updated 6/16/2005 9:50:58 AM ET 2005-06-16T13:50:58

Guest: Curt Weldon, Jay Severin, Rachel Maddow, Max Kellerman, Willie


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  She did not starve to death.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST (voice-over):  The truth about Terri Schiavo. 

Will this matter ever rest in peace? 

And a warning about another nuke threat. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Iran is a major player. 

CARLSON:  Lactivists.  Making mountains out of molehills? 

And food for thought.  Should public schools flunk this junk? 

Plus, a tough lesson for Arnold at the school of hard knocks. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I‘ve got a problem with authority.  I‘ll admit that, in a cheery way.  Not everyone likes the bow tie, I‘ll be honest.  But I like the bow tie.  I respect people who believe something, even if I don‘t agree with them.  It‘s my opinion, wrong as it may be. 


CARLSON:  Welcome to THE SITUATION, day three.  I‘m Tucker Carlson. 

Let‘s unveil tonight‘s superb stack of stories, which includes news on the hot-button issues of flag desecration, medical marijuana and Guantanamo Bay. 

Joining me now, New England radio god Jay Severin and, from Air America, the opposite and equally great Rachel Maddow. 



CARLSON:  The first situation is the autopsy of Terri Schiavo.  A Florida coroner reported today that Schiavo had suffered irreversible brain damage before her death.  There was no evidence of her abuse or neglect at the hands of her husband or anyone else, though he did find she was blind and unable to nourish herself on her own. 

The doctor estimated that Schiavo might have lived another 10 years, had she remained connected to a feeding tube.  The official cause of death was market dehydration.  The supporters of the removal of the feeding tube made clear today that she didn‘t die of starvation.  She died of dehydration. 


CARLSON:  This did not prove that she wasn‘t a human being.  And it didn‘t suggest that her parents should have been prevented by the federal government from feeding their daughter.  I don‘t see any change in the status of the story. 

MADDOW:  Well, what happened with this finding today is that we know that she wouldn‘t have recovered. 

We also know that politicians who intervened here—Bill Frist said by looking at a videotape, she responds to visual stimuli.  We now know that his medical degree didn‘t do much help in terms of figuring that out. 


MADDOW:  She was blind.

CARLSON:  But that‘s not the core question, though, is it?


MADDOW:  No, but people were intervening in this case for so many

reasons other than her welfare.  And, frankly, if you believe her husband -

·         and that is the case, whether or not you believe her husband—she expressed a desire to not go through this.  And so, her parents intervening vs. her husband, I don‘t think today‘s findings changed the... 


CARLSON:  Does it change the question of what would be wrong with allowing her parents to derive the pleasure they derive from taking care of her? 


JAY SEVERIN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Because they‘re not her legal guardian.  They‘re not her spouse.  This is—the medical condition of Terri Schiavo at the time of her death, totally irrelevant.  Her wishes honored is the only question.  Were her wishes honored?

Who do we go to if someone is unable to do that?  We go to a spouse in this case.  Spouse says X.  You presume X to be true.  Her wishes were honored.  That‘s the only important thing.  It was a disgrace that Republicans, going against everything they‘re supposed to be for in conservative principle, got involved in something like this.  It‘s—of the most personal decisions. 

MADDOW:  Tucker, you have to say...


MADDOW:  Even if you think that the case—that she shouldn‘t have been—what happened shouldn‘t have happened, you have to say the decision here was about, do you believe her parents or do you believe her husband and who has the question of legal guardianship?  Saying that her medical condition can be judged by politicians is crazy.


CARLSON:  And I don‘t think anyone was suggested that.  I certainly wasn‘t. 

But I don‘t think it‘s simply a question of who do you believe.  I think it‘s a question of, who does it hurt?  Her parents were deriving pleasure from taking care of her.  And by the definition of her husband‘s side, she had essentially ceased to exist.  She was in a permanent vegetative state.  So, she‘s not being hurt by being kept alive.  She‘s not aware of the fact she‘s alive.  Why not give her parents the pleasure?

SEVERIN:  But that‘s not our call.  If your spouse says—look...


CARLSON:  It was a little more complicated than that, as you know, though.  I mean...

SEVERIN:  Were she a kid and her parents were her legal guardians, fine. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

SEVERIN:  But someone has to say what her wishes were.  And that‘s the husband or the wife or the...


CARLSON:  All right. 

Well, our next situation, an equally sticky one, but in a different way. 

Late this afternoon, the House again refused to allow sick people to smoke pot, this time by a 264-161 vote.  The measure would have stopped federal law enforcement officials from prosecuting medical marijuana users in the 10 states that allows pot to be prescribed as a drug. 

Medical marijuana, in my view, is a joke.  The law in California allows the caregivers of the person receiving the medical marijuana for things like migraines to get the pot.  I think medical marijuana probably should be illegal.  I think pot should be legal, though.

MADDOW:  Right. 

CARLSON:  In other words, right—so, why not just make a direct argument for legalizing pot? 

MADDOW:  The thing—the thing that‘s interesting to me here, is, it‘s not like, if you can‘t get medical marijuana, you can‘t get pot. 

Do any of us who knows anybody who smokes pot, are those people only the ones we know out there with glaucoma and wasting syndrome?  Come on.  It‘s out there.  But this for me, the most important thing here is the distance between Congress and the American people.  Who in the American people would want to keep people with glaucoma from marijuana that helps them?  It doesn‘t make any sense. 


SEVERIN:  This is shameful and cynical and hypocritical.  Vicodin, fine.  Percocet, as many as you like.  Go to a doctor.  Percodan, fine, as many as you can eat.  The OxyContin, bring ‘em on.  But pot for people who are suffering?  No.  That‘s a hippie drug.  We can‘t have that.


CARLSON:  But wait a second.  Don‘t you think—I mean, again, I‘m not for prosecuting marijuana users, as long as they‘re not bothering anybody.  But don‘t you think...

SEVERIN:  And they rarely do. 


CARLSON:  They do.


SEVERIN:  Because they‘re eating.  They‘re eating Oreos and watching cartoons.

CARLSON:  They are watching a lot of television.  That‘s right. 

Probably this show. 


CARLSON:  But don‘t you think it‘s a little cynical of the medical marijuana people to pretend that they‘re saving lives by giving out pot to people who just want to get high?  This is a way around the law.  Why not just admit that?

