Guests: Tatiana Maxwell, Brendon Laster, James McElroy, Stanley Bing, Max Kellerman, Ray McGovern
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thanks to you at home for tuning in. We appreciate it, as always.
A lot to get to tonight, including more outrage at Yale. Does a former Taliban official deserve an undergraduate degree from what some people consider—correctly or not—one of America‘s premiere universities?
Also ahead, a run-of-the-mill speech turns into a dramatic face-to-face confrontation. We‘ll speak live with the ex-CIA analyst who called Donald Rumsfeld a liar at a heated Q&A session today.
Then, a congressman in a suspicious early-morning car crash. He blames anti-nausea medicine and Ambien. Does this smell like another cover-up? We‘ll have the full story, another Kennedy story, in just a few moments.
But first, the Yale Taliban. Twenty-year-old Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi is a former ambassador for the brutal Taliban regime. You may remember him from before 9/11 as he traveled the world defending his government‘s evil policies toward women and non-Muslims, among many other groups.
But he isn‘t locked up at Gitmo these days. He‘s in the U.S. taking classes at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and now he‘d like an undergraduate degree, for free, of course. Should he get it? My next guest says, yes, he should.
Tatiana Maxwell is the president of the International Education Foundation. She joins us tonight from Washington.
Tatiana Maxwell, thanks for coming on.
TATIANA MAXWELL, INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: So, in American society, a ticket to Yale is a reward, one of the highest rewards we can bestow on anybody. You go to Yale, and you‘re basically—not guaranteed, but pretty close to a pretty successful life here in the United States. A lot of people want to go there.
Why in the world would we reward the former ambassador for the Taliban with a Yale education?
MAXWELL: Well, I think it‘s a good question. I think America is the land of opportunity, and here is an opportunity. This is a young man who otherwise had no opportunity to expand his education, to understand different forms of government, and the ways of freedom, democracy, opportunity. And we thought we‘d try to give him that opportunity.
CARLSON: But he‘s not just any man. I actually remember this man. I watched him—I talked to him, in fact, in Islamabad right after 9/11 at the Taliban embassy. And I watched him give this long, rambling talk about, you know, the evil United States, and the infidel, and Israel, and basically spew hate for about a half an hour.
This guy hates the United States. I don‘t think he‘s repented for what he said and supported. Why him, of all people?
MAXWELL: Well, I‘d have to disagree. I think, in fact, Rahmatullah is quite appreciative of the opportunity that he‘s been given here in the United States. I‘ve had him in my home. He‘s played air hockey with my children. We eat dinner on a regular basis together.
I think Rahmatullah is not an example of someone who cannot be reformed, who cannot be brought over to our team. He‘s, in fact, quite the opposite.
CARLSON: Well, I‘m sure Pol Pot was a charming dinner partner, but that‘s not, I guess, the point, is it? I mean, shouldn‘t he get up and repent of the things he supported? Shouldn‘t he get up and say, “Look, you know, I attacked the United States, its policies. I said that, you know, women ought to be kept in these kind of medieval conditions. I said this, that and the other thing, and, you know what, I take it back”?
MAXWELL: Well, I think the fact that he‘s here speaks to that.
CARLSON: Well, the 9/11 hijackers were here, too, going to strip bars, and enjoying the fruits of American freedom, and they still did what they did.
MAXWELL: Well, I think that pre-9/11. I think that, post-9/11, our government is a little more savvy about a variety of things, and he‘s been fully vetted by the State Department, by the Army, by a variety of other organizations. And he clearly has made his peace with them, so I think he‘s made his peace with me.
CARLSON: OK, I understand that. But my only point is—and I also understand, I think, your larger goal, which is to, you know, bring people from other countries, and expose them to the United States, and win them over. And I applaud that.
But of all the promising, smart, young Muslims around the world, why this guy, who represented a government that hated us, that backed these hijackers who killed thousands of us, and whose members we are still at war with in Afghanistan? Why not pick someone who doesn‘t have blood on his hands?
MAXWELL: You know, I think blood on his hands would be a clear over-exaggeration to what Rahmatullah has experienced. He was a mouthpiece for the Taliban. And, really, the reason he got this job was because he spoke English better than the rest of them, and he had some computer skills.
So, in a group that has very few really experienced individuals in it...
CARLSON: Oh, come on.
CARLSON: I mean, with all due respect, I mean, Goebbels never killed anyone either, but he was a mouthpiece for—he was a propagandist for a regime that did. And, as you know, propaganda is a tool of violence.
MAXWELL: You know, I think the worst thing that I heard Rahmatullah say was something about some woman being kind of a challenge to her husband. And I can assure you that, when he‘s been in my house, he‘s certainly seen a woman who‘s a bit of a challenge to her husband.
CARLSON: OK. Do you see the irony here, though, that here‘s a guy whose professional career has been taken up with attacking Western civilization, and here Western civilization is awarding him, essentially, its highest award, a Yale education? And it just seems to me another example of masochism on our part?
MAXWELL: You know, I think it‘s really an example of what it is that we‘re trying to do. The United States has invested billions of dollars into Afghanistan; they have sent thousands of troops. What we‘re trying to do is win the hearts and minds. We‘re trying to bridge this chasm that has been created between two cultures.
