updated 4/13/2006 10:55:16 AM ET 2006-04-13T14:55:16

Guest: Cesar Millan, Charles Barron, Tod Ensign

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks.  Thanks to you at home for tuning in. 

It's good to have you with us as always. 

Tonight, a chilling flashback to 9/11.  The last words of those onboard flight United 93 gave never been heard publicly until today.  We'll play for you what was said and why everyone in this country ought to hear it. 

Also ahead, Cindy Sheehan doesn't just want troops out of Iraq.  She wants you to stay out of the U.S. military.  We'll talk to a contributor to her new book entitled “10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military.”

Plus, the animal expert who says your dog doesn't have problems.  You have problems.  He is the Dog Whisperer.  He'll join us in just a few minutes.

But first, a story that continues to dominate the headlines tonight, the Duke rape allegations.  Supporters of the lacrosse team have hired Bob Bennett, an attorney who represented former President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, and for the record me, as well, in a couple of instances. 

In a statement tonight, Bennett said, quote, “This is unfortunate that members of the Duke community, players and families are being judged before all the facts are in.  A lot of innocent young people and their families are being hurt, and unfortunately, this situation is being abused by people with separate agendas.  It is grossly unfair, and cool heads must prevail.”

The question, though, tonight is will cool heads prevail?  That's our question for my next guest.  He is New York Councilman Charles Barron, joining us in the studio. 

Councilman Barron, thanks a lot for coming on. 

CHARLES BARRON, NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMAN:  Good for having me.  Thanks for having me. 

CARLSON:  I'm confused by this story on a bunch of different levels.  Whether they did it or did not is the first and most important.  I don't know.  I'm not here to defend them. 

I'm troubled, though, and puzzled by the racial component to all of this.  Why is this a race story?

BARRON:  Why is it a race story?

CARLSON:  Yes. 

BARRON:  White lacrosse players, a black woman who said and identified, according to the D.A., identified those who attacked her.  She went to the hospital.  The medical examiner said she was abused.  She has evidence of that. 

CARLSON:  OK.

BARRON:  She has evidence of that.  We have a letter—an e-mail from one of the students, prior to...

CARLSON:  Right.

BARRON:  ... saying that, you know, I'm going to get somebody—strippers and kill them and do this and that. 

We have more than enough to at least make the arrest of those who have been identified and let them go to trial.  Let the charges begin.  And we even have Peter Neufeld who said even if you have DNA, that it doesn't mean that a crime was not committed.  If you don't find the DNA.  And you have DNA that's sent to another lab by the D.A.

CARLSON:  I wouldn't disagree with any of that.  And you make a good point, finally, by saying we don't have all the DNA evidence, and when we do we'll be able to make better informed judgments about this case.

BARRON:  Right.

CARLSON:  You didn't answer my question, though, which is what does this have to do with race?  There is no evidence that I know of that this woman was raped because she was black. 

BARRON: Because she—she said that they spewed racial slurs.  That's what she said. 

CARLSON:  OK. 

BARRON:  That's a hate crime. 

CARLSON:  In this case—in this case.  But...

BARRON:  You can't call...

CARLSON:  But the essential crime here is rape. 

BARRON:  right.

CARLSON:  And is anybody alleging that this was done to her because of her race?

BARRON:  Well, what is wrong with someone saying that this is racist if people call her out of her name, use racial slurs and rape her?  That's racist.  What is the problem?

CARLSON:  I'll tell you what—I'll tell you what the problem is. 

BARRON:  What's so difficult about that?

CARLSON:  Because name calling—name calling is secondary to a crime of violence that is allegedly to have been committed against this woman. 

BARRON:  Right.  They're saying she was raped.

CARLSON:  The crime of rape.  And second, it's inflammatory.  And you know it's inflammatory.  It's inflammatory in Durham, North Carolina, where it took place, allegedly.  And it's inflammatory in the rest of the country, because it pits groups of Americans against each other, and it plays into stereotypes. 

BARRON:  First of all...

CARLSON:  I hate to see you involved in that. 

BARRON:  First of all, I'm not involved in that.  It's the racists that called her that.  They're inflaming everything. 

If you were just involved in a crime of violence, then just why isn't that just a crime?  Why the racial—the mention of it?  Don't get angry at us and say we're playing a race card when you got the race deck. 

Those players brought in a black stripper.  I mean, why didn't they bring in a white stripper?  They brought in a black stripper.  They called her racial slurs.  And she accuses them of raping her. 

CARLSON:  Right.

BARRON:  They should be charged and brought to trial.  If it was flipped, can you even imagine a black lacrosse team, and you'd have a white woman, accusing them of raping her?

CARLSON:  I don't know.  Very recently...

BARRON:  There wouldn't have been a D.A...

CARLSON:  ... very recently we had a very well-known black basketball player in a predominantly white state, accused of raping a white hotel employee.  He was not convicted of the crime. 

And I don't recall anybody, anybody getting up in public and saying there's a racial component to this.  He's black, she's white.  I think they were treated as people without racial identities, as they should have been. 

BARRON:  Not true.  They said that he's been convicted in the media.  The media called him everything but a child of God.  They said he was a sports superstar, that he should have gotten convicted.  He was not let go easily.  There was a racial dimension to that. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, I don't remember—I don't remember anybody bringing up Kobe Bryant's race as a way to convict him in the public discussion. 

BARRON:  Not a way to convict him but they said—definitely the names that they called them.  Said that he was—should have never been let loose. 

