updated 7/26/2005 10:49:24 AM ET 2005-07-26T14:49:24

Guest: John McKeon, Penn Jillette, Max Kellerman

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Joining me tonight, co-producer of the new movie “The Aristocrats” from the named comedy magic team of Penn and Teller, Penn Jillette, and, from the famed political duo of “CONNECTED COAST TO COAST,” Monica Crowley.  They both join me here. 

We are—this is—we're going to have the New Jersey state legislator who has offered up legislation that would ban smoking in cars, I know is a little...

(CROSSTALK)

PENN JILLETTE, PENN & TELLER:  Good thinking.

(LAUGHTER)

JILLETTE:  You know, it's that kind of that stuff that...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Yes, it really is.

JILLETTE:  Actually, that's in the Constitution.

CARLSON:  We're going to have him on the set.  We're also going to discuss your new documentary, which I spent the afternoon watching, “The Aristocrat,” about the dirtiest joke ever told.

JILLETTE:  Yes, it is a little dirty.  

CARLSON:  Yes, it is.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  It's a bit dirty.

JILLETTE:  Has a little bit of tough language.

CARLSON:  I would say that.

But we begin the conversation with terrorism around the world, in Egypt, where the death toll from Friday's bombing may be as high as 88.  Authorities there have made dozens of arrests.  The remarkable story is that tourism went on almost unabated there in wake of the attacks.  In London, meanwhile, there was, over the weekend, an admission by the government that the man shot on the subway Friday morning had no connection at all to terror. 

Although Tony Blair expressed regret over the mistake, the official police policy will remain shoot to kill. 

I have to say, the one good news out of that London story is that the police there actually apologized.  Police everywhere are loathe to apologize.  They did apologize.  You do wonder, though, if a shoot-to-kill policy deters suicide bombers, who are going there to die anyway. 

JILLETTE:  But I think that the—the—admitting it and then also saying, we're not going to change anything.

CARLSON:  Yes. 

JILLETTE:  I mean, essentially being able to say, mistakes happen is something you never hear from governments. 

CARLSON:  Ever. 

MONICA CROWLEY, CO-HOST, “CONNECTED: COAST TO COAST”:  Yes, the apology. 

Well, they clearly made a mistake in this case.  And it was a huge tragedy.  But the fact of the matter is, we're dealing with an enemy that cannot be deterred.  Your point, Tucker, is an important one, that if they're going to commit suicide, they don't care if they live or die.  However, they do want to commit suicide in the context of jihad. 

So, what this policy says is that, if you pose an imminent threat to this society, we're going to take you out.  We're going you deny you your desire to die in jihad, because we're going to kill you first. 

CARLSON:  But it does—it does bring you back to what we need to do, which is stop whatever is motivating them to kill themselves. 

I was struck by the fact that two of the guys who were arrested, one was Eritrean, the other Somali, both from North Africa, another way of saying, these people have nothing in common with each another, not geography, not language, except this creed, this bastardization of Islam.  It seems to me, we should spend more time figuring out what exactly that is and stopping it. 

JILLETTE:  How much of a bastardization is it?  I mean...

CARLSON:  Well, that's a...

JILLETTE:  A lot of that is straight down the middle. 

I mean, Richard Dawkins has quoted a lot of stuff from the Koran that says that—that that might be an OK interpretation.  If you do that, you've got big problems. 

CROWLEY:  Yes. 

I mean, Penn's point is an important one.  And we are loathe to discuss it in a politically-correct society.  But the concept of jihad is embedded in Islam.  Now, not every Muslim is a terrorist, clearly not.  But every international terrorist we've seen since the 1960s has been a Muslim who has been radicalized.  Now, how do you deal with them?  Well, I think that the U.K. is actually onto something is. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  Because they're saying, you know, we're going to kill you before you have the chance to kill us. 

CARLSON:  Right.  I mean, I think—I mean, there were, of course, other international terrorists who weren't Muslims.  But the ones who are going after us are. 

Next situation, by an 8-3 vote, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors voted against allowing the decommissioned USS Iowa to dock in the bay as a floating museum about World War II, this despite a study that showed the Iowa would attract at least a half-a-million visitors a year.  Supervisors say their vote is a protest against the Iraq war and what they call the military's dehumanizing treatment of gays, meaning the don't ask/don't tell policy. 

Now, the president of the Board of Supervisors says, we don't want to see a warship docked here, which made me think, that's fine.  We should have a no-defense-at-all policy in San Francisco.  The good news is, you don't have any warships there.  The bad news is, you don't have any warships there.  We're not going to protect you. 

CROWLEY:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  Good luck under Sharia law.

JILLETTE:  But it's—it's a museum.  It's not—it's not like they're saying no military.  They're just saying—they're trying to have both sides of it. 

CARLSON:  What they're saying is, the military is so offensive that any expression of it is just—we're not going to allow it. 

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  They can't even decide what the reason is.  Maybe it is that we're against the war and maybe it's that they're bad to gays.  But whatever the reason is, we don't want the warship here.  That's the part that I thought was wacky, is they're—you would think they'd be a little more unified on this one issue. 

CARLSON:  But talk about living down to the stereotype.  If you're San Francisco, do you really want to be as flaky as people suspect you are? 

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  I don't think—I don't think they quite care, Tucker, about the stereotype of San Francisco. 

CARLSON:  Well, I was born there.  I like San Francisco. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I—you know, I hate to see the city become the butt of jokes. 

CROWLEY:  This is so disgraceful.  This is supposed to be a floating museum to the sacrifices of World War II. 

You know, if these people have a problem with either gays in the military, don't ask/don't tell, or the Iraq policy, go to Washington, fill the streets of San Francisco, and protest that policy.  But don't be projecting your disagreement with current foreign policy onto World War II vets, who gave so much to keep this country free. 

JILLETTE:  But—but it isn't actually defense.  It's just a museum. 

Trying to pretend that a museum is actually defense is a different thing.  I mean, yes, those people deserve whatever honors anybody wants to give them, but you don't want to say that they're against defense, necessarily.  That's a different issue.  That is, get into the streets.  That is, scream about it.  But not having a museum is a slightly different issue.  It's—it's not wanting a tourist attraction.  And, you know, it...

CROWLEY:  It's about...

JILLETTE:  It just seems sillier than either side is making. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Well, everything about it strikes...

CROWLEY:  It's about displaced anger.

CARLSON:  ... me as silly.

CROWLEY:  It's ridiculous.

CROWLEY:  Next up, a radical situation in Chicago courtrooms.

According to “The Chicago Tribune,” criminal Court Evelyn Clay has been heard to say in court on at least three separate occasions she will not seat all-white juries.  The judge, who is black, later explained that having at least one black juror in a case involving a black defendant simply meets the standard of a jury of one's peers. 