MADDOW:  I think that medical marijuana is a way to point out what is wrong with marijuana laws in this country.  And I don‘t think there‘s any reason.  I don‘t think there‘s any reason to object to that. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

Next up in THE SITUATION, Congress about the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay.  At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, military and Justice Department officials cited—quote—“unprecedented and historic action to ensure the rights of Gitmo detainees.”  They defended the government‘s right to hold the prisoners for as long as it pleases without charging them.  Members of the committee disagreed, among them, Senator Patrick Leahy.  Here‘s what he said. 


SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT:  Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals.  And it remains a festering threat our security. 


CARLSON:  Oh, please, a threat to our security.  Ted Kennedy said that today.  They hate us.  The Muslim world hates us because of Gitmo. 

They hate us because we‘re not Muslim.

SEVERIN:  That‘s exactly right.

CARLSON:  They hate us because we support Iran.  Get real.

SEVERIN:  That‘s exactly...


MADDOW:  Oh, come on. 

The security threat here isn‘t because of our image problem with this.  The security threat here is to our men and women in uniform.  We‘re setting an example that, if you‘re taken prisoner on the battlefield, you can be held indefinitely, never charged, never given a lawyer and never let out. 


MADDOW:  They‘re not Americans.


CARLSON:  Hold on.  Just to see...

MADDOW:  We‘re setting that standard and our military has to live by it.  Come on. 

CARLSON:  Just—just to make certain in one sentence that I‘m understanding you right, are you saying now that American servicemen captured by Muslim extremists won‘t be treated well because of Gitmo? 

SEVERIN:  Otherwise, they would have...


MADDOW:  Listen, we need to—there‘s a reason that this government and the United States has always treated prisoners with care in the past.  And it‘s because we believe that it sets a standard for the rest of the world that we need our men and women to be treated by. 

SEVERIN:  This is—this is...

MADDOW:  And now we have just decided that doesn‘t count anymore. 

SEVERIN:  This is political correctness embraced by the Democrats as a strategy, political strategy, finally rendering us unable to engage in the act of self-defense as a nation. 

Alan Dershowitz, believe it or not, has the Dershowitz model, which is, someone kidnaps your kid, buries her in a box.  She‘s got an hour‘s worth of air.  You have got the guy in custody.  What do you do to find out where the kid is?  And the answer is, everything.  Anything.  And that‘s what we should be doing here to get this information.  Anything.

MADDOW:  What about that model prevents you from allowing people who are at Guantanamo to come up on charges? 

SEVERIN:  They‘re not Americans.  They‘re nonpeople, as far as I‘m concerned.


MADDOW:  Wait.  Wait.  Wait.  I don‘t care who they are.  Why can‘t we try them? 

SEVERIN:  No, no, no.  They‘re not Americans.

MADDOW:  Why can‘t we try them?  Why can‘t—if they‘re—if they‘re bad people, why can‘t we try them? 


CARLSON:  Actually, I‘ll—I‘ll—I‘ll give you the short and quick answer.  Because Congress hasn‘t determined whether they should be tried and, if so, how.  This is a question the Congress could settle if it had the courage to face it directly.  But it doesn‘t.

MADDOW:  Is it right or wrong to hold them without trying them? 

CARLSON:  It depends.

MADDOW:  It‘s wrong. 


CARLSON:  Let me just suggest—before we move on, let me just suggest one thing. 

The argument made today on Capitol Hill was, it‘d be great to release them, but wouldn‘t that pose a security threat to us?  Yes, it would.  Where do we send them?  What do we do with them?  We know they‘re bad guys.

SEVERIN:  We send them back to countries where, in their own countries, they‘re heroes for what they‘ve done.  Or those that have been released, we‘ve already picked back up fighting our soldiers.


CARLSON:  I‘d like to see them charged, too.  But that‘s a serious point, don‘t you think?

MADDOW:  The choice isn‘t hold them or release them.  The charge is hold them or try them, hold them indefinitely or try them.  We ought to bring them up on charges. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

Next situation, the U.S. Congress will vote for the seventh time next week on a constitutional amendment that will would ban desecration of the American flag, which in most cases, of course, means flag burning. 

Today, Terry Schroeder of the ACLU warned that the Senate may be within one or two votes of ratifying the amendment this time around.  The ACLU she says—quote—“That‘s scary close.”

Scary?  It‘s scary that people might not be able to burn the flag? 

Terrorists are scary.  Those Quizno‘s ads are scary. 


CARLSON:  Cancer is scary.  It‘s not scary that people won‘t be able to burn the flag.  Come on.  Get some perspective.


SEVERIN:  The president says protect, protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

My dad is a World War II combat veteran, was a World War II combat veteran.  He said—and this didn‘t come easily to him—I fought—one of the reasons I fought was to defend the Constitution.  I—I protected the right of people to burn the flag, if they want.  That‘s what it‘s all about. 

It‘s—it‘s the ability to be able to express yourself that way in a nonviolent form.  It doesn‘t matter.  If we can have “Piss Christ” and call it art, we can have someone burn the flag.  I don‘t like it.  And I‘d like to punch someone‘s lights out if I see them burning the flag.

MADDOW:  Yes.  Yes. 

SEVERIN:  But that doesn‘t affect their right to do so. 


SEVERIN:  That‘s—that‘s a right. 

MADDOW:  See, I think, in American history and in American values, what you end up with is people who don‘t burn the flag, but who will protect to the death your right to do it. 

And I think that our strength as a country isn‘t a material thing of any sort, the flag or any other symbol.  It‘s our Constitution.

CARLSON:  Well, that goes without—goes without—almost even without argument.  Of course that is true.  However, can we both comment very quickly on the ludicrousness of the ACLU saying this is one of the great dangers we face?  I mean, it‘s...


MADDOW:  It‘s a great danger to our free...

CARLSON:  ... fund-raising tool for them.

MADDOW:  No.  It‘s a danger to our free speech rights, which are fundamental.

SEVERIN:  If it‘s an incursion...


SEVERIN:  If it‘s an incursion on the First Amendment, then it is scary.  And this is one of those cases where they‘re right. 

By the way, the great remedy for this, a federal judge—I‘m sorry, Texas judge—had before him a guy who had beaten the snot out of some kid who burned the flag.  And the judge rapped his gavel, fined him $5.  He was up on assault.  So, there‘s the remedy.

CARLSON:  A fair penalty. 

MADDOW:  I was with you for a while and then...

CARLSON:  Until the violence came in. 


SEVERIN:  I knew it couldn‘t last.

