updated 5/12/2006 11:59:14 AM ET 2006-05-12T15:59:14

Guests: James Bamford, Wendy Murphy, Jessica Denay, Max Kellerman

RITA COSBY, HOST, “LIVE AND DIRECT”:  And I‘m truly honored to receive this award on behalf of everybody who came to make this country a better place.  And now let‘s go to Tucker and THE SITUATION. 

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Congratulations, Rita.  Thanks.

COSBY:  Thanks.

CARLSON:  Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  We appreciate it, as always.

We have a lot to get to, including the latest on the story we first brought you last night, the government‘s largest spy agency sifting through your phone records.  An outrageous invasion of privacy?  Of course it is.  We‘ll talk to a former administration official who says it‘s also legal. 

Also ahead, the latest on the felon dad.  Should he go to jail for trying to help his daughter after she was seriously injured in a car crash? 

And television for babies.  A round the clock channel for infants and toddlers.  Are we raising a nation of crib potatoes?  Ew.

Plus, just in time for Mother‘s Day, “The Hot Mom‘s Handbook”, the official guide for the yummy Mummy.  We‘ll talk to an actual hot mom on set in just a few minutes.

But first tonight, a story we‘ve been following since late last night.  The revelation that the NSA has been secretly collecting information about millions of Americans‘ phone calls and possibly their e-mails and instant messages, too. 

Do they have your records?  They probably do.  But they won‘t tell you for sure, and they also won‘t tell you with what they‘re doing with the information they‘ve collected about you. 

But if anyone in the world knows how the agency works, it is my next guest.  James Bamford is the country‘s foremost civilian authority on the NSA. He is the author of “Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra Secret National Security Agency” as well as a book called “The Puzzle Palace:

Inside America‘s Most Secret Intelligence Organization”.  Mr. Bamford joins us from Washington. 

James Bamford, thanks for coming on. 

JAMES BAMFORD, AUTHOR, “BODY OF SECRETS”:  My pleasure, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  What do you think they were doing with this information, the

NSA?

BAMFORD:  Well, they collect it, for one thing, and they put it in a big vat full of lots of information.  I mean, basically, what they‘re doing is they‘re going out there and they‘re getting as much data as possible—telephone records, credit card information, what books you bought, where you‘ve stayed, the places you‘ve eaten for dinner—all that information goes into a big, big vat of data.  And then they sift through it, trying to find patterns and trying to find indications of who does what. 

CARLSON:  Patterns of what?

BAMFORD:  Well, I think you‘ve got to ask the NSA that.  I think the problem here is that they‘ve gone much too far in all this data mining.  This is basically what George Orwell wrote about in his book “1984”, gathering all this data, watching people, watching what they do. 

CARLSON:  But I thought the NSA—I mean, I remember very clearly hearing about the NSA when I lived in Washington, and the idea was it was focused outside of our borders exclusively.  I mean, how long has this been going, do you think?

BAMFORD:  Well, I think since just shortly after 9/11.  As far as I‘ve been watching NSA, written two books on it over the last—well, since 1982.

CARLSON:  Right.

BAMFORD:  And it‘s always been focused outside the United States.  It was never focused domestically, until the Bush administration, when they turned NSA‘s big ears internally and began eavesdropping illegally on American citizens without going through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. 

CARLSON:  So you honestly think it has not happened on really any scale at all before 9/11?

BAMFORD:  Well, it happened in the 1960s and early 1970s, until the revelations in the 19 -- mid-1970s from the Church Committee, when they found out NSA was doing similar type activity.  And then that‘s why they created this court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, to regulate this activity. 

So that when NSA did want to eavesdrop or target an American citizen in the United States, they had to first go to a judge who would determine whether it was proper, whether there was probable cause, what the law required.  And then the judge would decide whether or not to issue the warrant. 

What the Bush administration did was decide to bypass the court. 

CARLSON:  Right.  But I wonder—the president‘s explanation for this is, “Look, we‘re fighting terrorism.  We‘re trying to find al Qaeda cells in the United States.” 

Is it possible that any of this information could be used in the prosecution of other non-terrorist related crimes?  Would NSA give this information over to other law enforcement agencies?

BAMFORD:  Well, I think they‘d have a hard time getting a prosecution, because they‘re doing surveillance without getting any kind of a court warrant. 

There‘s—there‘s two types of warrants.  One is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court warrant, which is supposed to be used primarily for terrorism and intelligence gathering, that kind of thing.  And the other one is a criminal warrant.  So if you want to eavesdrop on somebody regarding criminal activity, you have to go to a regular court and get a warrant, what they call a Title 5 warrant. 

CARLSON:  Right.  You said a second ago that the NSA is collecting not simply telephone records and information from people‘s e-mails and instant messages, but also their ATM and credit card information?  Do you know that to be true?  And where would they get that information?

BAMFORD:  Well, NSA has the largest data mining facility in the world.  It has a new facility that it‘s been—that it‘s developed to do a lot of data mining.

NSA specializes in collecting telephone data, telephone records of who‘s calling whom, who‘s calling which country code, what time of day people are calling, how long they‘re on the phone. 

And it would show that the Pentagon had been developing a major data mining facility for bringing in all the data such as telephone—telephone credit card records.  And virtually everything that you do these days is turned into digital information and stored.  And the Pentagon was bringing all this information. 