And if Rahmatullah Hashemi is not an example of that, then I don‘t think we have a lot of hope in many other areas.
CARLSON: Shouldn‘t he take the SAT, then, just like everyone who wants an undergraduate degree at Yale? He‘s not being asked to take the SAT. He‘s getting this for free. Aren‘t there a lot of kind of deserving Americans from working-class families who might like a Yale degree?
MAXWELL: Well, you know, I was one of those deserving Americans who might have wanted a Yale degree. My father and mother had 10 children. I went to the University of Wyoming. Sure, would I have liked it? Absolutely.
Do I think that it‘s necessary for him to take the SAT? I don‘t think it‘s any indication of whether or not he can do the work. And I‘m pretty sure that the professors at Yale can make a very adequate analysis of that.
CARLSON: OK, well, I‘m going to make the same case for my four children when they apply to Yale.
MAXWELL: Well, my four children will be there fighting against yours.
CARLSON: OK, I‘m not going to speculate whose will win, but I appreciate you coming in, anyway. Tatiana Maxwell, thank you.
MAXWELL: Thank you.
CARLSON: Now to the question: Is illegal immigration the new civil rights movement? That‘s what Hispanic activists are claiming, loudly and in public, but wait a second, say some black Americans. As our next guest puts it, what‘s going to happen to our unfinished agenda? Good question.
Brendon Laster is a Democratic fundraiser and part-time professor at Howard University. He joins us tonight from Washington.
Mr. Laster, thanks for coming on.
BRENDON LASTER, DEMOCRATIC ACTIVIST: Hey, thanks for having me.
CARLSON: So what do you think of this, when you hear so-called self-appointed civil rights leaders stand up at the demonstration, like the one in Washington a couple of weeks ago, and say, “People who sneak over our borders are morally the same as, say, Rosa Parks”? What do you think of that?
LASTER: Well, I‘m not exactly sure that I would say that I agree with those civil rights leaders; nor would I say that, you know, in principle, I disagree with them. I think that some of the struggles are very similar. I think there are some similar parallels. But I think you also have to be mindful of the fact that there are some very significant differences.
CARLSON: But here‘s the problem, it seems to me. It‘s a demographic problem, OK. So the demographics of the United States are changing radically. Black Americans, long the largest minority group in the country, that‘s no longer true; Hispanic Americans are.
And that means, necessarily—I mean, it will happen—a lessening of political influence for black Americans. You‘re not—black Americans as a group will not be taken as seriously by politicians, now that they have been eclipsed in numbers by Hispanic-Americans. No one wants to say that out loud, but you know it‘s true, don‘t you?
LASTER: Well, I think that‘s a concern in the community. To be completely honest, I don‘t think that a lot of black Americans spend too much time worrying about that. But when you sit them down and you ask them about it, I think, you know, sometimes, yes, well—but we as African-Americans, given our struggle here in this country, you know, who are we to really try to cast aspersions on any other group of people that are coming here, that are trying to get those same freedoms, equalities, and justice that African-Americans are?
CARLSON: Boy, I just don‘t see any parallels at all. Here you have one group whose ancestors were taken by force, and brought here, and who were denied their rights law—right—by law, by states around the country.
You compare that to another group that is here entirely by choice—in fact, snuck in, broke the law to get here—for purely economic reasons. And to compare them seems to me insulting to black Americans. And I don‘t really understand why black leaders stand by and allow that comparison to be made.
LASTER: Well, I do think that some African-Americans would find that insulting.
CARLSON: It‘s totally insulting. I mean, isn‘t it? I mean, Rosa Parks was born an American citizen. You know, she didn‘t do anything; she didn‘t break any law in order to deserve—any moral law, anyway—in order to deserve being treated the way she was. An illegal alien has contempt, by definition, for American law, so they‘re not the same, at all.
LASTER: Well, I would think that‘s an overstatement. I don‘t think they have contempt, by definition, for American law. I think they are, by and large, you know, individuals who are looking for a better way of life, just like all other immigrants who came here to this country.
CARLSON: Well, I don‘t know. All other immigrants—you live in Washington, for instance. A large number of Ethiopians and Eritreans in Washington, almost all of them legal. They waited in line at Addis Ababa, or whatever, at the consulate there for years in order to get their green cards to come here and work as cab drivers, OK? They played by the rules.
Many immigrants from Latin America, millions of them—more than 10 million of them—ignored the rules and just showed up, without waiting in line, thereby bypassing the rest of the immigrants who were dumb enough to abide by American law.
You don‘t think that the ones who played by the rules have cause for resentment?
LASTER: Well, I mean, just to keep it positive...
CARLSON: Let‘s tell the truth. No reason to keep it positive.
LASTER: Well, let‘s be positive and truthful. I think that, you know, they may have some cause of concern, and I can understand why they would be resentful. But I think, by and large, if you ask those Eritreans, or those Ethiopians, or those Somalians, I think they‘d be very sympathetic to what the Latinos who are here in this country illegally, you know, what they are going through.
