Guests: Elizabeth Joseph, David Horowitz, Mike Worthington, John Bauman
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: That‘s all the time we have for tonight. THE SITUATION with Tucker Carlson, a man who always pays his taxes on time, starts right now.
Hey, Tucker, what‘s the situation tonight?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: You said it, Joe, real nice. Thanks.
SCARBOROUGH: Thanks.
CARLSON: Thanks to you at home for tuning in. We appreciate it.
Tonight, the new HBO series “Big Love” already is generating controversy before it even hits the air. The shows stars an otherwise regular guy who happens to be married to three women. Does that show glorify polygamy? In a minute, we‘ll talk to a practicing polygamist who says her plural marriage was the ultimate expression of feminism. Ponder that for a minute.
Also, author David Horowitz joins us with his list of the 101 most radical academics in America. We‘re guessing Ward Churchill made that cut.
Plus, the King of All Media is embroiled in yet another nasty contretemps, this one a lawsuit with his former employer, which reportedly wants $500 million. We‘ll hear from the one and only Howard Stern in just a few minutes.
But we begin tonight with the raucous festivities taking place right now n Bourbon Street. It is Fat Tuesday, and NBC‘s Donna Gregory is live in New Orleans.
Donna Gregory, set the scene for us. What‘s going on?
DONNA GREGORY, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, I‘ve got to tell you, it is crazy out here. You may be able to see it over my shoulder. It is raucous, just as you imagined.
But believe it or not, the arrest numbers are down substantially from what they normally are. Normally, there‘s about 250 people arrested on any given Mardi Gras night. It‘s very much lower this year: 95 arrests on Friday, according to the sheriff‘s department, 91 on Saturday, 120 on Sunday, which is the latest date that we have figures for.
There is a temporary jail set up in a park nearby so that suspects can go there and be processed and the cops can quickly get back on the street.
And I do have to tell you, we talked about this last night. They have this down to a science. They quickly go up to people who are misbehaving, pull them out of the situation and then let the party continue to roll.
You can see the video. It‘s pretty crazy. Flashing, we‘re told, is almost exclusively done by the tourists. There are very few locals who would ever lower themselves, so to speak, to participate in that activity.
And also, another tidbit we learned for you, Tucker, is that there‘s no free bathrooms here. If you want to use the rest room facilities, you actually have to go into an establishment and pay for a drink.
There are some amazing—yes, pay for a drink. Then you can use the potty.
But they‘ve got really cool souvenirs here. There‘s a sort of “live strong” type of rip-off bracelet. This one says, “We will rebuild Katrina.”
But I have some great T-shirts to show you. Do you want to see them?
CARLSON: Are you kidding?
GREGORY: First one, “FEMA, Federal Employees Missing in Action.”
CARLSON: Outstanding.
GREGORY: Next one—next one, blue tarp colors. “I survived Hurricane Katrina, and all I got is this blue tarp T-shirt.” On the back it says, “but I haven‘t leaked.”
There‘s more. Two more quick ones. “Twisted sisters,” talking about the two twin hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, that came through. They call them girls gone wild.
And our all-time favorite, are you ready? This is so fabulous. I almost don‘t want to show you. “I stayed in New Orleans for Katrina. All I got was this lousy T-shirt, and a new Cadillac and a plasma TV.”
CARLSON: Donna Gregory has found the only four T-shirts on Bourbon Street we can show on television.
GREGORY: Exactly.
CARLSON: Donna, we are hearing—I actually heard from a friend of mine this afternoon at Mardi Gras that some of the floats had political elements to them. They were parodies of various government officials. Did you see any of those?
GREGORY: They did. There were some effigies earlier in the parade. We didn‘t see any so much today. A lot of those were earlier. Some of those were over the weekend.
But today mostly was geared towards families, at least on the parade route. Everybody throwing the beads, throwing the throw as they call it.
Celebrities were in evidence here. Steven Segal came back, and he was interview on Rita Cosby earlier tonight. He was here on a float. Britney Spears was here. She‘s a New Orleans native. Or I should say a Louisiana native. Josh Hartnett was here, Scarlett Johansson, Dan Aykroyd, Jim Belushi. A lot of folks. Definitely a party atmosphere.
CARLSON: Outstanding. If NBC‘s Donna Gregory is there, though, I put that at the very top of the sightings list. Donna Gregory on Bourbon Street, I hope you have a great time tonight. Don‘t go to bed now.
GREGORY: Thanks. We‘ll keep it clean.
CARLSON: Thank you, Donna.
Well the latest series from HBO is stirring up controversy even before it hits the air. “Big Love” is a comedy about the joys of polygamy, featuring a suburban husband and his three wives. It‘s already gotten some more Mormons hot and bothered, since the church officially banned polygamy more than 100 years ago, though it does persist in parts of Utah without the church‘s blessing.
My next guest says that‘s missing the point. She calls polygamy, quote, “the ultimate feminist lifestyle,” and she ought to know. Elizabeth Joseph was married for more than 24 years to a man who had seven other wives. She was widowed in 1998 and is now a radio station news director in Page, Arizona. She joins us live tonight.
Elizabeth Joseph, thanks for coming on.
ELIZABETH JOSEPH, ESPOUSES POLYGAMY: You‘re welcome.
