updated 7/19/2005 8:29:15 AM ET 2005-07-19T12:29:15

Guest: Peter DeFazio, Rachel Maddow, Max Kellerman

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST (voice-over):  Hot for teacher, one woman‘s crazy excuse for having sex with her student. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It was like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions. 

CARLSON:  Why Congress doesn‘t want air travelers to phone home. 

Use a rock, go jail.  It happened to this little girl.  Wait until you hear why. 

Plus. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Oh, my God. 

CARLSON:  The miracle of girth.

And is the president lowering the ethical bar to protect Karl Rove? 

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I would like this to end as quickly as possible. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Welcome to another full week of THE SITUATION.  I‘m Tucker Carlson.  Hope you had a terrific weekend. 

Lots of controversy brewing on tonight‘s show, including Ebonics in the classroom and a layaway plan for some Hawaiians.  Pardon the pun.  Plus, why one congressman is willing to nuke Mecca and Medina, for that matter.

Joining me tonight, back from a very relaxing vacation, Air America superstar Rachel Maddow.  And, from MSNBC‘s “CONNECTED COAST TO COAST” is the great Monica Crowley. 

Thanks, both. 

RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Hi, Tucker.

MONICA CROWLEY, CO-HOST, “CONNECTED: COAST TO COAST”:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  First up, the smoldering Karl Rove-CIA leak issue.  “TIME” magazine reporter Matt Cooper did the press tour over the weekend.  And his account of the Valerie Plame story was released on Sunday in “TIME” magazine.

In it, Cooper says that he learned of Plame‘s work as a CIA officer from Rove, who ended the conversation by saying—quote—“I‘ve already said too much.”

In the meantime, President Bush now says that anyone convicted of a crime as a result of the Plame story would no longer work for his administration.  No surprise there. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  The great surprise in this whole—the development today that struck me most was the lead of Matt Cooper‘s very interesting piece in “TIME,” in which he describes meeting the president for the first time in the Oval Office a year-and-a-half ago or so.  The president‘s first words to Matt Cooper—quote—“Cooper, I thought you‘d be in jail by now.”

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Which, I have to say, is endearing, very, very appealing. 

I do think, based a lot of different evidence that came out today, that the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, is looking for a perjury case.  I think that‘s clearly what is happening.  Based on the questions that Cooper was asked in the grand jury hearing, I think it‘s clear that they want to hang perjury...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  And will—will a perjury conviction be enough to get Karl Rove or whoever is convicted of perjury out of the administration? 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Or will the standard shift again?  Will it then be, no, you have to be convicted of a specific crime?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, he‘ll be in prison by then.  So, yes, I think that will disqualify him from serving in the West Wing. 

MADDOW:  You have got to admit, though—I mean, you said at the beginning of this discussion, you said at the beginning of this issue, the president has to stand by his word...

CARLSON:  Right. 

MADDOW:  ... that he‘ll fire anybody who will—who was involved in this leak. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

MADDOW:  And now we‘ve got—it‘s not involved in the leak anymore.  It‘s not somebody who leaked the name.  It‘s now somebody who committed a crime.  The president changing his standard on this in public is embarrassing, I think.

CARLSON:  Well, the distinction that they‘re making—just to be fair, the administration is making the following distinction.  His spokesman said—and they‘re saying it was in general terms—anyone involved would be fired.  Bush himself said anybody who committed a crime. 

CROWLEY:  Right. 

MADDOW:  That‘s not true.  He has responded...

CROWLEY:  No. 

MADDOW:  In responding to reporters, he had said, will you fire anybody involved in this?  And he has said yes, directly.  And now he‘s changing his tune. 

CROWLEY:  But we have to understand, there is an ongoing investigation happening here.  We have no idea if Karl Rove or anybody else in this administration actually committed a crime.  Everybody ought to take a deep breath and step back.  Let the special prosecutor do what he needs to do and then let the chips fall.  This president is not going to tolerate anybody in his administration who has committed a crime.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Leaking?  Leaking?  How about leaking? 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  He said before he wouldn‘t tolerate leaking. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  But, Rachel, based on what we know right now, coming out of all of these e-mails, Karl Rove didn‘t do anything wrong. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

CROWLEY:  There was no crime committed. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  Based on what I know...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  All right.  Wait.  Hold on.  Before we refight this whole thing, we are just going to have to move on.  I know.  I know. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You look injured.  You look injured. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I know. 

MADDOW:  So disappointed.

CARLSON:  A little leaks out...

MADDOW:  Fire anybody involved.  Then commit a crime.

CARLSON:  A little leaks out every day. 

MADDOW:  I know.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  No, but how do you expect him to fire him?  Karl Rove like essentially runs the West Wing of the White House. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  That‘s where we get to.  He can‘t fire him.  He‘s too important.  Forget what I said about why...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Hold on.  There‘s some truth in that. 

CROWLEY:  Wait a minute.  If—if—if anybody, Karl Rove or anybody else, starts to become a political liability for this president, he‘s history.  Whether or not he stands trial for anything or not, he‘ll be gone. 

MADDOW:  Political liability. 

CARLSON:  Next situation...

MADDOW:  That‘s a standard for you. 

CARLSON:  Tom Tancredo, Republican member of Congress from Colorado and human controversy machine.  On Florida talk radio recently, Tancredo was asked how the U.S. ought to respond if terrorists struck us with nuclear weapons. 

Tancredo responded—quote—“You could take out their holy sites.”  “You‘re talking about bombing Mecca,” the radio host said.  “Yes,” said Tancredo.  His spokesman later explained that the congressman was speaking strictly hypothetical.  And I don‘t really know why.

I mean, look, if it was a choice between saving America from destruction and blowing up Mecca and Medina, I guess I would choose the latter.  I think, in an all-out war, right to the end—I don‘t think you ought to bomb Mecca, obviously.  But I don‘t think you ought to take anything off the table. 

MADDOW:  The question about whether or not it‘s good military strategy to bomb Mecca I don‘t think is the story here.  I think the story here is, there‘s a sitting congressman who is just, in his own words, throwing out ideas about nuking Mecca. 

What happened to the whole standard—remember, the administration said, you have to watch your words.  You have to—you have to pay attention to how things are perceived.  He‘s just throwing out the idea of bombing Medina.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You‘ve got to think big, Rachel.  You‘ve got open your mind a little bit. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  He‘s just throwing around ideas. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  Hang on.  Hang on.  There‘s a method to the madness here, which actually is very logical. 

MADDOW:  Oh, I can‘t wait.