MADDOW:  Yes. 


CARLSON:  Well our next situation, speaking of organized violence, pits school tradition against religious oppression. 

Like many high schools and colleges in this country, Champlain Valley High School in Vermont has long used crusaders as its school nickname.  This has raised the ire of a few parents who find the image of a medieval knight wielding a crucifix offensive.  The school board, despite the objections of some students, has decided to change the name.

You know, I would be impressed if students at that school or any high school in America knew what crusaders were, what the Crusades were, or even had any sense... 


CARLSON:  ... that there was a religious connotation.

SEVERIN:  That would be encouraging news about the American educational system.

CARLSON:  And I hate to generalize, Rachel.  And I won‘t do it much. 

But I have to say...


MADDOW:  Liberals.  Here it comes.  Liberals?

CARLSON:  I‘m sorry. 


CARLSON:  This is—this is the only one tonight. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  This is why some people are offended or annoyed by liberals. 

They come into areas where—seriously, they come in from out of town, rich people, and they start bossing the locals around and overturning and agitating and complaining about these longstanding traditions.  And they should knock it off. 

MADDOW:  All right.  I want you to—we‘re going to do a little thought experiment.  You are a Jewish dad, Tucker. 

You‘re driving to your school, to your kid‘s school to pick them up to go to high holy day services at synagogue.  They come out of school.  They get out early, because it‘s high holy days.  You go to pick them up and they‘re wearing crusaders T-shirts with a knight with a big crucifixion on his shield.  It‘s a little bit uncomfortable.  It‘s an overtly religious symbol.

CARLSON:  Yes.  It‘s a little bit uncomfortable.  It‘s not terribly. 

That‘s the point.  It‘s a little bit uncomfortable.

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  It‘s a little bit uncomfortable.

It‘s not so uncomfortable that you have to make everyone else change. 

That‘s my only point.


MADDOW:  There‘s not a huge objection to changing this.  The kids are saying, listen, it is a little bit weird.  We‘re happy to become the cougars. 


SEVERIN:  The important thing is that we purge from school or from children‘s education in America any vestiges of Western European civilization.  That‘s the important thing.  How about the fighting wussies?


SEVERIN:  May I make a suggestion?


CARLSON:  I don‘t think anyone would object to that, except me and you.

MADDOW:  My high school was the Trojans.  I was captain of the swim team.  And we had yellow rubber caps.  Now, that is offensive. 

SEVERIN:  Very progressive.  Very progressive. 

MADDOW:  That is offensive.



CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, Osama bin Laden is reportedly alive and well and still on the run.  We‘ll talk to a member of Congress who warns of another possible terrorist attack within this country.  That‘s next. 

Also, Barbara Walters sparked an onslaught from some breast-feeding lactivists.  Are these moms out of line or are they just keeping the world abreast of an important and pun-filled situation?  Answers forthcoming. 


CARLSON:  When THE SITUATION returns, a senior member of Congress with some alarming claims about a possible Iranian terror attack here in the U.S. and what the CIA is not doing about it.

That‘s next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Our guest in “Free Speak” tonight says Iran planned a massive terror attack against United States, possibly a nuclear one.  He says this in his new book, “Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America and How the CIA has Ignored It.”

We welcome the author of that book, Congressman and Vice Chairman of the House Services Committee Curt Weldon. 

Mr. Weldon, thanks a lot for joining us. 

REP. CURT WELDON ®, PENNSYLVANIA:  Tucker, it‘s great to be with you. 

CARLSON:  Now, your book title says—essentially says it all.  And it sounds almost a plea.  Here you are the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, vice chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and you have to write a book in order to get the attention of the CIA and the Bush administration.  That—it seems odd to me. 

WELDON:  Well, it‘s very troubling to have to do this. 

But I went through this back in ‘99 and 2000 when I led the effort to force the CIA to create an integrated national collaborative center, linking together all 33 classified systems.  The CIA on November 4 of 1999, with the FBI and the Defense Department in the room with me, said, Congressman, we don‘t need that capability.  We can do it on our own. 

Well, we realized, after 9/11 hit us and 3,000 people were killed, that they weren‘t right.  And, today, we have that collaborative center now being put into place.  It‘s called the NCTC.  I lost some good friends on 9/11.  And I‘m not going to be pushed back again.  Two years ago, I was approached by a former Democrat member of Congress who gave me information from a former CIA informant they knew where Osama bin Laden was. 

I went down and met with George Tenet a week later.  Tenet assigned one of the senior operations people from the CIA to work with me.  He told, me, Congressman, we‘ll have somebody in our Paris office meet with your people and we‘ll talk to them and assess them.  Two weeks went by.  And, finally, somebody approached the person whose name I gave to the George Tenet. 

That person was a member of the French intelligence service.  And he told the guy, you shouldn‘t be talking to American members of Congress.  I called the operations guy back on the phone and said, why did you lie to me?  You told me that you were going to have one of our people meet with this guy in Paris.  You had somebody from French intelligence. 

And he said, well, Congressman, to be honest with you, we trust the French intelligence service.  I said, that‘s ridiculous.  But even if you do trust them, why did you lie to me?  Why didn‘t you tell me that you were going to have somebody from the French intelligence... 


CARLSON:  Well, that‘s—that‘s—that‘s a great question.  What‘s the answer? 

Why would a CIA officer lie to a ranking member of Congress, A?  And, B, why wouldn‘t the CIA want to follow up on the information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden?  It doesn‘t make sense. 

WELDON:  No, it doesn‘t make any sense, Tucker.  And that‘s the question I‘ve been asking for two years.  And the CIA hasn‘t come back to me and given me any substantive information.  All they have tried to do is spin this book three months before it came out. 

CARLSON:  Well, Congressman, Congressman, let‘s go to the central, what seems to me to be central allegation in your book, page 63.

I‘m going read it.  You said: “A terrorist plot managed from Tehran” you have knowledge of “to hijack an airliner in Canada, crash it into a nuclear reactor in the United States, the target, Seabrook nuclear reactor near Boston, one million people nearby.  The objective,” you write, “was to inflict a blow more catastrophic than the attacks of September 11,” etcetera, etcetera.

This is a remarkable claim.  Do you believe that Iran was behind an attempt to blow up a nuclear reactor in the United States? 

WELDON:  Absolutely. 