CARLSON: I think most men who hear polygamy described as the ideal feminist arrangement sort of chuckle to themselves, because they think of polygamy as the idea man‘s arrangement. You‘ve got all these women there for your pleasure, maybe a couple of them at once. I mean, it‘s kind of—it‘s like porn in the eyes of your average man. How is this a feminist ideal?
JOSEPH: Well, let me just first say that Wilt Chamberlain said he slept with 25,000 women, and I don‘t think he took responsibility for them or their children.
CARLSON: Yes.
JOSEPH: So there‘s easier ways for a man to get as much sex as he wants.
CARLSON: Well, that‘s a good point.
JOSEPH: As this lifestyle. But from the feminism thing, I have friends who sacrificed their dreams of career and children—or excuse me, family and children for their career and then the other stripe, too.
CARLSON: Yes. You have friends, in other words, who sacrificed their careers for their children and their—or their children for their careers. But what does polygamy have to do with that?
JOSEPH: Well, I was able to fully embrace my career, because I had children. But when I went to work, they were at home with Dad and with other women who loved them very much.
And the other thing is, come home at night, I don‘t feel like making dinner every night. But I was raised that way. I was raised that my husband should have clean shorts in his drawer. I didn‘t have time for that, but there were women in the family who did.
CARLSON: Yes. Well, that seems like a pretty good deal for your husband, certainly, and I guess a good deal for you to some extent. But isn‘t polygamy itself organized around the desires of a man? You never see polygamy in which one woman has a number of husbands. I‘m not sure that‘s ever existed in history, at least in large numbers. Why is it always the man who‘s the center of all these women orbiting around him?
JOSEPH: Well, because I think men are built that way. I think the sex drives are different. I think men are vertical in their relationships, where women are horizontal and affiliative.
Women like to hang out together.
CARLSON: Yes.
JOSEPH: And it was a huge advantage that I really liked and respected his seven other wives. And his relationship with Margaret, for example, that enriched him. He brought that enrichment back to our relationship. I was happy for Margaret and happy for him.
CARLSON: Well, you seem a very tolerant woman and good for you. I wonder, though, how common that could be. I mean, for those of us not in polygamist marriages, it‘s hard to believe your wives getting along with one another. How common is that?
JOSEPH: I‘m not that familiar with other practitioners. We were a very, very unique family in that the women were career oriented. But my husband, Alex, liked to say how would you like eight women working your inventory 24 hours a day? That was one of his favorite expressions.
CARLSON: What does that mean, working your inventory?
JOSEPH: We gave him a hard time.
CARLSON: Yes.
JOSEPH: He had to be on his toes all the time. I picked a challenging career. I wanted a challenging marriage. I wanted to march marry the best man I could find, regardless of his marital status. That he had five wives when I did, didn‘t keep me from marrying him. If all—if all the women married the good guys, then the batterers would be bachelors, and that‘s what they need to be.
CARLSON: Yes. I think you‘re absolutely right in that regard, though it is also true that some women are attracted to men who are unstable and violent. I mean, that‘s just a fact, unhappy and sad as it is.
However, doesn‘t that leave men with less money, less charisma, out in the cold? I mean, in societies where there‘s polygamy that is widespread, there are a lot of unmarried men with no prospects of getting married. And that‘s not good for society, is it?
JOSEPH: No, it‘s good for society. Those guys need to shape up so that a woman will want them.
CARLSON: Did—did the women in your household, the other wives, every gang up on your husband as one? All eight of you ever go at him?
JOSEPH: Always. Always. I mean...
CARLSON: Always?
JOSEPH: ... just for our own—just for amusement purposes. I mean, guys are such easy targets. And—but it was all in good fun. It was.
CARLSON: Did your husband see it that way?
JOSEPH: Yes.
CARLSON: I don‘t know any man who want eight women going after him at once.
JOSEPH: We weren‘t vicious. It wasn‘t like that. It was good fun.
We had good times together.
For example, going out to dinner with him alone, that was special. But I kind of preferred if three or four of us went out, because it was more fun, more conversation, and he was more in his element. So that was my preference that I acquired over the years.
CARLSON: He sounds like a quite a guy, I have to say.
JOSEPH: He was.
CARLSON: Elizabeth Joseph, thanks for joining us. I appreciate it.
I appreciate your taking the time.
JOSEPH: You‘re welcome.
CARLSON: Well, for more on this subject, you can check out my blog at Tucker.MSNBC.com. I‘ve been in my office banging it out furiously. I‘m not sure if I‘m right. You can judge.
Still to come, is this man one of the most dangerous academics in America? My next guest says he and 100 other professors are pushing anti-Americanism on our kids. And you know he‘s right.
Thanks in part to the Dubai ports deal, the president‘s approval rating sinks to Richard Nixon-like levels. But is that necessarily a bad thing for the Republican Party? Find out when THE SITUATION returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Still to come, we expose the 101 most radical professors in America. Plus, a mom with two jobs spends two nights in the big house because her two teenage sons didn‘t go to school. Was the sentence too severe? The outrageous details when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
You save and you borrow to send your kids to college in the hopes they‘ll become educated. But instead, many of them are going to spend four years getting brain washed by radical professors who hate you and everything your bourgeois lifestyle stands for.
What can you do about it? Thanks to tenure, not really anything at all, but you can educate yourself. Here to help is best-selling author David Horowitz. He‘s the author of a new book called “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.” He joins us live tonight from Burbank, California.
David, thanks for coming on.