CROWLEY:  This is a holy war, not because we‘ve defined it that way but because the enemy has called it such, OK, number one. 

Number two, if a nuclear device goes off in an American city, you bet there‘s going to be retaliation.  And it will probably be retaliation against Saudi Arabia and Iran.  That‘s number two.

Number three, the method to the madness, there‘s something in I.R.  theory called rationality of irrationality.  Sometimes, it helps leaders to look a little bit off balance, to look a little crazy, because it keeps the enemy off balance.

CARLSON:  That‘s the basic bar fight here.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Success.  In terms of looking crazy, we have got it. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  The president can‘t do it.  Tom Tancredo can. 

CARLSON:  No, no.  But...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  That‘s true.  Look, if—if the other guy thinks, if he tangles with you, you‘re going to bite his nose off...

CROWLEY:  That‘s exactly right.

CARLSON:  If he thinks you‘re a full-blown psycho, he‘s probably going to back off. 

MADDOW:  So, we‘re going to approach the idea of war with an ideology of fundamentalist Islamists who want to declare war on the West, right, a stateless enemy, we‘re going to say, you know what?  We‘re going to nuke Mecca. 

CARLSON:  No, no, no.  It‘s just...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  This is a great strategy.

WILLIAMS:  But wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  This is fundamentally sound. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  I‘m amazed that you‘re talking about radical elements of this particular thing.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Radical elements of the Republican Party talking about nuking Saudi Arabia. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Hold on.  No one is talking about it.  It‘s merely an arrow in the quiver. 

MADDOW:  He‘s just throwing around ideas. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Let the chips fall.

CARLSON:  All right. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  ... irrationality, it works brilliantly every time. 

MADDOW:  Oh, wow.

CARLSON:  Our next situation takes us all the way to Hawaii, where both Democratic and Republican leaders are trying to pass a bill that would grant about 400,000 native Hawaiians throughout the U.S. the same rights of self-government, partial self-government, anyway, enjoyed by American Indians and Native Alaskans. 

Not everyone agrees with the idea.  One group of native Hawaiians recently issued a declaration saying the bill would—quote—“attempt to label us with an identity, as Native Americans, that is not and will never be who we are as a people.”  Others in Hawaii also blasting the bill, saying it is race-based, which it is. 

And, by the way, it also would apply, strictly speaking, to a very small group of people.  There are 5,000 full-blooded native Hawaiians left in the world. 

But the—I think the principal question is, A, do you want to create a sovereign nation within our nation?  No.  And, B, do you want to single people out on the basis of race to give them special rights?  Again, no. 

MADDOW:  Do you think that there should be recognition of sovereignty of Native Americans? 

CARLSON:  Absolutely—I do not think. 

MADDOW:  You don‘t think?

CARLSON:  I don‘t think it‘s good for Native Americans and I don‘t think it‘s good the rest of America. 

MADDOW:  And native Alaskans shouldn‘t have any sovereignty either? 

CARLSON:  No.  I absolutely don‘t think it‘s been—look, has it worked well?  Has it worked well for American Indians?  No, at all.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  I think that the...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Let me just—let me just make one quick point.

CROWLEY:  Go ahead.

MADDOW:  If you believe—if you believe there should not be sovereignty and there shouldn‘t be self-determination among native people in this country, then make that argument and get rid of it for Native Americans and get rid of it for Alaskans, if that‘s your position.

But to say we‘re going to have that status legally and then exclude Hawaiians from it, who really meet the same definition, doesn‘t make sense. 

CROWLEY:  Well, yes, but the beauty of America is that we are a melting pot, that different groups are supposed to integrate themselves into the American culture and leave that behind and become Americans first and foremost. 

So, when you start separating out these groups, you‘re flying in the face of that. 

MADDOW:  But we started that a long time ago.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  And, as Tucker said, it doesn‘t work. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  It doesn‘t play to the benefit of the groups or to the country. 

CARLSON:  And we‘re stuck with it. 

But the fact is here that the aggrieved party no longer exists. 

Hawaii is...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Well, native Hawaiians would disagree.

CARLSON:  No, no, no, listen.  Hawaii was last a kingdom 112 years ago. 

MADDOW:  When we overthrew them. 

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  And that‘s exactly—which was a good or bad thing, depending.  But it happened 112 years ago. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No one who was directly affected by that still lives.  You don‘t get paid for what your grandparents suffered.  Sorry. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  If you want to get rid of the way we treat Native Americans, native Alaskans in this country, as separate people, as people who were here first, who get some special privileges, then argue against that.  But don‘t say that can stand for some people and you can‘t have it for Hawaiians.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Doesn‘t make sense.

CARLSON:  All right. 

CROWLEY:  Well, what is so bizarre about this case is that the native Hawaiians aren‘t even asking for this.  It‘s the Republican and Democrats in the state of Hawaii...

CARLSON:  Right. 

CROWLEY:  ... who, in a spasm of political correctness, have decided to force this on...

MADDOW:  That‘s not true.

CROWLEY:  ... a group of people who doesn‘t even want it. 

MADDOW:  That‘s not true.  There‘s a split in the native community on this.

CARLSON:  The native community.

MADDOW:  There is.

CARLSON:  Yes, all 5,000.

MADDOW:  Fair enough.  You want to...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  The numbers don‘t matter, really. 

CARLSON:  No, no, no, but the—OK.

MADDOW:  All right.  Move on. 

CARLSON:  We‘ll move on.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  We‘ll talk about it later, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Our next—our next—yes, we will, in the commercial break.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  But, for now, our next situation sheds light on why Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn resort to crashing weddings and not actually taking part in them. 

According to an annual report entitled “The State of Our Unions 2005,” the U.S. divorce rate is down almost 23 percent since 1980.  That‘s great news.  But consider this.  The marriage rate has also dropped 50 percent since 1970.  That means couples who might once have wed and then divorced now not marrying at all. 

This is bad for the following reason.  I‘m not going to say it‘s bad to live together.  It‘s fun.  It‘s bad to live together if you have children.  Why?  Because it‘s less permanent.  People who live together break up twice as often as married couples.  Instability is bad for kids.  This is a bad trend for children. 

CROWLEY:  And, also, statistics show couples who live together before they get married actually have a higher divorce rate.  So, you‘re—you‘re right about that. 

MADDOW:  This is one of the situations, though, where the goal is uncontroversial, but the means of getting there is controversial, because everybody wants steady families.  Everybody wants family values.  Everybody wants kids to grow up in a steady, loving home, where things are stable. 

But do you want the government telling you, you have to get married? 