Not Iran as a country.  And I wanted to make the distinction, as I‘ve been making.  This is not against the Iranian people.  It is not against the government.  It‘s against Ayatollah Khomeini, who has formed a council of nine to link in and network with all the major terrorist groups in the country.

in May of 2003, I gave the CIA very specific information that 19 Pakistanis, a part of al Qaeda funded by Iran, were going to hit a nuclear reactor in the U.S.  And I said the first three letters were SCA.  In July, I gave them the name of the reactor.  I said it‘s Seabrook.  On August 22, in 2003, the Rural Canadian Mounted Police in Canada arrested a 19-member Pakistani cell. 

When you go through my book, you‘ll see all the detailed specifics of those 19 terrorists.  In fact, they had no visible means of income, yet one of them had $20,000 or $40,000 in the bank. 

CARLSON:  Well...

WELDON:  They had been involved in indication of the Pickering reactor in Canada.  One of them had been training as a pilot.  So, the facts are all there.

CARLSON:  Well, wait a second.  I mean, if those are indeed facts, Congressman, we ought to be invading Iran, say, tomorrow. 

WELDON:  I don‘t—I don‘t advocate a war with Iran.  This is not coming...


CARLSON:  Why not, if they‘re trying to blow up a nuclear reactor in the United States or plan to? 


WELDON:  It‘s not coming from the Iranian government, Tucker.  It‘s coming from Ayatollah Khomeini, the radical religious cleric who has established a separate operation away from the Iranian government. 

What I‘m doing with the book, by the way, is, I‘m printing it—printing it in Farsi.  We‘re today flooding Iran.  I just did the Voice of America interview.  Tomorrow night, 14 million Iranians will be able to see what Ayatollah Khomeini has done behind their back.  We need to awaken the Iranian people.  They‘re not happy with this regime.  They‘re not happy with Ayatollah Khomeini.  We need them to understand and help them to understand that we are not our enemy. 

CARLSON:  Well, quickly, Mr. Weldon, why do you think, if this is true, the Bush administration hasn‘t told the rest of us about it?  Why hasn‘t the president had a prime-time television address to the nation to tell us that a cell within Iran is planning to attack our country, indeed, did plan to attack our country?

WELDON:  I would—I would only—I can only say that my battle isn‘t with the president.  My battle is with the intelligence agency. 

The intelligence agencies have become so strong and bureaucratic that they determine what does or doesn‘t rise to the surface.  Look, I‘ve been involved in the defense and intelligence issues for 19 years.  I can‘t tell you the number of times that we‘ve had distortions and misinformation brought before us. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

WELDON:  Why were they not able to predict the fall of communism?  Why did they not understand North Korea had a three-stage missile in 1998, before they launched it?  Why didn‘t they predict the fall—the 9/11 attack?  There are a number of things we could ask.

The fact is, the problem is in the intelligence community.  Porter Goss is trying to make the change.  And I ask the American people to help Porter do that job. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

Congressman Curt Weldon, not your average book.  Thanks a lot for joining us. 

WELDON:  My pleasure.. 

CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, airline safety matters, no question.  But should your cigarette lighters and fingernail clippers be getting so much time and attention in the war on terror?  “Op-Ed Op-Ed” is next. 

Plus, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been shamed in public before.  But what happened yesterday that made the governator turn red?  Find out when we return.


CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION.  Time now for “Op-Ed Op-Ed.” 

We‘ve read just about every editorial page in America, so you don‘t have to.  We have got two of the best, to which Jay, Rachel and I will offer our retorts.  Hope you‘re prepared.

First up, in today‘s “Washington Post,” Anne Applebaum writes that the U.S. is paying much for too little in the way of airline security since we federalized it all—quote—“Ninety-nine-point-nine-nine-two percent of intercepted items were nail scissors, cigarette lighters, pen knives and the like.  Yet, this mass ceremonial sacrifice of toenail clippers on the altar of security comes at an extraordinarily high price, around $5.5 billion.”

That‘s the bad news.  It seems to me the good news is, terrorists are unlikely to do what they did last time simply because there‘s a lot of security at the airport.  And the bad news is, going back, that we could be spending that money to protect our borders, which is a likely way we‘re going to get attacked again. 


CARLSON:  So, actually, this waste of money matters. 

SEVERIN:  The bad news, of course, is also that they‘re not going do it the same way the next time. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

SEVERIN:  We‘re always one step behind, because the guerrillas are always one step ahead.

The good news is, we get to see people felt up at the airport at no extra charge. 


SEVERIN:  The editorial writer here is wrong.  We‘re paying too much for no security. 

You get what you pay for.  And what we‘re paying for right now are people who were rejected by Taco Bell.  There is no security.  What we have is proving it.

CARLSON:  But they now have federal job protection.

SEVERIN:  Exactly.  That‘s what we have. 

MADDOW:  What we‘ve got is, we‘ve got Americans standing there in their stocks giving us their nail clippers at the airport, to the tune of the same amount that we spend for the whole FBI is what we spend for this privilege. 

Cargo isn‘t being screened.  Chemical plants aren‘t being protected.  Loose nuclear material in Russia isn‘t being picked up.  We were easier suspects to go after, after 9/11 than the actually courageous things you have to do in order to make us safe.  We‘re not safer. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

On an even more controversial topic, in “The Miami Herald” today, Rosa

Brooks tells lactivists—that‘s lactation activists—and they do exist

·         to cool it.


CARLSON:  You‘ll remember that Barbara Walters was protested by the lactivists recently when she remarked on her show that she felt uncomfortable seeing a woman breast-feeding on a plane. 

And here is what Rosa Brooks says in response—quote—“The lactivists take no prisoners, a lesson that many new mothers also learn.  Breast-feeding is the party line.  If you deviate from it, you‘re a bad mother.  Tell a lactivist that you can‘t or don‘t want to breast-feed and she‘ll insist that you‘re condemning your child to a lifetime of poor health.”

Look, I‘m for breast-feeding.  Everyone with kids is for breast-feeding.  It‘s good.  On the other hand, a lot of good things, you don‘t do in public, like sex.  You don‘t inflict it on others. 

CARLSON:  And—I‘m serious.  I mean, there are a lot of things about the body that, I don‘t know, probably best not to share with other people, high colonics, for one.  Keep it to yourself.  Doesn‘t mean it‘s bad.  I just don‘t want to hear about it.

MADDOW:  Breast-feeding, sex, high colonics.  I‘m making a list of good things, according to Tucker Carlson. 

CARLSON:  Come on. 