CARLSON: Here‘s my prediction: 50 years from now, when the demographics of this country have changed completely, the civil rights movement will be very dimly remembered, very dimly remembered by the people who control the government, right, because there will be no civil rights lobby to keep that memory alive because it will have been completely eclipsed by Latin immigrants, and so I think, you know, if you care about that, you should be concerned.
LASTER: Well, let‘s hope not. Let‘s hope that, you know, throughout the long, storied history of this country, let‘s hope that the struggle of the civil rights era is never forgotten.
And I think that, by the immigrants—even though, you know, it does cause some concern—but by them invoking the spirit of the movement, let‘s hope that all Americans, not just African-Americans or Latinos, but let‘s hope all Americans, you know, work to keep the dreams and hopes and the memory of the civil rights movement alive.
CARLSON: Not going to happen. The children of immigrants who came here last year who snuck over from Mexico, 50 years from now, will not care one single bit about Bull Connor, or Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King. They just won‘t. That‘s my prediction. I‘m not saying they shouldn‘t, but I bet they won‘t.
Anyway, Mr. Laster, thanks for coming on.
LASTER: Thank you for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: Still to come, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of Ted, crashes his car into a security barrier at 3:00 a.m. in Washington. Party time! So why weren‘t the cops allowed to perform basic field sobriety tests on him? Good question. We‘ll investigate, when we come back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY MCGOVERN, FORMER CIA ANALYST: Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, first of all, I haven‘t lied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Plus, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and at least two other hecklers grilled Donald Rumsfeld today in public. Up next, I‘ll ask McGovern why he decided to confront the secretary of defense. Stay tuned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCGOVERN: Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, first of all, I haven‘t lied. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.
MCGOVERN: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were just...
MCGOVERN: You said you knew where they were, “near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and northeast, south and west of there.” Those are your words. I‘d just like an honest answer.
RUMSFELD: I‘m giving it to you.
MCGOVERN: We‘re talking about lies and your allegation that there was bulletproof evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie or were you misled?
RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the pre-war period. That is a fact. He was also in Baghdad.
MCGOVERN: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren‘t idiots.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was the extraordinary scene earlier today when a heckler confronted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the war in Iraq, but he wasn‘t just any heckler. Ray McGovern is a 27-year veteran of the CIA. He was the daily briefer to President Ronald Reagan during Reagan‘s first term. He joins us tonight from Atlanta.
Mr. McGovern, welcome.
MCGOVERN: Well, Tucker, I resent the word “heckler.” I‘d like you to take that back.
CARLSON: OK, I‘m not taking it back. You were heckling him. But you were also asking a question: Why in this forum? And why did you do this?
MCGOVERN: Well, let me put a little context around it for you. I‘m here in Atlanta to receive the National Civil Liberties Award, which I just received this evening, and to make three speeches.
MCGOVERN: Preparing for these speeches, I came across a report in “The New York Times” quoting Rumsfeld in Atlanta, in September 2002, saying that the evidence supporting close ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq was, quote, “bulletproof,” end quote.
MCGOVERN: This morning on the Web, I downloaded an interview by Paul Pillar, a former colleague of mine, who, until late last year, was the senior analyst for the Middle East and for counterterrorism, and who was very much involved in the pre-war briefing before the war in Iraq.
And what he said was that there was an organized campaign of manipulation to prove that there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the general objective to be to deceive the American people into thinking that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
Worked beautifully: 69 percent of the people believed that.
CARLSON: Right, no, I, obviously, like every American, have heard this case, and I actually agreed with some of what you said, and I think you raised some really interesting questions.
I guess the point at which I disagree with you is your contention that Rumsfeld was lying. First, it raises the question: Why would he lie, knowing that he ultimately would be found out, we would find out that Iraq didn‘t have weapons of mass destruction?
MCGOVERN: Well, Tucker, he...
CARLSON: But isn‘t it enough that he was wrong and bad judgment? Why does he have to be a liar, too?
MCGOVERN: Well, you know, that‘s the question you have to direct to him.
But Paul Pillar said the decision for war happened in early 2002. We know from documents, both British and U.S. documents, that the president had told the British that the intelligence and the facts would be fixed around the policy, so we have documentary evidence of that.
At the time that Rumsfeld said this, no one in the CIA supported that view; no one elsewhere in the government did. He made it up. Now, you might not prefer to call that a lie; that‘s what I call it.
CARLSON: Well, but, OK, but—OK, let‘s say he made it up. Let‘s say he was involved in this conspiracy to lie. They knew there was no weapons of mass destruction. They knew that there was no...
MCGOVERN: We‘re talking about ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
CARLSON: And we knew that there—that was my second part of my sentence—we knew that there was no real ties between Al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.
Why? I mean, I often hear that claim. But the part that I don‘t understand is: Why would they do that? What‘s the motive? If you‘re going to make the allegation...
MCGOVERN: Sure, well, that‘s...
CARLSON: ... flesh it out.
MCGOVERN: ... a very straightforward question, and I‘ll tell you why. I‘ve been using the acronym O.I.L. for many—for two years now: O for oil; I for Israel; and L for logistics, logistics being the permanent—now we say “enduring”—military bases that the U.S. wants to keep in Iraq.
