CARLSON: And do they?
CARLSON: What do you I say to them? What do they say—are they willing to be identified as talking to an atheist?
JOHNSON: Absolutely. But they want to know what we have to say. They want to know our point of view, because they want to use that. They agree with us.
Our positions are fair. They're reasonable. They make sense. They're logical, the whole thing. They want to vote for us—with us, but they just want that political safety net. You've got 45 million Americans...
CARLSON: But see, you've had politicians—you've had members of Congress tell you, “I'm on your side”?
JOHNSON: No, not exactly like that. But, you know, they—they want to know what we have to say. They appreciate getting our press releases. They appreciate hearing from us.
JOHNSON: They want to know what our position is on pieces of legislation, because it's informative and helps them.
CARLSON: Right. Here—I think where your P.R. campaign might fail, is in comparing yourself to the civil rights movement, for instance, or a movement for equality by women.
CARLSON: Women and people of different ethnicities are born that way. It's not something over which they have control. Atheists are atheists by choice. It's a conscious decision.
JOHNSON: The troubles that atheists face in America are analogous to what gays face. They are discriminated in the workplace. The kids are harassed in the schools. Kids are thrown out of the house by their parents. All the same things that happened to gays, happen to atheists.
CARLSON: All of them?
JOHNSON: It's the same kind of situation. Well, yes. Yes. And atheists are in the closet because of this. Just to let you know, a black person...
CARLSON: Wait a second. In the closet? I mean, atheism is a conviction that a person has. If you don't have the courage to tell other people what you believe, why should I take you seriously?
JOHNSON: Because you can stay in the closet, because you know what will happen if you do, especially on the job. Your family will disown you; you will lose your job. I mean, there are 10,000...
CARLSON: I don't know. You are an adult. Have a little courage. I mean, do you know what I mean? The idea that I have unpopular views but I can't share them, because I'm too afraid of other people's opinions.
JOHNSON: They do. Atheists do. And that's how we know what happens to them.
CARLSON: Seems like a cowardly group then.
JOHNSON: No, we know what happens to them. They know what happens to them. It's like telling gays you should all come out of the closet. Come on. I mean, I'd rather have an employed atheist than an unemployed atheist.
CARLSON: Are gay groups pretty excited to have you likening your movement to theirs?
JOHNSON: I'm not—you know, I don't know. You know, I don't really. But you know, it is difficult. It is very difficult. And I do hear from atheists, and we know that there are problems out there.
CARLSON: Then why don't you have—why not have as a remedy to this
· I was just thinking before the show—the kind of classic American remedy is quotas for them. Why not have a federal program that requires that a certain number of, say, road contracts are set aside for people who reject God?
JOHNSON: That's a good idea. I'll take that into consideration.
CARLSON: Really? You really want to endorse that idea?
JOHNSON: What I think what's important—I think it's more important right now for people to support a national organization like American Atheists. Because I want employers everywhere and school administrators to worry what will happen if they discriminate against one atheist and treat them...
CARLSON: What's the slogan? Atheist: we're for nothing?
CARLSON: Have you tried that one?
JOHNSON: We're for Constitution. We're for civil rights. We're for reason.
CARLSON: That's a good one. I don't agree, but you are still a good spokesperson for a movement whose goals I don't share.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you very much.
Coming up on THE SITUATION, most people would call this a wild predator from the Serengeti plains. One person calls it his pet cat. We've got the shocking dimensions of this animal when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Did you ever look around your office and wonder why you're working with a bunch of raving lunatics? Does your boss treat you like a child? You are not alone. You have two options: you can quit your job tomorrow or you can listen to the advice of my next guest.
Julie Jansen is the author of the book, “You Want Me to Work with Who?: Eleven Keys to a Stress-Free, Satisfying and Successful Work Life, No Matter Who you Work With.” She joins me live in the studio tonight.
Julie, thanks a lot for coming on. No matter who you work with.
That's a big claim.
JULIE JANSEN, AUTHOR, “YOU WANT ME TO WORK WITH WHO?”: It is a big claim, yes.
CARLSON: So let's say you have a boss who just doesn't care for you?
JANSEN: You better figure it out, because that person can make or break your career. So it's up to you, not your boss to get along.
CARLSON: So I mean, sucking up is the obvious answer, right?
JANSEN: You want to be sort of discrete about that. You do have to suck up on a certain level—I think to most people at work nowadays -- but I think it's more about kind of figuring out what your boss' agenda is, what are their hot buttons, why are they behaving the way they are? You know, what makes the difference to them, getting to know your boss.
HAMMER: I think younger people, especially younger people who don't have nine children to support and a huge mortgage, think to themselves, you know, if it's unpleasant for me to go work, I'm quitting. I'm out of here. I'm on to a new job.
You're counseling sort of negotiating within the job you have?
JANSEN: Yes. Well, I don't think people find it easy to quit a job, though. But you're right in that if the people are horrifying, they'll leave before they'll leave if they are really bored or unchallenged.