Not necessarily. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Do you want the government treating your kids differently if you‘re not married?  Not really. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  We don‘t have that kind of culture or that kind of Constitution.

CROWLEY:  But there‘s also an important demographic thing happening here, where our generation is usually the product of divorce.  I‘m the product of divorce.  Therefore, I think our generation may take a second look at getting married, because we saw what happened to our parents. 

MADDOW:  That‘s interesting. 

CARLSON:  Well...

CROWLEY:  And we maybe feel more fearful about going in and doing it in the first place. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Government makes value judgments all the time.  And the tax code, for instance, is a very judgmental code. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  More than 1,000 pages of it.  And giving married couples legal rights and advantages that unmarried couples don‘t is a way to encourage marriage.

MADDOW:  On the same time, what that does, in effect, is, it punishes kids of nonmarried couples. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Yes, it does.  Yes, it does. 

MADDOW:  And so, that‘s the question we have to make. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Yes. 

MADDOW:  I think that not everybody is with you on this one.

CARLSON:  Not everyone is.  But...

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  And I can see why.  But I think it‘s worth it. 

Coming up, corporate Americans should shut down without its beloved interns.  It would shut down.  Get your mind out of the gutter.  It‘s true.  But there, discrimination when it comes time to hand out America‘s most poorly paid jobs. 

Plus, water balloon attacks fun until someone retaliates with a rock. 

An 11-year-old California girl faces felony charges for fighting back.  Good for her.  Law enforcement gone haywire or is it just desserts?  That will be settled during our outsider segment, as THE SITUATION develops. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still ahead, is the government trying trick you into donating your internal organs after you die?  Maybe so.  You won‘t believe how.  Find out the dastardly details next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Time for “Op Ed Op Ed.”  We spent the day perusing almost every editorial page in the country and came up with the three most scintillating op-eds, to which the three of us will respond in 20-second increments. 

First up, “Boston Globe,” Judea Pearl, whose son, Danny Pearl, was murdered in Pakistan right after 9/11, writes in “The Boston Globe” today about a meeting of Islamic scholars that took place in Amman, Jordan, called the Reality of Islam and Its Role in Contemporary Society.  And here‘s what he says they found—quote—“Belief in basic tenets of faith provides an immutable protection from charges of being an apostate.  Anti-Islamic behavior, including the advocacy of mass murder in the name of religion, cannot remove that protection.”

In other words, a leading group of Islamic scholars found that, as long as you believe in the five pillars of Islam, nothing you can do invalidates your status as a good Muslim.  It seems to me that, if the leading group of Islamic scholars can‘t bring themselves to call terrorists apostates, then there is something corrupt at the heart of mainstream Islam.

CROWLEY:  Well, it‘s because the whole concept of jihad is embedded in the Islamic faith.  Therefore, this is why you don‘t see a lot of Muslims coming out condemning these terrorists attacks.  Yes, you have isolated voices around the world.  But they‘re isolated for a reason. 

And that is because, if you come out and condemn the concept of jihad, you‘re essentially condemning your faith.  And that‘s why they won‘t do it. 

MADDOW:  I totally disagree. 

I think that I can‘t tell any faith what internally it can do in terms of fatwas or apostasy or excommunication or exorcism or anything like that.  Faiths get their own internal rules.  What you can judge people on is their response to things like terrorism.  And you do have fatwas against the bombings now.  You do have moderate and mainstream and big Muslim groups coming out and condemning this stuff.  And I think we need to encourage moderate impulses within Islam and not condemn the entire faith for being somehow anti-American or pro-violence.  It‘s not true.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  But that‘s assuming—that‘s assuming that Islam would even be receptive to those moderate impulses. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, just to clarify, I don‘t think we‘ve seen a single fatwa emerge from Saudi Arabia, the cradle of jihad-based Islam in 2005. 

MADDOW:  But when we do see them, like we did them come from the Sunni Muslims in Britain, we have to encourage that.  We can‘t condemn...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Of course we do.

CROWLEY:  There are too few and too far in between.

CARLSON:  And I think—I think we do encourage it. 

Well, “The Chicago Tribune” voices concerns about the American Medical Association supporting the notion that, unless you specifically say otherwise, your organs are free for the harvesting once you die—quote—

“People might rightly worry that somehow, given the track record of government bureaucracies, their refusal to donate might just get—quote — lost in the paperwork.”

I think that‘s a real concern.  I mean, I think many doctors have trouble understanding why average people would be concerned or have any qualms about organ donation.  It strikes them as irrational.  And it may be irrational. But that doesn‘t mean people don‘t have the right to have qualms about it.

CROWLEY:  That‘s—that‘s right. 

CARLSON:  They do. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  Yes. 

You should have the choice, at least, to maintain the sanctity of your own body or give up those organs, which is a very noble thing to do in itself.  But it should be your choice.  The government shouldn‘t make it the default position that, if something were to happen to you, that—they have the right to harvest your organs. 

MADDOW:  Well, the government isn‘t doing that.  It‘s the American Medical Association floating this idea.  I think the American Medical Association should float the idea that we get our medical record-keeping in order, so that people don‘t have to worry, oh, no, my organ statement is going to be lost.  I mean, otherwise, we‘re all going to be tattooing “mine” on different parts of our torso, so things don‘t get lost. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Yes.  I think, when the federal government steps in, you—it‘s fair to have some concerns about the record-keeping.  Yes, I think it is.

MADDOW:  The record-keeping.  We ought to get the record-keeping...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Next, in “USA Today,” Bill Coplin writes about the divides

that exists between college students who get good internships and those who

don‘t.  It‘s mostly a financial divide, he writes

Quote: “Students from well-heeled families can take unpaid internships.  The rest have to earn money in the summer to support their ever-increasing tuition payments.”

And there‘s no doubt that‘s true.  I mean, everything is easier for rich people, including getting internships. 

MADDOW:  It‘s true.

CARLSON:  And poor people have to hard—work harder to get ahead. 

The good news is, there‘s a lot of evidence that America is becoming more meritocratic, and that people from not rich backgrounds still succeed.  There‘s a lot of evidence that is true, despite the odds.

CROWLEY:  Oh, sure.  And having a paying job, I always had a paying job through high school and through college.  And it was a great way to pay my way through school, character building.  I mean, there‘s nothing wrong with working for a living when you‘re a student. 

MADDOW:  I think—well, I always had to work for a living.  I never had the opportunity to take unpaid work. 

That said, the college kids who intern for me at Air America Radio absolutely, positively have a leg up in terms of getting an entry-level job.  And every kid who has ever interned for me has a leg up on getting a job.  That is the way it works.