CARLSON: Well, the oil part, obviously, didn‘t work out, as any motorist can tell you. Tell me about and sum up very quickly why we would have done this for Israel, you say.
MCGOVERN: Well, the people running our policy toward that part of the world have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic interests of Israel, on one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other.
These are the so-called neocons. They used to work, some of them, in think-tanks for the Israeli government. And they‘ve imposed this policy, which is designed to do the same things that U.S. policy for the last four decades have done. The only difference is: We started a war this time.
CARLSON: But why wouldn‘t attack Syria or Iran? I mean, the Israeli would tell you—they told me right before the war—those were the more imminent threats to them, they thought.
MCGOVERN: Well, no, Iraq was the ultimate target, second-largest oil deposits, a ruthless dictator that could be removed. The Israelis were pulling very, very strong for our attack on Iraq.
And, more important, they are doing exactly the same thing now for us to attack Iran. Iran is no threat to us, but it could be construed as a threat to Israel‘s nuclear...
CARLSON: That‘s where you lose me, when you say that Iran is no threat to us. But, unfortunately, we‘re out of time. Mr. McGovern, I appreciate your coming on.
MCGOVERN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you.
Still to come, a federal judge orders the removal of a cross that stood as a memorial to the Korean War dead. So how did this single atheist topple that memorial? We‘ll go under the radar after the break to answer that question.
Plus, Vicente Fox buckles to American pressure and says he won‘t sign a bill that would legalize cocaine, heroin and pot. As the Mexican president changed his mind, yet again, is he about to go back on that and turn his country into a readily-available drug supermarket? Find out, when we return.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D), RHODE ISLAND: I never asked for any preferential treatment.
QUESTION: Did you receive it, do you think?
KENNEDY: That‘s up for the police to decide, and I‘m going to cooperate fully with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of Ted Kennedy—and possibly the least impressive person in Washington, by the way—commenting on an early-morning car wreck that has raised some suspicion in the capital city.
Police say the younger Kennedy appeared intoxicated, drunk, loaded—smashed! -- after he crashed into a concrete barrier at about 2:45 in the morning. The lawmaker claims he had taken sleep medication, Ambien, as well as a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness.
He said he was so disoriented he believed he was going to the Capitol for a vote at 2:45 in the morning. No field sobriety tests were conducted, so we don‘t really know. The accident happened near Capitol Hill. Patrick not hurt.
But the once-proud Kennedy heritage may have suffered yet another blow, relatively speaking. In tonight‘s “Top Five,” we take a look at some other well-known relations whose odd behavior has cast a shadow on the family name.
CARLSON (voice-over): Let‘s face it: Every family has at least one black sheep in the flock. But whether they‘re loud, slutty, cheap, or rude, there‘s one good thing about your weird relatives: They‘re not nearly as embarrassing as the people you‘re about to see.
Before the trade papers mockingly labeled him K-Fed, Kevin Federline was perhaps best-known as the lout who left pregnant girlfriend Shar Jackson for that other woman, namely Britney Spears. Kevin proudly notes that Britney fully supports his musical aspirations; that, and everything else, no doubt.
When it comes to presidential embarrassments, Monica Lewinsky has nothing on Roger Clinton. Bill‘s half-brother did time for cocaine trafficking, got busted for drunk driving, and should have been arrested for impersonating a singer. Is it any wonder the Secret Service‘s code name for Roger was “Headache”?
What led Lindsay Lohan to disown her father? Well, it might have been Michael Lohan‘s nasty habit of beating people up. He crashed his car while impaired, ignored his former wife‘s restraining order, all of which earned him time behind bars. But father thinks his antics should also earn him a cut of Lindsay‘s paycheck.
LINDSAY LOHAN, ACTRESS: It‘s just my luck.
CARLSON: Hey, Michael: Don‘t expect a Father‘s Day card this year.
Then, there is the Baldwin brothers. When Stephen and William aren‘t tarnishing the family name by starring in really bad movies, older sibling Daniel is fighting drug charges. And, Alec, well, he‘s fighting just about everyone.
ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: What‘s that supposed to mean?
CARLSON: And who can forget the redneck who stole the spotlight from the president of the United States? First Brother Billy Carter bragged about smoking pot in the White House, guzzled a beer like it was water, and once got rid of it on an airport tarmac. Billy even accepted a $200,000 loan from the Libyan government. It‘s a sure bet this sibling never earned a presidential pardon.
BILLY CARTER, BROTHER OF JIMMY CARTER: Once I get (INAUDIBLE) I miss a hangover every once in a while.
CARLSON: Still to come, don‘t let your guard down at the next party. Campus cops at the University of Colorado are paying off students to rat on each other. We‘ll tell you about it, right after the break.
Plus, it‘s hard to make a baby not look cute, but dress them up in a wife-beater t-shirt and you might just do the trick, not that we‘re suggesting it. We‘ll bring you an outrageous new clothing line for babies called Pimpfants—not kidding—next.