So NSA created this enormous database, data mining facility.  And putting all that information together, you could put a very good picture of virtually anybody in the country, based on their telephone calls, their data records from credit cards and everything else. 

CARLSON:  Creepy.  James Bamford, thanks a lot. 

BANFORD:  My pleasure, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Well, my next guest defends the NSA program and says it is entirely legal.  Paul Butler is the former chief of staff for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.  He‘s also a former federal prosecutor.  He joins us tonight from Washington. 

Mr. Butler, thanks for coming on. 

PAUL BUTLER, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF FOR DONALD RUMSFELD:  Thanks for having me, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  The president said today, quote, “The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.”  That‘s just not true.  I mean, how is our privacy being protected if the government is collecting our phone records and our Internet data?

BUTLER:  There‘s a lot of confusion I just heard about what the legal framework for this is. 

CARLSON:  OK.

BUTLER:  I think it‘s important to clarify what it is. 

First of all, the FISA law deals with electronic interceptive communications.  In other words, listening in to telephone calls.  And you know, this program, if it exists, is classified.  I don‘t know the details of it and couldn‘t talk about it if I did. 

But if it is as described, it‘s merely collecting the telephone numbers that are being exchanged back and forth.  So it‘s not anybody listening in to any telephone conversations, which is what FISA regulates. 

CARLSON:  But it‘s also apparently collecting internet data. 

BUTLER:  I don‘t know that to be the case.  But if we could just sort

of go back and look at what the constitutional framework is here.  There‘s

case law from the Supreme Court from the ‘70s that makes clear that once an

individual turns over data such as telephone records, bank records to a

third party—i.e. the telephone company or bank or health care provider -

that that individual loses any expectation of privacy under the 4th amendment.  That‘s what the law says.  So there‘s no constitutional requirement to get a warrant to collect this stuff. 

CARLSON:  I absolutely believe that.  I take it at face value the idea that this is legal.  My question is a broader one.  Since when are conservatives comfortable giving government all that power over American citizens?  I mean, shouldn‘t be more wary of our government than we are?

BUTLER:  Well, you know, there‘s obviously important privacy considerations impacted by this. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

BUTLER:  But on the other side of the ledger, I mean, there‘s very important security concerns.  Everybody wants the government to “connect the dots.”  Well, this is how it‘s done.  Not in some vague, abstract, theoretical way, but in the hard digging through data, to understand how terrorists operate and function both outside and within the United States.  Now, we—we can debate about what degree of privacy we need to trade for security, but...

CARLSON:  It‘s not simply privacy.  The RICO statute—RICO was, as far as I know, created to go after organized crime, like the Mafia. 

BUTLER:  That‘s correct.

CARLSON:  And then you saw it used to go after all sorts of other people.  You know, investment bankers, drug dealers, maybe you.  You know, it was broadened in its application over time, because that‘s the way government works. 

BUTLER:  That‘s correct. 

CARLSON:  And conservatives pointed to that appeared say this is a scary example where why you want to think through the powers you give government.  Why, again, is a conservative administration and it‘s many conservative defenders standing up and saying calm down.  We‘re not going to give you any details.  Trust us, and expecting the rest of us to trust them?

BUTLER:  Will, I think first of all there are legal reviews on this and there‘s a statutory framework that governs how this information can be released. 

The president stated today that Congress has been informed about the nature of the program, and it‘s important that some of these programs remain classified, because once we reveal our capabilities to a very thinking enemy, we lose severe advantages. 

CARLSON:  I understand.  I think people get that.  But how about every once in a while, once a year, we could get concrete examples from the administration of al Qaeda plots foiled with this or other intelligence that we gather.  We almost never hear about the successes, if they in fact exist.  We all assume they do exist.  We haven‘t been attacked again.  But why don‘t we ever get any knowledge at all of what the administration‘s doing with this information?

BUTLER:  Well, it‘s important that the public know what‘s being done here, but also it‘s important that, you know, for these very sensitive operations, that we not go along providing a scorecard to people who watch our every move and react to it.  This is a tough business.  There‘s no question about it. 

CARLSON:  Yes, it is.  It‘s just that the administration is asking an awful lot, I think, of the American people: trust us, trust us, trust us.  And at a certain point, I don‘t know, give us a good reason to trust you. 

I think that‘s how many people feel.

BUTLER:  I think it‘s important to remember—and again, I‘m not familiar with the details of what may or may not be going on here, but this data, as I understand it, is not personalized data.  It‘s telephone numbers contacting telephone numbers.  Not individuals‘ names, Social security numbers.  And so I think the rights to privacy under those circumstances are implicated to some degree less.  It‘s a balancing act, for sure. 

CARLSON:  I have a sense we‘re about to find out a lot more about it. 

Thanks a lot for coming on.

BUTLER:  Thank you for having me.

CARLSON:  Still to come, is there finally DNA evidence linking one of the Duke lacrosse player to the stripper who‘s accused them of rape?  Possibly.  We‘ll bring you the very latest.

Plus, a new television channel made exclusively for babies debuted today.  Do we really want our infants plopped in front of the television for hours on end?  Is the media exploiting toddlers and their parents?  Of course we are.  We‘ll bring you answers when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, is America ready for a channel created specifically for babies?

