updated 7/28/2005 12:14:50 PM ET 2005-07-28T16:14:50

Guest: Debbie Stabenow, Rachel Maddow

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Air America’s Rachel Maddow and “Mad money” star Jim Cramer part of THE SITUATION tonight.  And what a show it is. 

We have a man married a 13-year-old girl.  She’s now 14.  And they’re going to haul him off to jail because sleeping with his wife is rape.

JIM CRAMER, HOST, “MAD MONEY”:  I mean, come on, give me a—what state is this? 

CARLSON:  They got married in Kansas. 

RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Kansas.

CARLSON:  They live in Nebraska, a little more uptight than Kansas. 

And then, the housing Bible...

MADDOW:  A little more uptight. 

(LAUGHTER)

MADDOW:  She’s 13 and pregnant.

(CROSSTALK) 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  And the housing bubble gets so enormous, the entire U.S. economy rides on it. 

CRAMER:  Amen.  Amen.

CARLSON:  Is it going to explode? 

You’re for it?

CRAMER:  Oh, man.  You kidding me?  It’s the greatest thing in the world.  You can sleep in it after it goes down.  It’s not like a stock.  You can’t live in a stock when it goes bust.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  You may be the only person who is for it. 

CRAMER:  You bet.

CARLSON:  All right, but we start with the tale of two missing women tonight, the first, of course, Natalee Holloway, missing in Aruba since May 30. 

Authorities today drained a pond near the Marriott Hotel on the island, so far, apparently, to no avail. 

The missing woman is 24-year-old Latoyia Figueroa.  She’s pregnant and the mother of one.  She disappeared nine days ago in Philadelphia.  The search for Latoyia intensified after a man named Richard Blair began blogging about her because of her race and her background.

And his point was the obvious one.  And it is that black women from city centers, from urban areas who disappear get none of the coverage that like Natalee Holloway get, who are obviously from a different demographic.  And, you know, it’s impossible to deny the truth of this. 

The point, I guess, I would make is, I think we may be overstating the effect of media attention on these cases.  You can think of missing women cases, Chandra Levy, Natalee Holloway, for that matter, that didn’t make all the difference.  These women have not been found.  They made all the difference for us in the press.  We got great ratings. 

CRAMER:  Right. 

CARLSON:  But it didn’t solve the crime. 

CRAMER:  I think we got to focus on this ratings issue for a second, because I don’t think people—we all—we all understand this because we’re in the business.  I didn’t get. 

If you can get a huge number of people watching a particular story, it gives you the license to do a lot of other stories.  Now, some people abuse the license by going to Aruba every single night, as far as I’m concerned.  But I have to—I—I—I love programing that gets watched. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  I do, too. 

CRAMER:  So, I’m not going to damn this kind of story. 

CARLSON:  I’m not either. 

MADDOW:  No.  And the media makes decisions based on what is going to sell advertising.  And so, what is going to...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  It’s commercialism. 

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Isn’t that why we have CBS and that thing, that radio air network that you’re on?

MADDOW:  That thing that I’m on?  Yes, I can never remember...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  It’s only on Sirius Satellite.  That’s the problem, right?

MADDOW:  No, we’re not on Sirius.

CRAMER:  Oh.  Oh, OK.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  I was close, close.

MADDOW:  If you must know, 1190 in New York, if you need to know. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Good luck.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Thank you.  But, listen, but, see, you can’t blame...

CRAMER:  You worked that in. 

MADDOW:  You can’t blame the media in the sense of what they decide to cover.  But you have to admit that it does—I think it does drive the police coverage and I think it does drive the resources.  We wouldn’t be draining that pond in Aruba...

CARLSON:  Yes.  No, you’re right.

MADDOW:  ... if Natalee Holloway wasn’t such a big story. 

CARLSON:  You’re right.  However...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  That’s breaking news.  Did you say just they drained the pond in Aruba?

CARLSON:  Yes. 

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  That’s breaking news. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  You obviously—you obviously don’t watch cable, because, Jim, that was breaking news last night. 

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER:  No, you can slug breaking news whenever you want and—it’s also first on MSNBC.

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

MADDOW:  Right. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  That’s right.  

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  ... team coverage right now.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I do think our viewers should know...

CRAMER:  SWAT team coverage.  Excuse me.

CARLSON:  People who don’t—people who don’t work in the press who look at this and immediately draw the conclusion that people who work in the press are racist ought to know there’s another dynamic involved here.  And it is this.  Things that are unusual or perceived to be unusual are the ones that are considered news. 