CARLSON:  OK.  People disagreed whether he did it or not.  But my only point—here's my point.  Rape is bad enough. 

BARRON:  Right.

CARLSON:  Poisoning the public discussion, making Americans more suspicious of one another, is really bad, and that's something over which you have some control. 

BARRON:  What do you mean, making America more suspicious? 

CARLSON:  As an American leader. 

BARRON:  Racism permeates every institution, and all of us are affected by it.  You cannot get rid of racism by being in denial, like it doesn't exist.  They called her a racial slur.  That injects race. 

CARLSON:  First of all, you're assuming...

BARRON:  That injects race.

CARLSON:  You're assuming—you are not giving them the benefit of the doubt.  And I wonder why. 

BARRON:  Because the whole...

CARLSON:  You—I see you on television doing a very able job defending people who seem kind of guilty, but you say, look, give them the benefit of the doubt.  We don't know.  They haven't been proved guilty. 

But you're not doing the same for these kids at Duke.  Why not?

BARRON:  They get more than the benefit of the doubt. 

CARLSON:  But why aren't you joining in the chorus and giving the benefit of the doubt?

BARRON:  Because they've got more than enough friends on their side.  I'm going to side with the victim, because she is the one that no one is talking about.  No one is caring about what happened to her.  These poor boys and their families. 

CARLSON:  What do you mean?  You've got a white prosecutor—since you're bringing up race, you have a white prosecutor in North Carolina...

BARRON:  I'm talking about the public. 

CARLSON:  ... who is—wait, but I'm just saying, you have the entire system in the state of North Carolina...

BARRON:  No one's arrested them. 

CARLSON:  You think nobody is going to be?  You don't think they're not spending millions investigating this case?

BARRON:  They're supposed to. 

CARLSON:  Of course they are. 

BARRON:  They're supposed to.

CARLSON:  And amen, and I'm glad they are. 

BARRON:  And they should.

CARLSON:  And I'm not arguing against it.

BARRON:  And they should.

CARLSON:  I'm merely saying there's a principle here, and it applies to all Americans, regardless of color.  And it is that you are innocent until proven guilty. 

BARRON:  Let me ask you this.

CARLSON:  And why aren't you standing up for that principle?

BARRON:  Let me ask you this.  Let me ask you this: do you actually believe that those white lacrosse players—and maybe there's a problem with race and class at Duke, period.  You're going to tell me that living in this country this long they haven't been affected by racism at all?  That they're the ones who escaped it?  So...

CARLSON:  I have no idea.  I do know this.  I treat people as individuals.

BARRON:  Oh, come on, now.

CARLSON:  I judge people one at a time.  I don't generalize based on color. 

BARRON:  Oh, come on.  You made—institutional racism that exists. 

No matter how much you judge people one at a time, racism is in America. 

It permeates every institution.  And it affects individuals. 

Stop being in denial.  If, in fact, they called her a racial slur, they interjected race. 

CARLSON:  I agree with that.  I'm merely saying...

BARRON:  So that's all people are saying.

CARLSON:  ... we don't know.  Extend them the courtesy you extend to all sorts of people.  I read in the “New York Post” and the “The Daily News” and the “New York Times” about you every week, giving people the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Barron.

BARRON:  Come on.  Well, give her the benefit of the doubt and at least arrest them and let them have their day in court. 

CARLSON:  OK.  At least arrest them. 

BARRON:  At least. 

CARLSON:  Mr. Barron, thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it.

BARRON:  Thanks for having me. 

CARLSON:  Now we turn to the story that has brought back all the horror of September 11.  A jury that will decide the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui heard the single most chilling piece of evidence today.  That was the cockpit voice recording from United Flight 93.  It is a minute by minute record of the emotional last words of those who died when the plane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. 

Here is NBC's Pete Williams.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  United 93. 

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  The government played the final half-hour of sound recorded inside the Boeing 757 cockpit. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  United 93.  United 93.  Do you hear?

WILLIAMS:  Forty-six minutes into the flight, piloted by Captain Jason Dahl, the hijackers break in.  At 9:31, Ziad Jarrah, now at the controls, speaks into his microphone. 

ZIAD JARRAH, HIJACKER:  Ladies and gentlemen, here is the captain. 

Please sit down.  Keep remaining seated.  We have a bomb onboard.  So sit. 

WILLIAMS:  The hijackers then struggle with someone in the cockpit, apparently a woman.  Investigators say it was likely a flight attendant.  “Don't hurt me.  I don't want to die,” a voice says.  From 9:37 on she is no longer heard. 

A hijacker says, “Everything is fine.  I finished.” 

Nine 39, Jarrah makes another announcement.

JARRAH:  This is the captain.  I would like you all to remain seated.  There is a bomb aboard and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands.  Please remain quiet. 

WILLIAMS:  Nine forty-five, a hijacker asks, “Should we let the guys in?”  An apparent reference to the other two hijackers aboard. 

Captain Dahl was apparently still alive, because a hijacker says, “Bring the pilot back.” 

The passenger revolt begins at 9:58 when a hijacker asks, “Is there something, a fight?”  The tape captures muffled sounds of a struggle and repeatedly of glass shattering.  Investigators believe the passengers were ramming the cockpit door with one of the plane's beverage carts. 

The hijackers begin to pray, “Allah is greatest.” 

In the background passengers yell, “In the cockpit, in the cockpit.” 