CARLSON: What of the strategies you recommend in dealing with people who are unpleasant?
JANSEN: There's so many kinds of unpleasant people, so it has to do with whether they're disrespectful or a poor communicator.
CARLSON: how about this. Let's pick some common ones.
JANSEN: Let's pick disrespectful, because there's lots of those. OK?
JANSEN: Is it a pattern? Is this a person disrespectful just to you or are the disrespectful to other people. Figure that out. Document it. Sit down and think about how you behave to people who are disrespectful to you. Are you enabling them to be disrespectful.
JANSEN: And then it's a matter of sitting down and saying hey, you're disrespectful. Let's focus on the business. We have goals. We have things we have to achieve together.
And you're distracting from our goals.
CARLSON: You also here complain about co-workers who don't do their share, who sort of send their work your way and you wind up doing it and getting no credit. And this person, meanwhile, sleeps through his day.
CARLSON: How do you deal with that?
JANSEN: Well, that's your fault, because you're saying yes and you're doing their work.
CARLSON: Blaming the victim, aren't we?
JANSEN: You give it back to them. “It's your work. I'd be happy to help you if I have time next Thursday.” That's it.
CARLSON: Who's stealing credit for the work you are doing?
JANSEN: Stealing credit that you sit down and talk to them and say, here's how I feel. I feel like you're taking credit. Here's what I've done and here's how I participated. It's not going to happen again. Most people are afraid to have these conversations.
CARLSON: Most people are way too passive.
JANSEN: Yes, they are way too passive.
CARLSON: What about a boss who's not giving a raise? I've heard so much conflicting advice about whether you plead poverty, whether you don't. How do you get more money out of your boss?
JANSEN: You have to have a case. You have to have a case. You have to have information about what else is going on in the organization. Who else had gotten raises? What have been? Nose around. It easy to find that out, believe it or not. And then you go to your boss and say, “I've thought about this. Let's have a meeting. I want you to think about it. Let's meet again in a week, because this is what I'm looking for.”
You don't give numbers. You don't give percentages.
JANSEN: Because when you have a label on your forehead that says, “I want X percentage,” and that's what your boss, if he does give you a raise, will give you. You want room for negotiation.
CARLSON: OK. So you just sort of want to make the general case that you deserve more money?
JANSEN: Exactly, and this is why. And you have to have good reasons why. And usually, of course, it has to do with how you've improved the business and been amazing.
CARLSON: You've got to brag about yourself?
JANSEN: Yes, you do. And most people are—it's absolutely necessary in the workplace. There's no question.
CARLSON: If I was a boss and somebody came in and said, you know, “I am terrific. I appreciate just how wonderful I am. And for that reason I need more money.”
I'd say “Buzz off, pal. Get out of here.”
JANSEN: That's true. But you need to substantiate it. “Here's why I'm terrific. I reduced costs. I increased sales. I improved morale, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” You have to have those quantifiable kinds of...
CARLSON: Isn't it better just to be sort of understated, and—because people who boast about themselves...
JANSEN: No. It's not boasting. It's not boasting. And understated doesn't work. You know, the only person who looks our for you is you. The workplace is brutal.
CARLSON: What if someone is demented?
JANSEN: Demented. You can't do anything about demented. You just decide you're going to deal with it or you're going to leave. Yes.
CARLSON: So there's—should you confront—let's say you work with someone who just isn't all there, because he has a drug problem.
CARLSON: Or having been in journalism a long time, obviously, I've seen this a lot. Or who's, you know, one step away from, you know, picking flies out of the air.
JANSEN: Yes. Well...
CARLSON: Should you say anything to that person or just keep your distance?
JANSEN: You can try saying something, but realize it's not going to make a difference. Then go to all the powers that be above the person. And you say, “Hey, the person is demented. Do you expect me to work with him? Well, if you do, either he leaves or I do.”
CARLSON: Unless the person does become an office mascot.
CARLSON: Then in which case you preserve him.
JANSEN: Then you need sweaters.
CARLSON: Very good. The book, “You Want Me to Work with Who? Eleven Keys to a Stress-Free, Satisfying and Successful Workplace.” Thanks.
JANSEN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Still ahead on THE SITUATION, a look at the biggest house cat you'll ever see in your life. We're not bragging. We're not boasting. This is not an empty description. It is enormous. You've got to see it.
Plus, does the company you work for have something common with al Qaeda? The answer is yes. We'll explain the shocking link between the terrorist group and your office when we visit “The Cutting Room Floor.”
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.” Willie Geist is here.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Hey, Tucker. How are you?
CARLSON: Good to see you, Willie.
GEIST: I'm going to lift you some spirits. I want to show you the biggest monster beast you've ever seen in your life. Look at this cat, 33 pounds. Thirty-three pounds from China. Has a 31-inch waist, if you can believe that.
CARLSON: It's bigger than some of my kids.