It’s like planes that land safely aren’t news.  When someone, not just a black person or a Hispanic person, but someone who lives in a tough neighborhood, is injured in a crime, the feeling, right or not—or wrong—and it’s probably wrong—is, this is a more common occurrence than if it were to happen in a suburban area. 

MADDOW:  But it’s the per—again, it’s the perception.  We’ve got a woman who has been missing for nine days.  She’s pregnant.  She’s a young mother.  It has all the components of the other stories that get covered.  But because of the race, because she’s from West Philly, it’s not getting covered. 

CARLSON:  But...

MADDOW:  So, people are trying to drive...

CARLSON:  But...

MADDOW:  ... the media...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But the truth is, we are covering it.  It was on our air today.  And it’s on our air...

MADDOW:  Because of an enterprising blogger.

CARLSON:  It’s...

CRAWFORD:  Where would you rather vacation, Aruba or West Philly? 

MADDOW:  West Philly has...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Forty-second and Baltimore is nothing like Aruba.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  I know that area.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Our next situation, next situation, guns.  The Senate is on the verge of passing a law that would protect gun makers from liability lawsuits from victims of gun violence. 

The gun industry fears that having to pay claims of dozens of pending suits around the world would bankrupt many companies.  The senate voted by more than 2-1 in favor of protecting gun makers in a test vote on Tuesday. 

They’ve already spent, gun makers, $200 million protecting themselves from these ridiculous suits.  On principle, these suits are ridiculous.  Do you sue Budweiser if you’re in a DUI accident?  Do you sue Victoria’s Secret if you get a divorce? 

I mean, look, the point is, people who commit gun violence are responsible for gun violence, not the maker of the implement.  Gun companies are still liable for defective products.  This is—I—I don’t...

CRAMER:  That’s why people should be buying Smith & Wesson hand over fist, little $4 stock.  Bring it in.  Sturm, Ruger for those who care for the little blue-chip pistol.

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER:  But SSB, I’ll tell you.  Get me some Smith & Wesson. 

CARLSON:  Ruger, it’s a good...

CRAMER:  That stock—that stock is flying. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  And it should be.  It’s a good gun. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  But the gun industry—the little unspoken truth here is that the gun industry has never actually had to pay out because of a liability. 

CARLSON:  They have paid $200 million in legal fees. 

MADDOW:  But they’ve never paid out.  There’s never been a—it’s not like there are massive jury awards against the gun industry. 

CARLSON:  No, no, no.  There hasn’t been—there hasn’t been a single one. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  They’ve never lost one. 

CARLSON:  You know why?  Because it’s a ridiculous argument. 

CRAMER:  Totally.

MADDOW:  No, because...

CRAMER:  Not even juries will buy it.

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

MADDOW:  Then why does the Senate need to be stepping in to shield the industry from these unfair lawsuits, if they’re not losing them? 

CARLSON:  Because if—well, for one thing, because they’ve spent 200 -- again, $200 million.  Now, that’s $200 million that could go to, I don’t know, a lot of things. 

MADDOW:  New guns. 

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Plus, the NRA is so good.  If I became a congressman, could I get rich off the NRA, if I just like put it up for a vote?  Who pays the other side?  It’s so hard. 

(LAUGHTER)

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  Well, actually, no one.

CRAMER:  Yes, I know.

CARLSON:  See, the interesting thing about today’s vote, not to get too boring and political about it, however, is that a lot of Democrats, I believe 10 Democrats are going to join this vote.  OK, in other words, gun control as an issue, I know, on the left, it’s still excited—you know, it gets people excited.  But mainstream Democrats don’t want to talk about guns. 

CRAMER:  I don’t have a gun anymore.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  When was the last time you handled a gun or shot one? 

MADDOW:  On my 28th birthday, I spent the day shooting. 

CRAMER:  That’s like yesterday.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Exactly. 

CARLSON:  Good for you. 

MADDOW:  I...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  In my case, it was last weekend.  And it will be this coming weekend. 

MADDOW:  But on a shooting range...

CRAMER:  There you go.

MADDOW:  On a shooting range, that’s one thing.  The NRA is very powerful. 

CRAMER:  Very.

MADDOW:  And—and, therefore, Democrats are following their tune.  It doesn’t mean they should.

CARLSON:  Not—not powerful enough, in my view. 