DAVID HOROWITZ, AUTHOR, “THE PROFESSORS”: Thanks for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: So I understand annoying, misguided, anti-American. I know that that‘s true from my own experience. But dangerous, how are these guys dangerous?
HOROWITZ: Well, there are at least four terrorists in my book.
CARLSON: Terrorists?
HOROWITZ: Sure. At the University of South Florida, there was a whole terrorist cell running Palestine Islamic Jihad. Bill Ayres (ph) and Bernadine Dorn (ph) were terrorists in the ‘70s, and Bill Ayres (ph) wrote a book in 2001 and commented on the 30 bombings he committed that he was sorry he didn‘t bomb more. He‘s a professor of early childhood education at the University of Illinois.
Bernadine Dorn (ph) was an admirer of Charles Manson, is a law professor at Northwestern University.
Hamid al-Dar (ph), follower of Ayatollah Khomeini, who‘s called for the elimination of Israel from the face of the earth and jihad against the west, armed jihad. He did this from Tehran.
Ron Karenga is the chairman of the black studies department at California State at Long Beach, spent four and a half years in jail as torturing—was convicted of torturing two of his female disciples.
CARLSON: He‘s also the founder of Kwanzaa, we should point out.
HOROWITZ: He‘s the creator of Kwanzaa.
Jose Gutierrez (ph), a Texas professor, has called for the elimination of gringos, saying we need to kill all whites.
The book is filled with racists, with people who think of Mohammed Atta as comparable to the Founding Fathers, with professors who wish for the defeat of America worldwide. This is also...
CARLSON: That sounds like a disgusting group. I mean, if—let me ask you a very general question.
HOROWITZ: I—sure.
CARLSON: Why is it that a college, especially a publicly funded colleges—college, and some of these are—would hire or be allowed to hire someone who had done time for a felony, someone who had advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government, someone who had participated in or supported terrorism? Like, how did that happen?
HOROWITZ: It‘s a—it‘s a very good question, when you consider there are probably 100 people applying for a job. These professors, by the way, make $100,000 to $150,000 a year when they‘re full professors. They work an average of six to nine hours a week in class. They have four months paid vacation. They have lifetime jobs.
This is a corruption scandal bigger than Enron. You have teachers teaching in subjects that are completely unqualified to teach in, with no scholarly credentials.
Harry Tard (ph), who is the head of the peace studies department at Purdue University, is a member of the Central Committee of the American Communist Party, takes his students to Cuba.
CARLSON: Wait a second. David—hold on, David. You‘re not allowed to criticize universities, and you know it. You‘ve got to give your money to universities. You‘ve got to send your kids there and then you‘ve got to keep giving money as an alum, and you‘ve got to shut up about it because no one is allowed to criticize the priesthood of academia. You know that. Why are you writing a book, David? I‘m offended.
HOROWITZ: That‘s right. Professors don‘t want to be accountable to anyone, so they attack my book and say it‘s a McCarthy list, which is idiotic. But the—really, the only McCarthy witch hunt is the one that‘s driven conservatives off faculties.
This is a result of the ‘60s generation that didn‘t want to fight for the freedom of the South Vietnamese or the Cambodians, stayed in school, got deferments, took their political activism into the university, took over the search and hiring committees, hired themselves, blacklisted conservatives and have converted large sections of the university into political propaganda machines.
CARLSON: I‘ve seen it.
HOROWITZ: And my estimate is there are about—there are about 60,000 of them on university faculties.
CARLSON: If you were to pick the worst, the most repulsive, and everyone is thinking Ward Churchill here, but maybe there is someone worse. Who is the most offensive, to you anyway, professor you found during your research?
HOROWITZ: Look, you know, people who wish for America‘s defeat, and of course, Churchill is one of them. So is Nicholas DeGeneva. People who are teaching. I find...
CARLSON: Who‘s—tell us about Nicholas DeGeneva.
HOROWITZ: Well, he is a Columbia anthropology professor who publicly wished for a million Mogadishus, which is where 18 Americans were slaughtered by al Qaeda, and that America should be defeated everywhere. Everybody should wish for America‘s defeat.
At Columbia, there‘s a whole department of anti-Semites, Israel bashers. Khami Debashi (ph) has said that the evil Jews do you can read on their faces. It‘s been bored into their physiognomy. I guess, you know, the nose is a signification of my evil as a Jew.
CARLSON: That‘s just—I mean, you know what? People who give money to universities that employ people like that, I guess get what they deserve. Why would you give a dollar to a university who would have someone like that on the payroll?
HOROWITZ: I think it‘s time for donors, for legislators on education and appropriations committees, and for the public to start asking those questions of these universities.
CARLSON: I couldn‘t agree more. Amen.
David Horowitz, author of the new book everyone should get, “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.” Thanks a lot, David.
HOROWITZ: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Still to come, the president‘s poll numbers plummet. Is the controversy over the Dubai port deal to blame? And will Democrats necessarily benefit from the president‘s woes? We‘ll tell you when THE SITUATION returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: President Bush once again defended today his administration‘s decision to let a company based in the United Arab Emirates run some operations at six U.S. ports on the East Coast.
Apparently, the public is not convinced of the goodness of that decision, though. A new poll shows President Bush‘s approval rating at an all-time low of 34 percent. That‘s down eight points from last month. It‘s about where Nixon was when he left office.