Plus, disgraced author and Oprah enemy No. 1 James Frey has lied again.  We‘ll tell you how he embarrassed himself this time when THE SITUATION comes back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Now the latest on that unfolding miscarriage of justice in Durham, North Carolina, the Duke rape investigation. 

The first round of DNA tests failed to link those two lacrosse players to the alleged rape.  Now prosecutors say they have new evidence.  A DNA sample that could point to a third player has been found under a fake fingernail allegedly worn by the accuser and found in a trash can in the bathroom. 

The “Durham Herald-Sun” reported today the tissue under the fingernail was, quote, “consistent” with one of the 46 lacrosse player to give DNA samples.  What does this mean for the case, if anything? 

For more we turn now to former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, joining us tonight from Boston. 

Wendy, welcome. 

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Good to see you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  I hate to do this, Wendy, but I want to throw a sound bite of you on this very show.  Not to be mean, but merely—merely to illustrate the limits of our knowledge about this case.  Here‘s you, Wendy Murphy, talking about the case.  Here we go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURPHY:  Why don‘t you talk about the absence of DNA evidence?  Oops, you‘re not going to mention that one tonight, are you, Tucker?  Because now we know the truth.  It was because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn‘t produce DNA when you put it inside someone‘s...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  A broom handle.  Well, it turns out today we got the entire 15-page transcript of the alleged victim talking to police as she looked at the pictures of her alleged attackers.  In that transcript she describes sex acts pretty specifically, no mention of a broomstick.  It turns out no broomstick in this attack, one of the many, quote, “facts” that have evaporated as more real facts come out.  What say you?

MURPHY:  Now, look, I‘m glad you‘re offering up this opportunity, because the reason the broomstick came out was not I was making it up, because actually, there is no DNA on the broomstick.  And it would be a nice theoretical explanation.

But it was because that‘s what her father said.

CARLSON:  Yes.

MURPHY:  When her father described that that‘s what she said happened, it was reasonable to assume that he was telling the truth.  And I‘ll tell you something.  I‘m not sure we‘ve heard the end of the story in terms of what was done to her. 

What we know from the identification transcript is that, according to her statements, Seligmann orally sodomized her, Finnerty used his penis to both anally and vaginally penetrate her, and I‘m not sure we know yet very much about who did anything with the broom.  So let‘s just put this...

CARLSON:  I read the transcript.  And here‘s what we learned.  We learned that, in fact, maybe four people attacked her.  She originally said 20 raped her.  In the transcript...

MURPHY:  No, she didn‘t.  Don‘t misstate that.  She did not.  That was the Duke police mischaracterization of evidence they knew nothing about.  All right? 

CARLSON:  I don‘t think you‘re right, but I‘ll just tell you what I read today which is totally real.  It‘s verbatim. 

MURPHY:  OK.

CARLSON:  And she says, well, maybe four people did it, because she identified four.  She wasn‘t exactly sure. 

Then the guy who did it, if he had a mustache, it turned out.  How many players on the Duke team have mustaches?  I don‘t think any.  But the guy who got her had a mustache, she said.

Then it turns out that in fact, she—they, the prosecutor‘s unable to link the two guys that they have charged with this crime with any DNA at all.  Right?  So I mean, there actually is no—her story changes day to day and there‘s zero evidence. 

MURPHY:  First of all, look.  No.  First of all, the DNA that came out today is very strong evidence that‘s going to support her credibility if, in fact, it matches the guy that she felt 90 percent certain about was part of the assault.  So let‘s not not tell the truth about how important this little bit of DNA evidence is. 

CARLSON:  Would that be the guy with the mustache, quote?

MURPHY:  No, no.  Look it, I don‘t know about the mustache.  I don‘t know about guys who—look, maybe a guy had some shadow, some hair on his lip.  Who cares?  I don‘t want to talk about the mustache.  I want to talk about the importance of finding DNA that corroborates her credibility.  And then with regard to the other guys...

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  These two guys have been—these two guys have been charged.  She says that they raped her, not with a broom stick but physically.

MURPHY:  Yes, yes.

CARLSON:  And yet there is still no DNA connecting them to this.

MURPHY:  So let‘s do segue nicely—let‘s do segue nicely to the potential other piece of DNA that you apparently don‘t want to talk about, the pubic hair that was found that is at this point matched to a white male.  It has not yet been typed in terms of the classic DNA evidence that we know about and talk about a lot, but it could be still typed with regard to very, very valuable DNA called mitochondrial DNA. 

And if that just happens to match the guy who did assault her vaginally and anally, what are you going to say then, Tucker, if his pubic hair shows up in the evidence package?  What are you going to say, Tucker?

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  Probably nothing. 

MURPHY:  Well, then stop saying that it‘s a fraud. 

CARLSON:  The fact is this case is not even going to make it to trial, because Nifong himself concedes that this lineup, these pictures were shown to the alleged victim three weeks after the event allegedly took place.  That he didn‘t even put pictures up of everyone at the party, only of the lacrosse team.  He concedes that.  This whole thing is ridiculous from day one.

MURPHY:  Let‘s talk about that.  Let‘s do talk about that.  Because

the premise of the defense criticism of the photo array lineup is based on

their premise is  that she could not have made a mistake, because when you put all the players‘ pictures up there, she was going to pick somebody who was surely there and isn‘t that a terrible way to do a lineup?