Next situation...

MADDOW:  Wow.

CARLSON:  Wow.  It’s true.  No...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  You want the NRA to become a more powerful lobby?

CARLSON:  No, but actually, actually, I believe you have got a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  It says so in the Constitution. 

CRAMER:  The Constitution...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  ... have a Howitzer, I mean, if you read that Second Amendment widely. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Next situation, an American court rules in favor of a convicted murderer and Muslim convert in Colorado. 

The prisoner, named Ronald Caruso (ph), filed suit against the prison system when his request for food acceptable under Islamic law was denied.  The judge in the case scolded Colorado prisons for denying religious rights to prisoners. 

This is a pretty interesting case.  OK, so, this prisoner says he couldn’t get halal food, right?  They only had kosher food and he wasn’t officially Jewish, so he couldn’t get it.  Meanwhile, he goes to the commissary in the prison and starts eating Slim Jims and nachos, neither of which is halal. 

So, the judge’s point was, he may not take his religion very seriously, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have to.  It seems to me, if he’s not taking it seriously, why should taxpayers pay for special food for him? 

MADDOW:  Because you have the right to practice your religion in prison. 

CARLSON:  But he’s not practicing.

MADDOW:  Even if you’re not great at practicing your religion, even you sometimes slip and eat a Slim Jim, you have a right to practice your religion in prison. 

CARLSON:  So, if my religion says I need to drink a case of Budweiser every day?

MADDOW:  No.  And that is—and those limits have been drawn by the courts.  The limits...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But what is the limit, specifically?

MADDOW:  The limits are that you need to be able to practice religious freedom in prison to an extent that doesn’t interfere with the good operations and discipline of the prison.

CRAMER:  You buy that?  You buy that nonsense? 

MADDOW:  That’s the...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  I think, once you’re in prison, man, you should lose a lot of your rights, I mean, like all of them. 

MADDOW:  Like...

CRAMER:  Is that wrong?

(LAUGHTER)

MADDOW:  So, the—so, the Family Research Council is going to call and you say, you don’t think that you should be able to be a Christian in prison? 

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  I got to tell you, they don’t pick those names out of the phone book, those guys in prison.  They tend to be guys who shouldn’t have it easy. 

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER:  I like those prisons where they serve the loaf. 

Remember, the really...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  ... loaf.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  ... really bad-tasting food?

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  I think they just should eat the loaf day after day after day. 

CARLSON:  Actually, actually, the greatest is—prisons are very regulated.  And you have to give a certain number of calories and—and vitamins and nutrients.  But, in some prisons, prisoners being disciplined have all those nutrients put into a blender and served as a shake.

CRAMER:  That’s perfect.

CARLSON:  Including the green beans. 

CRAMER:  That’s perfect.

MADDOW:  And sometimes, in those prisons, people die. 

CARLSON:  Yes, they do.  The’s bad.

MADDOW:  Yes.  Isn’t that great?

CARLSON:  I’m against...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Yes.  No.  Come on. 

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Were you facetious or were you just—or you were agreeing with me? 

MADDOW:  I’ll tell you later.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I think she was agreeing.

(LAUGHTER)

MADDOW:  I’ll tell you when you’re older, Jim.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  All right.  To the economy. 

There’s a lot about business I don’t understand, but just about every American knows about the housing boom.  And today, it showed signs, at least to a novice, of continuing.  A fresh report shows that new home sales jumped 4 percent in June—that’s a bigger increase than expected—and 14 percent higher than June a year ago.  That report follows one this week that existing home sales set a record this month. 

Now, a lot of people may not—I just want to—quickly basic facts about the housing market.  Real estate accounts for 70 percent of the rise in household net worth. 

CRAMER:  Right. 

MADDOW:  Wow.

CARLSON:  Forty-three percent of private sector jobs created since 2001 related to the housing boom.  Consumer spending, resident construction accounted for 90 percent of U.S. economic growth since 2001. 

If this fails, we’re doomed. 

CRAMER:  The Chinese can’t make homes.  That’s the greatest thing in the world, right? 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Yes?

CRAMER:  If they could, if the Chinese could find a way to build homes...

MADDOW:  To make American homes?

CRAMER:  ... put them on ships and take them here, they would do it.

Right now, we have that market to ourselves.  I say, amen.  Let it keep boiling. 

CARLSON:  But isn’t it a finite—A, a finite demand, right? 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You can only build so many homes...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Right.  They don’t make more land. 