Here to tell us why she thinks the president‘s approval rating is heading south, Air America host Rachel Maddow—Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: I think this—let me make an incredibly obvious point. This is bad for the Bush administration, because, I think—well, first of all, I think the public is mad at Bush for all the wrong reasons, as usual. The reason to be mad at him is the war in Iraq. I think the Dubai ports deal is actually, the more I‘ve learned about it, more defensible than I thought at first.
But this hits Bush in his last stronghold, and that is on national security. If the public begins to believe that Republicans are not good stewards of national security, aren‘t capable of defending the country, it is over for the Republican Party.
MADDOW: You know, what‘s interesting to me about this poll is that yet again, we‘re seeing headlines and reporting on this poll that says, “Wow, Bush has dropped in his approval ratings to a previously unseen low.” Yes, from the previous, previously unseen low. I mean, he‘s been down at 40 percent and below territory for a very long time.
CARLSON: Right.
MADDOW: I feel like the story here is Bush is a deeply unpopular president, but yet we keep seeing these individual polls, as a surprise, every time. He‘s been really unpopular for a long time.
And the war numbers in this are atrocious. Thirty percent of Americans...
CARLSON: Yes.
MADDOW: ... agree with the way he‘s handling Iraq. And then the Zogby poll that‘s out today that says that four out of five U.S. soldiers currently serving in Iraq say that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.
That is—I mean, how are they going to demagogue those facts?
CARLSON: The poll numbers that I‘ve seen this month, the ones that I saw today show broad dissatisfaction with Congress. People are mad at Congress. People are always mad at Congress.
MADDOW: Sure.
CARLSON: But in fact, Republicans are madder than Democrats at the Republican Congress, which tells me one thing, which is the Republicans have gone astray and are unpopular because they‘ve betrayed their own principles. Here‘s the second point I would make.
Dick Cheney is actually good for the Republican Party for this reason. The Republican candidate in 2008 will not be someone from the Bush administration. If Bush‘s vice president were running in 2008 he‘d probably be defeated.
The guy who runs in 2008 can run as an insurgent on the Republican side. He can say, “I‘m not with these guys. I‘m here—I don‘t have their baggage. I‘m here to clean up the mess they made.”
It‘s actually good news for the party going forward, I think.
MADDOW: Possibly for 2008. But pity the poor member—Republican member of Congress running in November of this year.
CARLSON: Good point.
MADDOW: What exactly is the Republican platform? What‘s left in the Republican platform that Bush hasn‘t really screwed up? I mean, the war, fiscal responsibility, honor in the White House...
CARLSON: Right.
MADDOW: ... small government. I mean, there‘s really nothing, unless they‘re going to run on, you know, sending a man to Mars.
No, no, no. I don‘t think honor in the White House. I actually think it‘s honor in the White House. This administration actually, you know, by the standards of the previous administration, I‘d say fairly honorable.
MADDOW: The first currently serving White House official to be indicted since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, another one.
CARLSON: Please.
MADDOW: Another one indicted five minutes after he leaves office.
CARLSON: Having lived through the 1990s in Washington as a journalist, I can‘t even—it hurts my brain to get back in the Clinton world. But I just—I do think they did fairly well by comparison.
I think, however, the Bush administration, if it loses this national security component, does sort of leave the party without really anything to run on except the idea that the Democrats are worse. And the Democrats are really, I think, doing their best to prove that‘s true.
MADDOW: Well, you never—do not underestimate the power of the Republican Party to try to run the whole party like, you know, against polygamy or on putting a man in Mars or something. They‘ve come up with random small issues run whole elections around. So maybe they‘ll ignore...
CARLSON: Hold on, any issue that a large number of people respond to is not, by definition, is a minor issue. Moreover...
MADDOW: Come on. When you run your whole presidential campaign on gay marriage and then...
CARLSON: Cultural issues matter.
MADDOW: ... the month after you‘re elected, and now it‘s, “By the way, we‘re not actually going to take any acts.” That means that you‘re using it as a political issue with no intention of actually doing anything.
CARLSON: That‘s right. I‘ll tell you what it means. It means you have betrayed your supporters.
MADDOW: Yes.
CARLSON: Which is one of the reasons Republicans—Republicans are madder, again, than Democrats at the Republican-led Congress. It‘s the ideological betrayals that I think hurt these guys in the long run.
It‘s the turning back on your principles. Who cares about, you know, Jack Abramoff? In the end, it‘s betraying what you said you believed.
MADDOW: There‘s nothing left as a Republican platform. There‘s nothing left that Bush has not screwed up for the Republican Party, and Republicans in November are going to pay a big price for it.
CARLSON: You know why? Because he‘s kind of liberal. And I‘ve said that since day one and people have laughed at me.
MADDOW: He‘s kind of incompetent...
CARLSON: “He‘s screaming right winger.” Oh really? He‘s a screaming right winger? It turns out not too bright. I was right from day one. In 1999, I said this guy is not a right winger. He‘s a big government guy.
“Oh, no, he‘s not. He‘s an evangelical.”
MADDOW: If you want to blame the war on Iraq on him not being conservative, I‘ll take...
CARLSON: Yes. There‘s nothing conservative about imagining you can transplant into a region that has never known democracy. That is a utopian, Wilsonian, liberal thing to do.
MADDOW: That was a liberal war.
CARLSON: Yes, yes, yes. It was to its core a liberal war.
