The Ed Show for Friday, October 3rd, 2014

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: October 3, 2014

Guest: Deborah Burger, Jim McDermott, David Cay Johnston, John Banzhaf,
Steven Weisman, Zerlina Maxwell, John Fugelsang


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: This is the Ed Show on MSNBC. You`ve been
watching the White House officials at a briefing on the Ebola outbreak.
They emphasize that Americans should feel confident about the United
States` response and public health infrastructure. Moments ago, Health and
Human Service Secretary Sylvia Burwell said the CDC has been sending out
guidelines.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURWELL: We`ve been working for many months to ensure that the United
States is protected. CDC sent out our first guidelines to state and local
officials on July 28 and it`s been followed with six additional sets of
guidelines and the latest was just issued yesterday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, the nurses on the ground say they aren`t getting that
information. A National Nurses United survey found 80 percent of nurses
say their hospital has not communicated any policy on Ebola patient
admission. 87 percent say their hospital has not provided Ebola education
with the ability to even ask questions. And one-third of the nurses say
their hospital has insufficient supplies of eye protection and fluid
resistant gowns.

The CDC has said that they will be able to stop Ebola in the United States
and of course, that`s good news but, the bottom line is, doctors, nurses,
and all health care professionals need to be on the same page. Nurses need
a proper gear, they need the resources. There has been a protocol to like
what Dr. Nancy had outlined earlier this morning, Dr. Nancy Snyderman who
is being quarantined for some 21 days.

I want to bring in tonight Deborah Burger. She is the Co-President of the
National Nurses United. Her organization has had these surveys out there.
Deborah, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

DEBORAH BURGER, NATIONAL NURSES UNITED CO-PRESIDENT: Thank you for taking
my time.

SCHULTZ: I`d like you to respond to what you -- you bet. I -- I`m -- I
want you to respond to what you heard at the White House press conference
here within the last half hour, anything that jumped out that you`d like to
point out.

BURGER: What jumped out is that they still are maintaining that they have
this under control and that we all should not worry because it won`t come
to a community near them but the reality is our survey clearly shows that
we are not ready in America`s hospitals to deal with any kind of major
communicable disease of this nature.

SCHULTZ: Should there be a standard operating procedure like Dr. Nancy
Snyderman outlined earlier today? What do you think needs to be done?

BURGER: We know that they need to have a standardized plan that is
implemented in every single hospital. Currently, our health care system
allows for private hospitals to decide what protocols they choose to
follow, what kind of personal protection they choose to supply and what
kind of isolation rooms and how they handle waste and we`re saying that we
believe as nurses, we can only provide safe case if we have say, staffing,
if we have adequate resources and if we have adequate personal protection
to protect the health care providers from this communicable disease.

SCHULTZ: So, Miss Burger, what I`m hearing is that you just can`t leave it
to local officials to get this right. There has to be some standards that
are going to be met and some national protocol to deal with this Ebola
virus. Am I hearing correctly? Is that what you`re saying?

BURGER: You`re absolutely hearing it correctly because what`s happening
now is our health care system is very fragmented. We have a privatized
health care system. If we had a public health care system which the CDC
was referring to at the press conference, we would be in much better shape
right now, but unfortunately, we have what is in place which is Aetna,
Kaiser, Sutter and all these other health care providers deciding what
they`re going to implement and we think that it should all be mandatory.

And the other thing is this reliance on technology that they`re using for
standardized protocols. There`s no standardized protocol in place
currently for dealing with Ebola and that`s what we`ve been shouting about
for the last several months.

SCHULTZ: Well, I want you to readdress this, 80 percent of the nurses in
your organization say their hospital has not communicated any policy on
Ebola patient admission. Now, is it that they don`t know what to
communicate and they`re not sure exactly what their policy of isolation and
protocol would be even on a local level?

BURGER: I think it`s all of the above. If you talk -- If you go to any
hospital right now, I would bet that it would be very hard for any nurse to
pull up a policy that they would be able to follow in their hospital on how
to provide care for an Ebola patient. The example I use is, in California
we had an Ebola patient in South Sacramento and they were scrambling to get
the -- the personal protection and tools they needed to provide care for
that patient. And that was just a suspected patient, it wasn`t -- it
turned out not to be Ebola but had it been -- it would have been a mess.