CARLSON:  And...

CRAMER:  That was not a—for atheists, nonatheists, they believe that. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No.  But, and, B, aren’t people overleveraged?  I mean, people are—people have literally interest-only mortgages. 

CRAMER:  OK, they shouldn’t do interest-only mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, instead of raising rates, short-term rates, should go to the Hill and say, guys, we think it would be right if the banks make you put down 15 percent to 20 percent. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

CRAMER:  And then the problem goes away. 

But Greenspan insists on raising short-term rates. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CRAMER:  Which is, weirdly, lowering long-term rates, which is causing our mortgages to keep going down.  He’s got it wrong, sunrise senior living for him, and he ought to be more worried about what is going on with the wife and less worried about us. 

CARLSON:  But what happens if, all of a sudden, the housing market tanks...

MADDOW:  Right. 

CARLSON:  ... or even slows down?  There are a lot people sitting—they’re going to be sitting on negative equity. 

CRAMER:  That would be bad.  That would be bad. 

MADDOW:  Right. 

If that’s the only way in which Americans are making money right now, we’re not saving anything.  We have got credit card debt up to our ears.  We’ve—the only reason we all think we’re OK is because of the value of our homes.  If that starts to go down, what happens? 

CARLSON:  I think it’s scary. 

MADDOW:  Yes, I think it’s scary, too.

CARLSON:  But what do I know? 

CRAMER:  Well, look...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I learn everything I know on “Mad Money.” 

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER:  Thank you.

I want to caution people that—people have been saying that this is a housing bubble for years.  And, in the interim, a lot of guys are making a lot of money. 

CARLSON:  Yes, they are.

CRAMER:  So, maybe, you know, rather than just affiliate ourselves with the housing bubble thing, just say, home is a good part of a diversified investment portfolio. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

CRAMER:  How do you like that?  That’s a conservative...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  So, don’t just invest it all in Pets.com. 

All right, Rachel, Jim, stick around.  There’s still a lot more ahead on THE SITUATION. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  Sweating it out, why it’s cool to be a fan of Mother Nature’s hot temper.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That’s the truth.

CARLSON:  Could Uncle Sam soon be profiting from Internet porn? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That’s unbelievable. 

CARLSON:  Plus, a sobering lesson about why friends shouldn’t let friends push drunk. 

And why Jessica thinks she’s got a leg up on Christian morality. 

It’s all ahead on THE SITUATION. 

JESSICA SIMPSON, SINGER:  You know, high heels, the short shorts, the whole thing. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Explicit sex in video games, a half-mile-high skyscraper in the Windy City, and how to stay patient during this record-setting heat wave. 

Three stories, three points of view.  It’s “Op Ed Op Ed.”  And it’s next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Here’s what we did all day.  We read editorial pages, almost every one in the country.  From them, we took the three most interesting op-eds.  We bring them to you now with our commentary. 

First up, in today’s “L.A. Times,” Steven Johnson disagrees with Hillary Clinton.  He says video games actually teach kids a lot of things they’re going to need to know in later life—quote—“Most of today’s games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces,” whatever that is, “and prioritize between multiple objections—objectives, in short, precisely the sorts of skills that they’re going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow.”

Look, people are going to always need the same skills.  And that’s the ability to deal with other people.  And that’s one thing video games don’t teach you.  And more to the point, video games are solitary and they’re indoors.  Little kids ought to be outside wrecking stuff underneath the sky, not sitting in the dark playing with a joystick. 

CRAMER:  I see the need to be contrary now and then, but this was just a plain stupid view.  Anybody who is a parent knows these are the enemy of not only reason, but also of fellowship and teamwork. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

MADDOW:  Wow.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  No, that’s exactly—that’s very...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  I—I think that’s very eloquent.  But I think I disagree. 

CARLSON:  Really? 

MADDOW:  I mean, well, listen, video games are—are the latest things that kids do that adults really don’t do. 

CRAMER:  What, hijack cars, “Grand Theft Auto”?

MADDOW:  And therefore have a—have a—have a moral panic about it.  I mean, yes, build strong thumbs.  The Army is using—using video games to recruit kids, in some cases, to retrain—to train soldiers.

CRAMER:  Oh, but their games are cool.

MADDOW:  But those games are cool.

CARLSON:  No.  I know a lot of...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  ... a moral panic over something that adults don’t do. 