This is—I mean, leaving aside this specific judge, who, if you take

a look at her, does seem far out, this is an interesting question.  Does

this mean that a person who is not of your race is not your peer?  Isn't

the civil rights movement, our whole understanding of race, predicated on

the idea that we're all the same beneath the surface, that, you know, we're

·         we look different, but we're essentially the same?

She's saying, actually, we're not essentially the same.  We're essentially different.  That's a heavy thing to say and I think a wrong thing to say. 

JILLETTE:  I—I agree.  I mean, it—it seems—it seems like, if you're not going to judge people by race, that has to go both ways. 

CROWLEY:  When they say jury of your peers, peers meaning Americans.  And, regardless of race, we're still all part of this country, as long as you're an American citizen. 

Justice is supposed to be blind.  Is it always?  No, clearly not.  But I would like to ask this judge, you know, if she had a white defendant, would she then be opposed to seating an all-black jury?  I mean, would the opposite then hold true? 

JILLETTE:  Well, now, that's a whole different thing.  I'm totally against that. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  But, but...

JILLETTE:  We wouldn't have a chance. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No, but here's—here's the—here's the question, though.

Even if it is, I mean, even if racial factors do make a difference—and a lot of defense lawyers think they do, which is why they spend so much time striking people from juries to get the right racial balance—should we officially admit it?  I don't think we should officially admit it. 

CROWLEY:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  I think the policy of the federal government ought to be to pretend, even in the face of evidence, that there are any differences at all.  We should just say, we're colorblind and that's it, even if it is not entirely true. 

JILLETTE:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  Amen.  OK. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, in the face—in the face of that...

JILLETTE:  I mean, the idea...

CARLSON:  ... deafening agreement. 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  Because... 

JILLETTE:  The idea that the government should lie that things are a little better than they are I think is a point that people don't make very often.  And I like it. 

CARLSON:  Well, one of the lawyers in this...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  But it assumes—it assumes that somebody with the same race can better relate to your experience.  That may be true, but it also may not be true. 

You know, if you pull somebody from South Central Los Angeles to weigh in on the O.J. Simpson case, O.J. Simpson lived in Brentwood.  I mean, he was a very rich man.  Could an African-American, then, on that jury relate to O.J. Simpson's experience?  I don't think so. 

JILLETTE:  But that reaction...

CROWLEY:  But—but maybe a white person could have been better. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But the reaction...

JILLETTE:  The reaction did break down racially.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  It did.  That is true.  You're absolutely right.  It did. 

I just think that we should take every affirmative step to make sure it doesn't.

CROWLEY:  Right. 

CARLSON:  And we should pretend.  I don't know.  Pretending is good. 

JILLETTE:  Pretending is a good word. 

CARLSON:  Pretending is good.  Lying is good sometimes.  This is one of those times.

JILLETTE:  I am so with you.

CARLSON:  Yes, phoniness.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Next up, for those who dally in adult entertainment on the Internet—and I, for the record, don't know anyone who does...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  ... things might get, just might get more expensive pretty soon.  Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln Lambert is expected...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  Who is on a porno site.  She's pretty OK.  I would pay to see her.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  For the record, that's not true. 

JILLETTE:  In the Senate, if you wanted to choose one, wouldn't she be it? 

CARLSON:  But that—I—I can't even comment on that. 

JILLETTE:  Yes, you can.  You can pretend.

CARLSON:  I can merely—I can merely—I can merely—that would be subverting the news. 

CARLSON:  I can merely comment on her proposal, which is this.  Next week, she'll propose a 25 percent tax on Internet pay-for pornography.  That is to make it more difficult for children to gain access to the stuff.  The proceeds, she said, would pay for law enforcement and to protect children from Internet-related crimes. 

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  First, it would go to the government. 

CARLSON:  Well, it would.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  So, here, you have the government basically...

JILLETTE:  Social engineering. 

CARLSON:  But to the principles.  So, government is subsisting on additions, on people's addictions to gambling, to cigarettes, to alcohol, and now to online porn.  Is this—you know, is this a good thing?  No, it's not.  There's something creepy about it.  You should...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  Is one of us supposed to argue with you? 

CARLSON:  Yes, argue with me. 

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  You have notes.  Argue with him.

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  You have notes.  Look at this.

CROWLEY:  After Penn...

JILLETTE:  You worked.  You did homework.

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  After Penn's comments about...

JILLETTE:  In high school, you did homework, didn't you?

CROWLEY:  ... about the senator...

JILLETTE:  I didn't.

CROWLEY:  ... something tells me that the senator won't be making an appearance on this program anytime soon. 

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  Look, Penn is absolutely right.  This is another money grab

by the government. 

JILLETTE:  Did you just say, Penn is absolutely right?

CROWLEY:  You're absolutely right.

JILLETTE:  That she's the sexiest one in the Senate?

CROWLEY:  No.  No.  I'm talking about...

JILLETTE:  If you had to have sex with one person in the Senate, would she be your choice, too?

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  I'm talking about your point...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:   Penn is absolutely right.  She said it.

CROWLEY:  ... about how this is a money grab by the Democrats.  This is another form of tax and spend.  And her whole premise here, that this is going to keep Internet porn...

CARLSON:  Wait.  But, Monica, wait.  Monica, what about the children? 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  What about the children? 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Can I just say, what about the children? 

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  Excuse me, Tucker. 

JILLETTE:  She agrees with me.  She's hot. 

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  Well, that is true.

But so much Internet porn is free and can't be taxed.  So, it's not going to...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  How do you know that?

CARLSON:  That's a great question. 

JILLETTE:  How do you know it's free? 

CROWLEY:  I've heard. 

JILLETTE:  You've heard.  You've been told. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Next, Monica Crowley on Internet porn. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Stick around, a lot more ahead on THE SITUATION. 

JILLETTE:  She's very sexy. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  The proposed law that has got some drivers fuming, demanding legislators butt out. 

Why family-friendly restaurants might be causing diners to lose their appetite. 

A new alternative to church bingo. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  It makes you feel like you have control of things. 

Plus, why comedy is serious business.  We dig up maybe the dirtiest act of all time. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Now that I think back on it, it's probably (INAUDIBLE)  

CARLSON:  It's all ahead on THE SITUATION.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  You office slackers who shop for travel bargains on the Internet actually help their companies.  We'll debate the merits of creative waste in “Op Ed Op Ed” next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Time now for “Op Ed Op Ed.”  We spent a good portion of the day reading just about every editorial page in the country.  We have culled the three most interesting, to which the three of us will respond briefly. 