SCHULTZ: And of course, your organization also has concerns about proper
equipment. How do you fix that? I mean, it would seem to me that these
for profit hospitals are going to have to start investing and investing
fast. If you`ve got a third of your nurses say their hospitals has
insufficient supplies of eye protection and fluid resistant gowns, is this
a question that should be asked in every community in this country right
now and of every hospital?

BURGER: This is a national health care crisis and the federal government
recently in 2006 spent $47 million on preparing for a pandemic not even
Ebola. And their own report for Department of Homeland Security indicated
that they`re nowhere near ready for a pandemic. And what we think is
there`re needs to be a national priority to provide the personal protection
for all health care workers in this country.

SCHULTZ: OK. Deborah Burger, Co-President of the National Nurses United
with us here on the Ed Show tonight. Great resource. I appreciate your
time. Thank you for the nurses` side of the story.

I want to bring in now Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington who is a
doctor. Congressman, good to have you on tonight. The CDC says there`s no
doubt that we will stop Ebola from spreading here but based on what we`re
hearing, boots on the ground, the nurses saying and how they`re being
surveyed, how do you this piece this together, Congressman?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, (D) WASHINGTON: Well Ed, I`m a physician who has lived
in West Africa where the Ebola virus was found or where it`s been on
outbreak. I`ve also lived in the Congo where they`ve had many outbreaks of
Ebola virus.

And I think what`s important here is for us to take a deep breath and step
back and think a little bit about this. Not let our hair and get on fire.
There has been one case in the United States discovered that came in.

And if we look at our preparedness for any kind of catastrophe in almost
every hospital, we`re not prepared for it. You can look at what you have
when you have a chemical outbreak or you have a machine breakdown and you
spilled chemicals all over the place, you have thousands of people who were
affected by it. All those issues are being dealt with by the CDC very
thoughtfully. They are sending 10 people down to Texas to look at this
case and they`re going to get it under control there.

People in Texas don`t have to run around and worry about the fact that
there`s going to be a major outbreak there. There won`t be one because
they`re dealing with. And the fact is that`s what public health is all
about.

Many of my colleagues think, you know, these start as (ph) how health
department down at the local levels kind of a waste of time but in fact, it
protect us from tuberculosis and it protects us from all kinds of diseases.
And what the CDC is doing is what their job has always been. So, I`m not
particularly worried about this. I think that there is a major problem in
West Africa where you`re looking in Liberia.

They have no infrastructure to do this but we have an infrastructure that
can deal with it. And one case is not enough to make the whole world come
down on our head which is the way people are acting on television today.

I really -- I...

SCHULTZ: Well...

MCDERMOTT: ... you know, the 24/7 news cycle is not helping.

SCHULTZ: Well Congressman, we do not have a travel ban, and there are
questions about how we`re going to deal with people coming in from other
countries to the United States seeing how it unfolded down in Texas when
not a whole lot went right. The -- was not a diagnosis and then a release
of this patient. And that clearly deserves some questions of protocol as
the nurses` association is bringing up.

What should we do? Should there be some kind of travel screening or travel
ban and who would be responsible for that and how it would work?

MCDERMOTT: I don`t think a travel ban per se is a very useful thing. I
think it is useful to say to somebody, "Do you have a fever?" We`re going
to take your temperature, if you say you have a fever and we take your
temperature and you do then you don`t allow them to get on the plane to
come at the United States. I mean, that might make sense.

SCHULTZ: How about asking them if they`ve been to -- How about if we were
to ask them if they`ve been to, you know, Liberia in the last 30 days or if
they`ve been West Africa region within the last 30 days? I mean, this
would be really paying attention to detail, are we at that point?

MCDERMOTT: No, we`re not. And it wouldn`t make sense. You`d stop
thousands and thousands of people. It wouldn`t make any sense at all, Ed.
Look at all of people who go from Liberia to Nigeria and then they go to
Paris and then they come to the United States.

Now if you ask them, "Were you -- have you been in Liberia?" "Well, yeah,
it was six months ago." "Were you`ve been sick?" "Well, no." "Well, but
you can`t come into the United States because you`ve been in Liberia". I
mean, you got to think how you`re going to work this out.