CARLSON: Still to come, the University of Colorado gives its students an education in snitching. We‘ll tell you why the school thinks it‘s a good idea to turn its students against each other. We‘ll get to that in just a minute. First, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from San Diego, California. If you‘ve ever been there, you‘ve seen the 29-foot cross towering over La Jolla Shores, a tribute to veterans of the Korean War. Well, after more than half a century that memorial is coming down. And we have atheist Phillip Palson to thank for that. He has spent the last 17 years trying to get the cross removed from public property. Mr. Palson‘s attorney, James McElroy, joins us tonight from San Diego.
Mr. McElroy, thanks for coming on.
JAMES MCELROY, ATTORNEY FOR PHILLIP PALSON: You bet Tucker. It‘s good to be with you.
CARLSON: As it happens, I grew up directly beneath that cross. I spent many hours drinking beer right beneath it. As far as I know, at least in the time I lived there, I never heard anyone complain about it. There was in fact a vote, in essence, on the cross, and it seemed to me that the overwhelming majority of voters didn‘t mind it. Why should one atheist get to determine its fate?
MCELROY: Well, first of all there was a vote preceding the vote you spoke of, where the majority of San Diegans, about 60 percent of them, voted to move the cross, so that we could end this litigation, and so that the city could, once and for all, obey the Constitution and obey a court order that was issued 15 years ago. You know, we really don‘t vote about this issue anyway, or we shouldn‘t. It‘s kind of like voting about whether Rosa Parks gets to sit on the back of the bus or not.
CARLSON: I don‘t—I‘m sorry. I got to stop you there. I mean, you know, come on. That is a ludicrous analogy. And you know it. I mean, Rosa Parks was being, you know, denied her right to sit where she wanted because of her color. This is a cross which hurts nobody.
MCELROY: Tucker, the analogy is very apt, because we‘re talking about the Constitution. And we don‘t get to vote about our Constitutional rights.
CARLSON: But in real life, we do get to vote, because we elect presidents who select members of the Supreme Court, who interpret that document, as you know. But, look, here‘s the point. There was a vote on this. And the question was, should we transfer the land to the federal government? Or how about the City of San Diego sells that land to a private foundation so the cross will not be on public property? What‘s wrong with that? Nothing. And you want to take down the cross anyway, because you don‘t like crosses, it sounds like.
MCELROY: No. What I like is the Constitution. In fact, I‘ve been fighting to move that cross 1,000 yards. I don‘t want to see the cross come down at all. There is a church 1,000 yards from that cross who originally agreed to accept it when we had this case settled a couple of years ago.
CARLSON: I‘m merely saying, if there is a problem with this cross being on public land, and I get that, why not transfer the land to a private foundation? That way the Constitution is not violated, and the cross gets to remain, as most people want it to remain.
MCELROY: That‘s a very good question, Tucker. But the part you‘re missing is, unfortunately, it is constitutional, and it has a practical problem as well. The veterans, the 250,000 people that voted, were supported by the veterans who wanted to move this cross, because the veterans have spent $1 million on a beautiful monument. You‘ve been up there. You know how wonderful that monument to veterans is.
CARLSON: You are changing the subject.
MCELROY: No, no, no. If you have a sale Tucker, the courts have told us, the Constitution requires that you have an open-bid sale, so that anybody—the highest bidder can buy the land. And if we do that, we risk Tom Cruise and the scientologists buying the land and putting up a statue of L. Ron Hubbard. That‘s the way our Constitution works. We have to be open for all religions...
CARLSON: You got to take down the cross because, if you didn‘t, the scientologists would get their cross up there? I mean, come on. The cross has been there for 50 years. It‘s hurting no one. Just transfer it to a private foundation, and call it a day.
MCELROY: Tucker, when you say it‘s hurting no one, let me remind you of your years in La Jolla. And you‘re quite a bit younger man than I am. But back in 1952, ‘54, when this version of the cross was built, Jews were not allowed to live in La Jolla.
CARLSON: This cross has not prevented anyone of any religion from living there. Come on.
MCELROY: Tucker, I‘m suggesting that Jewish people are somewhat offended by the fact that this cross is up there. and it calls to mind the fact that La Jolla allowed no Jews to live there...
CARLSON: Oh, God.
MCELROY: Well, if you don‘t. You were here. I don‘t know what I can tell you. You know, if you don‘t...
CARLSON: I‘m sorry. I‘m sorry. Mr. McElroy...
MCELROY: ... if you don‘t accept that. But let me tell you another group that‘s offended. I suggest you talk to some Jewish war veterans, because when you say we have a war memorial up here, and my client fought Phil Palson, fought in the Vietnam War...
CARLSON: All right. Then how...
MCELROY: ... and saw a lot of people die. And a lot of Jewish veterans—and not just Jewish veterans. A lot of veterans will tell...
CARLSON: I‘m sorry they don‘t like it. Then they put up—they can put up the Star of David memorial. And that‘s great.
MCELROY: Could I answer?‘
CARLSON: I‘m sorry. We are out of time. But I think I—I understand your point. It is well-taken. I didn‘t mean to cut you off...
CARLSON: ... but we are pressed.
CARLSON: Mr. McElroy from San Diego, thanks for coming on.