AmeriCorps gives money to nonprofits to give paid internships to kids who can‘t afford to work for free.  I think that ought to be supported. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

Still much to come.  Nothing funny about a schoolteacher who seduced her 14-year-old student.  Let‘s be honest.  Any man would admit he wishes he had been in her class.  It‘s just true.  Should the Socratic sex pot face charges for her dalliance?

Next up, are you irritated you can‘t make a cell phone call while flying the friendly skies?  Of course you are.  But are we close to finally solving that problem?  We may be, but not if our next guest has anything to say about it. 

Our “Free Speak” segment is next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Before takeoff, flight attendants warn to you turn off your cell phone because it may interfere with the plane‘s navigation system.  Pretty scary.  Now we learn that‘s a lie.  No testing by the FCC or the FAA has proven that airplanes are affected by cell use at all.  The FCC is now considering scrapping the cell phone ban altogether.  But a congressional hearing has determined that, even if they are safe, cell phones are simply too annoying for airplanes. 

Joining me now, Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon.  He sits on the House Transportation Committee. 

Congressman, there‘s no evidence at all that we could find that cell phones are dangerous to commercial aircraft.  This is a lie we‘ve been told all these years. 

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON:  Well, Tucker, I thought the same thing five years ago.  I asked for a hearing, because I was tired of the earphone for $3.99 a minute. 

But we had a professor from Embry-Riddle University, aeronautics university, that brought me up short big-time.  And he said, no, actually, a cell phone that has either been intentionally modified or dropped and damaged, interfering with the shielding and what it transmits at, could actually, in a rare instance, he said one in 500,000 or so, interfere critically with a fly-by-wire, that is, the new planes that don‘t have real controls.  They just have data transmitted. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

Well, then—then that—that opens up a terrifying possibility and also a possibility of negligence.  Why are you allowed to bring cell phones on airplanes at all if they‘re that dangerous?  You can‘t bring a toe nail clipper on.  Why—why a cell phone? 

DEFAZIO:  Well, I think, you know, in practical—we hope that most people shut them off.  The FAA said, look, first, we‘re going to certify that it‘s absolutely safe.  And they‘ve not determined that yet. 

CARLSON:  Oh.

DEFAZIO:  And there‘s a...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  So, they‘re potentially deadly, but not really, so we shouldn‘t ban them, but we actually allow them? 

(LAUGHTER)

DEFAZIO:  Well, you know, we had some interesting testimony.  We had the FAA saying they‘re going through a bunch of hoops and hurdles. 

We had the Homeland Security Department and the Justice Department saying they‘re very concerned about the implications for terrorism, triggering of bombs and those sorts of things.  And then, sure, you get number three, which is the annoyance factor. 

CARLSON:  Ah.

(CROSSTALK)

DEFAZIO:  I tried to ban smoking on planes for years.  And the airlines would say, oh, you know, it‘s a competitive thing.  We can‘t ban smoking, even though there are, you know, like fistfights breaking out and people cheer when the pilot bans smoking. 

You can have the same thing here.  Oh, we are going to have a quiet zone.

CARLSON:  Wait a second.

DEFAZIO:  We‘re going to have a noisy zone.  We‘re going to segregate the people.

CARLSON:  But why not?  Why—why—hold on.  I commend you for admitting what this is really about.  And that is the fact that a certain sort of yuppie finds it annoying.  I want to take you to...

DEFAZIO:  Yuppie? 

CARLSON:  ... the “USA”—no, I want to take you to the “USA Today” piece on this today. 

DEFAZIO:  Sure.

CARLSON:  This was so revealing.  Congressman Maxine Waters, a proud member of the Democratic Caucus, said that she spends 12 hours a week flying between Washington and Southern California and cell phones could—quote—“ruin” her “downtime.”  “I appreciate the time away from my cell phone,” she said.”

With all due respect, Maxine Waters‘ downtime shouldn‘t determine whether or not I can use a cell phone on a plane. 

DEFAZIO:  Sure, no.  I mean, it‘s—if we cross what the FAA said, if the FCC allows it—remember, this was originally banned because of the FCC, because cell phones were soaking up too much ground capacity.  So, that was the original ban. 

Then the FAA piled on with a safety concern.  So, now the FCC says, well, this new technology can take care of our problem.  Then the FAA says, OK, well, you have still got to satisfy our problem.  And then, after you go through those two things, then they say it will be up to the individual airlines. 

CARLSON:  Well...

DEFAZIO:  And, you know, that will be OK with me.  I just won‘t fly on one that allows cell phones. 

CARLSON:  But what, in effect, you‘re saying is that this very unfair segregation between the rich and the poor on commercial airlines ought to...

DEFAZIO:  Oh, rich and the poor.  Everybody...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  No, no, no.  Hold on here.  Wait.  Hold on here, Congressman. 

DEFAZIO:  The rich people don‘t fly with me on commercial airplanes, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Yes.  In fact, some of them do.  And they can use air phones for $3 a minute.  But the average person who wants to call his family has no recourse. 

(CROSSTALK)

DEFAZIO:  When I entered Congress 20 years ago, I would see CEOs on planes.  You don‘t see them anymore.  You don‘t even see mid-level executives. 

I fly on a plane from Eugene to Denver, Oregon—from Eugene, Oregon, to Denver that a CFO wouldn‘t even get on by himself.  And they crammed 60 people on it.  So, no.  This is not about rich people.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Wait.  Hold on.  If you‘re arguing that rich people don‘t fly planes, I can‘t—you know, I‘m not going to argue that.  Our mid-level executives here fly coach, I‘ll have you know. 

But I‘m—but the point is, look, only people who can afford a three-minute $1-a-minute phone can use the phone on a plane.  They still can use that in-flight phone.  But ordinary people can‘t call home, can‘t get work done, can‘t do anything with a cell phone because people like you find it annoying.  Isn‘t that unfair? 

DEFAZIO:  No.  No.  I‘m not in charge of this issue. 

I‘m saying, if the FCC allows it and the FAA says there‘s absolutely, positively no safety problem, and my plane isn‘t going to go down because someone had to make a, you know, nonessential phone call, then it will be up to the airlines.  And I, as a consumer, will choose the airlines that do not allow voice transmission. 

(CROSSTALK)

DEFAZIO:  I‘m all for data transmission if it‘s safe.  I‘d love to be able to use my BlackBerry. 

CARLSON:  Well, because it‘s—it‘s—again, point made, because it‘s quiet. 