And if you cannot put travel bans unless you`re going to just say to
everybody from...

SCHULTZ: OK.

MCDERMOTT: ... the West (ph) and anything would do with Liberia, that`s
the in, you can`t come. But I think that it`s important for people to calm
down.

The President and the CDC, I have great respect for them. They are taking
care of this issue. What we need to do is make sure that the Congress
gives them enough money so they have enough people to do the case finding.

SCHULTZ: Well, that`s another issue -- that the CDC has been cut some $600
million.

MCDERMOTT: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: People are asking questions about -- you know, that must be an
issue to a certain extent, but 60 percent of the nurses -- you agree that
that is an issue at hand at this hour? Resources?

MCDERMOTT: It is. And every hospital...

SCHULTZ: OK.

MCDERMOTT: ... should try to deal with disasters but you never know what
the disaster is going to be. They might have a case of untreatable
tuberculosis appear in Chicago tomorrow. Are they prepared to suddenly go
out and...

SCHULTZ: OK.

MCDERMOTT: ... test around all over Chicago where that person is? They
are -- This is one case. You cannot make an epidemic out of one case. You
can say there`s an epidemic...

SCHULTZ: OK.

MCDERMOTT: ... or localize the epidemic in Africa but it`s not here.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Jim McDermott -- Doctor, good to have you with us
tonight. I appreciate your time.

MCDERMOTT: You`re welcome.

SCHULTZ: Thank you so much.

Coming up, Republican obstruction may have slowed the recovery but things
are looking better.

We`ve hit the longest streak of unemployment numbers falling in American
history. That news ahead in Trenders.

Plus a controversial new plan making waves through the Washington Redskins.
The creator of the petition joins me to discuss his plan to filter the
airwaves.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. What`s hot, what`s not? Time now
for Trenders. Social media, join up on the Ed team and get my podcast
@wegoted.com, rawstory.com has always got us, so does ringoffireradio and
on iTunes and get it free 24/7 anytime you want it.

Ed Show Social Media Nation has decided we`re reporting. Here are today`s
top Trenders voted on by you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop being cry babies, my gosh.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number three trender, The Whaaambulance.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good affordable health care
might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on
Fox News.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don`t we end the dialogue?

OBAMA: It turns out it`s working pretty well in the real world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Obama calls out Fox News.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn`t Vladimir Putin get under his skin a little bit
more is a little bit more (inaudible) to hear our side?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I said...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t believe it. I don`t believe it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get yourself in his skin you what? You criticized the
President for being in his skin?

Sorry but Fox News has been running.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know we`re big boys and girls.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two trender, Hack Attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This hacker stole customer contact information
including e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: J.P. Morgan Chase has a massive security breach.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 76 million household and 7 million small business
accounts were breached this summer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Four consumers been target and Home Depot hack
attacked.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, this is the bank so there is more sensitive
information here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do anybody ask us in about taking their money out of
this bank as the result of this?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today`s top trender, 5.9.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s a pretty good headline.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those who think that the economy peaked over the
summer, the employment are wrong...

OBAMA: We`re on pace the strongest job growth since the 1990s.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 248,000 jobs this month.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The unemployment rate hits a six-year low.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s the lowest since July 2008.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got the snapback on retail that you thought you
might get...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 22,600 jobs created net new jobs in health care.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 55 straight months continues the longest streak in
American history.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When employers are doing well and when they are reaping
benefits in the bottom line on productivity, those benefits should be
shared with workers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight, David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize Winning
Journalist and Columnist. David Cay, good to have you on -- again tonight
on the economy. Let`s get both sides of the history here.

What do these numbers mean and throw a cold bucket of water on the other
half of the story? What`s good? What`s not so good?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, PULITZER PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST: Well, 248,000 jobs
is above the average for the last year which was about 213,000. That`s
very good.

It would be a lot better if we didn`t have the Republicans refusing to
invest in the future of America. We could have 300,000 or more jobs being
created but 248,000, good number.

The unemployment rate is now down below 6 percent and people who were
unemployed that number dropped in one month by 300,000 and has dropped by 2
million in the last year. So, we`re going in the right direction
absolutely and especially good we`re seeing a lot of new jobs in what are
called business services -- that`s businesses serving other businesses --
and in restaurants and bars which tells you people are feeling comfortable
by going out to dinner or going out and having a drink in -- the money
on...