Hijacker pilot Ziad Jarrah rocks the plane violently back and forth. 

It's now 10 a.m.  “Is that it?  Shall we finish it off?” a hijacker asks?

“No, not yet,” says the other.  “When they all come, we finish it off.” 

Outside the door, passengers yell, “In the cockpit.  If we don't, we'll die.  Roll it.”  And the sounds of a struggle grow louder. 

By 10:01 the hijackers seem determined to crash the plane.  “Is that it?  Shall we put it down?”

“Yes,” comes the answer.  “Put it in and pull it down.” 

Ten oh two, the plane rolls onto its side, turns upside down and goes into a steep dive.  The hijackers recite, “Allah is the greatest.  Allah is the greatest.  Allah is the greatest,” nine times in all. 

At seven seconds past 10:03, the recording abruptly ends. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  “In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate.  In the name of Allah I bear witness that there is no other God but Allah.  Allah is the greatest.  Oh, Allah, Allah is the greatest.  Allah is the greatest.  Allah is the greatest.”

Well, the 9-11 hijackers said these words, chanted them for most of United 93's last horrifying flight.  They invoked Allah as they killed the pilots and a flight attendant and slashed the throats of passengers. 

They called out to Allah as they murdered every person on that plane, including themselves.  At the moment the plane slammed into a Pennsylvania field, at near the speed of sound, they were still calling out for Allah. 

It is worth pointing this out, because it's a reminder of what all of us know but what many of us choose to forget.  The 9-11 hijackers committed murder for Islam.  Not for political reasons.  Not for financial gain.  But for God, or their version of it. 

There's no reasoning with people like this, with religious zealots who think the Lord wants them to kill and there is no appeasement. 

So let's stop kidding ourselves.  There may be a diplomatic component to the war against radical Islam, but there is no diplomatic solution.  They die or we do.  Those are the rules.  They made those rules.  We have no choice but to play by them. 

Still to come, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan returns to Texas today for yet another protest outside President Bush's ranch.  We'll bring you the story of her controversial new book that will have members of the U.S.  military fuming. 

Plus, a sextuplet scam that shocked a small town in Missouri.  Why did this woman and her scheming husband claim she was pregnant with six babies?  The elaborate details when we come back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still ahead, a DNA test that could lead to affirmative action for white people. 

Plus, how Katie Couric could soon be making your life miserable, but it's not really her fault.  Stay tuned; we'll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Now to a story that may bother you, no matter where you stand on the war in Iraq.  It is the latest from Cindy Sheehan, who has graduated from anti-war activism to a new crusade, advocating for the undoing of the U.S.  military. 

Sheehan is a contributor to a new book, “10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military.”

Joining me now one of her co-authors, Tod Ensign.  He's the director of Citizen Soldier, as well as the author of “America's Military Today: The Challenge of Militarism”.  He joins us tonight from New York. 

Mr. Ensign, thanks for coming on. 

TOD ENSIGN, CO-AUTHOR, “10 EXCELLENT REASONS NOT TO JOIN THE

MILITARY”:  Good to be here. 

CARLSON:  This seems to me to me a departure for the anti-war movement, which I thought learned from the Vietnam experience that it's one thing to attack the war you consider wrong or unjust or counterproductive, quite another to attack the military.  Is that a good idea?

ENSIGN:  Well, I don't think, Tucker, we're attacking the military, really, at all.  What we're trying to offer there is kind of an antidote to a lot of the stuff that's sold by the recruiters.  And we're trying to give kind of an alternative view. 

We have—as you know, we have veterans writing in there.  We have active duty military writing.  Cindy, who lost her son in Iraq.  We're trying to kind of make young people aware that there are a lot of other issues which are often not explained or exposed by the recruiters. 

CARLSON:  But I guess—and I have no doubt that that's true.  Recruiters are selling something, and anybody who's selling something is going to be spinning, of course. 

But the reason the military is different from, say, car sales is that we have to have a military, because our country will disintegrate and we'll be invaded if we don't have a military.  And so, by definition, serving in the military, defending our country is honorable.  And this book does not seem to suggest that at all. 

ENSIGN:  Well, I'm not personally a pacifist.  I would agree with you; we need to defend our country.  And the military has a legitimate role to play.  That's quite a stretch from invading a country 8,000 miles away, committing 150,000 troops over a three-year period. 

CARLSON:  OK, so you're against the war in Iraq.  That's fine.  I think that's completely legitimate.  I'm against the war in Iraq.  There are a lot of conservatives who are opposed to it and, of course, many on the left.  Most on the left. 

But again, that's completely different from saying don't join our military.  There's something good about a conversation about Iraq.  That's what democracy is.  There's something subversive and wrong, however, with trying to undermine the military, in my view. 

ENSIGN:  Well, I don't see it as subversive at all.  What we're trying to do—in my chapter, I explain the long-term health effects.  These are pretty documented facts about what's happened to soldiers from previous wars.  The Agent Orange issue, the Gulf War I issues, the long-term health effects. 

And I think that young people have the right to know what these problems are before they sign on the dotted line.  There's nothing subversive about it. 

CARLSON:  Well, let's just—I don't think there's anything subversive with that, per se.  But the overall message that it's somehow wrong, dishonorable, immoral to join the military, yes, I think that's an offensive message. 

Let's get to what wrote, however, very specifically.  You write, as you said about the health effects of serving in the military.  I'm quoting now.  “During the Vietnam War, the United States used chemical weapons on a massive scale for the first time in a guerrilla war.” 