First up...

JILLETTE:  Briefly.

CARLSON:  Briefly.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  First up, “The L.A. Times” says the Bush administration ought to get to it, pushing those CAFE standards to require a minimum fuel efficiency for new vehicles—quote—“Existing technology could bring auto fuel economy to close to 45 miles per gallon on average.  At upward of $2.50 a gallon, fuel economy is again a selling point that Detroit has not fully recognized.  Given the failures of Congress, Bush is the last chance for fuel economy sanity.”

Now, this whole idea confuses me. 

JILLETTE:  No one is better than the government at...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, no.  But the idea—the idea that—that the government ought to be telling you that you're not allowed to spend a certain amount of money on a high-priced good—that diamond is too big—that steak is too big—I mean, the market has a way of figuring this stuff out. 

If I can't afford it, I don't want to spend the money on an SUV, then I buy a Prius.  It's up to me.

JILLETTE:  So, take off—take off all the help to gas and let it work its way out.

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

JILLETTE:  Let the invisible hand work.

CROWLEY:  No. 

There's a national security angle here.  We've got to wean ourselves off of foreign sources of oil.  This is one way of doing it.  And, if the federal government can spend time and resources and tax incentives and the rest on encouraging marriage in this country, which I don't disagree with, certainly, the government can encourage the rest of us to be driving hybrid cars. 

(CROSSTALK)  

CROWLEY:  Something that is going to be good for the—for the economy, ultimately, good for the environment, and good for our national security. 

CARLSON:  But if it's a crisis...

JILLETTE:  But if we don't—I don't agree with the if.  Why is the government doing any sort of social engineering? 

CROWLEY:  But it shouldn't—it's not mandatory.  It's just that the government can provide tax incentives to Detroit to get their acts together to make more fuel-efficient cars.

CARLSON:  Well, but—but they are, in essence, mandatory, because it says, we're going to pay you to do it and we're going to tax you if you don't do it.  So, they're—basically, they're...

CROWLEY:  Tax incentive.

CARLSON:  ... using coercion.

CROWLEY:  But don't you agree, Tucker, that there's a national security problem here...

CARLSON:  I don't know.  If...

CROWLEY:  ... with our massive dependence on foreign oil?  And if the

·         the liberals aren't going to allow us to drill in ANWR, then, you know, figure out another solution. 

CARLSON:  All right.

JILLETTE:  No.

CARLSON:  According to a new survey by AOL and Salary.com, the average American worker admits to wasting two hours out of an eight-hour day just, who knows what?  “The Chicago Tribune” calls for more innovative ways for employees to goof off. 

They write this: “Methods of wasting time probably haven't advanced much in decades or more.  Maybe you could seek out a fellow employee who speaks a different language and try to learn a little.  Take a brisk lap or two around the block with a co-worker.  Write some haiku.”

That's not time-wasting.  That's auditing a class. 

JILLETTE:  That's not one of the best editorials in the country.

CARLSON:  I agree with that.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  But one of the most provocative.

JILLETTE:  Your staff was surfing the Web, when they should have been looking for a better editorial. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  That's exactly—probably at untaxed Internet porn.  No, look, the point is...

(LAUGHTER)

JILLETTE:  That's not one of the best. 

CARLSON:  “The Chicago”—no, but “Chicago Tribune” and a certain brand of uptight yuppie is appalled by the idea you would just sit and space out.  They want you to be learning a foreign language, improving yourself.

JILLETTE:  And they were talking about me, weren't they?

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  When I read, I felt they were talking about me.

CARLSON:  But what do you—I mean, do you spend your free time taking brisk walks and learning foreign languages, writing haiku? 

JILLETTE:  I speak 14 languages, sir.

CARLSON:  Do you really? 

JILLETTE:  Yes.   

CROWLEY:  I'm sorry.  Were you saying something?  I was taking a brief nap.

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  During that segment.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Don't you think there's value in letting your mind wander? 

JILLETTE:  How about value in doing whatever the hell you want... 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Amen.

CROWLEY:  You know, how about—how about flex time?  All right, so, if you can squeeze in one week's worth of work in one day, good for you. 

JILLETTE:  Absolutely.

CROWLEY:  Take the next four days of the work week off. 

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  Except for the people that work for Penn & Teller, I agree completely. 

CROWLEY:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  You ought be able to work at home.  That's a good point.

“The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,” speaking about weighing in on the most personal of personal topics, Marc Grauer writes today about children in restaurants.  They're too noisy, he said.   they bother him.  They're obnoxious—quote—“Family-friendly at a restaurant does not mean that kids ought to be able to run around, get in the way of servers and disturb other diners.  Even though you think your kids are cute and perfect, everyone does not agree.”

I agree with this in theory.  But this guy, Marc Grauer, does sound like the sort of person who just doesn't like children. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  And you have got a new child, correct? 

JILLETTE:  Go to a different restaurant, you know, or ask that that person leave.  And if they come enough, just don't—go to a different restaurant that doesn't allow kids.  I mean, that—just let it—let it work out.  Who cares what he thinks?

CARLSON:  Do you take your child to restaurants? 

CROWLEY:  But he's—he's...

JILLETTE:  I have.  And, if she makes any noise, I take her out right away. 

CROWLEY:  Yes, because you're being sensitive.

JILLETTE:  By take her out, I don't mean going to the parking lot.  I mean...

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY:  You're talking about—but you're very sensitive to the diners. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You sound very...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  Look at me.  You can tell I'm sensitive.

CROWLEY:  I know.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  But you're talking about high-end restaurants.  High-end restaurants, you're paying a lot of money.  You want a certain ambience, you know?  You have got small kids, take them to a family-friendly place.  Who wants to...

JILLETTE:  Well, he just said family-friendly. 

CROWLEY:  Who wants a disturbance of the peace?

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  He's against family-friendly restaurants.

CARLSON:  Yes, I think—I think that...

JILLETTE:  No one says high-end. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  The problem here is, the guy who wrote this op-ed didn't want to spring for an expensive restaurant.  And he was annoyed when Chuck E. Cheese turned out to be filled with kids. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  All right, still ahead, a proposed measure in New Jersey would make it illegal for you to smoke while driving in your own car. 

JILLETTE:  Absolutely.

CARLSON:  The assemblyman who came up with this idea joins me to defend it next. 

Plus, why do two harmless, reportedly hilarious “Wedding Crashers” have some veterans outraged?  Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson making movies and making enemies—questions and answers next. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “WEDDING CRASHERS”)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR:  That's what we call a sack lunch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.