MADDOW: You think that President Kerry would be in the same place?
Do you think Gore would be in the same place?
CARLSON: I‘m saying a true conservative understands the limits of government, and this president doesn‘t. Therefore, he‘s not conservative. It‘s that simple.
MADDOW: Blaming what Bush has done wrong, yet again, on liberalism is the most backbreaking reach you‘ve ever made on the air.
CARLSON: It‘s actually true. Free your mind, Rachel and the truth will come. All right. Rachel Maddow.
Still to come...
MADDOW: You‘re nuts.
CARLSON: It‘s true. It‘s deeply true, Rachel. Just accept the truth.
A Maryland judge puts a hard working mother of two behind bars for failing to send her kids to school. Find out how much time she‘ll be doing in just a moment.
Plus, CBS sues Howard Stern for millions and the shock jock is fighting back, accusing his former boss of intimidation and incompetence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD STERN: I‘ve been bullIed and threatened by CBS. I‘m offended. I REALLY do think this is a personal vendetta. Les has had it in for me for a long time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Benjamin Disraeli once said—and only this show could quote Benjamin Disraeli—“Of you are conscious that you are ignorant, that‘s a great step to knowledge.” Joining me now, a man who is known for his higher consciousness, “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman—Max.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: What have you heard, Tucker? That‘s not the first time we‘ve quoted Benjamin Disraeli, by the way.
CARLSON: Of course not. We have affection for deceased British prime ministers, Disraeli particularly.
First up, breakups are always messy but the split between Howard Stern and CBS looks like it is headed to court tonight. The shock jock moved to Sirius Satellite Radio last month, now being sued by CBS by what it has called multiple breaches of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of CBS Radio‘s broadcast time.
True to form, Stern had a few choice words for CBS CEO Les Moonves.
Here they are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD STERN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: He tunes to me and he goes, “I can‘t believe I had to read about—I had to hear about Howard Stern leaving CBS on my birthday.”
I said, “What are you, 11 years old?” Sorry. Your birthday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So good. First of all, there are about 25 reasons why, Max, it is stupid for CBS to sue Howard Stern. For one, you‘re never going to win against Howard Stern. For another, you‘re simply publicizing Howard Stern‘s show on Sirius Satellite Radio. People hear about this, and they go buy a Sirius subscription, which they ought to do anyway because they‘re excellent. But this is moronic. Like, who thought of this at CBS?
KELLERMAN: Also, do you really want to get Howard started making you look like an idiot in public, nationally?
Look, of course, but here‘s devil‘s advocate position. First of all, Howard made some very good points. He said that at Infinity they were saying it was funny when he was talking about Sirius on the air. And they had a dump button, meaning any time they didn‘t want something he said to get—to make the air, they could have taken it off the air. He claims they never used it.
Here‘s the devil‘s advocate position. Lots of people in any corporation feel that they are important; they have significance in that corporation. And I‘m sure at Infinity, a lot of people felt that way about themselves. And as it turns out, there was exactly one important person at that company, and it was Howard Stern.
And what are they doing right now by suing him? They‘re associating themselves with the only important thing they had. They‘re still associating themselves with it.
CARLSON: That‘s pretty clever. I think—I think they‘re playing right to Stern. And I‘m glad for him. Howard Stern needs to give the finger to the man. Moving to satellite radio, one problem, there‘s no man to whom to give the finger. CBS has provided a man itself. It helps only Howard Stern.
KELLERMAN: That‘s been the only criticism. Who are you going to rail against now, Howard, on Sirius? There are still people to rail against. They don‘t necessarily control his life on the air right now.
CARLSON: Well, CBS has just volunteered to be railed against.
KELLERMAN: Right, right. You‘re right.
CARLSON: Unbelievable.
A Maryland mother is about to learn a lesson she will never forget. Shirley Fief Lumbao (ph) was sentenced to two nights behind bars for failing to send her teenage sons to school. The boys, 13 and 15 years old, each missed more than 50 days of class during the past school year.
Lumbao reportedly has two jobs and was unable to make certain the boys got to school on time. Unlike other states, Maryland prosecutes parents for their children‘s truancy. I‘m not surprised. The so-called liberal state, Maryland, behaving in fascist ways. Where have we seen that before?
But look, here‘s the problem with this. This woman is trying to do the right thing. If anything, this situation is an argument against single parenting, because it‘s impossible for one parent to make teenage boys do what you need them to do. I mean, that‘s just true, right?
KELLERMAN: Well, especially when it‘s, as Chris Rock said, there‘s nothing stronger you can tell a kid then, “Wait until I tell your father gets home. I‘m going to call your father.”
CARLSON: That‘s exactly right. And so for people who think—anyway, I‘m not going to give a lecture on that.
But look, this woman sounds like she was trying her very best. These kids are 13 and 15. I don‘t know. To some extent they‘re responsible for what they do and what they don‘t do. To put her behind bars when there are a ton of, I think, bad and negligent parents out there, who probably could use a little time in the slammer, is outrageous.
KELLERMAN: OK. Yes, here‘s the devil‘s advocate position, if you‘re
here‘s the easy argument. Look, everyone could be going with the flow of traffic. Eventually, the cops have to pull someone over for speeding where everyone‘s breaking the law. If you never give anyone a ticket, they don‘t stop breaking the law.
This particularly says Montgomery County takes education very seriously.