MADDOW:  But, listen, breast-feeding is better.  And mothers should have that information.  And they should get to make their own decision.

The squeamishness around it I think it‘s a little misplaced.  I think that the squeamish person who is uncomfortable about it should have to hold the squalling, hungry baby and explain to the mother while they‘re so uncomfortable.  I just don‘t think it‘s that gross. 

SEVERIN:  I‘m just afraid of saying anything that could be misconstrued as being against breasts.  I‘m just for breasts. 


SEVERIN:  And anything having to do with breasts.

CARLSON:  Take a stand, Jay.


SEVERIN:  However, is it impolite to suggest that to someone?  Yes. 

Is it politically incorrect to suggest it to someone?  Yes. 

But it happens to, coincidentally, be supported by scientific evidence.  The fact, is breast-feeding does give kids advantages.  So, you have to pick and choose your times and your friends and the people to whom you dispense advice.  But it‘s true.  It does help kids. 

CARLSON:  Bottom line, don‘t fool with the lactivists.  They‘re like Scientology.  Don‘t pick a fight with them at all.


CARLSON:  Rachel, Jay, thanks very much.  We‘ll see you in just a moment. 

SEVERIN:  Tucker.

MADDOW:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  We have far more to discuss.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, besides firing wanna-be tycoons on “The Apprentice,” the Donald is famous for Trumping, then dumping his statuesque wives.  So, how did he suddenly become father of the year?  We have the answer to that. 

And, hey, hey, hey, is eating junk food at school turning your kid into another Fat Albert?  One governor is trying to stop the insanity.  We‘ll debate it with our outsider next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  It‘s time to meet “The Outsider,” a man from outside the world of cable news who for the purposes of this show has agreed to become a permanent devil‘s advocate, willing on occasion even to defend the indefensible. 

Joining us now, is ESPN radio host and celebrated contrarian, Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST:  You‘re celebrating me, apparently.

CARLSON:  You‘re a brave man, Max Kellerman.  Buckle your seat belts. 

Fifteen convicted sex offenders are suing the city of Binghamton, New York, claiming a local law that makes it illegal for them to live or travel almost anywhere within city limits is unconstitutional.  The law, which was passed last month, prohibits moderate- and high-risk sex offenders from living or traveling within a quarter-mile of any public or private school, day-care center, playground or park. 

The group contends the city law amounts to a sentence of banishment. 

It‘s also complete common sense, Max.  Yes, it‘s banishment of a kind.  These guys are registered, however.  But the bottom line is, do you want sex offenders looming near your kid‘s school?  No.

KELLERMAN:  Absolutely I do, Tucker.  I want as many sex offenders around the school as possible. 

You‘re really—you‘re taking a stand on this one. 


KELLERMAN:  How do you box me into defending these guys?  Look, this is what it says, that public or private school, day-care center, playground or park.  That‘s like saying you can‘t be within a quarter-mile of a Starbucks.  It‘s just in—so you can‘t live in the town.  So where are they supposed to go? 

CARLSON:  Bingo. 

CARLSON:  They can go to towns that accept them.  But this town has said very clearly—and towns have the right to define what they want to be, to some large extent—they have said, “We don‘t want kids around sex offenders.”  They have said sex offenders are dangerous.  We require fences around swimming pools, not because all kids drown when they swim, but because some do. 

KELLERMAN:  But this town is saying, even after you‘ve served the time for the crime, you are not allowed to live here.  Essentially, that‘s what they‘re saying.  And this lawsuit is saying that‘s unconstitutional. 

CARLSON:  What they are saying is, these guys are registered.  So while they have served their sentences, they are still under some control of the courts.  And it‘s fair to put the welfare of children over their right to live wherever they want. 

KELLERMAN:  So a bank robber comes out of jail can‘t open a checking account? 

CARLSON:  Well...

CARLSON:  It should be up to the bank to decide.  But I will say this. 

Sex offenders we know tend to be predators.  They tend do it again. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, I don‘t know any sex offenders. 


CARLSON:  I don‘t either.  But I read about them. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes, there‘s recidivism.  Of course there is.  And you have to be careful.  But you have to let them live their lives. 


CARLSON:  No, you don‘t.  Not in your neighborhood.  Not if your neighborhood bans together and says, “You know, we want to be a sex-offender-free neighborhood.”  I think that‘s—you know, it does abridge the rights of the sex offenders, but the rights of the kids to be unmolested are more important.

KELLERMAN:  That‘s right.  Send them to the poor neighborhoods without any political representation. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.

Attention Connecticut school children—check this one out—your junk food is safe.  Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has vetoed a bill that would have banned soft drinks and junk food from Connecticut schools.  Governor Rell said the bill usurped the authority of local school districts and undermined the control and responsibility of parents. 

Supporters of the bill said it would have helped to fight childhood obesity.  They also said that the soft drinks companies killed this bill, and I‘m sure they did.  It doesn‘t matter.  Their interest happened to coincide with common sense. 

Because here‘s the point.  Who cares what kids eat in school?  The point of school is not to worry about what kids eat but what they think.  You want to make them love learning, and be creative and imaginative.  And if they drink Mountain Dew, so what? 

KELLERMAN:  I‘ve done three shows with you now.  And I‘ve noticed three different Tucker Carlsons.  Maybe there‘s just two different.  Monday, aggressive behavior in children has been stigmatized by the left. 

It‘s a leftwing agenda. 

Tuesday, violent video games are bad, because they produce aggressive behavior in children and they physically change children‘s minds.  They physically alter them. 

Wednesday, junk food‘s OK, but it physically alters children!  It causes them to be aggressive.  “It doesn‘t matter.  That‘s not the point.”

CARLSON:  Hold on.  No, there is a thread that connects all three of these.  And that is ignore things that don‘t matter, pay attention to those that do matter.  And what matters...

CARLSON:  I think that drinking a soda during school is small potatoes.  Whether you learn to love to read is really important.  That‘s why schools exist. 

KELLERMAN:  But are they potatoes at all?  You agree they are potatoes.  They may be small, but they are potatoes, right?  Like, it‘s better if they don‘t have them.

CARLSON:  I think it‘s probably better to drink carrot juice than it is to drink Jolt, but I think that the legislature in Connecticut ought to spend its time making sure the kids are educated, not being food neurotic. 

KELLERMAN:  OK, fine, but doesn‘t it—isn‘t it common sense, also, that the governor is killing this bill not because she really cares, well, the school—the local school boards are losing authority to the state.  It‘s because a quarter of a million dollars was spent lobbying against this bill. 