Just give—give me the quick—the quick explanation for our many viewers who must be confused as to why Congress is taking up an issue this small.  Why is this an issue Congress ought to weigh in on? 

DEFAZIO:  You would have to ask the Republican majority.  They—they they‘re the ones who scheduled the hearing.  I just went and participated because I‘m a member of the committee.  I didn‘t ask for it.  I asked for it five years ago.

CARLSON:  So, you do what the Republicans tell you to do, basically? 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  No.  I—I asked for it five years ago, when I thought it was a—you know, a monopoly to price-gouge consumers.  And I was told by a professor of aeronautics, no, it‘s a real safety issue. 

Until someone can refute his arguments, I‘m not there.  But if—if that does happen, they refute his arguments, I‘ll just choose the airlines that don‘t allow it.  That‘s a...

CARLSON:  All right. 

DEFAZIO:  That‘s a free market. 

CARLSON:  Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon, thanks a lot for joining us. 

DEFAZIO:  Sure. 

CARLSON:  Coming up, how bad are things in the state of Kentucky?  Well, they banished the smiley face, for one.  A sign of apocalypse, a government out of control?  No matter how you slice it, it can‘t be good.  And it‘s next. 

Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome to THE SITUATION.  Sitting in for Ricardo Montalban, I‘m Tucker Carlson. 

There‘s still more news.  Let‘s get right back into it with Rachel Maddow and Monica Crowley. 

MADDOW:  De plane!

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I learned something very scary tonight.  And that is that one in every 500,000 cell phones could bring down a passenger plane.  And again, my question stands, if they‘re so dangerous, why are they on planes?  I‘m concerned now, as a frequent flyer. 

CROWLEY:  I certainly (INAUDIBLE) let them on.  And why do they have them built into the seat, so that you can use them, so that‘s a case of extortion, right? 

I would love to have data, like the congressman was saying.  I‘d love to have BlackBerry access.  I‘d love to have Internet access so you can do your e-mails.  You point out it‘s quiet.  You know, if you allow everybody to be using, I mean, every flight, I don‘t care how short it is, would be a cacophonous hell.

CARLSON:  I agree.  Freedom is annoying.  I agree.

MADDOW:  But I do love the fact that you‘re taking the side of the poor, huddled masses who can‘t afford to use AirFone.  I mean, I don‘t think this is a rich-poor issue. 

CARLSON:  It is.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  It is an issue of annoyance and safety verses convenience, right?  And so it would be more convenient to be able to use our cell phones, but maybe it‘s a little...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But I think...

MADDOW:  I think it should be resolved. 

CARLSON:  I think, if people who travel all the time, who want to talk to their children, I mean, seriously... 

MADDOW:  The convenience issue and the annoyance issue, I mean, I travel on trains all the time.  And everybody talks on the phone on trains, and it‘s fine. 

CROWLEY:  And you know what?  Every conversation starts the same way. 

What are you doing?  Nothing.  “I‘m on the train.” 

MADDOW:  “I‘m on the train.”

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  They could take the old smoking sections and make them quiet sections.  And then people that don‘t want cell phones conversations can...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But all the militant quiet people on Amtrak, I know that every single one of them is a Kucinich voter, maybe except you.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Not me.  I‘m a Kucinich vegan.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Next situation, Rick Santorum stands by his staff.  The senator‘s an outspoken opponent of gay rights and once said same-sex marriage is messing with the basic family unit.  But then his senior spokesman, Robert Traynham, was outed by the creeps at an online gay publication. 

Now Santorum is fighting mad.  Here‘s what he said.  Quote, “It‘s entirely unacceptable for my staff‘s personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent‘s campaign.  Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence, as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean-spirited invasion of his personal life.”

I could not agree more.  I think this is actually a complete outrage.  This guy didn‘t do anything to anybody.  He works for a senator a lot of gay groups don‘t like.  He has a right to have a differing opinion.  And to go into this guy‘s personal life and hold it up and attack him personally, it‘s beyond the pale.

MADDOW:  I think that Rick Santorum‘s statements on this are absolutely stunning.  The idea that he would say it‘s unacceptable that they‘re going to be using his personal life for political fodder?  It is unacceptable that Rick Santorum has used my personal life for political fodder for his own career. 

I mean, Robert Traynham has his own personal demons to deal with.  And I don‘t actually care about him very much in this situation.  I don‘t necessary think it was wrong to out him, given that he‘s working for Rick Santorum. 

CARLSON:  Well, no.  He didn‘t do anything wrong.  He‘s not running for anything. 

MADDOW:  He‘s not doing anything wrong.  It‘s also not wrong that he‘s gay.  But now everybody knows that he‘s gay, and Rick Santorum needs to say it‘s unacceptable to bring this guy‘s personal life into it when Rick Santorum has brought every gay person‘s personal life into the political... 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  Robert Traynham doesn‘t feel that way.  He‘s worked for Rick Santorum for eight years...

MADDOW:  For eight years.

CARLSON:  ... which I think ought to tell you something about Rick Santorum, supposedly this big hater, is friends with this gay guy who likes him.

CROWLEY:  And you should also have a choice not to have your sexual preference broadcast to all of America.  If you want to keep that private, that should be your choice.  And that choice should never should be taken away from you by anybody for whatever reason. 

MADDOW:  The gay community has a had a debate about this for 20 years. 

And what the gay community has basically come to a rough consensus about—

I‘ll tell you—is that, if you‘re actively working against the interests of your community, of other gay people, then your private life will be made public. 

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Slow down.  Says who?  Who defines the interests of the gay community or any other community?  No one.  Everybody has a right to have his own views.  Nobody decides what the interests of any community are.  No one person speaks for any community. 

CROWLEY:  And why is the collective good so much higher than an individual‘s right to privacy? 

MADDOW:  Listen.  I‘m telling you that gay people—listen, this is not a discussion about outing.  This is a discussion about Rick Santorum.  And if you want to take on outing, I‘m just telling you that gay people who are closeted, who are in positions of power hurting other gay people in this country, are on notice that they will be outed.  That‘s just the way it is.  And Rick Santorum...

CROWLEY:  But this particular gay man chooses to work for Rick Santorum because he believes in his politics. 

MADDOW:  Right.

CROWLEY:  And it was his right to keep his sexual preference private, but now it‘s no longer...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Now that it has been made, Rick Santorum needs to explain how he has so much respect for this guy and then can publicly volunteer that Robert Traynham having sex with whoever he loves is the same as Robert Traynham having sex with a dog or a child, which is what Santorum has said.  And he now has to explain it.

CARLSON:  This is just old-fashioned fascist bullying.  This is taking...