You point to Agent Orange as the so-called chemical weapon, but Agent Orange is not a chemical weapon.  It's a defoliant.  That's a completely misleading thing to write, isn't it?

ENSIGN:  Well, no, that's not true.  Agent Orange is composed of 24D and 245T.  These are two herbicides...

CARLSON:  Right.

ENSIGN:  ... that were mixed together to make Agent Orange.  Any definition I've seen says those are chemicals. 

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  But it wasn't a—I mean, a chemical weapon is used to kill people. 

ENSIGN:  Well...

CARLSON:  This was—this is a form of highly effective Roundup, used to kill plants. 

ENSIGN:  Well, what happened in Vietnam, as you know, is a program that got out of hand.  They started out trying to destroy the foliage and trying to destroy the crops to deny them to the enemy or the guerrillas. 

What happened, of course, was that Agent Orange contained TCDD dioxin, which is the most toxic synthetic compound known. 

CARLSON:  Right.

ENSIGN:  So they didn't—I'm not saying the general said, “Oh, let's expose our G.I.'s to TCDD”...

CARLSON:  But that is what you're—that is what you're saying.  I mean, that's what the book says.  You describe it as a chemical weapon. 

ENSIGN:  It was—it was a weapon in that they were trying to deny foliage and food and cover to the enemy.  That was a weapons use.  But the unfortunate side effect was—which Dow Chemical, by the way, it's well shown, did know it contained this byproduct. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Without getting into a whole Agent Orange debate, I just think that that's a very unfair characterization.  However, back to the core debate, which is the military.  You agree we need one.  I think any reasonable person would. 

Why not use your energies and your talents to try and improve the military?  Make it better.  Get better people to join the military, better educated people.  Isn't that in our national interest? 

ENSIGN:  Well...

CARLSON:  And why aren't you doing that and instead spending your time trying to get people not to join the military?

ENSIGN:  Well, what I'm—what I'm trying to say, Tucker, is that my point of view would be that the military should be fully—in a democracy, a military should fully disclose the things that go on, the fact that 40 percent of the people are going to be in the infantry, the armor or the artillery.  That's a reasonable plan, to tell people what they're signing up for.  And we have many documented cases of people who were deceived. 

CARLSON:  I know.  OK.  But come on. 

ENSIGN:  As you said, it's selling but it's not selling them...

CARLSON:  Let's be real.  At this point, you know, we've been in Iraq for more than three years.  If you join the infantry or you join the Marine Corps, for instance, you know where you're going.  You're going to Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, who was killed two years ago this month in Iraq, re-upped in the Army, a fact that Cindy Sheehan rarely mentions.  These are adults who kind of know what they're doing.  I mean, you've got to grant them that. 

ENSIGN:  Well, I wouldn't agree that a 17- or 18-year-old kid is an adult.  But there are people...

CARLSON:  They can vote.  Maybe they shouldn't be able to vote then. 

ENSIGN:  Well, maybe they shouldn't.  but the people are going in without understanding fully what their situation is that they're facing. 

One of the problems with the health effects, Tucker, is that we've immunized the military from any responsibility.  So there's not even the possibility of bringing a legal action for anything, no matter how egregious or reckless it is. 

CARLSON:  I know.  There are many trial lawyers tonight upset about that.  I know.  Tod Ensign.

ENSIGN:  Well, there's—there's a place for a trial lawyer.  And that might be one of them, to stop things like Agent Orange. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Mr. Ensign, thanks for coming on. 

ENSIGN:  You're welcome. 

CARLSON:  Still to come, blood, money and privilege.  How a new DNA test can determine your genetic ancestry and get you a college scholarship in the process.  How is that for weird?  We'll have details when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Have you ever heard of something called DNA Tribes?  What about Ethnoancestry?  Well, these testing companies, with many others are promising to uncover your genetic ancestry, as if it matters.  It's not a very American notion if you think about it. 

Not surprisingly, some people are abusing the results.  Prospective employees with white skin are using the tests to apply as minority candidates, while some with black skin are citing their European ancestry in claiming inheritance rights. 

One college student found to be two percent East Asian used the test results to get a scholarship to the college of her choice.  Is this fair?  What does it all mean? 

Her with her view, MSNBC contributor Flavia Colgan, joining us from Burbank, California.

Flavia, welcome. 

FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  Hi, thank you. Tucker. 

CARLSON:  I just—I think that this is, honestly, against the whole idea of America.  I mean, the whole idea of America was your lineage, your bloodline doesn't matter.  What you do matters.  Who you're related to, your ethnicity, is immaterial. 

We haven't always lived up to that promise, obviously.  But it still remains the fundamental promise of our country.  And this seems to subvert it. 

COLGAN:  I don't know if that's the fundamental concept of America.  I do want to say, because we have a tendency in the media to take a couple examples, I'm sure we'll talk about a couple of these folks who clearly think race is a joke that should be used for profit, which I do think is very cynical. 

CARLSON:  Or pretty charming (ph).

COLGAN:  And the vast—yes, well, the vast—no, I disagree with that.  The vast majority of people that are using this kind of test are doing so because they have a right, and I think it's great for people that are adopted or maybe come from adoptive parents.

CARLSON:  Right.

COLGAN:  Or a lot of black Americans who haven't had the ability to trace their ancestry, because they're descendants of slaves.  And I think that it's a very human curiosity to want to find out where you came from and learn more about your roots. 