GEIST: It eats six pounds of chicken and pork every single day. That thing is—look at that.
CARLSON: Now, this is not an anti-Asian slur, but I'm wondering if they're fattening it up for something? I mean, honestly.
GEIST: Come on.
CARLSON: I'm serious. It's a question that had to be asked. It's China, Willie, come on.
GEIST: That's the kind of animal that got Siegfried and Roy into trouble. You better be careful.
CARLSON: Just Roy, by the way.
There are two kinds of lazy. There's the can't get off the couch to get the remote control lazy. And then there's the can't get off the couch to claim your $365 million lazy. The second kind is rare, very rare, but has apparently afflicted someone in Nebraska.
The winning Powerball lottery ticket was sold at the U-Stop convenience store in Lincoln, Nebraska. But the winner of the record setting $365 million jackpot has not come forward yet. The winning numbers were announced on Saturday.
GEIST: Seems like the kind of thing you might want to move up to the front burner once you heard the news. Had some other stuff to take care of today.
Now the other side of this is, 365, yes. You take the lump, it's 177. Then they take taxes out; it's $124 million. It's like are you really going to the store for that?
CARLSON: I know you are mocking, but it is offensive. It's a third of what they promise.
GEIST: It is. That's what I'm talking about.
CARLSON: The Mafia always paid the full amount when they ran the numbers.
GEIST: That's exactly right. So if he doesn't get off the couch for this, I don't blame him.
CARLSON: The government, less honest than the Mafia.
Wal-Mart doesn't just deliver on its promise of every day low prices, the super store can deliver your baby, as well. True fact. An expecting mom was shopping in Wal-Mart in Homestead, Florida, on Friday when she went into labor. The store staff sprung into action and actually started the delivery until EMTs arrived.
The Wal-Mart employees later visited baby Felicia in the hospital.
GEIST: Man, that place has it all. Clothing, lawn furniture, infants. It's unbelievable. I hate to be the resident skeptic here, but is there any chance Wal-Mart's evil P.R. department sort of staged this event?
CARLSON: Is there any chance?
CARLSON: I would say about 100 percent.
GEIST: Just checking.
CARLSON: NASCAR's biggest race, the Daytona 500, was run yesterday. What better way to commemorate that event by taking the smell of stock car racing home with you in a bottle? Elizabeth Arden is launching a new fragrance called Daytona 500. It's a cologne whose target market is NASCAR fans. The Daytona 500 will go for about $30 a bottle.
GEIST: Let me tell you, Tucker, there is nothing, not one thing about NASCAR that you would want to bottle, whether it's the sweat of the drivers, the motor oil, the gasoline fumes, the vomit of the fans in the parking lot. There's nothing about it you would want to put in a bottle. I get J. Lo and Jessica Simpson, those perfumes, but Dale Earnhardt Jr., I would not want to smell like.
CARLSON: The smell of victory, Willie.
GEIST: Is that what it is? That would be good.
CARLSON: Alcohol is the fuel that makes karaoke run, of course. Without booze, karaoke is actually kind of offensive and without question, very embarrassing. You're about to find out how bad it can be in Vietnam. That's because the government there has outlawed the sale of alcohol in the 10,000 karaoke bars in that country. The ban is part of that nation's campaign against, quote, “social evils.”
GEIST: Those, of course, not Vietnamese karaokes there. Sober karaoke is the real social evil, because if you're doing it and you're not drunk, that means you take yourself seriously and you think you're actually a good singer. That is going to be Vietnam karaoke, the most depressing thing I can think of.
CARLSON: I have done karaoke once in my life and it was in Hanoi, Vietnam, and I don't think I've ever been that intoxicated in my life.
GEIST: What was the song? You remember?
CARLSON: I don't remember. I remember I fell asleep in the petticab on the way home, though.
GEIST: I bet it was “Hanging Tough.”
GEIST: “Hanging Tough.”
CARLSON: Two new studies of the inner workings of Al Qaeda show the terrorist organization not only has a strong commitment to jihad but also an employee friendly vacation policy, as well. The West Point studies reveal Al Qaeda gives seven vacation days every three weeks for married members, five days a month for bachelors. It also give its members 15 sick days per year. Al Qaeda vacation requests must be made 10 weeks in advance.
GEIST: Can I just say the monkey bars al Qaeda training is my favorite thing in the world. Do you come across a lot of monkey bars during the jihad? Is that part of the deal?
Plotting the demise, though, western civilization is tiring work ,so you need some time off, I think.
CARLSON: They're not only evil; they're like bureaucratic.
GEIST: I know. It's gross. They have annual reviews and suggestion boxes in the cafeteria. It's corporate America.
CARLSON: Can you imagine what their H.R. is like? Willie Geist.
GEIST: All right, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thank you. That's it for the SITUATION tonight. Thank you for watching. Up next, “COUNTDOWN.” We'll see you tomorrow. Have a great night.
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.