SCHULTZ: What do you say to these folks what the real unemployment number
is this? It`s almost as if the real numbers aren`t what are being
reported? What`s the real unemployment number? It`s in the double
digit...

JOHNSTON: Well...

SCHULTZ: What`s your response to that?

JOHNSTON: Well, the government does do a -- something called U-6 and it is
the broadest measure of unemployment. It`s around 11 percent but it was 13
percent just a year ago -- or two years ago, it was 13 percent. It`s been
coming down. The fact is that the changes in our economy and the way that
our Congress chose to respond to this means that a good number of people
who lost their jobs are probably never going to find decent jobs again.

One-third of all the people out of work today have another work for more
than six months, the medium time half sooner or half later, the people who
lose their jobs or out of work right now is about 13 weeks. That`s not a
good measure. That would be fixed in a moment if the Republicans in
Congress would start investing in the future of America. The things I`ve -
- we`re talked about before -- infrastructure, education, and basic
research and they of course will not do that even as our roads are falling
apart and our bridges and the public furniture needs to be fixed up.

SCHULTZ: David Cay Johnston always, good to have you with us on the Ed
Show tonight. Thank you so much.

This is economy, no doubt on a roll, best ever.

Coming up, the R-word, controversy of plan to filter for the airwaves
gathers steam. The man behind the latest push to ban the name Redskins
joins me live.

Plus, Michael Savage thinks President Obama wants to infect Americans with
Ebola. The right-wing extremist lands in Pretenders, although that`s the
only thing he`s not pretending about.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Problems continue to pile on for
the National Football League. Controversy over the Washington team`s name
has reached -- I think a fever pitch, we haven`t seen this movement before.

The Federal Communications Commission may consider a petition to ban the
use of the name on the airwaves.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY MICHAEL: One way, Redskins Chronicles. I`m Larry Michael at
Redskins part.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Giants will be taking on our Washington Redskins.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the rain did not keep thousands of Redskins fans
from traveling to Baltimore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: A petition was found by John Banzhaf, a George Washington
University Law Professor. This isn`t Banzhaf`s first dance with the FCC.
He was a key player in getting cigarette ads off radio and television back
in the 1970s.

Banzhaf argues the team name is a racial slur and it`s offensive. So
broadcasting it is against the public interest. Fans that filed a
compliant challenging the license renewal of radio station WWXX. The radio
station is owned by the Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

He also sent a letter to the four most watched television stations in Los
Angeles. He contacted affiliates for CBS, NBC, ABC and The CW informing
them that he`s coming for them next. This is the most aggressive push yet
in an effort to force the National Football League and the team to change
its name.

Joining me tonight on our Rapid Response Panel, Professor John Banzhaf, who
filed the petition with the FCC and Steven Weisman, Attorney and Legal
Editor of Talkers Magazine who thinks the petition is a bad idea.

Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight.

JOHN BANZHAF, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: John, you first.

BANZHAF: Good to be with you.

SCHULTZ: You bet. Why did you go down this road of the FCC? Is this
almost like a last resort?

BANZHAF: No, actually it`s the most important resort because we now know
no moral suasion isn`t going to change Dan Snyder. What`s it going to do
it is financial pressure and if stations can`t or reluctant to use this
racist slur (ph) on the air is going to put a lot more pressure of him.

Basically, this is the R-word. No station would use the N-word on the air.
It`s clearly contrary to the public interest. It`s a racial slur.

American-Indians say the R-word is the same thing. Both of these words by
the way are what we called fighting words and U.S. Supreme Court have said
they`re outside of the U.S. constitutional protection.

And I don`t just talk about the First Amendment, I fight for it but as you
say I also got cigarette commercials banned when all these First Amendment
experts were saying, it`s unconstitutional.

And then finally, this was profanity. Profanity is defined to include
racial slurs by law. By federal law you cannot broadcast profanity when
kids are around only late at night. So at very least, the FCC should did
it off the air when kids can hear it but I don`t think we`re going to come
to that because I think as you`ve said, these three commissioners have
spoken out pretty forcefully and I think they`re saying to broadcasters,
we`re concerned about this issue, you better be concerned about this issue
or else as the chairman put it, we`re going to act on it.