CARLSON:  I mean, I guess it's interesting.  It's the kind of thing your great uncle does or he collects stamps or plays golf.  You know, genealogy is what old people are into, and that's fine as a kind of curiosity.  But the idea that it matters in any important way I think is wrong. 

How exactly does it matter who you're related to if you've never met them?  They had no direct influence on you.  You may sure DNA, but it has no effect on anything.  I mean, I just don't understand.  And if you accept that, then you accept race theory, that races and genes are determinant.  And are we accepting that?  I don't think we are. 

COLGAN:  I actually in reading this article, Tucker, found that the one thing that I took away from it that was very helpful is that this new genetic testing seems to really blow the doors off science that I think was very destructive.  Whether it was the eugenics movement that the Nazis used or obsession with racial purity...

CARLSON:  Which is pretty close to this, by the way. 

COLGAN:  ... showing racial inferiority.  No, what these tests are showing, for instance, is that one in 10 Americans across this country essentially have a great-grandparent who is black.

CARLSON:  That's right.

COLGAN:  Or that black Americans, 20 percent are 20 percent white.  So I think that if people like you, who have a public forum, and we talk to our children, if one thing that can come from this, as opposed to a couple morons deciding to use two percent blood to say that, you know, they're one race or another.  Something positive that can come from this is to have a discussion about how we really actually share a lot more in common than we originally thought. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.  I'm not even attacking...

COLGAN:  I think that's wonderful. 

CARLSON:  I agree with that.  Barack Obama, who is half black and half white, is described invariably as black.  Why is that exactly?  I don't understand.

It seems to me that, in fact, racial categories are a lot more fluid than we acknowledge, that nobody is purely one thing or the other, that we're all mutts.  And that's a good thing. 

And I'm just offended by the institutions that somehow give points or privilege or, you know, extra benefits to people on the basis of race.  It just seems to me all irrelevant and silly and creepy, actually. 

COLGAN:  Well, I think that it's important to make a distinction, which the Supreme Court did, I think, pretty effectively in the Michigan cases. 

And that is that most responsible people, and I'll put myself in that category, do not believe in quotas.  It's very lazy to say, “Let's just check a box and say you're black or Hispanic and that's your—you know, should help you get into college.” 

But it's also, in my view, equally lazy to put our heads in the sand and say, you know, there's meritocracy and that we shouldn't be proactive and a little bit aggressive in creating what I think is a very great society at universities, which is diversity. 

And diversity, when we discus this, is always about the advantage of the person who gets in.  Well, I think that everyone benefits from...

CARLSON:  But it's not diversity of blood.

COLGAN:  ... campuses being diverse racially, socio-economically and across the board. 

CARLSON:  OK. 

COLGAN:  I think that it should be just one against many...

CARLSON:  If I have one great-grandparent who was an American Indian, I am not oppressed.  I guess that's my only point.  But I know not everyone agrees with me. 

COLGAN:  Well, I think—I think what could be unfortunate...

CARLSON:  Make it quick, because we're almost out of time. 

COLGAN:  It goes against the spirit of what things like affirmative action were meant to do.  And that is to help create a level playing field. 

If you've lived your life all your life as a white person and then you decide that, you know, you find out you're two percent black, that really isn't, you know, addressing the issues that affirmative action does. 

CARLSON:  It certainly isn't.  It certainly isn't.  Good point. 

Flavia Colgan, from Burbank, California, home of NBC.  Thanks, Flavia.

COLGAN:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Still to come, Tiger Woods apologizes for something he said in front of a TV audience.  He dropped the “S” word, not the one you think.  We'll tell you which one.

Plus, why is Katie Couric so happy?  We'll tell you how her move to CBS could be giving you a severe headache.  We will explain when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, a woman pretends to have sextuplets so she can reap the baby gifts.  It's pretty sick, but is it sick enough to make our list of the top five worst frauds ever?  Find out. 

Plus, the Dog Whisperer is here to show us how he helps dogs by talking to them.  We'll get that in just a minute.  But first, here's what else is going on in the world tonight. 

(NEWSBREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

We turn to a man who insists on returning night after night for punishment.  He is of course “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman, who in fact I never punish, because I can't really.  He's too smart. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  Well, if you did, I guess I'd have to move to Massachusetts, where I'd be forced to buy health insurance. 

CARLSON:  That just makes me so grumpy, that story.  I wish we were debating that tonight.  It's so authoritarian.  Ooh, it's a model the rest of the world is going to follow. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, there's always tomorrow.

CARLSON:  Please. 

Katie Couric got an estimated $13 to $15 million to move to CBS.  Under a proposed new rule named for her, the details of Couric's new contract would be public knowledge. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission's so-called Katie Couric Clause would require companies to disclose the salaries of up to three workers whose compensation exceeds that of the company's top five executives, if you follow. 

In any case, the rule would make public the pay packages of highly paid TV personalities and athletes, for example.  Most companies like to keep their stars' perks and salaries under wraps, but no more. 

I think it's offensive the government wants to make details of people's lives public.  Max, on the other hand, wants the world to know about his outrageously overcompensated salary and benefits package. 

Max, I don't know—you know, if shareholders want to know in a publicly held company how much employees are making, they should demand it at shareholders' meetings.  Why is the government getting involved in this?