CARLSON:  Maybe.  Maybe.  But as I said a minute ago, here the interests of the soft drink industry and common sense coincided, because parents ought to be able to decide what kids their eat and drink.  That‘s a parental decision. 

KELLERMAN:  OK.  But what about parents who don‘t want their kids eating that junk food?  It‘s available to them in school now. 

CARLSON:  Then they can pack bag lunches full of celery juice and tofu. 

KELLERMAN:  Oh, yes.  And the kid isn‘t going to scrounge up 75 cents for a Coke, huh?

CARLSON:  But if I can just say, well, that‘s the threat of leaving the home.  Your kid might drink a Coke.  But if I could just say one other thing, there are a lot of food neurotics in this world.  I am sure you know some of them, Max.  And they tend to prey on children.  They get equally neurotic about food, and they should just back off.

KELLERMAN:  Yes, but the argument consistently from you seems to be, “We shouldn‘t pay attention to this issue, which is kind of important, because there are more important issues to pay attention to.” 

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  There‘s only so much time in the day. 

Speaking of, our next topic, school is out for the summer.  And to many parents, that means one thing:  Paying off the teacher.  According to the “Washington Post,” Parents are going all out for end-of-year gifts for their kids‘ teachers.  Instead of apples and coffee mugs, some reportedly have given VCRs, pricy dinners, and even a vacation at Jackson Hole. 

Some say it‘s unethical and unfair to less affluent kids.  At least one school district has banned gift giving.  Others say teachers deserve.  So which is it, payola or appreciation? 

Obviously, it‘s appreciation.  It‘s the end of the year.  Grades are in.  It doesn‘t matter, right?  It‘s not going to affect the grades, these gifts.  But the real point is, government should never, ever get in the way of expressions of affection between people.  When a person tries to do something nice for another person, government shouldn‘t stop it. 

KELLERMAN:  OK, fine, but what‘s wrong with what they did in New York, which is cap it at $5 bucks or $12 bucks, or some small amount, because it really should be a token of appreciation, agreed?  It shouldn‘t just be a bribe.


CARLSON:  That‘s like saying, “You know, I don‘t think your wife‘s engagement ring ought to be that big.”  That‘s just wrong, because not everyone can afford an engagement ring that big.  Do you know that, Max?  So yours ought to be smaller because it‘s offensive to the underprivileged. 

No.  You decide how big it is.

KELLERMAN:  Let‘s say you have several children going to this school.  And one is graduating.  But you have another kid who‘s going to be in that teacher‘s class.  There are examples of parents who paid for teacher‘s vacations. 


KELLERMAN:  $10,000, $20,000 vacations.  Now, maybe their next kid‘s in that teacher‘s class.  Does that not give them an advantage?

CARLSON:  I think, if you believe that your teachers are subject to bribery, you ought to fire them.  Oh, you can‘t, because of the union.  But you should anyway. 

KELLERMAN:  Or the unions...


CARLSON:  Because that is low.  And I will say, if you‘re going to cap the amount a parent spends on a gift for a teacher, why not cap the amount of time a parent can spend volunteering in class, or helping the school in his off-hours, because not all parents have the same amount of time. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes, but it is different because one benefits the teacher directly in their private life.  The other benefits the teacher directly in their profession.  It‘s completely different.  Sending a teacher on vacation and helping out with arts and crafts are two completely different things. 

CARLSON:  But isn‘t gift-giving like this an incentive to good teachers to stay and for bad teachers to go?  Good teachers get to go to Jackson Hole.  Bad teachers get a coffee mug. 

KELLERMAN:  But they don‘t need to be incentivized by the parents, particularly not in public schools.  Where so, basically, once again, it comes down to rich people get a different level of treatment than poor people. 

CARLSON:  No.  It comes down to good teachers, like good employees everywhere, get rewarded.  Bad ones should not be rewarded.

KELLERMAN:  They do get rewarded.  They do get rewarded.  Good teachers get tenure. 

CARLSON:  Jackson Hole. 

We‘re going save that for tomorrow.  Thanks, Max Kellerman. 

Ahead on THE SITUATION, Howard Dean took a few backhanded shots at the Republican Party.  So what did President Bush say that have some Democrats hot and bothered?  Find out next.

Also ahead, meet Murphy, the golden retriever.  Yes, it‘s an animal story.  His owner pulled a no show.  So now Murphy is headed for court.  It‘s a legal drama.  We‘re going to fill you in on every detail.  Stay tuned. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back to “The Situation.”  I‘m Tucker Carlson. 

Time to unleash our next set of stories on the stack.  Joining me once again, tonight‘s dynamic duo, the un-caped crusaders, Jay Severin and Rachel Maddow. 


First up, Osama bin Laden.  On September 17, 2001, President Bush was

blunt about the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.  Asked if he wanted bin

Laden dead, the president said, quote, “I want justice.  There‘s a old

poster out West, I recall, that said, ‘Wanted Dead or Alive.‘”

Well, nearly four years later, bin Laden is, according to a report earlier today, alive and well, as is the fugitive Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar. 

If this is true—I mean, you know, we don‘t know, of course, if it‘s true.  The source of this was, in fact, blindfold, not even exactly clear who he is.  I guess the only point I would make is, if he is alive, he‘s not doing much.  There doesn‘t appear to be a profound organized resistance to the American presence in Afghanistan. 

And more to the point, there hasn‘t been a second terrorist attack in the United States in nearly four years.  That says something about bin Laden‘s inability to get his act together if he is, indeed, still alive. 

JAY SEVERIN, MSNBC ANALYST:  I think the sobering thing, too, is that this has become such a toad, and he‘s become such a toad.  And that if we get him, American people are going to have a big celebration.  About what?  What, terrorism is over now because we have a guy who‘s living in, like, the same sheet running around in caves for the last year-and-a-half? 

And by the way, there‘s a character in “Oliver Twist,” when he‘s told about the poor boys, he says, “Have we no jails?”  I mean, if we think this guy is anywhere within a ten-mile radius, have we no MOABs?  All this money from my paycheck each week, this is what we buy weapons for.

CARLSON:  The problem is, I mean, we suspect he‘s in Pakistan.  And the president of Pakistan, General Musharraf, is in a pretty precarious situation.  You start dropping MOABs on Pakistan, you could wind up with an Islamic government, which we don‘t want.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANALYST:  But the question is whether or not we have kept our eye on the ball since 9/11 in what we‘re trying to do.  I mean, you‘re right.  We declared war on an ism.  Right?  We declared war on terrorism. 