SCHULTZ: Steven, why do you think this is a bad move? I read your article
in Talkers, and I`ve read your other material on this issue as well. But,
why this is a bad move? And do you think that this out of a bailiwick of
the FCC or is that right in their wheelhouse? What do you think?

STEVEN WEISMAN, TALKERS MAGAZINE EDITOR: It`s inappropriate for the FCC to
be dealing with this. And it maybe a good cause. The propriety of using
the name Redskins for a team, there are a lot of people who believe that
that shouldn`t be use. However, this is not the place. As a matter fact,
the FCC in its own manual that it provides to broadcasters tells them that
it is protective speech to have slurs that offend people by their race, by
their gender.

You can`t protect just the speech with which you agree. It doesn`t qualify
as obscenity. It doesn`t qualify as indecency. It doesn`t qualify as
profanity. It doesn`t qualify as hate speech and frankly, hate speech we
have constitutional case after another.

RAV versus St. Paul, it indicates hate speech is actually protected. You
have to go to the correct roots. And the correct root here is two places.
One to the NFL, use that moral persuasion. The NFL will respond.

The other place to go is where they`ve already won a victory and an
appropriate one. The trademark bureau has indicated last summer that this
disparages a group and therefore, it should not be allowed to be used just
a trademark. That decision is on appeal. That`s where it`s belongs not
stopping someone -- censoring someone`s free speech.

BANZHAF: Steven, you`re wrong on two grounds...

SCHULTZ: John, is this...

BANZHAF: ... The trademark decision has to do as what happen in 1969,
we`re now in 2014, and if we would count to simply on what people think our
polls or moral suasion, we wouldn`t need the FCC to set limits, they set
limits on drug lyrics in 1970s despite the First Amendment, I think they
going to do so here. And even if they don`t, I think the stations are
going to be so worried about having their licenses tied up for years and
years in legal proceedings that they`ll move the stations here in
Washington D.C. did exactly the some thing when I filed virtually the same
petition with regard to blacks in the early 1970s, we won there. And I
think we`re going to win again here.

And the fact that we got through, we got a -- the Former FCC Commissioner
and to Former -- I`m sorry, Chairman and two Former Commissioners are on my
side and, you know, you`re a talent lawyer.

SCHULTZ: Your response, Steven.

WEISMAN: Well, I`m also a professor of immediate (ph) and as a professor
of immediate (ph) at Bentley University...

BANZHAF: That`s not your profession...

WEISMAN: ... I`d stand it is a great deal.

BANZHAF: That`s not your profession...

WEISMAN: I`m sorry, I cannot...

BANZHAF: ... And I win in the courts, have you won anything in the
courts.

WEISMAN: Well, yes I won...

BHANZAF: What you want is the...

WEISMAN: ... that was one on the court. Have you bothered to checkout my
record, but why talk about, but why talk about what`s happening and why the
FCC is (inaudible) corporate...

BANZHAF: I did. I looked at your record. Nothing`s significant under the
First Amendment.

WEISMAN: I`m sorry, if you want to talk over me, if you want to allow me
to actually speak as I let you speak?

BANZHAF: Sure, when you stop, I`m going to ask what achieved protecting
the First Amendment, what you seem to be championing. I looked on your
website not a -- nada, anybody else can look on it? Nada.

SCHULTZ: OK. Let Steven response.

WEISMAN: Let me know when you`re finished and when you`re going to allow
me to have some free speech to say you don`t want to...

BANZHAF: You have it now.

WEISMAN: ... allow people to say things that offends you. You don`t want
to allow things that is offensive speech. And it`s fact, if you read the
manual of the FCC, it`s speaks that specifically, offensive speech is
recognized because you cannot protect free speech unless you protect that.
You have your manners with speech is not protected. It`s not obscene.
Despite what you say, it does not qualify as profanity. Despite what you
say, it isn`t indecency.

In your petition, you said, it was a keen to obscenity. That`s no term. A
keen to obscenity. It`s like a little bit fragment...

BANZHAF: That`s what the chairman of the FCC said there...

WEISMAN: They don`t exist.

BANZHAF: ... if you read it carefully and we`re not talking about speech,
we`re talking about words. You can be angry at African-American, you could
be angry at American-Indians, you can say anything you want, but you can`t
use the N-word on the air. That`s the difference.