KELLERMAN:  Well, here is the argument for it.  You've got two sides here.  You've got the SEC, regulating business.  And then you have management, basically.  That's the—how it breaks down. 

The SEC wants to know, in a publicly traded company, where large sums of money are going.  They're not asking to see everyone's salary.  They're saying if it exceeds the average of the top five executives, that it should be disclosed. 

On the other hand, management doesn't want it disclosed.  Now, what motivates management's behavior, in almost all cases?  Keeping costs down.  In this case, labor costs.  Really, what's motivating management's behavior in this case, and it's been talked about, they don't want other companies poaching their talent. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  In other words, they want to suppress competition. 

CARLSON:  Also—also, it's going to cause mutinies in some companies when, you know, people find out what their co-workers are making.  I mean, it's going to drive people crazy. 

But the point is, it's not the government's business.  The government has no compelling interest to pry into the personnel records of private companies.  The people who own those companies can do it if they want to.  If they really want to they can do it.  But I don't know why the feds have to get involved. 

KELLERMAN:  Don't mean to talk in cliches, but in the wake—and we're still in the wake of Enron and everything else that went on—that's gone on in recent years, there's a heightened sensitivity to it. 

You know what, Tucker?  The whole idea about how there will be mutinies, that's really—this is the way management couches the argument, you know, in these kind of phrases.  Really, the more information labor has about other labor, the better. 

CARLSON:  That's true.  You're right.  It's probably actually good for us. 

Well, Tiger Woods' poor putting wasn't the only thing that got him into trouble at the masters on Sunday.  In a live television broadcast after his final round, Tiger said he played like, quote, “a spaz.”  It sounded innocent enough at the time, but it has caused an uproar from disability groups that find the word “spaz” offensive. 

In Great Britain, for instance, spaz is the term commonly used to describe people with cerebral palsy.  Through a spokesman, Tiger apologized for offending anyone. 

This is ridiculous.  Tiger Woods obviously meant no harm by using the word.  Max was shocked to hear such foul language on national TV and has not fully recovered. 

But Max, if spaz was meant as a slur against the disabled, in this country, I totally understand people would be offended.  But it's not.  Spaz is just a dork, someone with poor coordination.  The poor guy, leave him alone. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, you know, it's funny.  I'm a big boxing fan, as you know, and I watched Floyd Mayweather and Zab Judah the other night, and those guys were saying a lot worse than “spaz.”  No one really has a problem with it. 

You know why?  Because if you're a boxer, you don't have to worry about what the queen of England thinks about you. 

CARLSON:  No, you're presumed to be a convicted felon. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, let's put it this way: if you're making your money in golf, then the tea-drinking set in England, what they think about what you say, actually matters.  It counts. 

CARLSON:  But this is not the tea drinking set.  This is the bean sprout eating set.  This is the P.C. set.  The Volvo drivers are mad about this.  The people who pay close attention to every word you use and try to prevent you from using words they don't like.  They're the ones who are made, the P.C. people.  And I think they can buzz off and leave Tiger Woods alone. 

KELLERMAN:  Tucker, you're right.  But can I tell you why this actually is the best thing for Tiger Woods?

CARLSON:  Why?

KELLERMAN:  Because it distracts from the fact that he just lost to Phil Mickelson.  Phil Mickelson just beat—I mean, this guy who couldn't win anything ever has now won his second major.  I think that's what they call it in golf.  I don't know.  I follow sports. 

But the point is, this distracts from the fact that Tiger has not really fulfilled the potential that—or the more conservative estimates of his potential several years back have turned out to be more correct than the more optimistic estimates. 

CARLSON:  Well, this is clearly all part of a very sophisticated P.R.  campaign to take our attention away from that serious... 

KELLERMAN:  Wag the dog, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.  Max Kellerman.  Thank you, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  We take a pregnant pause now to tell you about a Missouri couple who announced a blessed event.  Very blessed.  Because Sarah and Kris Everson told friends and neighbors that Sarah had given birth to not one but six babies. 

Donations and gifts poured in, that is until the couple confessed it was all a scam.  No babies.  Just a phony nursery and doctored photographs of Sarah's big belly.

Cops are trying to find out how much the Eversons collected from their sextuplet caper, and jail time is a real possibility. 

In tonight's top five, other notorious hoaxes in which the law got the last laugh. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  If it's true there's a sucker born every minute, then it's also true there is no short supply of get rich quick artists who have tried to capitalize on that fact. 

We begin with the scam that gave a whole new meaning to the term finger food.  That's what this woman claimed to have found in her bowl of Wendy's chili last year, a human digit. 

But Anna Ayala and her husband were nailed and whisked off to prison for nine years. 

Everything was certainly coming up roses for this amateur runner when she won the Boston marathon's women's race in 1980.  Until, of course, it was revealed that Rosie Ruiz had hopped a subway to the finish line.  Rosy was disqualified, but she earns an honorable mention in our top five for originality. 

The German news magazine “Stern” dished out $6 million in 1983 to publish Adolf Hitler's personal diaries.  A furor ensued when it turned out the books were cooked, the work of master forger Konrad Kujau.  Konrad and an accomplice went to the clink. 

Clifford Irving was paid $765,000 to pen the authorized biography of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes.  The scheme backfired when Hughes came forward to reveal he'd never met Irving.

HOWARD HUGHES, MILLIONAIRE:  (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

CARLSON:  The judge threw the book at Irving, and he went to the federal pen. 