If legislators in New Jersey get their way, smoking behind the wheel may soon become illegal.  Don't smoke and drive is the latest campaign introduced in the New Jersey legislature.  My guest tonight sponsored the new bill.  He points to a AAA study that found, among 32,000 car accidents from 1995 to 1999, 1 percent of them were linked to smoking, supposedly. 

Joining me now, New Jersey Assemblyman John McKeon.

Mr. McKeon, thanks a lot.

JOHN MCKEON, NEW JERSEY STATE ASSEMBLYMAN:  Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Now, why in the world should I not be able to smoke—not that I do—I quit—let's say I did—in my own car?

MCKEON:  Good for you.

CARLSON:  It's my car.

MCKEON:  Well, you can smoke in your own car.  You can't operate the car while you're smoking, because then it impacts upon the safety of the drivers around you. 

CARLSON:  The study that you cite is from 1999. 

MCKEON:  That's true.

CARLSON:  And I—I—you know, I think there's some reason to believe it's outdated.  And who knows how accurate it is. 

But let's just go by the this—the survey that you site.  Smoking, according to this, accounted for 0.9 percent of all accidents.  Adjusting climate controls accounted for three times more accidents, adjusting radio cassette many times more.  That was 11.5 percent.  Outside objects accounted for almost 30 percent. 

MCKEON:  Deer or whatever it might be running across the street. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Why not make it illegal to turn up the heat or A.C. in your car? 

MCKEON:  Well, that's—well, not that a practical—but what is happening if you see—another big one you didn't cite, too, is actually changing radio stations.

CARLSON:  That's right. 

MCKEON:  And, you see, what manufacturers are doing now, they're putting them right on the tree of the car to try to prevent this.

So, 1 percent out of 3,2000, you could do the math.  But if you extrapolate it to the national statistics, there's three million vehicular accidents a year.  A third of them are related to driver distraction.  So, take one percent of one-third.  That's 1,000.  That's 1,000 accidents a year.  That's 150 fatalities a year.  That's $70 million per year. 

CARLSON:  You...

(CROSSTALK)

MCKEON:  And this legislation costs nothing.  That's pretty significant...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You say that there are 150 fatalities a year, but there's no study that indicates that.  That's a made-up number on your part. 

MCKEON:  Well, no, that's...

CARLSON:  That's, as you put it, an extrapolation from a six-year-old study by AAA.  But you don't actually have a study that say 150 people were killed every year. 

MCKEON:  It's an extrapolation from statistics.

But the study from AAA out of the University of North Carolina was

very accurate.  There are other studies that show numbers even bigger than

that.  There's a study of Grayson Ellis (ph), 2003, out of Virginia showing

2.1   percent vehicular—you know, drivers who are distracted smoking-related.  You know, you can use your...

CARLSON:  Actually, I have that study right in front of me.  And I don't think it shows any such thing.

But leaving aside the debate over the numbers here—I actually think that that—what you just said is incorrect—why shouldn't we take affirmative steps to stop people from changing climate controls on their cars? 

MCKEON:  Well, because that's not...

CARLSON:  Because, by any measure, that accounts for far more deaths than smoking.

MCKEON:  Yes.  But, I mean, that's not practical at this juncture.  I mean, you can do it from a federal perspective and have them, like they do with the—the radio, to change it to the tree that's happening in some of the newer cars.  But this is something that we can control. 

CARLSON:  What about collecting coins for toll booths?  I mean, there's proof that thousands of people every year are involved in accidents that are the result of fishing for coins in the ashtray or their pocket? 

MCKEON:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  All—all so state governments can steal money from them as they drive through a tollbooth.  Why not eliminate tolls?

MCKEON:  I don't know about stealing money.  You know, that money goes to maintain the highways. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don't know.  It takes people's lives.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Are you saying it's worth it?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Are you saying the people who are killed, their lives are worth the revenue that New Jersey, say, gets from their...

MCKEON:  You don't want to talk about cigarette smoking by way of dollars and what it costs society, because then you lose your argument.  Then it becomes off the charts. 

This is simply about vehicular safety.  You can smoke in your car as long as you're not operating it.  I mean, this is a simple way...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, wait a second.  With all due respect, Mr. McKeon,

you're dodging the point I'm making.  And my point is really simple.  If we

·         we agree that smoking in a car leads to accidents—and I actually don't agree, but I'll grant you that—we can be certain that other activities lead to far more accidents.  And yet, you're not interested in making any of those activities illegal. 

Why?  Because, unlike smoking, they're not unpopular. 

MCKEON:  Well, no, that's not the case.  Look what we've done with cell phones.  And we've made hands-free cell phones.  And that's the same type of a reason.

And I think everybody has universally looked at the cell phone bans and going to hands-frees as a good thing.  Well, if you look at the statistics out of the North Carolina study, that number is only 1.5 percent.  As a matter of fact, if you look to a study out of Hawaii done by Hawaiian legislators, they found that smoking actually is more of a distraction than using cell phones.  So...

CARLSON:  Right. 

I wonder how much of a distraction it would be for a heavy cigarette smoker not to be able to smoke in his car.  I wonder how many accidents would be caused by a person who desperately wants a cigarette, but can't have one?  Have you factored that in? 

MCKEON:  It's an interesting question, because if you look at statistics as to those who are involved in vehicular accidents, statistically, they end up more being smokers.  Whether or not that's the effects of...

CARLSON:  Right. 

MCKEON:  ... disquieting effects of nicotine or otherwise, I can't speak to.  But those are the statistics and what they show. 

CARLSON:  Right, because cigarette smokers tend to be more reckless is

·         is I think the answer that a lot of researchers truly have settled upon.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  The fact is that you would—this is not unenforceable law.  Don't you think that this would make people even more cynical about law enforcement than they already are? 

MCKEON:  Well, it's a secondary sense.  People aren't going to be pulled over for smoking while driving.  It's similar to how the seat belt laws used to be.  It's the same in New Jersey as to how the cell phones are.  If you're pulled over for another offense, speeding, whatever other primary offense it might be, then, in that circumstance, you can be...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  So, it's a revenue—it's a revenue enhancer.  It's a way for cities and towns to get more money out of people, then. 

MCKEON:  Nothing to do with revenue.  The fine is between $100 to $250 for the second offense.  But it's never about that.  It's about people hopefully operating their vehicles in a more responsible fashion. 

CARLSON:  Don't you think, in an age where America is under attack by al Qaeda, that members of our law enforcement community ought to be spending their time sort of worrying about, say, protecting New Jersey's chemical plants, rather than worried about someone lighting up a Marlboro in traffic? 

MCKEON:  You know, are there more important things for everybody to worry about?  You know, of course they are. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I'm not talking about everybody.  I'm talking about police officers, who are, as we often hear, correctly, the front line in our defense against terror.  This is not everybody.  These are the people who are protecting us from getting killed.  Shouldn't they be trying to protect us from getting killed, rather than bothering someone about having a cigarette?