WEISMAN: Yes, you can. It`s the only way that we can be talking about...

BANZHAF: And show me one sentence that use...

WEISMAN: ... we`re talking about a context here...

BANZHAF: Show me one station that uses it...

WEISMAN: We also have the situation where you have the Navajo tribe with a
high school in Arizona that has their team named the Redskins. This is
something that it`s not entirely agreed upon.

BANZHAF: What is going to make policy based upon. One high school team as
pertaining to...

WEISMAN: The place to deal with those is not by stopping free speech
because you disagree to all of these.


BANZHAF: ... of the American Indian organizations in the country that
nuts.

SCHULTZ: All right, gentlemen.

BANZHAF: That`s nuts.

SCHULTZ: All right, certainly an emotional issue. Gentlemen great to have
you with us John Banzhaf and Stephen Weisman.

BANZHAF: If you`re right, I win in the court. That`s the difference.

SCHULTZ: Well, we`ll see.

BANZHAF: I won so far.

SCHULTZ: And the National Football League is a private business..., you
won`t get...

WEISMAN: You won`t win this...

BANZHAF: Yes, checking out his website to see what he`s done.

SCHULTZ: All right. Gentlemen, good to have with us tonight. We`ll have
you back.

Coming up, what not to wear. Scenes from a "Pretty Woman" end up in a
school assembly video about dress code. We`ll tell you about this twisted
conservative lesson plan next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, right-wing talker Michael Savage.
Savage is predicting doom and gloom with current Ebola outbreak. This guy
actually thinks President Obama is trying to infect Americans with Ebola by
sending U.S. troops to help out Africa.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: There is not a sane reason to take
3,000 or 4,000 troops and send them into a hot Ebola zone without expecting
at least one of them to come back with Ebola, unless you want to infect the
nation with Ebola. Do you understand what I`m saying to you? Do you have
any idea what this rises to? It rises to levels of treason. It actually
exceeds any level of treason I`ve ever seen.

It`s going to get much worse, I`m warning you. And I`m telling you again,
you can do something about it, you can buy Stop The Coming Civil War.
That`s my new book. It`s out October 7th.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Wow. The fact Savage thinks the President is trying to destroy
America with Ebola is downright absurd. But if Savage thinks he can pitch
his book by telling Americans it will solve his crazy and wild conspiracy
theory, he can keep on pretending.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Our final story tonight does not
come from outer space, it comes from a high school Devils Lake, North
Dakota where they have implemented a new dress code that ignited a
firestorm on social media. The school district wants to restrict girls
from wearing what they consider to be suggestive attire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE GOETZ, VALLEY NEWS LIVE HOST: A parent called us blooming to
wrestle on the Devils Lake School District. We called the school to find
out more and we`re told all the girls were told that they can`t wear
leggings, jeggings, and tight jeans anymore. The assistant principal told
us that they have the girls actually watch two clips from a movie, "Pretty
Woman" and compared her with the attire that the main character wears who
as you may know is a prostitute.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Make no mistake. Other schools across them country have
implemented dress codes disproportionately targeting female students.
However, when an English teacher makes reference to girls looking like
prostitutes walking the streets, I think we have to draw the line.

Joining me tonight, Political Commentator and T.V. host John Fugelsang, and
also with us tonight is Zerlina Maxwell, of theGrio.com great to have both
of you with us.

Zerlina, what`s your response to the school showing clips from "Pretty
Woman" to illustrate their point and to make a code.

ZERLINA MAXWELL, THEGRIO.COM: Well, I think it`s really offensive and it
again illustrates that there is an egregious double standard when it comes
to the regulation and the control of woman and their behavior in order to
protect men and boys. And so, I think this falls along the spectrum of
something that I talked about a lot which is rape culture in which we put
the responsibility on the victim, the woman, the girl to change their
behavior so that they are not then victimized or harassed.

And it`s exactly backwards. We need to be talking to men and boys about
respecting women and seeing them as human beings first before we can even
have any of the rest of these conversations.

SCHULTZ: So, how outrageous is it, Zerlina for the school to say to the
girls no tight jeans and no yoga pants?