Well, let me tell you something.  According to Durham president, the president of the university, he said March 22 in a press release, many players weren‘t there that night.  Well, what does that tell us?  It tells us the defense motion is a bunch of nonsense, because if many players weren‘t there, it‘s a darned good chance if this was a hoax that she could have gotten it wrong. 

CARLSON:  The president of the university has no bearing on any of this.

MURPHY:  It‘s a bunch of spin and nonsense from the defense camp. 

CARLSON:  WRAL television in Durham, North Carolina, has on its web site right now the transcript of her interview with the police.  It‘s 15 pages long.  It is worth reading. 

MURPHY:  It is worth reading. 

CARLSON:  You realize this woman is shooting in the dark, that she really has no idea who allegedly raped her.  I don‘t think any person coming to this case cold and reading that... 

MURPHY:  She said I‘m 100 percent certain it was this guy and that guy.  And the third guy I think who‘s about to be indicted is apparently named Dan.  There are four Dans on the team.  I want to put some money on the fact that a Dan will be indicted next week. 

CARLSON:  A Dan will be indicted.  OK.  Falsely, by the way, because this whole story...

MURPHY:  Based on DNA.  DNA, Tucker.  DNA.

CARLSON:  Wendy Murphy, I appreciate you coming on.  And I‘ll appreciate even more your groveling apology to the players you so falsely accused when the time comes.  Thanks for joining us.

MURPHY:  Don‘t hold your breath. 

CARLSON:  I will. 

Still to come, an update on the story we first brought you last night.  Why was this Florida physician arrested and charged with a felony after trying to reach his daughter who had been injured in a car accident? 

Plus, with Mother‘s Day just around the corner, we ask the all-important question: is it really more fun to be a hot mom, rather than just a non-hot mom.  I‘ll ask the author of the excellent new book, “The Hot Mom‘s Handbook”, when we come back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.

Children‘s television has come a long way since “Sesame Street”.  And if you don‘t have the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network were overkill, wait until you hear about a new network, this one dedicated exclusively to infants. 

Baby First Television features around-the-clock television programming for babies.  And as NBC‘s Lisa Daniels reports, some parents already have a pretty big problem with it. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA DANIELS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  It‘s launch day for Baby First TV.  Its target audience, the three and younger crowd.  The first ever network designed specifically for babies and their parents.        

But 1-year-old twins Luke and Kayla won‘t see any of it, not if Dad, Adam Kushner (ph), has any say. 

(on camera) So when it comes to your children watching TV, what is your rule?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  My rule is they‘re not allowed to watch it at all. 

DANIELS (voice-over):  But his wife, Louise, defends some viewing. 

(on camera) What‘s your philosophy when it comes to the children watching TV?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I think there are, you know, certain programs and certain educational programs that I feel that, you know, I‘m totally OK with them. 

DANIELS (voice-over):  And its creators say that‘s the point.  It‘s educational, interactive, and now available 24-7 on satellite.  But pediatrician Dr. Danielle Laraque doesn‘t buy the educational value. 

DR. DANIELLE LARAQUE, PEDIATRICIAN:  We know the children learn best through personal interaction, both a cognitive and social-emotional health. 

DANIELS:  And even though the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn‘t recommend television for children aged 2 or younger, America‘s viewing habits are quite different.  One study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than 2/3 of children under two watch TV or videos daily, a reality hard to ignore, according to Dr. Edward McCabe, the president of the American Pediatric Society. 

DR. EDWARD MCCABE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PEDIATRIC SOCIETY:  Let‘s help parents find the right content to help them have TV for their kids and can help the kids learn and help the parents interact with their kids. 

DANIELS:  Back at the Kushner household, a dilemma. 

(on camera) So your husband says no TV, and you say it‘s OK within moderation.  Who‘s going to win this battle?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I am. 

DANIELS (voice-over):  And she may have lots of company, when parents need realize a much-needed break is just one click away. 

Lisa Daniels, NBC News, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Got to admit, I‘m torn by this story.  I like it when people watch TV, particularly when those people are Nielson families with good taste in cable news programming.

On the other hand, let‘s be honest.  TV is addictive.  Not like shoe shopping addictive or got to have another Oreo addictive.  More like Marlboro red first thing in the morning addictive: seriously addictive, like crack. 

Don‘t believe me?  Check out your average high-end hotel room these days.  There isn‘t a TV set in the john by accident.  It‘s there because people watch it, people who can‘t bear to be away from the tube even for a second. 

Consider the airlines.  There‘s one obviously reason JetBlue makes a profit when United and American don‘t.  TVs in the seat backs. 

So with that in mind, what will happen when a new generation of kids gets hooked on television before they‘re even old enough to use a clicker?  Get ready for some hardcore addicts.  You thought TVs in the bathroom were excessive.  Prepare yourself: these kids will be watching in the shower.  Look forward to that.

Still to come, should online gambling be illegal?  The government thinks so.  We‘ll tell you why. 

Plus getting booted from “American Idol” could be a blessing in disguise for Chris Daughtry.  We‘ll tell you which rock band wants to scoop him up and make him their front man, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, the secret to being a hot mom from an actual hot mom.  Plus, Oprah nemesis James Frey is back to his old tricks.  We‘ll tell you what he‘s lying about now.