CARLSON:  There are a lot of moral panics over things adults don’t do. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  I know a lot of number of heavy pot smokers who do, do it.  And that’s the point. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  The sort of person who plays a lot of video games, I just—I’m not sure it’s good for you.

MADDOW:  I think the video games are the new rock ‘n’ roll.  I think we’re all too scared of it.

CARLSON:  All right. 

CRAMER:  I think LoJack—LoJack should put out a counter video game to “Grand Theft Auto.”

CARLSON:  Yes. 

MADDOW:  Well, that’s a...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  ... idea.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Next up, in light of the news that a Chicago developer is proposing a 115-story glass tower in Chicago, the Windy City, “The Chicago Tribune” says the rationale for building really tall buildings has disappeared

Quote: “As technology has advanced to build ever higher, this question has grown more urgent.  How tall is too tall?  When does a tower exceed dreams to become an object not of inspiration, but of ridicule for its overweening, adolescent pretension and waste of resources?”

This is exactly the kind of constipated loser...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  ... that makes editorial pages notorious across this nation. 

Overweening, adolescent pretension is what drives the world.

CRAMER:  Deep.

CARLSON:  It’s what built this country, men’s need to impress women.

CRAMER:  But aren’t you...

CARLSON:  It’s what created America. 

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  But aren’t you thinking a little bit too theoretically?  I --  you’d be seasick every minute in that building.  The wind is ripping around.

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER:  You know.  Look, people forget—and you don’t ever bring up the World Trade Center in any light other than a tragic one, but those buildings used to sway like mad.  In Chicago, those things would have been like a roller coaster. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but they’re big.  And because we can is reason enough.  It’s big.  It’s grand.  Sure, it’s a phallic symbol.  Who cares?  It’s great.  It’s good.  We’re the best country, the biggest country, the most dynamic country.  Build it.  Amen.

MADDOW:  But, listen, but then why aren’t—why isn’t that your position on the space shuttle?  The space shuttle is another one of those things?  Look what we can do.  So, therefore, strictly—strictly because it’s a matter of pride?

CARLSON:  I’ll tell you why.  Because—that’s a very smart point.  Because we’ve done it 144 times.

MADDOW:  So we should have done it once?

CARLSON:  With diminished—with diminished—no, no, but with diminishing returns.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I’m just saying, we’ve done it a lot.  It’s so cool.  Let’s move on and do the next thing, like build a 115-story building.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Do you see it was the birds again?  There was a bird?

CARLSON:  Yes. 

MADDOW:  Yes.

CRAMER:  Shouldn’t they just shoot all the birds, you know, within like a 50-mile radius?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Now we’re getting back to guns again.  This is why I hunt.

MADDOW:  Put them in prison and feed them loaf. 

CRAMER:  Don’t feed them jack.

MADDOW:  Yes.  No, listen, I like tall buildings.  But you know what?  If we had something other than a totally—if there was female superstar architects all over the world, we would have something other than giant spires for great architecture. 

CARLSON:  What would we have? 

MADDOW:  We’d have great parks, probably.

CARLSON:  Yes.  Right.  And that’s the difference...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  You don’t think Grand Central Park has any majesty? 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Yes, I love Central Park.

MADDOW:  Oh, you do?

CARLSON:  I absolutely do.  But I also like tall, grand, phallic-shaped buildings. 

MADDOW:  I like big, tall things.

CARLSON:  All right. 

MADDOW:  It’s for men.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  It is hot, very, very hot, in this country.  And  Jim Sollisch of “The Chicago Tribune” says he’s a better man than you are because he doesn’t have air conditioning.

Here’s what he writes: “I watch you air-conditioned people enjoying summer until it gets a little too hot, and then turn—into your climate-controlled houses you scurry.  I am a better person because of my fans. I live closer to the elements.  My open windows open me to the world.  I hear the sounds of summer.”

You are a moral preener, Jim Sollisch.  Stop bragging about yourself, even though you’re right in a lot of ways.  I haven’t had A.C. on and off this summer because it keeps breaking.  And, actually, I feel closer to the earth and very sweaty without it.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  And I feel good. 

CRAMER:  I need to set the air conditioning—and I tend to be overheated. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  I...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CRAMER:  So, I set the air conditioning usually around 64.  But, in honor of him, I’m going to take it down to 61 tonight. 

CARLSON:  Good for you.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Yes.  Get those power plants (INAUDIBLE)

MADDOW:  You know, at Air America Radio, where I work, in the overnights, they won’t turn the air conditioning on for us. 