MCKEON:  I mean, I know you're too sharp to suggest that people should be able to speed now because we have things going on around the world that are much more serious. 

I mean, this has to do with local police officers and what they do in enforcing traffic safety.  And this is just a secondary offense that I think makes sense. 

CARLSON:  I just want to ask you one final question.  I want to get you concede that what is this really about is the fact you don't like smoking.

A lot of people don't like smoking.  I'm not saying people ought to like smoking.  But this is taking a minority group in America, a group of people who is very unpopular, by virtue of what they do, and piling on, pounding them, extracting more money from them, regulating them, because you can, because no one likes cigarette smokers.  That's really what is happening.

MCKEON:  Yes, well, if you ask me what my opinion is about smoking and relative to its health effects, and...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Right.  I'm sure you're against smoking.

MCKEON:  I'm against it without question.  But this has really nothing to do with being anti-smoking.  This just has to be, to me, a sensible way to make people drive vehicles in a more sense way. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  All right.  Mr. McKeon, I can't agree with you that it's sensible.  But I appreciate your coming on. 

MCKEON:  I appreciate you having me.  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Thanks. 

Coming up, “The Aristocrats,” a movie about the dirtiest and most shocking joke ever told, it's coming soon to a theater near you, or is it?  We'll discuss the controversial new flick with one of its producers, Penn Jillette, as THE SITUATION rolls on. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION.  Sitting in for John Wayne Bobbitt, I'm Tucker Carlson.  Plenty more to get to, so I welcome back Penn Jillette and Monica Crowley. 

Mr. McKeon was putting up a brave defense of what I thought was an indefensible proposition.  But as he was talking, I had two realizations.  One, you know, in the modern age when everything is regulated, and other's people's behavior is, sort of, you know, up for the rest of us to judge and then prevent, this doesn't sound that crazy. 

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  ... should pick on someone your own size.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No, I do.

JILLETTE:  You big bully!

CARLSON:  I do.  This is going to be—well, like, we're laughing at this now.  This will happen. 

JILLETTE:  Yes, and we also—what he didn't point out was the cell phones control being hands-free didn't stop that at all.  It has to do with attention, not with motor skills.  If your focus is on what you're saying, it does hurt you. 

CROWLEY:  I mean, it does sound insane on its face.  I'm all for smoking bans in public places... 

JILLETTE:  Not me. 

CARLSON:  I'm not.

CROWLEY:  Because I don't want smoke blowing in my face while I'm trying to enjoy a steak.  But a car...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  ... but if I choose to go out...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  ... that said, “We have no smoking,” we're starting to do that, anyway.

CARLSON:  Of course.

CROWLEY:  Your car is the ultimate private environment.  And I kind of

·         I mean...

CARLSON:  This is what you get...

CROWLEY:  ... this is the government gone crazy.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  No, Monica, this is what you get.  When you concede a principle at the outset, like forcing restaurants to become nonsmoking or smoking, or forcing restaurants to do anything, basically, or forcing private institutions to do things like this, you want...

CROWLEY:  Yes, but it doesn't have to be a slippery slope, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  But it is.  It always is.

CROWLEY:  It doesn't have to be.  Well, this is one guy who's a state legislator in New Jersey. 

JILLETTE:  You can use the term whack-job.

CROWLEY:  No, he seemed perfectly nice.  But this is one guy...

JILLETTE:  Whack-job could be nice...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  ... with this idea, it's not going to translate statewide and it's not... 

CARLSON:  Principle matters.  That's what people—I could give you a million examples.  But we are...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  This is a government gone crazy. 

CARLSON:  But speaking about governments gone crazy... 

JILLETTE:  There's no reason talking me.  It's same as talking to you. 

I agree.

CARLSON:  Penn Jillette, I knew I liked you. 

And if you're paranoid now, wait until you hear this story.  Tommy Thompson gets a chip on his shoulder, actually in his arm.  The former Health and Human Services secretary says he's having a microchip implanted in his arm.  The chip would allow a hospital to access his medical information and, not coincidentally, it's made by a Florida-based VeriChip, which recently added Thompson to its board of directors... 

JILLETTE:  I've got to get a whole reel of my movie implanted under my skin. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Doesn't this make you—now, I know you're a pretty strict libertarian.  You...

JILLETTE:  Yes, and I'm also pro-technology.  If you want to try this stuff, go ahead and try it. 

CARLSON:  But it doesn't give you the creeps at all? 

JILLETTE:  Not at all.  Not even slightly. 

CROWLEY:  It gives me the creeps.

JILLETTE:  Does it give you the creeps, a pacemaker give you the creeps? 

CARLSON:  No, because a pacemaker...

JILLETTE:  But it's information that you're choosing to put in your own body.  You need to have freedom to put whatever you want in your own body, and that includes... 

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  No, but a pacemaker would save your life, if you needed one. 

JILLETTE:  This one, too.  This one, too.

CROWLEY:  Well, but the government can't track you via your pacemaker. 

JILLETTE:  We're not talking about—you're Little Miss “Oh, the Government Will Do Good For Us.” 

CROWLEY:  No, I'm not.

JILLETTE:  We're the overthrow-the-government guys. 

CROWLEY:  No, I'm not.  You guys are a little bit more extreme than I am.  But this is like big brother gone crazy.

JILLETTE:  In what way?

CARLSON:  This is like—I mean, I get a lot of black-ops helicopter mail.  Do you get a lot of mail from people who have tracking devices and...

(CROSSTALK)

JILLETTE:  Look at me.  Do you think I get mail from crazy people?  Look at me.  You were stooping in front of the other guy.  I get crazy mail from her.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I can't even continue that point.  I still think it's creepy.  I can't remember exactly why I think that. 

JILLETTE:  I'm on your side, except I disagree. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

Here is the situation—excuse me.  Here's a situation not exactly unheard of, Capitol Hill taking aim at Hollywood.  What could be wrong with the “Wedding Crashers”?  Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson play a couple of bachelors on the prowl for bridesmaids.  They even pretend to be Purple Heart recipients, and that's what has some veterans and lawmakers biting mad.

Now, the House is considering the Stolen Valor Act, which would make it illegal to falsely claim military honors.  I think...

JILLETTE:  It's a movie!  Hannibal Lecter killed people in the movie. 

CARLSON:  People are missing the point here.  Look, the point is that having served in combat is so honorable that even liberal girls will sleep with you if they think you've done it, right?  So, in fact, it's not attacking the military. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  It's pointing out the elevated station of combat veterans in our society.  And amen!