MADDOW:  Gay fascism?  Come on.

CARLSON:  Yes.  This is telling someone, “I don‘t like your politics. 

Therefore, I‘m going to attack you personally.”

MADDOW:  This is saying there will never be another Roy Cohn in this country. 

CARLSON:  Why?  Why?

MADDOW:  There will never be another person who‘s privately living as a gay person and enjoying the support of the gay community, in the sense that they are living their life that way, and is actively working to destroy the people who made that possible.

CARLSON:  Robert Traynham—hold on.  Hold on.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  The gay community won‘t accept...

CARLSON:  Are you suggesting that Robert Traynham is actively working to destroy the gay community? 

MADDOW:  Yes.

CARLSON:  I think it‘s totally unfair and vicious thing to say.

MADDOW:  Rick Santorum has been telling people at every public forum he can get onto that Robert Traynham having sex with whoever he loves in the world is the same as Robert Traynham having sex with a dog.  That hurts the gay community.  And Robert Traynham works for him.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  But then what—but if you‘re saying that it‘s OK for these people to be outed for political or ideological reasons, then if somebody is gay and choosing to live their life privately, then are they living their lives in fear, that at any second anybody with a political agenda can get out there and out them? 

MADDOW:  Yes, they are. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Look, you know, everybody ought to have a right.  I thought this is what we are working toward.  I thought this was what the gay community was working for, people have the right to live their lives as they so chose. 

MADDOW:  And the gay community has a right to defend themselves. 

CARLSON:  That‘s a foolish—that‘s completely, I think, unacceptable.

MADDOW:  I‘m glad we disagree so strongly. 

CARLSON:  We certainly do.

Next situation, the good book ruled out.  In some courtrooms, witnesses still swear on a bible.  But the Colorado Supreme Court says you‘d better not bring one into the jury room.  That‘s just wrong. 

The state‘s high court overturned a convicted murder‘s death sentence because jurors consulted bibles.  Now, prosecutors want the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. 

So the argument here is that jurors, because they were thumbing through bibles, gave this guy the death penalty, as if like reading the New Testament makes you blood thirsty.  I guess I missed that part in the New Testament.  I think it, if anything, makes you more compassionate.  And if I were weighing in on a death penalty case, I‘d probably read the bible, too. 

MADDOW:  But you can‘t consult the bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or anything if you‘re deciding—if your job right there is to decide whether or not somebody broke the law.  You can consult it for your own faith.  You can consult it for your own decision-making, but if that‘s the basic on which the jury makes its decision on whether somebody broke the law, then we‘re not talking about a law anymore. 

CARLSON:  But there‘s also the deeper question of can I and should we ever impose the death penalty on someone?  And to some extent, that is a religious question. 

MADDOW:  Well, it may be a religious question.  But in this country, it‘s a question of law.  And if you‘re on the—it may be a religious question for you and I sitting right here, but if you‘re on a jury, it‘s a question of law. 

CROWLEY:  Well, I don‘t think there‘s anything wrong with anybody sitting on a jury who has to decide on somebody‘s life or death, right?  Somebody‘s life or death hangs in the balance.  There‘s nothing wrong with consulting your own faith to make that decision. 

Because in the end, as one of those jurors, you have to look yourself in the mirror and live with that decision for the rest of your life.  Now, flip through the bible, you can say, “Art thou shalt not kill.”  Then you can say, “Well, an eye for the eye,” or, “Turn the other cheek.”  There are plenty of phrases in the bible that could argue either way, so I don‘t see why it‘s such an issue if somebody wants to use that as a touchstone... 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  In the juror room, you‘ve got to consult the law, not the bible.

CARLSON:  Next situation, Kentucky frowns on smiley face license plates.  We‘re not making this up.  The plates had featured Mr. Smiley and motto, “Kentucky:  It‘s that friendly.” 

Well, apparently, it‘s not that friendly.  Some drivers concerned about the smiley face covered it with duct tape or paid extra for plates without it.  So Mr. Smiley is being phased out in favor of a plate featuring an outline of the state, a lot less smiling. 

Kind of an angry state, Kentucky.  Seems like a nice place to me, but there‘s obviously a deep wellspring of grouchiness. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  No smiley faces, how sad.

MADDOW:  I would rather have a picture of Rick Santorum on my license plate than a smiley face.  Absolutely.  I am absolutely with these guys.

CROWLEY:  Rachel! 

MADDOW:  Look, when I‘m driving—I live in Massachusetts.  Driving is a competitive sport.  Having a smiley face on your license plate is a handicap.  I would never accept it, ever. 

CROWLEY:  Come on, look at that...

CARLSON:  Wow!  Wow!

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  I‘d rather have Dick Cheney‘s evil grin on my license plate.

CARLSON:  I‘d like to see—but how are you in the early morning right when you wake up? 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  I sleep all day man.  I‘m a vampire. 

CARLSON:  Whew. 

Coming up, Ebonics may become part of the curriculum in a California school district.  Hard to believe anyone thinks that‘s a good idea.  But you haven‘t met the “Outsider.”  He does.  He‘ll wax ridiculous about it, next.

Plus, any newborn bundle of joy winds up swaddled and cuddled in the maternity ward, the jumbo variety wind up swaddled and cuddled on the “Cutting Room Floor.”  Gargantuan baby alert!  Don‘t turn that dial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time once again to meet the “Outsider,” a man from outside the world of news who unwisely steps into the ring with me every night to play devil‘s advocate on a series of stories—and does it well, by the way.

Joining me now, fresh off a weekend in Las Vegas, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST:  Fresh might not be the word.

CARLSON:  I was about to say, no one is ever fresh after a weekend in Vegas.  But, Max, thank you for coming in, especially because of that.

First up, Debra Lafave is the 24-year-old Florida school teacher who repeatedly had sex with her 14-year-old student.  Today her defense team announced she would plead insanity because no one in her right mind would have done what she did.  If convicted on all four counts of lewd and lascivious battery, and one count of lewd and lascivious exhibition, Lafave can go to prison for as many as 75 years.

KELLERMAN:  Battery, what, she hit him? 

CARLSON:  Well, I‘m tempted to say she shouldn‘t be punished because she‘s already done her community service. 

KELLERMAN:  Right.

CARLSON:  And that‘s sort of the point I‘m making, and it‘s this, that actually what she did was good for society for this reason.  Fourteen-year-old boys want to have sex.  It‘s a thing they think about more than anything.  And they‘re going to. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  The focus usually is 14-year-old girls, who shouldn‘t be having sex.  It‘s bad for them.  It has a much more profound effect on a 14-year-old girl than a 14-year-old boy. 