CRAMER:  You have overnights?

MADDOW:  I’m on the overnights.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  ... they have no ratings at all.  Oh, oh, that’s a ratings...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Actually, I’m doing great, thanks.

CRAMER:  Yes. 

MADDOW:  But, in the overnights, they won’t turn on the air-conditioning on for us.  We’re in this big fight with the building.  And so, at 3:00 in the morning, it’s 95 degrees in the office.  And all the men that work the overnights take their shirts off. 

CARLSON:  Wow.

MADDOW:  And all the women who work in the office just curse and fight. 

CARLSON:  It’s a hot scene—it’s a hot scene over at Air America. 

MADDOW:  It is.  

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  ... all under age 35.  So, it’s all right.

CARLSON:  You’ve got to get a simulcast going, I think.  I would love to see that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  All right.

CRAMER:  Naked shorts, that’s kind of a business program for you. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  And, speaking of nudity, still ahead, Internet porn.  We’ll tell you why a new bill in the Senate could bring the $12 billion industry to its knees. 

Plus, the list of the 50 most beautiful (AUDIO GAP) is revealed.  Are they really good-looking?  Are there 50 good-looking people at our national’s Capitol?  Not a chance, says outsider Max Kellerman, coming up when THE SITUATION rolls on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BLANCHE LINCOLN (D), ARKANSAS:  I’m introducing this legislation today as a concerned parent in an effort to stand up to those on the Internet who are profiting by exploiting children and promoting irresponsible behavior. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  That was Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln proposing a new 25 percent tax on Internet porn.  Supporters of the bill say it will protect children from pornography online. 

Joining us now, one of the co-sponsors of that bill, Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan. 

Senator Stabenow, thanks a lot for joining us. 

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D), MICHIGAN:  It’s good to be with you.

CARLSON:  So, as I understand it, this will tax monthly memberships to porn sites.  I don’t think most children have monthly memberships, because most kids don’t have credit cards.  So, how is this going to protect kids? 

STABENOW:  Well, first of all, it does three things.

It would require that children have to verify that they’re at least 18 years of age, in other words, not be children, to get onto adult pornography sites.  Pornography sites right now, I should mention, according to a study done by the Third Way, an independent group, says that the fastest-growing consumers on pornography sites are children ages 12 to 17.  It’s really astounding.  It’s very concerning to me as a parent, as well as a senator.  So...

CARLSON:  And I—I think to everyone, and to—and to me, too.

STABENOW:  Absolutely. 

CARLSON:  But this does address the question of free porn?  I mean, there’s a lot of free pornographic images floating around on the web.  And it seems to me, those would be the ones that children go to.

STABENOW:  Well, first of all, there’s a lot of free pornography.  But this is also a $12 billion industry.  It’s more than ABC, CBS and NBC combined.  I mean, this is a huge industry. 

So, first of all, we want to make sure children cannot get on those free sites, that you have to verify, which is very easy to do—the technology is there.  It’s done every day on Web sites.  We want to make sure you have to be at least 18.  And then we want to make sure that, if there are—if there are dollars being spent, if you’re paying to go on to a site and so on, that you’re paying into a fund, rather than the taxpayers paying for it, that will cover law enforcement costs. 

Right now, law enforcement, taxpayers, are spending more than $500 million a year to monitor those sites, to protect children against pornography, child pornography, those that are going after our children and victimizing them.  And I think those who use porno sites ought to be paying into that fund. 

CARLSON:  Well, who—who decides what is porn?  I mean, is—is there—are you going to establish a commission to sit and look at the sites and decide what is pornographic and what is not?

STABENOW:  Not at all.  No, absolutely there—it’s already there.  They already essentially sign up as a pornography site.  They’re already regulated.  They already are in a situation where they say that they voluntarily make sure that someone has to be 18 to get on their site.  But, of course, that’s not happening. 

CARLSON:  But—but—but who—who makes the distinction between pornography and, say, art or self-described art? 

STABENOW:  We’re not talking about getting into any of that.  These are businesses that have already registered as businesses. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  OK.  But, at some point, somebody is going to need to make a hard determination...

STABENOW:  Not at all.

(CROSSTALK)

STABENOW:  We’re talking about somebody who says, I’m selling pornography.  I have a pornography site.  I’m signing up as a business. 

And, right now, we know that children ages 12 to 17...

CARLSON:  Right. 