Here is the more subtle argument, Tucker, which I think you‘ll like a little better. Or probably laugh at, which I think means you do like it better.
CARLSON: OK.
KELLERMAN: By putting the onus on the parent instead of the 13- and 15-year-old, what can—I mean, the parent is—now the onus is on them to get that kid to go to school, to bribe that kid to go to school, to do whatever it takes to make that kid go to school.
Now, the fact that the parent could get into trouble if the kid doesn‘t go...
CARLSON: Right.
KELLERMAN: ... from the kid‘s point of view, “All right, look, you‘re going to get into trouble. Not me.”
But if you raised your kids well enough to care enough about you, to ensure that you don‘t go to jail, they will go to school. So you can look at it as a failure in parenting from that perspective.
CARLSON: I am certain the state can get people to be much more responsible, parents, pretty easily. If you don‘t have your kids brush your teeth, we‘ll cut your legs off. I mean, boom, everybody flosses and brushes. The point—question is...
KELLERMAN: In this case, the kids didn‘t floss or brush. That‘s the point. That would be one stump of a mother, Tucker, if these kids...
CARLSON: Do you want the state telling parents how to parent? Look, if parents are starving their kids to death or beating them to death or giving their kids drugs or leaving them home alone when they‘re little, the state has an interest in intervening. But short of that, back off. There are parents who don‘t parent the way you would parent. But they still have a right to parent that way. I‘m sorry.
KELLERMAN: Yes, you‘re right, except that in this country, from an early point in this country‘s history, there was an arbitrary number, 16. Until the kid is 16, he has to be in school. That‘s the kind of emphasis this country has always put on education. And—and so if they‘re truant, something has to happen, right? Something has to happen. The kid is a minor, what are you going to do?
CARLSON: I don‘t know. Write them a ticket, don‘t send them to jail.
KELLERMAN: Of course.
CARLSON: That‘s too heavy.
KELLERMAN: Of course don‘t send her to jail. She‘s working two jobs.
CARLSON: Exactly. I knew you‘d come around, as you always do. Max Kellerman, thank you.
KELLERMAN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Stay tuned, there is still plenty more ahead tonight on THE
SITUATION.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARLSON (voice-over): A live stroll down Memory Lane with John “Bowzer” Bauman. He reveals why he‘s hit a sour note with the not-so-great pretenders of rock ‘n‘ roll.
Then, Ms. Smith goes to Washington. We‘ll tell you why former “Playmate” Anna Nicole got to flash her legal briefs before the Supreme Court.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It‘s really not appropriate to bring that kind of attention.
CARLSON: Plus, the bizarre tale of one woman‘s death defying stunt to fight city hall.
And meet a canine whose bark is worse than her bite. But wait until you see why you should never mess with this little bitch.
It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, what‘s the worst lie you‘ve ever told on a resume? Come on, you can tell us. We‘ll share some of the most ridiculous resume fibs ever.
Plus, Anna Nicole Smith goes to Washington.
CARLSON: That‘s right. Strippers in the Supreme Court when THE SITUATION come back in just 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. Have you ever given yourself a few extra points on the old college GPA, maybe trumped up your previous job title to impress a potential employer? It‘s OK; you can admit it, because a new study shows you really are not alone.
Resume doctoring has reached, apparently, epidemic proportions. Mike Worthington is the co-founder of ResumeDoctor.com, a company that sponsored the study. He joins us live tonight from Burlington, Vermont.
Mike Worthington, thanks for coming on.
MIKE WORTHINGTON, CO-FOUNDER, RESUMEDOCTOR.COM: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: Now, you just finished a six-month examination of 1,000 resumes and found that, what, about 42 percent had lies in them. Were you shocked by this?
WORTHINGTON: Well, I mean, I guess when we first started this survey, I was looking at—I was thinking maybe 15 percent. But, yes, basically, I hate—I hesitate to use the word lies. Maybe inaccuracies or maybe misrepresentations. But over 42 percent of them—of the resumes we examined randomly across a lot of different industries, from entry level all the way to the executive level, had some sort of misrepresentation or inaccuracy.
CARLSON: Well, you‘re always seeing stories, seeing examples of people getting canned from jobs. I think the head of Radio Shack just lost his job the other day over resume inflation. What—so actually, it doesn‘t come as a huge surprise to me, anyway, but what—I‘m wondering what kind of inaccuracies they were? Were they big? Were they little?
WORTHINGTON: Are you talking about the Radio Shack example?
CARLSON: That‘s exactly—Dave Edmondson, Radio Shack. That‘s right.
WORTHINGTON: If I‘m correct on that particular story, I think he had said that he had a particular degree, a bachelor‘s in something that he really didn‘t have.
CARLSON: Right.
WORTHINGTON: And actually in our study, we found there were three major areas that most candidates were, you know, misrepresenting or stretching the truth, and education being one of them. The other two areas were dates of employment and job titles, overall duties.
CARLSON: Do you think it‘s a big deal? I mean, do you—do you tell the truth on your resume, for instance?
WORTHINGTON: I honestly don‘t really have a resume, running our own place here. But it‘s tempting. I mean, the thing is there‘s so much competition in the workforce now. And it‘s sort of like that Olympic athlete, you know, I‘ve got to have that extra little, you know, stimulant or, you know, some banned substance in order to stay competitive in the job market.