On older woman whose life is not going to be destroyed, unless its criminal, but sleeping with a 14-year-old boy does 14-year-old girls around the world a favor by releasing some of that tension.  Fourteen-year-old boys are like powder kegs ready to explode at any time. 

KELLERMAN:  That‘s a very interesting argument.  I thought you were going to simply make the argument, which is true—you know, nothing in my life could happen now that could possibly make me as happy as if a hot or even decent-looking teacher molested me when I was 14. 

However, the truth of the matter is, girls develop physically and emotionally earlier than boys.  And law does need to be codified, right?  So if it‘s illegal, it‘s illegal.  And that‘s all there is to it.

CARLSON:  Yes.  But there is a qualitative difference between a female teacher having an affair with a 14-year-old boy and a male teacher having an affair...

KELLERMAN:  Say that again.  I jus want to picture me as the... 

CARLSON:  ... with a 14-year-old girl.  We have to pretend, for reasons of political correctness, that they‘re both are appalling and insane.  But one is molestation, and the other is an indiscretion.  And you know that‘s true.

KELLERMAN:  You know what?  I might argue the opposite.  I might argue, in certain instances, neither is appalling. 

CARLSON:  Well, I mean, an older teacher hitting on a 14-year-old girl is the kind of thing for which uncles, and fathers, and brothers ought to come with shotguns. 

(CROSSTALK)

KELLERMAN:  Absolutely.  And yet some foreign flick will come out about some 14-year-old girl having an affair with a grown man.  It‘s a beautiful work of art.  Look, they‘re really in love.

I mean, there are cultural differences.  In Kentucky, for instance, statutory rape law, 15 years old.

CARLSON:  No, no, but this is an absolute.  And the fact is that a 14-year-old...

KELLERMAN:  Fourteen‘s a little young, but... 

CARLSON:  A 14-year-old boy is loaded gun, OK, hormonally.  And he‘s look to cause damage and will cause damage, it‘s true, if allowed to.  And this is a way for that 14-year-old boy to be disarmed.  You‘re taking the bullets out, essentially.  You‘re keeping him from hurting any of his peers. 

This woman, call her sick and she obviously is sick...

KELLERMAN:  Well, and she‘s pleading insanity. 

CARLSON:  ... she, in effect, helped her community. 

KELLERMAN:  OK, but she is pleading insanity. 

CARLSON:  Yes, she is.  Well, she‘s obviously insane.  It doesn‘t mean she didn‘t, you know, in effect, do a good deed.

KELLERMAN:  I wish my teacher was so crazy. 

CARLSON:  Well, as a group, black students performed the worst among racial groups in the San Bernardino School District in California.  So a sociologist from the University of California now says Ebonics, basically the codified version of African-American dialect, should be incorporated in the curriculum for black students to help them remain interested in school and to perform better. 

A trial Ebonics is already in place in two San Bernardino schools.  Now, look, the point is—you know, you can mimic of all sorts of dialects, accents, Spanish and French, but you wouldn‘t mimic Ebonics.  Why?  Because it‘s associated with failure. 

That‘s the way people in this culture feel, fair or unfair.  If you remember the Klan, you couldn‘t design a system more diabolically designed to make certain black students fail in the workplace than allowing them to speak non-standard English. 

KELLERMAN:  Keep it on the humble, you‘re caked up, I‘m rolling on dubs.  But the hood‘s all about haze and red cops (ph), Tucker.  What did I just say?

CARLSON:  You know what you just said to me?  Don‘t hire me, ever.

KELLERMAN:  Right, exactly.  I said something that you wouldn‘t be able to understand...

CARLSON:  Exactly.

KELLERMAN:  ... because it‘s a foreign language, essentially. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  As a result of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, where Africans were taken from all different languages and intentionally kept ignorant...

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  ... a culture and language was developed.  And ideologically you‘re opposed to this, but you‘re not an ideologue.  If it‘s getting results, which apparently it is—you know, it may be counterintuitive, but it‘s empirically effective.  And isn‘t that the point? 

CARLSON:  I‘ll tell you what the point is.  The point is succeeding in an increasingly competitive and meritocratic America.  The way you know that this is a bad idea, African immigrants, who actually do quite well in this country, first thing they do is they try and teach their children, make sure they learn unaccented English, because they know it‘s the key to success. 

And every study shows that accent, your voice, the way you speak and use words, one of the key factors in hiring or not hiring.  You‘re hurting these kids. 

KELLERMAN:  African-Americans are in a situation that is very complicated.  It‘s not as easy as just immigrant groups, whether they‘re black, or white, European or wherever they‘re from.  It‘s not that simple, because it‘s the result of our own policy...

CARLSON:  Yes, it is.

KELLERMAN:  ... that‘s created originally a sub-class of person where class is tied to race. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  But it‘s also the result of patronizing white liberals who say, “That‘s OK.  That‘s a different language,” thereby hurting these children.  Injustices have been done.  Let‘s fix them by helping them to speak standard English. 

KELLERMAN:  But if it‘s getting results—let‘s say these kids are actually testing better.  Isn‘t that a good thing? 

CARLSON:  No, because a test is not a job.  And what you want is a job in the end. 

KELLERMAN:  All right.  Very Booker T. Washington of you. 

CARLSON:  Thank you.  He was a great man, that‘s true. 

In April, neighborhood boys in a poor section of Fresno, California, bombarded 11-year-old Maribel Cuevas with water balloons.  She responded sensibly by throwing a rock, which hit a 9-year-old boy in the head.

Fresno cops handcuffed her, locked her up for five days.  Now the little girl faces assault with a deadly weapon charges, despite the fact the boy‘s family, not pressing charges.  And that‘s just the very beginning. 

She was arrested...

KELLERMAN:  Let me guess what side of the argument you‘re going to come down on? 

CARLSON:  I‘m opposed.  Three squad cars and a helicopter show up.  They arrest little 11-year-old Maribel, handcuff her, bring her to jail for five days, then she‘s released.  She‘s on house arrest for a month with an ankle bracelet—I‘m not making any of this up—and then the cops say, “We caught the perpetrator.”  This is like a parody of policing out of control. 

KELLERMAN:  It‘s not like we have terrorists to deal with or anything. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

KELLERMAN:  Look, the irony here is that the police are—that an 11-year-old girl shows a lack of judgment in responding to a situation with excessive force, and then the police do the exact same thing. 

It‘s like the death penalty.  It‘s so bad to kill, that we‘re going to kill you.  That‘s how bad it is.  It‘s the wrong example to set. 