JILLETTE:  Right.  And you can say you're a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  You can say you're a general.  You can say anything.  And it's a movie.  You can say anything—you can kill people in a movie.

CROWLEY:  Yes, but there's something about a combat medal that sets it apart from the examples you're giving.  And I understand it's a movie.  And I understand it's a gag.  And it's all in service of the joke.  I understand all of that. 

But, I mean, it's sort of demeaning to the actual meaning of the medal.  And it kind of insults—it's sort of disrespectful to all of those who rightfully earned the medal. 

JILLETTE:  You've never been insulted by a movie before?

CROWLEY:  Yes, yes, but...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Wait until you see this man's movie.  If you think—we're going to talk about it in a second.  But if you think that's offensive, this person has created the most obscene movie probably ever...

JILLETTE:  I never would claim to have a...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ...  ever made. 

CROWLEY:  And he's proud of it.

JILLETTE:  I don't care what color it is, send it in. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  But the point is—look, even Hollywood comedies understand, or maybe especially comedies understand, that to have served in a war is considered cool by everybody, always and everywhere in our society, because it's a fundamentally patriotic country, even people who are opposed to specific wars. 

JILLETTE:  The fact that it's—it doesn't really matter about that at all.  It's a movie.  And you can pretend everything in a movie.  I mean, people have killed people, which I think is worse than claiming to have a Purple Heart. 

There are murderers, people claiming to be murderers in movie, and as long as it's in a movie, you can do anything, as long as it's fake. 

CROWLEY:  But doesn't it sort of insult those who rightfully earned it in real life? 

JILLETTE:  Well, so don't go see the movie.  Don't go see the movie.

CROWLEY:  You know, I mean, I understand it's fiction.  And I get all of that.  But I still think it's demeaning and demeaning of the medal. 

CARLSON:  Speaking of insulting movies—I'm sorry, I could wait no longer.  We'll move onto our final Hollywood situation tonight, all about a movie that has no nudity, no violence, but nevertheless has been banned...

JILLETTE:  Unspeakable obscenity.

CARLSON:  ... banned from 3,500 screens nationwide, “The Aristocrats.”  It's a documentary about the dirtiest joke ever told.  It's been told by comedians since vaudeville days, and it's utterly obscene, which is why the AMC movie theater chain says it won't show the film. 

JILLETTE:  Don't use the word “banned.”

CARLSON:  Banned.  They have chosen not to show it. 

JILLETTE:  That's a big difference.

CARLSON:  That's exactly—no, no, you're right, you're absolutely right. 

JILLETTE:  It's an individual shop-owner who's saying he won't sell vegetables in his supermarket.  It's a very cynical, press-grabbing thing...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You're a very one—wait, your own strategy is cynical? 

JILLETTE:  No, his strategy is cynical. 

CARLSON:  Let me explain it.  Let me explain what this has to do with our show.  Hold on, before you go on. 

Our guest panelist tonight, Penn Jillette is the executive producer of “The Aristocrats,” which opens Friday in New York and Los Angeles and opens nationwide August 12th.  I saw it this afternoon.  You say it has not been banned.  It's one movie theater owner saying he's not going to show it. 

JILLETTE:  And I think—and I do say cynical, because he's grabbing the moral high ground, pretending to, by not showing a movie that doesn't have a studio behind it, doesn't have money behind it.  He would not ever, “We're not showing 'War of the Worlds' because it's a burlesque of 9/11,” because Spielberg, and Cruise, and all the studios would kick his ass. 

The fact that I can't kick his asses means he can go, “Oh, we have the moral high ground.”  He showed violent rape in “Irreversible.”  He showed all of these movies.  This is just words.  But he's an absolute right to do it. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Wait a second, as someone—as I just said, I finished the movie an hour ago.  And I found it...

JILLETTE:  And you're still...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I was.  Actually, I thought it was kind of amazing, but it's so over-the-top.  I mean, words can't express the words in that movie.  I mean, it's...

JILLETTE:  Only, only words.  And I think that's really kind of refreshing that a guy, albeit an idiot who owns a chain of theaters, that a guy is saying that words actually still have that power. 

CARLSON:  But the point of the...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  ... one of the points of the film it seems to me is to see how obscene you can be, how offensive you can be.  I mean, it just takes it beyond. 

JILLETTE:  Right.

CARLSON:  There's a scene in it—right. 

JILLETTE:  It plays with where your limits are, in terms of words...

(CROSSTALK) 

CROWLEY:  OK.  Let me ask you this. 

JILLETTE:  Yes...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY:  You chose not to have this movie rated by the MPAA, right? 

JILLETTE:  Dan Glickman, whom I've met, says that the MPAA is voluntary, and voluntary means nothing if someone...

(CROSSTALK)  

CROWLEY:  OK.  So why did you not submit this movie for a rating? 

Were you afraid it was going to get an NC-17? 

JILLETTE:  No, no, not afraid.  I think if it got an NC-17 just for language, that would be a publicity boon.

CROWLEY:  But isn't this a publicity boon for you to have the AMC chain say, “We're not going to show this movie”?  This is huge for you.

JILLETTE:  Yes.  He wants to play that game on both sides.  I refused to do the Michael Moore “I'm a victim” thing. 

Everyone in this country believes in free speech. 

CARLSON:  That's right.

JILLETTE:  Everyone in this country loves dirty jokes.  You can't find a Fourth of July celebration that didn't have a dirty joke told.  George W.  Bush tells dirty jokes to Kinky Friedman, who's running for governor of Texas, who then calls and tells them to me. 

There's nothing wrong with them.  If I'd been an NC-17, if I had said that, that would put me in with less information than people get from no nudity, no violence, unspeakable obscenity.  It would put us into this, you know, does it have sex in it?  Does it have this? 

People can do this by themselves without the MPAA. 

CARLSON:  That's true.  I think people should know the movie is pretty heavy duty. 

JILLETTE:  Well, sure.  And I don't want any...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But here's my question.  The movie asked, I thought, an interesting question.  Since the point of comedy is to be, to some extent, transgressive and to wake people up, and to say things ordinary people can't say, is there any joke that you shouldn't tell because it's too over-the-top?

JILLETTE:  Yes, there are a million jokes you shouldn't tell. 

CARLSON:  Because I'm not a licensed comedy practitioner? 

JILLETTE:  You choose the jokes to tell that deal with the subject you're dealing with, and with your audience, and with who you are.  That's all individual decisions. 

What we were interested in with this joke is the history of it.  A friend of mine, Jay Marshall, who died recently—he was a monitor and a hero to me—who was in vaudeville his whole life, got on the “Ed Sullivan Show,” you know, 20 times.