MAXWELL: Well, I have to say I`m wearing my skinny jeans here in
solidarity with these girls. And I think again, it`s completely backwards
and it`s putting the responsibility on girls to control male behavior. If
the problem this school wants to alleviate is that men and boys are
harassing their female classmates, then why don`t we start there and start
conversations with the young men on how to see their female classmates as
equals, as people, as humans and deserving of respect. If we`re not having
that conversation...

SCHULTZ: John...

MAXWELL: ... we`re missing the whole point.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. John, what`s wrong with all of this? How should the
school have handled this?

JOHN FUGELSANG, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well Ed, I`d like to answer your
question but you might notice Zerlina is wearing exposed shoulders and very
tight jeans and she`s distracting me from this segment. So, I think you
should send her home or make her put on more clothes because it`s unfair to
me. I can`t function properly when she`s dressed like this. It is
completely inappropriate.

And then that`s basically the logic we`re hearing. As insulting as this is
to women as much of us slut-shaming 101 gambit as this instance for young
women. It`s actually more insulting to young men because it`s implying
that they don`t have the wear with all (ph) to control themselves and focus
on things. If you`re going to ban stuff because that`s might distract the
young man from their studies, dude, start with sports and iPhones.

The fact is that they`re saying this might encourage promiscuity of course
we know in America promiscuity. It means anyone getting more than you.
And the fact is that adolescents encourages promiscuity. This is burqa
culture, Ed and you know that very well. It`s an insult to free speech in
the First Amendment.

And if young men can`t learn how to act like men in school, we`re going to
be sending a bunch of animals and who can`t manage their own hormones off
to college. It`s kind of a joke and I`m pleased this is much media
attention.

SCHULTZ: Well, John, you know, they just have to address this boys will be
boys culture.

MAXWELL: Yes.

FUGELSANG: Oh, yeah. We can...

SCHULTZ: And the women, that`s just the way it is. I mean, that`s how
this comes down, isn`t?

MAXWELL: Right.

FUGELSANG: I mean this is -- it`s the same mentality.

SCHULTZ: This is school board is saying, "Hey, we got to protect our boys
because they`re going to grow up to be in the good old boy network...

MAXWELL: Right.

SCHULTZ: ... and we just got to make sure these girls over here don`t
provoke anything." I mean, I have never heard of such archaic thinking.

FUGELSANG: I`m scarred for life George S. jeans, I have to see back in the
`80s on girls in high school. I couldn`t control myself at all, you know,
it is a joke. And Zerlina`s right to say it does fit into rape culture
because if you have a woman in high school wearing clothes, you as a man,
or administrator deemed inappropriate and send her home, the message you`re
sending is we`re punishing her because of what it might make you do and the
message you`re sending to women is you were asking for it.

MAXWELL: Right.

SCHULTZ: So, Zerlina, one of the comments from a school board members was
is that they have to do this because it`s a distraction to the boys and
they have to focus on what they have to focus on, what`s your response to
that?

MAXWELL: Well, I think like John said, the first thing they need to do in
order to get the control of the boys again is to take away their iPhones
because there have been studies -- particularly here by girls for gender
equity in New York. And one of the biggest problems is that students have
access to all kinds of pornography on their cellphones. And then they
don`t have the adult supervision to then tell them what they`re seeing or
explain or talk them through that process.

And so, then they objectify and violate the girls and women around them
because they don`t have adults there to teach them the right message. So I
think the way that we start to reframe this discussion is to talk to men
and boys about how they are seeing women. Do they see young women as
objects to be taken, to be possessed? Or do they see them as all human
being deserving of right and respect? And until we get to the latter,
we`re going to have rape and domestic violence and sexual assault and
harassment, a pervasive problem in our culture.

FUGELSANG: And I comment that I`m too...

SCHULTZ: A very profound...

FUGELSANG: ... distracted by what she`s wear.

SCHULTZ: ... and important point...

MAXWELL: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: ... no question about it. What about that, John?

FUGELSANG: I`m just -- I will comment that I`m too distracted by what
she`s wearing, Ed. It`s a disgrace.

SCHULTZ: All right.

FUGELSANG: Thank you for...

SCHULTZ: John Fugelsang and Zerlina Maxwell, thanks for your time tonight
here on the Ed Show.

And is the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.

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

Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>