MCELROY: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: We turn now to a man who has never been in an argument he didn‘t like. He is the outsider. ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman. Max.
MAX KELLERMAN, HOST, ESPN RADIO AND HBO BOXING: Tucker, how are you doing?
CARLSON: Welcome. Are you ready? Buckle your seat belt, Max, because we begin with a disgusting story that has turned the University of Colorado students against each other in the fight against marijuana smoking.
Campus cops offered 50 bucks to anyone who could identify any of the 150 people photographed smoking pot at a pro-marijuana event a couple weeks ago. The pictures were posted online last Thursday. And 50 of the smokers have already been identified by snitches. University officials says they hope the program will discourage people from attending the event in the future.
Max, bottom line, being a snitch much worse than being a pot smoker.
You get to take up for the tattle tales. Good luck.
KELLERMAN: Well, in the first place, anyone who knows anything about the physical effects of marijuana, as opposed to alcohol for instance, and still thinks marijuana should be illegal and alcohol legal is a moron. I mean, you have to be a moron to think that. Marijuana should clearly not be illegal. It‘s a shame that taxpayer money is spent on these ads linking marijuana to terrorism. And it don‘t even speak to the issue anymore. I call that your worst...
CARLSON: I know you‘re pro-marijuana.
KELLERMAN: Yes. I mean clear—So let me just make that very clear.
KELLERMAN: You have to be, if you are a thinking person and you have any information about it at all. However, what‘s the point in civil disobedience? Civil disobedience only works if it garners some attention.
CARLSON: That‘s right.
KELLERMAN: If anyone ignores it, it goes—so, it goes up in smoke. So actually what the administrators are doing—and if they‘re really so against marijuana, apparently they‘re not that bright—they are playing right into the hands of the organizers of this event.
CARLSON: OK. That‘s an excellent point. I also think to take the flip flip side, if you‘re smoking pot in public, you can expect to be arrested. It is illegal. Whether it should be or not is another question. But it is. Take your lumps.
What I am offended by here is the fact that students are being enlisted to help make those I.D.‘s and then the arrests, and—that lead to arrests. I mean, smoking pot may make you dumb, it may hurt your body, it may do bad things to you. That‘s open to debate. But snitching on someone and government encouraging people to snitch on their friends, corrodes our society. Like, people can‘t be friends in a society like that. So that‘s much worse than any drug, as far as I‘m concerned.
KELLERMAN: Yes, but I like the way it delineates it. It makes so clear who‘s on the right side and the wrong side here, again playing into the organizers‘ hands. In other words, the people who are so against marijuana are so low that they would pay fellow students to snitch.
But by the way, the whole—I mean, their photographs are out there. I mean, the pictures are there. So how hard is it really to identify these people? In other words, not only are the administrators in the wrong on the issue, are they in the wrong in the means in which they are attempting to enforce the law. But they‘re lazy, because they can‘t just go out and do it themselves.
CARLSON: That‘s exactly right. Go bust them yourself if you don‘t like it. I totally agree with that. Well, it is never too...
KELLERMAN: See how I did that, Tucker? I turned it around...
CARLSON: You did. You did turn it around. I knew you would never defend an anti-marijuana initiative...
KELLERMAN: I know it.
CARLSON: ... no matter what. And you didn‘t.
Well, it‘s never too early to teach your child how to dress like a pimp. That apparently is the idea behind a new line of baby clothes called Pimpfants. The line features items like baby beater tank tops, junior pimpsquad workout clothes, even velour track suits, (inaudible) gold medallions optional.
According to the company that makes Pimpfants, the clothes allow babies to “hit the playground with fresh gear and street cred and represent in style and comfort.” Max, I‘m going out on a limb here. I‘m going to say we should not turn babies into pimps. I know your firstborn will be wearing 18 karat chains and a full-length mink coat. But, look. I mean, it‘s one thing to have horrible taste. It‘s another to impose it on your kids. That‘s just wrong.
KELLERMAN: So good in style comfort, street cred and comfort. Look, in the first place, what are the objections to this? First, the word pimp. Right? OK.
CARLSON: Right. Yeah, that would be first.
KELLERMAN: Let‘s get by that for a second, because plenty of words that have negative connotations are co-opted by a subculture and then they‘re given positive connotations—bad, sick, ill, you know, pimp can be seen along those lines. So, if we‘re able to get past that first and then see, you know, it‘s ridiculous the little kids are dressed up this way. It‘s not the kids, it‘s the parents.
So how is it a reflection on the parents? Well, for instance, one of the shirts says, my mother is a MILF. I mean, that‘s—that‘s—obviously the mother is dressing—or the father is dressing the kid, and it‘s a statement about them, not the kid really. What‘s the harm?
CARLSON: The harm is, first of all, the kids look ludicrous.
Aesthetics matter. Like dressing...
KELLERMAN: Wait, they look like Ludacris, the rapper? Or they look ludicrous?
CARLSON: They look like Ludacris, exactly. You got it, exactly. Right there. OK? I love Al Sharpton. Dressing your kids up like Sharpton in circa 1984 is just objectionable, again on aesthetic grounds. Beyond that, you shouldn‘t make accessories out of your children. They are human beings, right? They are not poodles.