CARLSON: It all seems so picayune, though, so totally minor. If you‘re going to lie on your resume, give yourself a Victoria Cross for Gallantry. Right? Give yourself an Everest expedition or a Congressional Medal of Honor or something. But it‘s always, you know, “I got a master‘s in education from some college that I didn‘t actually go to.” Who cares?
WORTHINGTON: You know, I guess if you‘re going to lie, you maybe take the Hollywood approach.
CARLSON: Yes.
WORTHINGTON: And sort of say, based on a true story. I mean, but you know, in terms—it‘s usually—yes, we did see candidates who actually said they went to a particular university and never attended there.
But more often than not it was a candidate that‘s halfway through finished a degree or three quarters of the way finished a degree and says, “Let‘s just say I have my bachelor‘s degree from there” and “I actually have completed an MBA” when they‘re just still in the process or they—basically went through and quit after awhile.
CARLSON: Now, I have done a number of stories for print on people who have doctored resumes, just in the course of reporting a story, and found out they had made up things on the resumes. In case after case, it was the same. People were listing degrees from mail order universities as legitimate, you know, match cover colleges, correspondence schools as actual degrees.
WORTHINGTON: We definitely did see a lot of these, which are called diploma mills.
CARLSON: Yes.
WORTHINGTON: I mean, you and I can basically get on the Internet anywhere and hit some banner add and buy a degree for a few hundred bucks. The reality is, is you know, did they actually go through coursework? And did they actually do the—you know, from typical bricks and mortar institution? The answer is no. So you‘re basically just paying someone else to lie for you.
CARLSON: I totally agree. One final one word answer here: who lies more, men or women, on their resumes?
WORTHINGTON: We didn‘t actually look at it from a gender standpoint.
CARLSON: Well, what do you think?
WORTHINGTON: I would probably say, if I were to guess, probably men.
CARLSON: Of course.
WORTHINGTON: But I‘m not about—you know, we didn‘t look—we didn‘t break it down by gender or age or anything like that.
CARLSON: Women are above that. That‘s—that‘s the lie I tell myself, anyway. Mike Worthington from Burlington, Vermont, tonight, ResumeDoctor.com. Thanks a lot for joining us.
WORTHINGTON: Well, thanks for having me.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION, it‘s a shocking scam that‘s infecting the music industry: phony bands selling tickets and performing under the names of legendary musical groups. We‘ll tell you what‘s being down to stop the imposters when we talk to Bowzer from Sha Na Na in just a moment. We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Did the Supremes sound a little off key when you saw them in concert last? Did the Platters not look like you remembered them? That might be because it wasn‘t the Supremes at all, and it wasn‘t the Platters either. There are hundreds of bands touring the country and making money under the names of legendary acts of the 1950s and ‘60s.
You‘ll remember my next guest as Bowzer from the band and the television show Sha Na Na. He says the imposter groups are stealing the money and the legacies of some of the greatest acts of all time, and he wants something to be done about it.
John “Bowzer” Bauman joins me live from just outside Fort Lauderdale, Florida, tonight. Bowzer, thanks for coming on.
JOHN “BOWZER” BAUMAN, SINGER: Well, thank you.
CARLSON: I‘m really actually—I‘m not just saying this. I‘m honored you‘re on the show. I watched “Sha Na Na” a lot when I was little, and I‘m glad to meet you.
This is—how can this happen? How can people who had no connection to a group at all market themselves as that group?
BAUMAN: It is incredible that this could happen in America, and that‘s why people are so shocked by it. It‘s just a sophisticated form of identity theft, and oftentimes it‘s done in quite a sophisticated manner, where you know, somebody makes a specious claim to a name of a group, establishes some link, you know, farfetched, or otherwise, and then also claims that they, because they claim they own this name, they can franchise it and start putting out multiple groups, which really turns it into an enormous issue.
CARLSON: Well, wait a second. I mean, if I come up with a sweet caramel-colored soda that‘s carbonated and call it—I don‘t know, just—let‘s call it Coca-Cola.
BAUMAN: Yes.
CARLSON: And go and sell it on the corner, I‘m going to get busted for copyright infringement. Why is that not the case in the music business?
BAUMAN: Coke—Coca-Cola, No. 1, will come after you in about two seconds.
CARLSON: Yes.
BAUMAN: These guys have shows that are ephemeral. You know, they happen all over the country, 365 days a year, 50 dates, a multitude of cities. Good luck trying to track them all down.
Also, some of the names, you know, have a checkered history. It‘s not always exactly clear in the copyright and the trademarks, in this case, were not always precisely in place.
What we‘re trying to do with—through legislation is create a way so that we can weed through the truth with regard to all of these groups. And the states will help us and the attorneys general will help us so the artists themselves don‘t have to keep trying to chase down the imposters, which is literally impossible.
CARLSON: So who are—I mean, I suppose you‘re in a good situation here because you‘re recognizable. Your name and your voice are recognizable. No one is going to pretend to be Bowzer. Right? Same with Jimmy Buffet.
BAUMAN: It doesn‘t happen to the solo artist.
CARLSON: What are some of the acts getting ripped off?
BAUMAN: Well, mostly, it‘s the groups from the earliest days, and I believe that that‘s really because they were the most anonymous. Names with great difficulties have been the Coasters, the Drifters, the Platters. The Supremes have had some issues, but that was a little bit later.