And if Osama bin Laden disappears, if he‘s vaporized, we still are not protecting our cargo.  We‘re still not protecting chemical plants.  We‘re still taking care of loose nuclear material in Russia.  We have, however, made Russia mess.  We have got a budget deficit that‘s of biblical proportions.  We have done...

MADDOW:  No, we have a budget deficit that is biblical proportions. 

In Russia, we haven‘t gone and got the...


SEVERIN:  You guys agreed not to filibuster.  Come on.  We did...


MADDOW:  Listen, we‘ve done all of this stuff that has nothing to do with keeping us safe.  Osama bin Laden is still out there.  We haven‘t done anything to harden ourselves as a target. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t think we made Russia a mess.  But you know, we‘re going to come back to that.  I promise. 

Next situation, fighting words in Washington.  President Bush went on the attack in his speech at a fund-raiser last night saying Democrats stand for nothing but obstruction, quote, “and they should step aside and let others lead.” 

That‘s after DNC Chairman Howard Dean said Republicans, whom he, quote, “hates,” never made an honest living in their lives and were pretty much a white Christian party, end quote. 

You know, I don‘t even think there‘s much debate, even among Democrats, the Democratic Party‘s having trouble deciding what it stands for these days.  I hear Democrats say that all the time, except for opposition to President Bush.

I actually don‘t think the debate between Bush and the Democrats is all that relevant in the long-run right now.  I don‘t think Bush is going to achieve much in the Congress for the rest of his term.  I think this second term of his will be defined by foreign policy, how he gets us out of Iraq, how he responds to perhaps future attacks here or in Europe.  I don‘t think it‘s about the partisan divide. 

MADDOW:  But it is interesting that—first of all, I don‘t want to hear another peep out of you about the Democrats being the ones who are pushing harshly partisan tone and going after Dean and everything. 

SEVERIN:  I‘ll do it.

MADDOW:  I mean, Bush as done this.  They put him co-headlining with Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and Mary Carey at a fundraiser, when he‘s got the lower presidential approval ratings of his presidency, lower than Bill Clinton when he was impeached. 

CARLSON:  Well, first of all, so what?  Second...

MADDOW:  So he lashes out at the Democrats.


CARLSON:  He isn‘t headlining with Mary Carey.

MADDOW:  I mean, what are the stories about it?  Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Mary Carey and the president.  Thanks, Republican.  I‘d be mad, too.

CARLSON:  Both of those are cool.  I don‘t see how you can argue against either one. 

SEVERIN:  The Democrats had four choices after this Election Day: 

they could shut up and go away.  They‘re not going to do it.  They could change their views to get votes.  They‘re not going to do that.  They could persuade voters that voters were stupid and you really should agree with us.  They‘re not having any success with that.

The fourth option is you obstruct and you demonize.  As someone who made his living for 20 years in national politics, they‘re doing exactly the right thing.  I abhor it.  I don‘t like it.  I don‘t like their views.  But this is what you do.  This is the option they‘ve got, and that is to demonize Bush and the Republicans so that you don‘t think about them, you think about how you can vote for...


CARLSON:  There‘s actually a third option, and that‘s the option used by a California school principal in this story.  Just make things up. 

If you can‘t make the grade, fake the grade.  That‘s the lesson from Saddleback High School Principal Esther Jones.  She sent teachers a memo asking them to consider raising the grades of failing seniors.  Jones said the school needed 95 percent of seniors to graduate in order to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law.

It turns out, she was wrong.  The school already has enough graduating seniors with genuine passing grades.  But that‘s not the point.  The irony is, of course, that this law was passed to raise the standards. 

She‘s acting like the foreman of a, I don‘t know, Soviet toilet paper factory, right?

MADDOW:  Come on.

CARLSON:  No, I‘m serious though.  You can‘t make—you know, you don‘t meet your quotas so you cook the books.  She ought to be fired.  And if we‘re serious about education in this country—we have union members running education.  With attitudes like this...

MADDOW:  Heaven forbid union members running anything. 

CARLSON:  I‘m serious, though.  I mean...

MADDOW:  No, listen.  No Child Left Behind is a crock.  It‘s about standardized testing.  I don‘t know which is worse, to teach to the test all year so that you can get your funding or to say, “Let‘s cheat on the test,” or “Let‘s bring up our grades so we can get around it.” 

Standardized testing is not the way forward in education.  It‘s just a fix that makes it look like you‘re doing something without actually improving teaching or learning. 

CARLSON:  You can‘t be defending an obvious act of dishonesty by a school principal, can you?

MADDOW:  I think that anything that undermines No Child Left Behind is good for kids and is good for education in this country. 

CARLSON:  Whew. 

SEVERIN:  This is a virulent but predictable outcome of affirmative action.  It‘s another form of affirmative action.  In terms of the rudiments of ethical breaches here, this is like a priest molesting children.  An educator who passes someone on, even though they didn‘t learn what they were supposed to learn, is a breach of the most sacred obligation you have as a teacher.

MADDOW:  As supplementing our educational goals for a standardized test that makes it look like you‘re doing something and allows you to demonize teachers is also something really bad and...


CARLSON:  I think we should agree:  Cheating bad. 

Also, booing bad.  It‘s rude.  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger got booed at his own alma mater.  Here it is.



GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ®, CALIFORNIA:  ... and I followed his footsteps...


CARLSON:  The crowd at Santa Monica College jeered for virtually the entire 15-minute commencement address, which made Schwarzenegger turn red, understandably.  Shouts may not have been from students, however.  Public union members, including teachers, have been hounding him at public appearances protesting his spending plans. 

You know, I think everyone can agree it‘s totally over-the-top wrong and rude to shout a man down, or a woman down, or anybody down at a public speech, especially a guy who‘s not speaking his native language.  I‘m serious.  Totally unfair.

SEVERIN:  You mean the president. 

CARLSON:  Yes, the president or anybody.  I mean, come on.  Can‘t we agree on that? 

SEVERIN:  It‘s rude, but you know what?  That‘s life.  That‘s studenthood.  That‘s being young and a little bit exuberant.

CARLSON:  But these are mostly union people. 