KELLERMAN: Well, some people treat them a little bit like poodles. Listen, look, the picture that was up on your side of the debate looked like Sweet Pea from “Popeye.” I mean is that the way to dress a kid? Don‘t say they didn‘t infantilize the infant Tucker to dress him like that. I mean, really, is there any real difference to dressing them up like a sailor?
CARLSON: Looked like one of the Romanoff children. Come on. Nobody gets the whole sailor outfit. You got me though, Max. You have clearly been in touch with the graphics people behind my back. Therefore you win the debate.
KELLERMAN: Thank you very much.
CARLSON: Max Kellerman, thank you. Have a great weekend.
KELLERMAN: You too, Tucker.
CARLSON: If you‘re actually working for a living, you know, doing crazy things like exerting effort, even sweating, it‘s time you looked into a B.S. job. That‘s B.S. as in bull merde. A B.S. job is a job that rewards minimum effort or knowledge with a big paycheck. Guru, post-modern artist, poet, vice president of the United States are just a few examples of B.S. jobs.
Stanley Bing is the author of the new book “100 B.S. Jobs: How to Get Them.” B.S., by the way, is not the term he uses in the title. Mr. Bing joins us tonight from New York. Stanley Bing, welcome.
STANLEY BING, AUTHOR: Hi. How are you doing?
CARLSON: I‘m doing—well, a little offended. I notice one of the B.S. jobs you list, in what otherwise is a terrifically accurate and really amusing book...
BING: Thank you.
CARLSON: Cable news demagogue. Well, I will tell you as a cable news demagogue, that‘s not a B.S. job. That‘s a real job.
BING: Well, you know, you act like having a B.S. job is a bad thing. I mean, I think you need to be honored to be among the—among those listed. In fact, I will tell you that the major complaint I‘ve had about the book so far is from people who feel they should have been included. So, I‘ll take your thanks as well as...
CARLSON: I notice out of all the categories—you‘ve got a lot of categories in this book. I think one of our producers counted, 37 percent of those categories have been represented on this show by guests. So we‘ve...
BING: Well, and maybe even within this hour.
CARLSON: Could be. Maybe. Certainly, in fact. Let‘s go through some of the list. I didn‘t even know some of these jobs existed. You‘ve done a lot of research.
BING: I have.
CARLSON: Aquarium cleaner for the rich.
BING: Yeah, well, you know what‘s interesting, because I thought that was a pretty much of a niche job. You know, the job is basically to go into these massive, expensive aquariums and essentially get waist deep in it, if you know what I mean. And then it turns out that the mayor of the City of New York, I read, has three of them.
CARLSON: For his house?
BING: Yes. He has three aquarium cleaners. That‘s their job. Maybe they do other things for the city. But part of their job is to clean aquariums.
CARLSON: A real man of the people there Bloomberg. Aromatherapist. I am glad you called B.S. on one of the great B.S. jobs of all time. What is an aromatherapist exactly?
BING: Someone who can cure you through exposing you to a variety of smelly substances that can change you.
CARLSON: Cure you of what?
BING: Whatever. I mean, you know, that‘s one thing about healing, about this sort of—As you see from the book, there are a number of healers in the book, and a number of people who minister to things like pets, you know, like pet therapists and pet psychics, and...
CARLSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We had a pet psychic on this program who was—I can say this honestly—totally for real.
BING: How do you know?
CARLSON: Because she read my dog. I am not making this up either.
BING: Now you know what when she said your—What‘s your dog‘s name?
BING: So, she knew what Agnes was thinking?
CARLSON: Yes, she did.
BING: Well then, then you really should buy two copies of this book.
CARLSON: Barista. You go after the poor coffeemakers?
BING: Well, no. But the reason it‘s a B.S. job is that, you know, you‘re working very hard for very short periods of time, and then there is a lot of, you know, sitting around and smelling coffee. So it‘s just—you know, actually there are a number of entry-level B.S. jobs. And the Barista is one of them, along with things like the road kill collector, and the guy who takes the crumbs off your table with one of those little implements.
CARLSON: Yeah. I think that‘s an important job.
BING: You can‘t start at the top in any field, as you know Tucker.
And you got to come in at the bottom of some B.S. jobs as well.
CARLSON: Well you‘ve got closet organizer, which is really the apex of B.S.-dom. But then you‘ve got human billboard...
CARLSON: ... which seems to me is not a B.S. job. I mean, there are people who have billboards tattooed on their bodies. I mean, that‘s kind of real.
BING: Well, there was this guy last year. And he just really appealed to me, because I was in the middle of writing the book. And he is a person who had the idea of selling his forehead space.
BING: Now, you know, taking something that‘s worthless and turning it into money, that‘s the essence of B.S. And by the way, it‘s the same spirit that moves job number one in the book, the advertising executive. I mean, what advertising executives do is they know how to sell things that people don‘t need to them, so that other people can make money.
BING: That‘s a tremendous gift. You know, I mean, all of these jobs, all of these jobs take talent and dedication, and they‘re completely lacking in content, and there‘s usually no report card or any reason for anybody to be nervous when you have those jobs.