STABENOW:  ... are the fastest consumers of those sites. 

CARLSON:  Right.  But I guess this gets to—I mean, obviously, I support keeping online porn away from children. 

STABENOW:  Sure.

CARLSON:  Very much including my own. 

However, here’s the problem, it seems to me.  As soon as you tax it, then you give Web site operators a real incentive not to declare themselves pornographers, right?  You have an incentive for these people wanting to escape the tax to call themselves artists and to call porn art.  So, at some point, you are going to have to decide.  You’re going to have to regulate this even more. 

And somebody from the government is going to have to decide what is porn and what is not.  Are you prepared for that? 

STABENOW:  Well, first of all, child pornography is already illegal. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

STABENOW:  In fact, when I was in the state of Michigan, I helped author the legislation to make it a felony. 

And, right now, we are ready.  And, you know, obscene literature is not what—what we’re talking about here.  We’re talking about pornography that is on sites that are already regulated as pornography sites.  And this is not an issue of us deciding what it is or what it isn’t.  These are sites that are already set up.  And, frankly, I find it absolutely outrageous that, if you’ve got a 12-year-old doing their homework, they want to find out about the White House and they go White House.com, instead of White House.gov, they get a porno site. 

CARLSON:  Well, absolutely.  I don’t think there’s any question.  It’s a real concern for people with small children.

STABENOW:  Right. 

CARLSON:  Are you concerned, though, that, increasingly, government lives off the addictions of the population?  The government taxes smoking, taxes drinking, taxes gambling, and now taxing pornography.  Does it make you uncomfortable to think government revenues come from porn? 

STABENOW:  Well, what I’m concerned about is the fact that our children are getting onto these sites.  And this is something—this is the wrong direction for our communities, for our society.  I want to empower parents as well to be able to do something about that. 

The tax that we’re talking about on pornography is about the same as the tax on cigarettes in Michigan. 

CARLSON:  But, Senator, finally, wouldn’t it just be a lot simpler without—you wouldn’t even need to impose a tax.  You wouldn’t have to go through all this rigmarole.  Why not just pass a federal law making it illegal to display pornography on the Internet unless you verify the age of the people viewing it? 

STABENOW:  Well, essentially, that’s what we’re doing. 

I mean, obviously, for adults, it becomes an issue of free speech as adults to make choices.  But, essentially, what we’re talking about in our bill is what you said, in that every porno site would have to have a mechanism readily available now, used by credit card companies, used by a lot of purchasers on the Internet, to verify that someone is 18 before they could get into the site. 

To me, it’s common sense.  I mean, it’s really like being carded, you know, you know, before—it’s the electronic version of being carded.  And I think it makes sense.  And, just as an 11-year-old can’t walk into a drug store and buy a pornography magazine right now, we don’t want them to be able to go to the Internet and to be able to do that.  And if you verify that someone is 18 or older...

CARLSON:  Yes. 

STABENOW:  ... I think it’s just common sense. 

CARLSON:  Well, you’re going to have a lot of very unhappy 14-year-old boys.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  But none of them can vote for you anyway, so I guess you don’t mind.

Senator Debbie Stabenow, thanks a lot for joining us.  We appreciate it very much. 

STABENOW:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Coming up, putting sex offenders on the map, a new easy way to look up on the Internet and find out if you live next door to one.

That’s coming up in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION.  Filling in tonight for Elian Gonzales, I’m Tucker Carlson.

Joining me once again “Mad Money” star Jim Cramer and “Air America” star Rachel Maddow. I have to say Debbie Stabenow went part of the way to convincing me, it betrays my Libertarian principles.  I don’t want the government regulating the Internet.  I definitely don’t them taxing the Internet.  I don’t want them deciding who is a pornographer and who is not a pornographer. 

RACHEL MADDOW, “AIR AMERICA”:  Right.

CARLSON:  On the other hand, porn is wrecking the Internet for those of us who have got small children. I mean its everywhere.  And porn distorts sex. Especially for kids who don’t what real sex is.  So if they learn about sex from porn, I do think it distorts them.  And it’s scary. Something, I think, has to be done about it.

JIM CRAMER, “MAD MONEY”:  Look, it’s out of control.  The reason it is out of control is because it’s so seductive. You hardly ever know you’re clicking on it, and it’s there. It’s sent to you by accident. It looks by accident.  Or it is a very tricky subject line. All that’s stuff has got to be stopped.  And I don’t know whoever can stop it, but they have to stop.