CLIFFORD IRVING, FORGED HUGHES BIOGRAPHY:  It's something that I realize happened a long time ago but not quite sure it happened to me. 

CARLSON:  Their breakthrough album was entitled “Girl, You Know It's True.”  Ironic, considering this Grammy-decorated duo was merely paying lip service to prerecorded studio singers.  Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus, a.k.a.  Milli Vanilli, faded into well-deserved obscurity in 1990. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  So we give this Grammy back now. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Didn't end well for Milli Vanilli. 

Coming up on THE SITUATION, when he speaks, dogs listen.  He is the Dog Whisperer.  He might have just the answer to your dog's problems.  You'll meet him when THE SITUATION returns in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, the world famous Dog Whisperer takes a break from speaking to dogs to speak to Tucker.  Plus, Hugh Hefner causes a violent riot. 

CARLSON:  That's right.  A violent riot.  We'll explain in merely 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

My next guest has been called the Dr. Phil for dogs, and that's a compliment, in this case.  He is the star of the popular and very good show “Dog Whisperer”.  It airs 8 p.m. Fridays on the National Geographic Channel.  Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I just want him to calm down.  Leash all the way on the top calms the brain down.  Up.  See, I'm pulling up to block the brain from being excited.  My energy, as always, calm and assertive.  That's why we can't bring the owner right now, because the owner was nervous.  So that only makes him more in control of the situation.  They don't surrender to nervous energy. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Cesar Millan is the Dog Whisperer.  He's also the author of “Cesar's Way: The Natural, Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems”.  Mr. Millan joins us from Los Angeles tonight. 

Mr. Millan, thanks for coming on. 

CESAR MILLAN, AUTHOR, “CESAR'S WAY”:  Thank you very much.  I'm very happy to be here. 

CARLSON:  I'm happy you're here. I read your book. 

MILLAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  It's so smart.  And it made me realize all the things I've done wrong with my dogs over the years. 

You think like—or you explain how dogs think.  And you make the point that Americans treat their dogs like children, and in fact, dogs don't like this.  Is that a fair characterization?

MILLAN:  Well, it's not that they don't like it.  The thing is, they lose identity by being treated as a human being.  They're happy being a dog.  So it's important for a dog to do exercise discipline than affection.  Not just affection, affection, affection, which leads them into instability, because my clients love their dogs but they can't control their dogs. 

CARLSON:  So explain—you have a really interesting passage in the book when you explain how to approach a dog.  It's completely contrary to every instinct I think the average American has.  Explain how you meet a dog for the first time. 

MILLAN:  Well, what I teach my children is no touch, no talk, no eye contact, which that gives you access to being a calm, assertive state. 

So if you remember popular people in high school, they just walk in.  Can you get it?  It's an understanding about how to be the pack leader from the moment you walk in.  And then dogs will view you as a pack leader and not as an excited source of energy. 

Because most of the people go, “Hi.”  And that creates excitement.  It does not create the calm, submissive state. 

CARLSON:  So you want the dog to know that you're in charge.  I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with that.  They want to be on kind of a peer level with their dogs.  Like the dog is a friend.  I don't want to dominate the dog.  The dog is a buddy of mine. 

MILLAN:  But if you study dogs in their natural habitat, the first pack leader is their mother.  The mother doesn't want to be their friend.  It's going to be the pack leader. 

So if we don't provide this to a dog, we're depriving them from being connected to Mother Nature. 

So I totally understand the culture behind America conditions people to be the dog's friend or the dog's mother or the dog's soul mate.  But the reality is the dogs require a pack leader to be balanced, connected and grounded. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  And it makes the dog anxious otherwise, as you point out in the book.  People assume that a dog wagging its tail is a sign that the dog is happy.  Is it?

MILLAN:  Most of the people have that as an understanding, you know, that the wagging tail means happiness.  But a lot of times it's not the case.  It's very important—you know, people learn to read energy, which in the show I show how to read energy.  In the book, I can make it as a more detail observation and what I mean about that. 

And it's not just about wagging tail.  It's about where the ears are, where the head is, with the whole body language.  They do speak.  They just don't speak human language. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  I'd like you to diagnose and maybe give us some help with a common but rarely talked about dog problem.  Tonight I was getting dinner here at MSNBC and a producer came up to me and said, “Will you ask Cesar Millan about my problem?”

She has a dog, who like many dogs—I'm almost embarrassed to say this but is copraphagic, eats dog droppings.  Dog bombs.

MILLAN:  Right, yes.

CARLSON:  How do you stop a dog from doing that?

MILLAN:  Well, supervision, of course.  And a lot of times it's a medical thing.  So we don't know until we actually evaluate the case.  But another—another symptom or another thing to make a dog eat the feces is bore.  So they find the food in the feces and then they eat it, unfortunately. 

CARLSON:  So how should you respond to that?

MILLAN:  Well, we do address those things in the show.  Right now it's visually, I can't show you how, because it just would be a verbal thing. 

CARLSON:  Right.  But should you smack the dog's bottom?

MILLAN:  You can.  You can use physical touch to snap the brain out of it for accomplishing that goal.  You know, so that blocks the brain from moving forward or accomplishing that.  Absolutely. 

In the show you see how I use the connection or the communication with psychological approach or physical approach. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  And finally, is there a best dog for kids?  And for a family?

MILLAN:  A balanced dog is the best.  It's not the breed.  A lot of people have the misunderstanding that the breed is the best.  If you remember, Petey from the Little Rascals was a pit bull.