But first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.

(NEWSBREAK)

CARLSON:  We turn to a man we have on every night because of a threatening letter writer campaign from his fan club.  He is “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  At least they‘re good for something, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  They are good.  They‘re loyal to you, Max. 

Well, if you like to gamble on the Internet, it might soon be time to place your final bets.  There‘s a bill before the House Judiciary Committee that would outlaw all Internet gambling in the U.S.

The ban would affect the estimated 2,300 gambling web sites that generate about $6 billion a year from U.S. customers.  Under the proposed law, cops would be able to stop credit car and electronic payments to the popular offshore sites, possibly with the help of the NSA.  Just kidding. 

I‘m against this, because I think the government‘s motives are wrong.  Max, despite spending most of his waking hours in Vegas, is stridently opposed to gambling, and so he‘s for it. 

Max, if the government were to say, look, gambling hurts people.  It‘s bad.  It‘s morally wrong, I would still probably be against this bill.  But at least that‘s a real argument.  The government doesn‘t like online gambling because it cuts into the revenue they get from fleecing dumb people with the lottery.  It‘s just greed.

KELLERMAN:  Well, I don‘t know.  I don‘t think people are not buying lottery tickets because they‘re gambling, Tucker.  I mean, a couple bucks for lottery tickets.

And if people are spending hundreds of dollars on lottery tickets, shame on them and maybe shame on me.  Because maybe I do, too.  I‘m not sure.

Look, what‘s this really about?  First of all, you said you‘re just kidding about the NSA.  Who knows?

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  Who knows?  That‘s right.

KELLERMAN:  But OK, what‘s this really about?  These—it‘s not the lottery money, Tucker.  The government can‘t tax this money that‘s in these offshore accounts.

CARLSON:  Exactly.  That‘s right.

KELLERMAN:  These are enterprising entrepreneurs who found a loophole in the system, and this is the government correcting the system.  I mean, that is constantly what happens.  Then the really enterprising among them will find more loopholes, and eventually, the government will catch up again. 

CARLSON:  It just bothers me when the government fills its coffers from activities that are bad for people.  The government says smoking is bad, don‘t smoke.  Drinking too much is bad.  And yet the government needs the money is gets from cigarettes and beer. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  And in fact, if the government was really opposed to smoking to the extent that it would seem, then they wouldn‘t benefit from these—they wouldn‘t cut deals with the cigarette companies that, in essence, enrich the government and continue to allow people to smoke. 

In this case, though, Tucker, it‘s less like cigarettes or even marijuana being legalized, which is largely harmless.  It‘s like legalizing cocaine.  There are people who can use cocaine in moderation, I‘m sure, but a very small percentage.  And the deleterious effects are so widespread, that it‘s just illegal wherever you go. 

CARLSON:  Then—then government shouldn‘t sponsor gambling.  That‘s my view.

And now for the most absurd story not just of this week but maybe of the entire millennium so far.  An L.A. man who was denied a Mother‘s Day tote bag during a giveaway at an Anaheim Angels baseball game last year now is suing the team for discrimination.  Now, we‘re not making this up.

Michael Cohen has filed a class action suit that alleges thousands of male fans were discriminated against when the team gave out these lovely tote bags to women 18 and older but not to men.  Cohen says men and people under the age of 18 who were at the game that day are entitled to $4,000 each. 

Max, I don‘t really think I need to state my position on this out loud.  I just want to hear you defend this guy. 

KELLERMAN:  All right.  Well, there are two ways to defend this ridiculous position.  One, I called my wife, the attorney, about this, when I saw this topic, by the way.  And she said, “I don‘t know.  I guess under equal protection, if the stadium receives any government money, then they‘re entitled to equal protection and then you can‘t discriminate according to gender.” 

But Tucker, here‘s the real argument against this.  OK?  It‘s the proliferation of these ridiculous so-called holidays, the Hallmark holidays, Mother‘s Day, Father‘s Day, Valentine‘s Day, Take Your Child to Work Day.  Do we really need these days?  I mean, Hallmark wins, the rest of us lose. 

Any lawsuit that in any way deters people from further proliferating these kind of holidays and actually celebrating them is OK in my book. 

CARLSON:  You sound like a man who has not yet bought your Mother‘s Day presents and is—and is resentful at having to do it.  Look, this guy ought to wait for Father‘s Day.  People—people who file frivolous lawsuits, though, I‘m grateful to them for giving us ammunition for this show, I think ought to be sent to jail, just on... 

KELLERMAN:  Although in this case, he‘s asking for $4,000.  And he‘s saying that it‘s a class action, so every guy there he wants to gets $4,000.  It‘s not like he‘s getting rich off of it. 

There seems to be some kind of principled reason for this suit and not just to make a quick buck.  First of all, it‘s not going to—there‘s no way he can win this suit.  And secondly, it‘s not like he‘s suing for a million dollars. 

CARLSON:  You say that.  You say there‘s no way he could win.  The woman who was suing because she got spanked at some sort of event. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, she was suing for $1.7 million. 

CARLSON:  And she got it.  She got it.

KELLERMAN:  This guy is suing for four grand.  He‘ll probably get it. 

CARLSON:  Thank you, Max.  Welcome back. 