Let me just make this argument.  It‘s the only argument to be made.  An 11-year-old girl goes to jail.  OK, that‘s a bad thing.  A 9-year-old boy hit in the head with a rock and bleeding has to go to the hospital, that‘s a worse thing.  That‘s a result of the 11-year-old girl‘s behavior.

Maybe this helps her in the long run, Tucker, scared straight.

CARLSON:  Actually, the 9-year-old boy is the one who‘s helped.  Don‘t gang up on little girls is a message a rock to the head sends.  I think it‘s a very effective message.  Good for her.

Let me just as you one quick question, since you‘re defending the police in this case. 

(LAUGHTER)

KELLERMAN:  Supposedly.

CARLSON:  They handcuffed her.  They handcuffed her.  Does that mean they were afraid that little Maribel was going to hurt them? 

KELLERMAN:  I‘m not going to do it.  Pass.  Pass.  Pass.  Pass.  I‘m not doing it.  No.

CARLSON:  Incidentally, just for the record, since we have a TV show here, 53 murders in the city of Fresno last year, 53. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, you know what?  Maybe it‘s not going to be 54 because the got this little 11-year-old in handcuffs.  I mean, what do you want me to say? 

CARLSON:  Good try, Max.  You‘re game, as always.  Max Kellerman, thank you. 

Coming up, they‘ll survive nuclear war, and thanks to a Texas man with a sick desire to immortalize them.  Cockroaches make it to the “Cutting Room Floor.”  See if they survive that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time now for the “Cutting Room Floor.”  We sweep up all the odds and ends of news we couldn‘t pack in and bring them to you.  Willie Geist is here for that.

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Hello, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Willie!

GEIST:  You mentioned earlier that Max was out in Vegas for the weekend.  Today they set a record, 117 degrees in Vegas.  So hot out there that Maximums stenciled-on beard melted a little bit.  It was amazing.

CARLSON:  I bet it was cooler by the nickel slots in the Bellagio, though. 

GEIST:  That‘s right.  Go get them, man.

CARLSON:  Thank you, sir.

All right.  Proving once again that resistance to the evil Harry Potter empire is totally futile, the latest book in the series sold nearly seven million copies in the U.S. in its first 24 hours on the shelves.  “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” sold another two million copies in England, making it the fastest-selling book in literary history. 

Fans camped out and threw parties on Friday night to celebrate the midnight release of the book. 

GEIST:  And luckily, the adults, Tucker, who camped out were able to clear their busy Friday social calendars for this.  This is getting a little scary.  Every man, woman and child‘s going to own a copy of “Harry Potter.” 

CARLSON:  I suspect they all got together just so they could meet each other. 

GEIST:  That‘s right.  Scary.

CARLSON:  It‘s the only friends they have.

Well, you‘ve got to give this next guy points for perseverance then maybe take a few away for creepiness.  Croatian lawyer Emil Kacic says he‘s been turned down on 5,000 marriage proposals over the course of his life.  He‘s now concluded he must be the ugliest man in the world. 

He doesn‘t look so bad there, actually.  Kacic put ads in newspapers and approached women on the streets, but the answer, invariably, no. 

GEIST:  He‘s not really that ugly.  He much just have bad luck, because most ladies I know enjoy it when men, creepy old guys, come up to them and propose to them on the street.  It just doesn‘t add up.

CARLSON:  I think the concern is with the women who said yes. 

GEIST:  No, no one said yes. 

CARLSON:  Oh, no one said yes?

GEIST:  Five thousand straight without a yes. 

CARLSON:  Oh, I thought he got one.

GEIST:  No, he‘s still working on it.  He‘s going to put some more ads in the paper and harass women on the street.

CARLSON:  This is sort of kind of a want ad for him.

GEIST:  See how that works.

CARLSON:  News you can use, THE SITUATION.

Cockroaches get no respect in life, so exterminator Michael Bohdan has decided to give them some dignity in death.  At the Cockroach Hall of Fame in Plano, Texas, visitors come to see dead cockroaches dressed up as celebrities.  Liberoachi is the biggest draw, not surprisingly.  He wears a white cape and sits at a tiny piano.  H. Ross Peroach and Roachy O‘Donnell have also been inducted in the prestigious museum located in a Plano strip mall. 

GEIST:  You know, I appreciate the hard work you‘re doing with the cockroaches and the other pests around the house.  But is it really necessary to humiliate the animals after you‘ve killed them, the insects? 

CARLSON:  Liberoachi?  I know. 

GEIST:  There‘s a weird “Silence of the Lambs” things...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  They‘re not really named after any one cool, either.

GEIST:  No, they‘re not.  Roachy O‘Donnell?

CARLSON:  Last month, we told you about the Big Enchilada.  That‘s the 13-pound, 12-ounce newborn from Wisconsin.  Well, the Enchilada‘s run as the giant baby of the moment is over. 

She‘s been eclipsed by Destiny Tonner (ph), a 14-pound, three-ounce girl born last week in Corbin, Kentucky.  Destiny was born two weeks early, if you can believe.  No word yet on a Mexican food-based nickname for her. 

GEIST:  Yikes.  Tucker, I‘ve dated girls who weighed less than that woman.  They had other problems.  But we won‘t get into those now.  She looks the Big Enchilada look like a preemie.  It‘s unbelievable.

CARLSON:  If she was a Mexican food, what would it be?

GEIST:  I think an empanada, a deep-fried—that fatty thing that‘s sort of disgusting? 

CARLSON:  That was not rehearsed, by the way.

Police in India are using a new tactic in the unwinnable war against porn:  Push-ups.  Cops rounded up 200 people, none of them pictured here as far as we know, who were watching pornography at a movie theater in Eastern India and forced them to do push-ups in the public square.  Parents were even called in to watch their sons‘ punishment.

Ouch.  The idea is to shame young Indian men out of watching pornography. 

GEIST:  Two things.  They‘re going to have a very physically fit citizenry in India when this is all said done.  And, police, you don‘t want this war.  If you think a few push-ups are going to come between men and their porn, you‘ve got another thing coming. 

CARLSON:  You though the war on drugs was bad.  “We want to shame them out of it.”  I thought shame was part of the appeal?

GEIST:  That is.  Deep-seated shame is the appeal. 

CARLSON:  We‘ve got to do a segment on that tomorrow. 

Willie Geist, thank you.

GEIST:  Tucker.

CARLSON:  That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks for watching.  See you tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and every night.  Good night.

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

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.

Watch The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 9 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,