The earliest ones, remember, they were hardly ever seen. You know, they‘re on the Sullivan show twice or something like that.
CARLSON: Right.
BAUMAN: You‘re dealing with entirely the pre-video era. I think this is going to be much harder to do in the future, although the legislation that we‘re passing state by state will also protect, you know, current groups and groups to come.
CARLSON: So in other words, if the Platters show up at your—at your county fair, it‘s unlikely anyone at the fair would know what the actual Platters look like anyway?
BAUMAN: Absolutely true. It‘s virtually impossible. And you know, that has created some of the problem. And you know, there‘s an underlying element—there are all kinds of underlying elements that we don‘t talk about too much. There‘s sort of an underlying race element to this in the sense that, you know, so many of the groups were African American that are having the most problems at this point.
CARLSON: Right. Is it—I assume the groups that tour sing the songs of the groups they are pretending to be?
BAUMAN: And anybody is allowed to sing the songs of anybody, once the songs have been performed in public once. That, in and of itself, is not an issue. You just can‘t pretend to be the people who sang the songs in the first place while you‘re singing them.
CARLSON: Right.
BAUMAN: In other words, we make a point to say that tribute groups, when it‘s clear that they are tribute groups, are OK. And of course, if you want to call yourself, let‘s say, Smokey Joe‘s Cafe and do the songs of Lieber and Stoller, which were songs that were sung by the Drifters, the Coasters...
CARLSON: Right.
BAUMAN: ... in the first place, you know, that‘s perfectly fine.
CARLSON: And finally, quickly, your—this legislation, which sounds like a good idea to me, isn‘t, however, going to hurt Elvis impersonators, is it? Because that would be bad.
BAUMAN: I know. I know. We could hardly bear that. And we‘re going out of our way to keep the Elvis impersonators in place, and the flying Elvises would actually be the most important.
And by the way, before we go, I want to mention, I‘m not in Sha Na Na any more. I am Bowzer, formerly of Sha Na Na, as long as we‘re doing truth in music.
And thank you so much for having me on, on such a busy news day in which Anna Nicole went to the Supreme Court.
CARLSON: We are—we are honored, Bowzer, to have you on. WE hope we will again. Thanks a lot. John “Bowzer” Bauman from Florida tonight.
BAUMAN: Greaser peace (ph).
CARLSON: Still ahead on THE SITUATION, the first big test for the new look Supreme Court. Where does it come down on the issue of former strippers getting a piece of their 90-year-old husbands‘ estates? You want to know that? We‘ll tell you on “The Cutting Room Floor,” next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. We made you wait 58 minutes, but the long national nightmare is over. Willie Geist is here for “The Cutting Room Floor.”
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Did we just have Bowzer from Sha Na Na?
CARLSON: Yes, we did.
GEIST: That‘s who that was.
CARLSON: I love television. Thank you, Willie.
Throughout the course of history, many courageous people have stood before the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to change this country forever. Anna Nicole Smith is not one of those people. She just wants her cash.
The former striper and “Playboy” playmate appeared in front of the Supreme Court today. Smith is fighting for her share of the multi—million dollar estate left by her deceased husband, who was 89 when they married in 1994. She was 26. He died a year later.
GEIST: Court sketches have never looked so pornographic. Look at that. Is that nice.
She actually looks good, though.
CARLSON: I know.
GEIST: It‘s amazing what a handful of diet pills three times a day will do for you.
CARLSON: I was thinking gastric bypass, but...
GEIST: No, au naturale. I think Alito and Roberts are getting the wrong idea of what it means to be on the Supreme Court. You don‘t get strippers...
CARLSON: It‘s not always like this. No, you‘re right. It‘s a lot of patents cases.
When you think police dog, you think German Shepard. When you think Chihuahua, you think Taco Bell. The Geauga County sheriff‘s department in Ohio doesn‘t live by such conventional wisdom, though. It‘s training a two-pound Chihuahua named Midge to become a drug sniffing dog. Midge is training under the watchful eyes of Brutus, the department‘s veteran canine.
GEIST: That‘s a cute dog, Tucker, but I don‘t think something Paris Hilton uses as a fashion accessory is effective in menacing criminals.
CARLSON: I totally agree.
GEIST: You think? Look at that. Brutus doesn‘t want to hang out with Midge.
CARLSON: That dog is actually smaller than a kilo of cocaine.
There are a couple of different ways to deal with a traffic ticket. You can just admit your mistake and pay it. You can argue it in court, or you can fake your own death to get out of paying it.
Kimberly Du of Des Moines, Iowa, boldly chose the third option. She wrote a fake obituary for herself and forged a letter telling a judge she had been killed in a car wreck. The scheme fell apart, though, when she was pulled over for another traffic violation a month after she was supposedly dead.
GEIST: I‘d like to go back to a key detail in this case, if we could.
She wrote a letter to the judge saying she‘d been killed in a car accident.
CARLSON: I know.
GEIST: Now, most dead people I know don‘t write a whole heck of a lot of letters. Is it just me? That‘s a big hole in that story.
CARLSON: Sherlock Geist, you‘re exactly right. Encyclopedia Brown.
Totally falls apart.
GEIST: That‘s why I‘m here.
CARLSON: Thank you, Inspector Willie.
That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight. Thank you for watching. Up next, COUNTDOWN with Keith. See you tomorrow.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: 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.
Transcripts