Men have always been fascinated by attractive moms.  If all things are equal, most men would take the good-looking mother over the good-looking non-mother every time.  Men have even developed a universal four-letter acronym, shorthand for a desirable mom.  Look it up on the Internet is you don‘t know what we‘re talking about.  We can‘t say it on the air.

So what is it about a hot mom that drives men crazy, and how can you at home become a hot mom yourself?  Assuming, of course, you‘re a mom.  For the answers we turn now to Jessica Denay.  She is co-founder of the Hot Moms Club and the author of the book, “The Hot Mom‘s Handbook”.  Jessica joins us in the studio tonight. 

Jessica, welcome. 

JESSICA DENAY, AUTHOR, “THE HOT MOM‘S HANDBOOK”:  Thank you.  You know, Tucker, there‘s never been a better time to be a mom than now. 

CARLSON:  Why is that?

DENAY:  You know, just motherhood has taken on a whole new turn.  It‘s like, good-bye soccer moms.  It‘ all about being a hot mom.  And that‘s a woman who is confident and empowered. 

CARLSON:  And wears things like that.  What is that?

DENAY:  This is a Hot Moms Club T-shirt. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Hardly a T-shirt, Jessica. 

DENAY:  A tank top.  There we go.

CARLSON:  It‘s so much better than a T-shirt.  Right.

So are moms—I mean, this is just informal survey I‘ve been conducting myself for the last decade or so, moms are getting more attractive, I notice. 

DENAY:  Well, yes.  You know what?  I think what it is, is women are having children later in life now.

CARLSON:  yes.

DENAY:  So they‘ve had sometimes 10, 15, sometimes 20 years of style and work and travel.  And they don‘t want to give it up once they have children.  It‘s not like people who are having children in their early 20s before they were career moms.  So it‘s a whole different breed of mothers. 

CARLSON:  How can you become a hot mom?

DENAY:  You know, every mom, I say everyone is already a hot mom.  She just has to let her loose.  There‘s a hot mom in there. 

CARLSON:  OK.

DENAY:  She may not know it yet.  But you know, there‘s the book, “The Hot Mom‘s Handbook”, outlines eight steps to becoming and staying a hot mom.  It‘s my personal journey, along with inspirational quotes and stories from the most fascinating moms I know. 

CARLSON:  Ditch the sweats.  No. 2.  Ditch the sweats.  I see a lot of

I work at night, so I‘m around my neighborhood all day long with the moms.  I‘m like the unemployed guy in the neighborhood, basically.  A lot of women wear sweats all day long.  That‘s bad, you say?

DENAY:  Well, you know what?  I mean that as figuratively as I do literally.  And by saying ditch the sweats, you know, whatever‘s convenient.  A lot of times we just do—I went through, like the millions of moms out there, I wore the same outfit three days in a row.  I got consumed in motherhood.  I lost myself.

CARLSON:  Yes.

DENAY:  And I ran more errands than laps around the track.  And you know, I was unhappy.  And I thought that was the way to being a good mom was to devote my life and let my whole world revolve around my son.  The truth is you‘re not the best mom unless you‘re the best you.  And when you feel that on the inside, you want to reflect it on the outside.

CARLSON:  And that means having a ton of sex?

DENAY:  Absolutely. 

CARLSON:  OK, and so how does that—I mean...

DENAY:  Let‘s just jump right there. 

CARLSON:  No, sorry.  But that‘s what the book says.  How does one find the time, though, if you‘re a mom?  How do you find the time to get in touch with the inner you, as you put it?

DENAY:  You know, I say there‘s a lot of different ways.  First of all, you have to remember that you are—that you are still a woman.  Once you become a mom, you‘re not just a mom.  You‘re a mom in addition to all the other amazing things that you are.  You‘re just broadened now. 

It‘s not easy as mothers.  But you know, as mothers we‘re multitasking goddesses.  So you know what?  Just about as you schedule that doctor‘s appointment or, you know, you schedule a nanny for work or whatever you have to do, you schedule “you time” each week, whether it‘s to go get a pedicure, go read a book, go take a hike, go on a date with your husband or your boyfriend.  Make that time, make it just as important as anything else, a priority you can‘t miss.  And if you realize that you deserve it, guilt-free, you‘ll do it.  You‘ll make time for it. 

CARLSON:  Kathy Lee Gifford a hot mom?

DENAY:  Absolutely.  She‘s in the book.

CARLSON:  Is she really? 

DENAY:  Absolutely.

CARLSON:  Let me ask you a quick, final kind of non-sequitur question.  The UPS man, is that true, that all hot moms love the UPS man?  Waiting at home to have an affair with the UPS man?  Is there something to that?

DENAY:  You know, I don‘t know about that one. 

CARLSON:  You suspect it‘s kind of true?

DENAY:  Maybe.  I‘ll have to check into that.  We‘ll do a survey.

CARLSON:  Name a couple of your favorite hot moms.

DENAY:  There‘s so many.  Goldie Hawn. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

DENAY:  She‘s a hot mom and glama. 

CARLSON:  A what?

DENAY:  A glama.  Not a grandma.  We don‘t say grandma.  We say glama. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  I‘m not sure if I‘m ready to accept glamas yet. 

DENAY:  Lauren Holly wrote the forward to the book.  She‘s a hot mom.  Kelley Preston.  She‘s in the book, a hot mom.  Cher submitted a quote for the book.  Carnie Wilson‘s a great mom.  There‘s so many in Hollywood today.  There‘s amazing moms. 