When he was eight and in vaudeville, an old guy told him this joke, the purpose of which was to be, “A guy walks into the talent agent, and then say something as dirty as you can to describe an act.  What do you call an act like that?”  “The Aristocrats.” 

There's no joke at all.  The punch-line is in the title.  But we wanted to see if 100 of the funniest people in the world doing improvisation was kind of like jazz improvisation.  And I don't want anybody, including my sister, to see this movie who would not enjoy it.

We're not trying to do Michael Moore sideswiping people.  The purpose is to freak people out.  We get a lot of guys in the back room.  We're all telling jokes.  If you've ever been offended by a word, not an idea, not a concept, not a context, but the word itself, please don't come see this movie.  But you might have a good time.

CARLSON:  I would counter that by saying, if you can handle it, if you're ready for this movie, it's a great movie. 

JILLETTE:  Oh, fabulous. 

CARLSON:  And it opens Friday, and it opens nationwide August 12th

JILLETTE:  And it's OK...

CARLSON:  That's the first movie plug we've ever done on this show, and probably the last. 

JILLETTE:  It's OK for AMC to absolutely say they won't show it, as long as I don't ever have to go to an AMC theater ever again. 

CARLSON:  Spoken like a true libertarian.

JILLETTE:  And people get sick from their popcorn.  Did you hear that?

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I didn't.

JILLETTE:  Really sick.

CARLSON:  The rat hair thing.

Penn Jillette, thank you very much.  Monica Crowley, thank you. 

CROWLEY:  Thank you, Tucker. 

Just kidding about the rat hair, of course.

JILLETTE:  I heard that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Coming up next, eating a vegetarian corn muffin in prison sounds bad enough.  What if that corn muffin was filled with a human fingertip?  That's the $75,000 question.  And we will debate it next. 

Plus, what kind of heathen would dare to doubt the political potential of seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong?  What would argue against the appeal of a true American hero?  Here's a hint:  It rhymes with Max Kellerman.  It's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for the nightly intrusion of the “Outsider,” a man from outside the news business who, for masochistic reasons known only to himself, volunteers to play devil's advocate on the day's least-defensible news stories. 

And so without delay, a man who's developed carpal tunnel syndrome from playing fantasy baseball online, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST:  I don't need to be intrusive, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Come on.  We welcome you nightly. 

First up, when California prison inmate Felipe Rocha, Buddhist and a vegetarian, bit into his side order of cornbread one evening, he discovered that the crunchy object in his mouth was not a cashew, it was a fingertip. 

According to a lawsuit against a Florida food packager, that lists “convenience at your fingertips” as one of its top qualities, Rocha is asking for at least 75 grand in damages from the package.  In addition, he wants Pelican Bay State Prison to cease buying food from the company because it's a nonunion shop in a right-to-work state. 

All right.  $75,000 in damages because his “quality of life was damaged.”  If you're living in Pelican Bay men's correctional facility in California, you have no “quality of life.”  You're in prison. 

Moreover, this guy's in counseling, OK?  I want to know who's paying for that.  I suspect the taxpayers of the state of the California.  This guy needs toughen up and stop complaining.  He's in prison.

KELLERMAN:  Well, that's the reason he bit into a human fingertip in the first place, is because people like you—no one really wants their tax dollars going to making life so great in prisons, right? 

So what food contractor gets the contract?  The guy who comes in with the lowest bid.  You'll do it for what?  Yes, we're going with G.A. Food Services.  The only thing is, once in awhile, you might find a knuckle or a kneecap or something in the food.  Don't worry about it.  They're prisoners. 

Come on.  I can actually believe this guy is traumatized.  If I bit into a human body part when I ate something, I'd be traumatized. 

CARLSON:  Do you think chewing on a finger is the ugliest thing this guy has experienced in prison? 

KELLERMAN:  But, see, you're for making jails better aren't you? 

CARLSON:  I am.  I am.  I just think, you know, you bite into a fingertip once in a while in your cornbread, stop complaining, you wuss.

KELLERMAN:  He's a vegetarian!

CARLSON:  OK, well, all the more reasoning to stop complaining.

Max, I know you're a big cycling fan.  Aren't you an HBO cycling host? 

I think so.

In any case, American hero Lance Armstrong won his seventh-straight Tour de France bicycle race Sunday.  He said he would retire from the sport.  So what's next, you ask? 

Well, Senator John Kerry, who's been asking himself the same question since November, thinks Armstrong would have a good run as a politician.  And Mr. Armstrong did not himself rule that out when asked. 

Now, you may think this is ridiculous, but John McCain, Eisenhower, John Glenn, General Grant, you can think of American heroes through the ages who have wound up doing well in politics. 

By the way, can I say, what a riot that John Kerry is actually a Tour de France fan.  Not surprising.

KELLERMAN:  That's how you know he loses the election. 

CARLSON:  I know, you're right.

KELLERMAN:  He's a Tour de France fan, and George W. Bush was once the front man for a group that owned the Texas Rangers.  Yes, I wonder who's going to be elected president of the United States.

CARLSON:  Good point.  But why shouldn't Lance Armstrong have a hugely successful career in politics? 

KELLERMAN:  I actually—first of all, are you sure you want a guy whose head is wired that way—I mean, the guy is so determined—with his finger on the button.  Because I don't know if I do. 

There's something—it's like a pit bull, you know, how their brains must be wired a certain way.  His is not wired in a way that I want anywhere near the button. 

I think also—have you Malcolm Gladwell's “Blink”? 

CARLSON:  No. 

KELLERMAN:  OK, he wrote “The Tipping Point.”

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  He used to write for the “New Yorker.”  I think he still does.  He wrote “Blink.”

And in it, he has a chapter—it's about how you make snap decisions.  One of the chapters is when your intuition can lead you the wrong way, called the Warren Harding Error. 

So Lance Armstrong—you know, you see a guy, he looks presidential.  Let's vote for him.  He spends his term playing poker.  Lance Armstrong, look, I can imagine he'd be very presidential.  Doesn't mean anything.  You bring up McCain, there's a guy with substance.  Warren Harding, maybe Lance Armstrong?  Not so much.

CARLSON:  No, I'm all for do-nothing politicians.  I'm for politicians who don't actually accomplish much, which is to say don't impose their views on the rest of us as much.  More poker. 

Well, celebrities just want to help, Max.  They just want to help.  Especially celebrities who matter a lot less than they used to.  Take Ricky Martin, who once had a popular record album, and Jane Fonda who did all sorts of things once upon a time.

Martin is now working with Unicef.  He told a group of Arab youths that he would be their international spokescelebrity to try to prevent stereotyping in the western world. 