CARLSON:  Yes.

MILLAN:  So it's not the breed.  It's who's behind the dog.

CARLSON:  So it's not true that certain dogs are jumpier than others, more likely to bite than others?

MILLAN:  Well, it is true that they're born with certain energy.  So that's why you have to learn to read energy and to bring the right energy to your house.  So this way you don't deal with a hyperactive dog when you are a medium level energy person. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, author of truly a great book.  I read it.  I loved it.  “Cesar's Way: The Natural Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems”.  Thanks a lot.

MILLAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Still ahead on THE SITUATION, how could the sight of an American icon and his 17 girlfriends make anyone angry?  We'll tell you why a rock-throwing mob attacked the “Playboy” offices.  It's all on “The Cutting Room Floor.” 

And don't forget, THE SITUATION voice-mail is back tomorrow night.  Give us a call.  The number: 1-877-TCARLSON.  We'll pick our favorite messages and play them on the air.  It could be yours.  We're coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Time for “Cutting Room Floor.”  Joining us now, a man who whispers to animals and other things, Willie Geist. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Yes.  Hey, Tucker.  You have to admire Cesar. 

Most people who spoke to dogs would be locked up.  And he has a TV show. 

This is a great country.

CARLSON:  His book is really—it upset me, because it was so clearly true and so completely contrary to everything I've ever done. 

GEIST:  I was going to say, you're wrong with your dogs, right?

CARLSON:  Yes, I know, it bothers me. 

GEIST:  And I'm glad.  You know, it's still dinner time for a lot of people on the West Coast.  I'm glad you were able to sneak in that story about the dog poop, eating dog poop.  That was sweet. 

CARLSON:  We had the dwarf cover band on last night.  Tonight it's copraphagia.  You know, what's next? 

GEIST:  Oh, boy.

CARLSON:  “Playboy” magazine has a way of getting people excited, but it's not usually the angry throwing rocks through windows kind of excited. 

The first edition of Indonesian “Playboy” was met today with massive, violent demonstrations.  The magazine's offices and executives were pelted with rocks by Islamic protesters who want the men's publication out of their country. 

By the way, the Indonesian “Playboy” does not show nudity. 

GEIST:  Boy, if they react like this to “Playboy” without nudity, “Skank” magazine is really going to have to reconsider its plans to expand into Indonesia.  Because they are not—they're going to burn the place down. 

CARLSON:  I'm sorry, this is—sometimes you just feel like dropping a 747 worth of “Jugs” over the Islamic world, you know what I mean?  This is so unreasonable. 

GEIST:  Don't they have bigger fish to fry than a non-nudity “Playboy” magazine?  You know what they ought to do?  Check out the articles.  It would change their opinion totally. 

CARLSON:  Once they read their first “Playboy” interview, they'll be sold. 

GEIST:  Yes.  Fascinating. 

CARLSON:  Well, you've been to plenty of movies that stink, but have you ever been to one that smells?  I bet you haven't. 

A Japanese movie theater will incorporate seven different smells into its presentation of the Colin Farrell movie “The New World.”  The smells will be sprayed from beneath the theater seats at appropriate times in the movie.  A floral scent, for example, will be released during the love scenes. 

GEIST:  So first you have to sit through “The New World”, and then you come out smelling like cheap perfume.  It just keeps getting better, this place.  Doesn't it?

You know what?  As long as they have those devices in place, some of the movies I've been dragged to recently, I'd appreciate a little anesthesia coming out of them. 

CARLSON:  I would, too.

GEIST:  Just to numb the pain of some of these romantic comedies. 

CARLSON:  You go to a lot of Meg Ryan movies, Willie?

GEIST:  I do.  Is she still working?

CARLSON:  You've got to take control of your own wife, Willie.  If you're going to a lot of Meg Ryan movies, you've got to look in the mirror and ask yourself, am I really in charge?

GEIST:  I know.  I know.  I live a sad life. 

CARLSON:  You do. 

We just showed you our top five list of the worst frauds of all time. 

We may have to add this next woman to that list. 

Massachusetts school teacher Heather Faria has pled guilty to larceny and fraud after she admitted to lying she had stomach cancer in order to collect donations for her supposed recovery. 

Faria accepted an estimated $35,000 from hundreds of sympathetic people, including from her high school students.  Among the many things she paid for with the donated money, a trip to the Caribbean. 

GEIST:  That sounds fun.  You know, this is a bad story.  It's a bad example for kids.  But let me just say teachers in this country, underpaid.  If you have to supplement it with a little fake terminal illness here and again, so be it.  I say hats off. 

No, it's totally wrong. 

CARLSON:  I notice as we come to the end of “The Cutting Room Floor” every night, there is almost always a story, whether you're attacking the elderly, endorsing fraud, coming out for I don't know, decriminalizing something horrible. 

GEIST:  Listen, isn't that better than having to wait tables?  Nobody wants to do that. 

CARLSON:  She in a union.  She's a unionized teacher.  She's got—you know, renegotiate your contract if you want.  There's something going on with pretty good-looking, 30-year-old...

GEIST:  Yes, I noticed that about her. 

CARLSON:  ... public school teachers.  I don't know what it is. 

GEIST:  I'm going to stand up for them until the very end. 

CARLSON:  I bet you will (ph).  Thank you. 

That's THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thank you for watching.  We'll see you back here tomorrow.  Have a great night.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

END   

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.

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

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,