SEVERIN:  Well, OK, if that‘s true, then that‘s something the school rules should police.  But I mean, students boo Republican.  You know, dog bites man.  The irony here is that he‘s a role model, really, for them.  Think about who he was and what he did.  He‘s actually a role model for these kids, that they... 

SEVERIN:  Well, someone who had nothing and made something of himself.  And a lot of these kids won‘t do as nearly as well as he will with nothing, or even with something.  The irony of this is...


MADDOW:  I think making professional athletes into more of a role model for kids is a bad thing.  But I think that, you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a public figure.  He‘s going out to make a speech.  He‘s spent his entire administration since he‘s been governor attacking education, attacking the public unions, attacking teachers‘ unions. 

So he goes out to speak at a school, and he gets booed.  I think he‘s got to be a little thick-skinned about it. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but you ought to let people speak.  If you have got a complaint, say it in a way people understand.  “You‘re bad!  You suck!”  That‘s not good enough.



MADDOW:  These things happen.

SEVERIN:  You practiced that?

CARLSON:  Hey, I‘ve practiced it. 


Next situation, Donald trump honored as the father of the year.  The National Father‘s Day Council chose Trump for its yearly award, explaining that he and other fathers, quote, “not only have a great dedication to raising their families, but also have made exceptional philanthropic contributions.” 

While Trump does have four children, he also has had three marriages, all of which have been extensively covered on the front-page of “The New York Post.”  His kids seem perfectly well-adjusted.  I‘m sure he was a fine father.  But it seems to me the first of a father, of any father, is to keep his family out of the tabloids.

If I know a ton about your kids, I don‘t know, I think it‘s a sign you‘re not doing your job. 

MADDOW:  I don‘t know that there‘s—I mean, the connection between being a good father and being a good husband in this case, getting remarried all the time, I don‘t know, maybe he was a good husband.  I‘m sure whoever his most current wife thinks he‘s a good husband.  I mean, I don‘t know...


CARLSON:  I‘m sure he is.  I‘m sure he is a good father and good husband, but don‘t you think there‘s something wrong with allowing your family to be the subject of tabloid report? 

SEVERIN:  I do.  Eddie Murphy says you‘ve got keep your daughter off the pole.  If she turns out to be a stripper, you know you did something wrong.  It‘s axiomatic. 

Look, this is like the Sierra Club honoring a timber company.  I mean, I now know, if these guys are being honored as fathers of the year, I know that next year‘s mom of the year is locked-up Courtney Love.  I mean, it‘s...


CARLSON:  Don‘t hold your breath.  All right.

MADDOW:  National Father‘s Day Council, yes. 

CARLSON:  Jay, Rachel, thank you both very much. 

And on that high note, I‘m told that Angelina Jolie and Condoleezza Rice have joined forces.  Talk about a powerful combination.  What are they up to and why?  We‘ll tell you, on the “Cutting Room Floor.”


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Time now to sweep up the “Cutting Room Floor,” all those stories we couldn‘t get to during the show.  Our producer, Willie Geist (ph), has collected the very best of those and bring them to us now. 

WILLIE GEIST (ph), PRODUCER:  Tucker, I‘d love to sit here and chat, but we have got to move here.  We‘ve got a dog‘s day in court and the weatherman‘s reputation on the line. 

Go get them. 

CARLSON:  I can‘t wait.  Thanks, Willie.

Like tens of millions of Americans, I personally have had my fill of Michael Jackson‘s reality over the past few months.  But it appears Jackson‘s acquittal was only the beginning of our long national nightmare. 

A family friend of the Jackson family is shopping a six-episode reality show that goes behind the scenes with Michael, his parents and eight brothers and sisters rallied together during his child molestation trial. 

GEIST:  You have to love this, Tucker.  During the most trying time of their lives, with Michael‘s freedom hanging in the balance, they had the presence of mind to shoot a reality television series.  Brilliant.  Only the Jacksons.

CARLSON:  That‘s thinking ahead.

GEIST:  A tip of the cap to you, Jacksons.

CARLSON:  Condoleezza Rice and Angelina Jolie were in Washington today to announce the release of their new, highly anticipated buddy-cop movie.  Just kidding.  Oh, wait.  The secretary of state and bombshell actress were actually in D.C. together to kick off World Refugee Day.  Jolie serves as goodwill ambassador to the U.N. when she‘s not acting or breaking up celebrity marriages.

GEIST:  Tucker, what are you guys, you and the family doing for World Refugee Day this year? 

CARLSON:  Celebrating as we always do.

GEIST:  Heading up to the cabin?  It‘s a three-day weekend this year. 

So it‘ll be nice.

CARLSON:  Next, Willie.  I‘m not going to mock refugees, despite the invitation from you.

GEIST:  I‘m not mocking them at all.

CARLSON:  I would suggest we live in a litigious society, but a George Mason University law student is suing her school because she flunked a class.  Carin Constantine said she had a migraine headache during a final exam for a constitutional law class and failed the test because of it. 

GEIST:  Failed the test?  This is brilliant.  Forget failing her.  Give her extra credit.  This is a constitutional law student who took a headache to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  A-plus, I say. 

CARLSON:  That is right.  She‘s basically already a lawyer. 

GEIST:  She is.  Practicing what she‘s learned, brilliantly. 

CARLSON:  Chase those ambulances.

Well, I know our trust in public institutions is eroding, and it is, but I never thought it would come to this.  A new survey shows most Americans don‘t have faith in their meteorologists.  They don‘t think they can accurately predict the weather.  Only one-third of respondents for an Associated Press poll say their local weatherman usually get the forecast right. 

GEIST:  You know what I don‘t trust about weathermen?  Their names. 

Storm Fields, do you remember this guy? 

CARLSON:  Yes, I...


GEIST:  You‘re supposed to look him in the guy and believe Storm Fields?  I can‘t take your five-day outlook seriously with information like that.

CARLSON:  They say dogs are man‘s best friend, but they are good enough friends to take a rap for you in court?  Good question.  A golden retriever named Murphy was summoned to a Newton, Massachusetts, courtroom to answer charges he was being walked without a leash.  The summons, of course, was actually intended for his owner, but the cops sent the complaint to the dog by mistake. 

GEIST:  Profiling rears its ugly head again.  This never happens with cocker spaniels.  End of story.

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  Good point.

Willie Geist, thank you.


CARLSON:  That‘s going to do it.  Thanks for watching.  That‘s THE SITUATION.  I‘m Tucker Carlson.  See you tomorrow.



Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 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.


Discussion comments