And Ms. Fonda will embark on a nationwide bus tour, meanwhile, to protest the war in Iraq.  That bus is powered by vegetable oil. 

Here's my question, Max—this is all offensive.  Anytime celebrities weigh in on this kind of stuff, it's annoying.  Who's more annoying? 

My vote goes to Ricky Martin.  He wants to be a spokesperson—a term I hate—for the Arab world.  He's not even Arab.  He's Puerto Rican.  How can he be the spokesman for an entire group of people whose language he doesn't speak, whose culture he doesn't share, about whom he knows very level.  It's ridiculous.

KELLERMAN:  He's living “La Vida Loca.”  Didn't you hear the song?

I think that's actually good.  Here's a guy saying, “I'm not your ethnicity,” but as Martin Luther King said, “If my Jewish brothers and sisters didn't want you, I would say, 'I don't care.  I'm standing up for you anyway,'” or something like that.  He said it better than that.

But that's what Ricky Martin is saying.  And I like that.

Jane Fonda, who just got done apologizing like last week for her behavior during the Vietnam War, is now going to be caught behind, like, an Iraqi insurgent's machine gun in a photo for a “Time” magazine?  I mean, are you kidding?  Much more offensive. 

CARLSON:  Ricky Martin, the Martin Luther King of the Palestinian people. 

KELLERMAN:  That's right.

CARLSON:  On that note, Max, we're going to have to close it up.  I'm not sure if it's a high or low note, but it's a memorable one.

Thank you.

KELLERMAN:  Thank you very much.

CARLSON:  Good luck with the carpal tunnel.

Coming up, Al Gore is so naturally funny, you won't believe who taught him the tricks of the comedy trade.  The truth will have you rolling around on the “Cutting Room Floor,” next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  It's time, time to sweep up the odds and ends of news we couldn't get to and bring them to you.  It's time for the “Cutting Room Floor”—Willie Geist?

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Hello, Tucker.

In the interest of full disclosure on THE SITUATION, we should point out that Max is only defending Ricky Martin because he spent some time in Menudo alongside him in the late '80s, during his adolescence, so we just thought our audience should know. 

CARLSON:  Those Menudo guys are old by now. 

GEIST:  Max is to, actually. 

CARLSON:  Good point. 

But do you ever watch the comedy stylings of Al Gore and wonder, “Who writes his stuff?”  Well, now we know.  The former vice president says he consulted Johnny Carson several times during the 1990s when he wanted to test material for a speech.  Gore says the king of late night gave him advice on timing and delivery and helped to change Gore's image as a wooden politician. 

GEIST:  Well, so this then tells you one of two things.  Either Johnny Carson is a Republican operative feeding him that material, or he was very rusty a few years removed from “The Tonight Show,” because Al Gore—I don't think he was impressing anyone with his routine. 

CARLSON:  No, I don't think he left that—actually, Gore was funniest the day before he retired from politics, that “Saturday Night Live” sketch in the hot tub. 

GRACE:  He got funny at just the wrong time. 

CARLSON:  Right.  Right when he decides to let it all go. 

Well, Cook San Wan (ph) is an ancient Korean martial art.  But it isn't usually this ancient.  A 70-something Florida grandma, Loo San (ph), is about to become one of the oldest black belts in the history of martial arts.  As you can see, she's got no problem putting younger opponents on their backs with one of the 228 moves she's mastered during her six years in the sport. 

GEIST:  Whatever.  I could take her. 

(LAUGHTER)

See that?  That was weak.  Don't bring that weak stuff in my dojo. 

CARLSON:  But would you want to?

GEIST:  Of course.  You name the time and the place, sweetheart.  I'll take her.  Do you think I care? 

CARLSON:  That'd make the “Cutting Room Floor.”

Well, the “Guinness Book of World Records” is a thick volume.  So for ever most motorcycle jumps over the Grand Canyon, there are many more most eggs broken in 30 seconds.  The new record-holder in the latter category is a man from India who broke 22 eggs in 30 seconds.  The man has pioneered a technique where he breaks several eggs at once on the back of his hand. 

GEIST:  And that's not that impressive, I have to say.  Any record that looks like something that happens in my kitchen every Sunday morning...

CARLSON:  I agree with that. 

GEIST:  ... should not be celebrated.  If you want to run the 100-meter dash around my breakfast nook, that's something else.

CARLSON:  That's like most water sifter, most Oreos eaten as snacks. 

GEIST:  They're inventing records now. 

CARLSON:  That's kind of cool.  I wouldn't mind having that record, any record. 

GEIST:  You can have it. 

CARLSON:  All right.

Well, there's a never a good time to be bitten by a snake, as far as I'm concerned.  But perhaps the worst time is when you're sitting on the john.  A Jacksonville, Florida, woman recently was bitten on a leg by a large water moccasin that was hiding in her toilet bowl. 

Alicia Bailey says, “We're currently very uncomfortable in our home and toilet shy, I would say.” 

GEIST:  I would say. 

CARLSON:  I would say. 

GEIST:  That's quite a story.  But the best part to me was—I don't know if you could see in that video—the husband stalking the water moccasin in his cutoff Jacksonville Jaguars t-shirt and a 12-gauge shotgun.  What exactly was he planning to do?  I know he's protecting his home-front, but... 

CARLSON:  You're missing the point.  I know you're married. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  The point is not to kill the animal necessarily.  It's not to drive away the intruder necessarily.  It's to have the gun and stalk in a menacing way through your home, thereby conveying the point, “Don't mess with me.” 

GEIST:  To the water moccasin? 

CARLSON:  No, to your wife.

GEIST:  Oh, to your wife.

CARLSON:  It impresses your wife.  You get the gun, wander around the house.  You look tough.  You may not kill the snake, but in the end, she likes you more.  You reap the benefits of that.  It's about sex, Willie.  That's absolutely true. 

GEIST:  I think she'd be more impressed if snakes would just stop biting her on the ass every night.  That'd be fine, too.

CARLSON:  I guess my question is:  How did the snake get into the toilet? 

GEIST:  I have no idea.  But it's a frightening incident out of a horror film. 

CARLSON:  That's a question for a licensed plumber and perhaps tomorrow we'll have one. 

Well, that's THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks so much for watching.  We'll see you after “COUNTDOWN” tomorrow.  “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY” is next, and Joe Scarborough—Joe?

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST:  Tucker, only in Florida.  Of course we all walk around in wife-beater t-shirts carrying shotguns, aiming them at toilets.

Only in Florida, right, Tucker?  What is it with my state?

CARLSON:  I love your state, especially the shotguns.

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, especially the shotgun and the tank-top t-shirts.

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

END   

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

,