My mom gave a quote for the book. 

CARLSON:  Outstanding. 

DENAY:  We have an 81-year-old hot mom in there who tells you how to keep it hot after 60 years of marriage. 

CARLSON:  Wow.  Well, you know what?  I don‘t even know what your beliefs about anything else are, but on this one subject you and I are in strong agreement.  Hot moms, go for it.

DENAY:  Well, I hear that you have a hot—that your wife is a very hot mom. 

CARLSON:  I think so. 

All right.  Jessica Denay, thank you, “The Hot Mom‘s Handbook”, available at book stores near you.  And I hope it will be on bedside tables across America.  Thank you. 

DENAY:  I hope so.

CARLSON:  Thank you, Jessica.

Coming up tonight, Patrick Kennedy is hiding out in rehab.  We still want to know, though, what exactly was going on the night of his bizarre early morning car wreck.  We‘ll look into it. 

Plus, we‘ll take you inside a real-life fight club.  Teens arrange brawls, record them, then rake in cash by selling the videos.  We‘ll tell you how they‘re getting away with it when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, the favorite was kicked off “American Idol” last night.  Now he‘s got an offer to be the lead singer of a multi-platinum selling band.  We‘ll tell you which one.

Plus, Tucker responds to your voicemails.

CARLSON:  Bring them on.  THE SITUATION comes back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  It‘s Thursday.  That means it‘s time for your voicemails.  They piled up all week.  Let‘s listen to some. 

First up.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CALLER:  This is Jim from Denver.  Just watched your interview with the commander of the Florida state police.  You‘re right, the police don‘t like being disobeyed.  That‘s the crux of the matter here.  It wasn‘t that they had the situation well in hand or anything like that.  It‘s just they like to tell people what to do.  I hope they drop the charges on this guy, and like you said, they should be ashamed of themselves. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  They ought to be ashamed.  This guy‘s daughter is in a car wreck.  She‘s in severe condition.  He‘s a physician.  “No sir, you can‘t go further.”  Then they charge him with a felony because he tries to get to his own daughter?  They ought to be—they ought to be in jail, actually, for that, in my view. 

Next up. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CALLER:  This is Annie from Newport News, Virginia.  Regarding the illegal immigration.  What I don‘t understand is how they feel free to protest in our country against our laws, yet I never have heard any of their citizens protesting against their country‘s corruption or their lack of education for good jobs for their own people. 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Great point.  They‘re here because Mexico is a poorly run kleptocracy.  No one ever says that, though, and no one protests Mexico because it‘s not fashionable to attack Mexico.  It‘s always fashionable to attack the United States, unfortunately.

Next up. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CALLER:  This is Mike from Bobtown, Pennsylvania.  On that Patrick Kennedy having the accident, now he‘s saying that he took Ambien and Phenergan.  That‘s still a DUI, under the law.  You know, it‘s not just for intoxication.  If you‘re under the influence of drugs, even prescription drugs, it‘s still a DUI. 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CARLSON:  No kidding?  No kidding?  Which is what the judge would say to you or me if we were busted for that, but Patrick Kennedy, oh no, he‘s very brave for facing up to his addiction and his troubles and seeking the help he needs.  No one even mentions the fact the guy was driving so loaded he bounced off a barrier and almost hit a police car.  If that happened to you or that happened to me, we‘d be—you know, we‘d be in jail. 

Next up.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CALLER:  Hi, Tucker.  I‘m Liz from Bettendorf, Iowa.  And since you‘ve been declaring a ceasefire on Tom Cruise, my friend Maude (ph) and I thought that you and Willie should pay a tribute with a dance at the end of the show. 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Actually funny you said that, Liz.  We‘re not going to dance, obviously, at the end of the show, but we dance almost every night before the show, as kind of a little warm-up exercise.  Take a look.  This is Willie and me before the show. 

(MUSIC)

CARLSON:  Literally, every night.  With the cameraman and the audio guys, that‘s us.  It gets us loose for the show.  You ought to be here.  It‘s a great time. 

Well, still ahead on THE SITUATION, drugs, women and creative differences have tragically broken up some of the greatest bands ever.  We‘ll tell you what‘s come between members of the world‘s hottest little person KISS tribute band in just a minute. 

But before we go to break tonight, it‘s time for tonight‘s installment of “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”. 

“The Bad,” being kicked off “American Idol” last night has become “The Good” of an offer for Chris Daughtry to become the lead singer of the popular band Fuel.  Daughtry was considered the favorite to win “Idol”, but he was shockingly voted off the show last night.  The multi-platinum selling Fuel saw Daughtry perform one of its song on “Idol” and decided he‘d make a good front man, so they hired him. 

“The Bad” tonight is James Frey‘s understanding of the word “memoir.”  Frey has now admitted portions of his second book, “My Friend Leonard”, were also fabricated.  He‘s put an author‘s note in the paperback edition of the book that reads, quote, “To call this book pure nonfiction would be inaccurate.”  A very indirect way of saying, “I lied.” 

Frey previously admitted under intense scrutiny that his best-selling book, “A Million Little Pieces” was also a fraud. 