CARLSON: Hey, I‘m glad I‘ve got one of those jobs. Stanley Bing. The book, despite your attack on cable new demagogues, is excellent. Thank you.
BING: Thank you. Thanks a lot, Tucker.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION, Stephen Colbert bombed at the White House correspondence dinner. Trust me. I was there, and saw it. Ouch. We hear next from someone who says Colbert‘s genius just went right over our heads. THE SITUATION, coming right back.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Hello?
CARLSON: Hello? Time for our voicemail segment. If it‘s Thursday, it‘s voicemails first up.
MARLENE, CALLER: Marlene from Reno, Nevada. And I think your recent interview on the Colbert presentation and your view that it went over flat wasn‘t funny. It just demonstrates how inside the beltway you are, and you don‘t understand America. And you don‘t understand how absolutely hilarious his commentary was.
CARLSON: Absolutely hilarious. I don‘t live inside the beltway incidentally. And if you think it‘s hilarious to—and edgy. Ooh, the President lied about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, that was, like, edgy four years ago. I like Stephen Colbert. If he was good, I would admit it. He was awful. I felt sorry for him. Next up. So should you.
NICK BAILEY, CALLER: Nick Bailey from New Bern, North Carolina. I think it‘s absurd that Mr. Hernandez wants to blame the United States for its addiction to drugs and to say that Mexico is complaining about it. I mean, Mexico‘s taking advantage of this problem and making lots of money off of it.
CARLSON: Of course you‘re completely right in everything you said. But Mr. Hernandez—can we get a picture of Juan Hernandez back up on the screen here? You got to admit, really, one of the great guests of all time. Would you buy someone from Juan Hernandez? He‘s just a—There he is, the great Juan Hernandez. Amazing. Next up—
DAN, CALLER: Dan from Boise, Idaho. I just want to comment on the state woman. I‘ll tell you, I spent 13 months in Iraq and was shot twice, and I haven‘t had one nightmare since. But this woman thinks that, because she got spanked, that she has nightmares? She‘s full of crumbs.
CARLSON: I think she‘s full of crumbs too, Dan. Thanks for your call. Actually it does put it in perspective. Shot twice, and you sleep well. She gets spanked, and ooh, she still cries about it.
Still ahead on THE SITUATION, the richest man in the world meets the oldest woman on the planet. There is only place that kind of rendezvous could take place. I think you know where it is. It‘s the cutting room floor. Next.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Willie Geist has snuck over the border from the rest of the show to join us here illegally in the “Cutting Room Floor” segment.
WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC: And I plan to stay. What are you going to do about it?
CARLSON: Nothing, actually. Give you amnesty I guess.
GEIST: Exactly. No cake tonight, huh, for me?
CARLSON: That was—your birthday was yesterday.
GEIST: Oh, that was just a birthday thing?
CARLSON: It was just a birthday thing. No more fudgy the whale for you.
GEIST: I thought someone was going to hand me a fudgy the whale every night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was looking forward to it.
GEIST: Cookie puffs? Nothing? OK.
There‘s nothing more obnoxious than rich people whining about the burdens of being rich people. At a Microsoft event yesterday, Bill Gates said he wishes he wasn‘t the world‘s richest man. Gates‘ current fortune is estimated at $50 billion. He said, “There is nothing good that comes out of being the richest person in the world.” He added that he hates the attention and the visibility that comes with being that rich.
GEIST: Oh, it must be terrible to be afflicted with such wealth.
CARLSON: It really must be, yeah.
GEIST: Can you imagine what that must be like? Nothing good comes out of being the richest man in the world. I can think of a few things.
CARLSON: I‘m sure he‘d be married, if he weren‘t that rich.
GEIST: Oh yeah. No he‘s got—Actually I think his wife he knew from way back. She‘s not like a recent hanger on. You know?
CARLSON: No, that‘s actually true. To his and her credit.
GEIST: I agree.
CARLSON: Good point.
Well, it doesn‘t look like a particularly happy birthday. But it was a birthday nevertheless yesterday for 128-year-old Cruise Hernandez of El Salvador. Mrs. Hernandez is unofficially the oldest living person in the world. National records from El Salvador show she was born on May 3, 1878. She‘s got 13 kids, 60 grandchildren, 80 great grandchildren, 25 great great grandchildren. The Guinness book recognizes 116-year-old Ecuadorian woman as the oldest living person. But what do they know?
GEIST: Get off your high horse Guinness. You know what? For her age, she doesn‘t look that good.
You know this reminds me of the “Seinfeld” bit where they...
CARLSON: You are the meanest man on television.
GEIST: You know the “Seinfeld” bit where he says your first and last birthdays are a lot alike. You show up. You don‘t really know who the people are. They have to tell you, these are your friends. Someone‘s feeding you cake. I didn‘t say it. Seinfeld did. And it just sort of reminded me of that.
CARLSON: I am not even going to respond, just to point out that‘s just wrong Willie.
GEIST: Good for you. I‘m sorry. Congratulations oldest woman in the world.
CARLSON: That‘s it for us tonight. Have a great weekend. We‘ll see you back here Monday.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
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.