And “The Ugly,” a real-life verse of “Fight Club”.  These brawls were recorded and sold on DVDs by a group of Texas teens.  The two-hour video shows fights in schools, restaurants and in the streets of Arlington, Texas.  The 17- and 18-year-old producers of the DVD have been now arrested.  They claim they didn‘t arrange the fights, they simply filmed them. 

That‘s tonight‘s edition of “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”.  We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor”.  And that means Willie Geist—Willie. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Hello, Tucker.  That was a nice little look behind the curtain we gave of our pre-show routine with the dancing. 

I want to say for the record, I was kidding, of course.  That‘s not how I really dance.  You, on the other hand, were being serious.  I was trying to make you feel good about your dance moves. 

CARLSON:  First of all, Willie, that was all totally, totally real. 

Nothing has been staged for dramatic affect. 

GEIST:  No.  That‘s how we get loose before the show.  And it works. 

I think the blood rushes to the brain.  You get more creative.

CARLSON:  Totally.  You get ready for the hot mom segment doing that. 

GEIST:  Again, you‘re dead serious.  I‘m totally kidding, totally kidding on the dancing. 

CARLSON:  I was kind of serious.  I was kind of serious.

The pressure of being the world‘s premier little person KISS tribute band has finally gotten to Tiny KISS.  Drummer L‘il Tim Loomis was kicked out of the group after a dramatic closed door meeting held by the band‘s other members. 

Tiny KISS appeared cohesive and focused in their appearance on this show just one short month ago.  But the band felt L‘il Tim was secretly befriending members of their rival group, Mini KISS. 

Base guitarist Wee Matt said, quote, “Tim got soft.  He was acting like a midget.” 

Did he really say that, Willie?

GEIST:  Yes, that‘s a direct quote.  It‘s a derogatory term in their world.  There he is.  Right there.  Our boys from the show. 

Little Tom, by the way, if Little Tom goes over to Mini KISS, the balance of power in the (AUDIO GAP) tribute band really shifts. 

CARLSON:  Completely. 

GEIST:  It totally changes, because right now, obviously, Tiny KISS stands alone.  But if he goes over there, you‘re looking at a new ballgame. 

CARLSON:  I completely agree.  Thank you for that analysis.

GEIST:  Sure.  Tryouts, by the way, for the new one, new drummer, June 14 in Vegas. 

CARLSON:  What are the requirements?

GEIST:  Be a little person who likes KISS.  Small school.

CARLSON:  Rolling Stones lead guitarist, speaking of music and walking contradictions, the conclusions of modern medicine, Keith Richards was released from the hospital in New Zealand yesterday after a two-week stay to treat a head injury he suffered it when he fell out of a tree. 

In a statement today, Richards thanks both doctors and, quote, “the beautiful ladies who make painful nights less painful and shorter.”  It sounds like Keith was well attended to during his stay in a New Zealand hospital. 

GEIST:  Tucker, this really speaks to the power of being a rock star.  He‘s 62 years old.  He‘s essentially a corpse.  He fell out of a coconut tree, and he‘s still slaying the nurses in the hospital.  God, it‘s good to be a rock star. 

He won‘t die, by the way, either.  They tried to push him out of a tree, he had a brain aneurysm.  Heroin groupies, forget it.

CARLSON:  I love that.  They tried to push him out.  The government, the NSA again. 

GEIST:  Right. 

CARLSON:  Well, the unofficial heaviest person in the world is taking a major step toward losing that dubious title.  A team of Italian doctors has traveled to Mexico to perform gastric bypass surgery on Manuel Uribe.  Uribe weighs an almost inconceivable 1,200 pounds.  He‘s been bed-ridden for at least five years, and the pre-procedure might save his life.  There he is.

GEIST:  I am not going to make fun of this, because I think it‘s good.  I‘m not sure how it gets to that point.  But one thing I will point out, like being the most prolific serial killer, heaviest person in the world is not a Guinness distinction you really want in your resume. 

CARLSON:  I thought it was Robert Earl Waldo.  Wobblo (ph).

GEIST:  I‘ll have to look it up.  I don‘t know; 1,200 pounds has to be at least near the top. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  There‘s no scale who can weigh him, so we don‘t actually know how much he weighs. 

GEIST:  We‘ll never know.

CARLSON:  Amazing.

It‘s time to meet the toughest grandmother in America.  Seventy-four-year-old Connie Gittlis—Gittles, rather, was doing some gardening in Punta Gorda, Florida, this week when a six-foot alligator attacked her. 

The gator wrapped its jaws around her leg, but she beat it in the head with her garden hose until it scurried back into the water.  Gittles said simply she didn‘t have time to be distracted from her gardening by some little alligator attack. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONSTANCE GITTLES, ATTACKED BY ALLIGATOR:  I had to finish my job.  I‘m determined.  I got my watering day is Tuesday; it‘s got to be Tuesday morning. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GEIST:  My watering day is Tuesday.  So you just move right on from the alligator attack.  Awesome.  Happy Mother‘s Day.  She is a superstar.

CARLSON:  She is a Germanic schedule, isn‘t she? 

GEIST:  The gator ought to be ashamed.  You don‘t let a—oh, stop it.  Crazy. 

CARLSON:  Willie Geist, that‘s it for us tonight.  We‘ll see you Monday.  Have a great weekend. 

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

END   

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

Transcripts

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

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,