MADDOW:  I’m kind of a First Amendment purist. That has to be said, I am on the Left. But I do think I’m happy kids can’t buy hard-core porn in the drug store in terms of buying a magazines and stuff like that. I don’t really have a problem with the age restriction thing. This is kind of just applying that principle to the new technology.

CARLSON:  Yes, that’s right.

MADDOW:  And you have to find a way to do it.

CARLSON:  That’s exactly right.

Next SITUATION, the sex offenders next door.  Are there some?  Well, you can find out now.  An enterprising company has married Megan’s Law and the Internet to create mapsexoffenders.com.  In theory anyway, you type in your address and get a map of the homes of all registered sex offenders in your area. The map just currently covers just 14 states, with a plan eventually to include all 50. 

I spent a good part of the day online looking at this.  It’s amazing. It tells you a lot. The interesting thing is this web site is now forcing states to comply with Megan’s Law.

CRAMER:  I love it.

CARLSON:  Utah, all states must keep track of sex offenders, right? Utah gave their information to this web site, it turns out a lot of addresses were wrong; ¾ were wrong because Utah hasn’t been sort of keeping up with the sex offenders. This is keeping government honest in the best way.

CRAMER:  I want to see it in my Lexus, in the GPS.  I got to have this.  Maybe Toyota will do that in next year’s models. 

MADDOW:  I want to know where all the Denny’s are, where all the sex offenders are, and where the libraries are.

No listen, in this case, you have a for-profit company selling maps to the homes of hated people. What could possibly go wrong?

CARLSON:  They’re not selling it, it’s free.

MADDOW:  They’re going to sell it to the states. It’s a for-profit company.  It is a for-profit company.

CARLSON:  That information is publicly available. They’re taking publicly available information that a lot of sites use. 

MADDOW:  And mapping it and so they’re providing maps to the homes of hated people.  So I mean, basically what we’re going to end up with—with 2/3 of the addresses wrong.  And whether that’s the government’s fault or whether that is this company’s fault, you’ll have the mobs with the pitchforks and the torches.

CARLSON:  No.

MADDOW:  Going after the—

CARLSON:  No. 

CRAMER:  No, you never get those.  That’s the unfortunate thing.

MADDOW:  You’ll never get the mobs?

CRAMER:  Oh, I’m pro—it’s good.  I always thought vigilantism was good.  It’s better than fascism.

CARLSON:  It’s better than rape, actually, it turns out.  And this law has been on the books for more than 10 years. That’s not happened. You’ve not seen mobs with pitchforks. Americans are nicer than you suggest, or a lot of us thought.  They haven’t done this.  And this information is out there. This is just making it accessible to people. What’s wrong with that?

MADDOW:  The maps to the homes of people who have done things that are bad is something we don’t do for any other crime.  And we do need to consider the fact that we think that, obviously child molesters and sex offenders are horrible people and have done bad things. But you don’t go back to the 19th century ways of doing things because their crime is so bad.

CARLSON:  Why?  Because they had much less child molestation in the 19th century.  Why? Because they didn’t put up with it, so I’m kind of for that.

MADDOW:  Well, maybe we didn’t know about it.  It’s our panic. At this point, this is the thing for which we’re willing to throw away anything we’ve ever learned about crime.

CARLSON:  Good.

MADDOW:  And do it differently for these people. That’s where the system is faulted.

CARLSON:  No, actually, this is what we’ve learned about crime.  If you don’t put up with it, it goes away.

CRAMER:  This is an empirical issue.

CARLSON:  Yes.

MADDOW:  This is a small c, conservatism thing that I think people don’t get.

CARLSON:  Next SITUATION:  The honeymoon is definitely over for one young husband and his very young wife. The operative word is, as you may know, “young”. The 22-year-old husband faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with his own wife, who was 13 at the time. The couple were legally married in Kansas after she became pregnant.  And her mother and his parents gave them permission to marry.

Now, Mathew Koso (ph), charged with first degree sex assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison.  OK. Before you hop at me—this guy is a creep, obviously.

But he’s not the only person who has impregnated a 13-year-old girl.  What sets him apart is, he’s one of the very few who married her.  My questions is only this:  Not is it right that slept with her. It’s wrong. Is it right for the judge or the prosecutor to try to send this guy to prison? They have a child. Does make it better if the father goes to prison? No.

CRAMER:  I agree with that.  I have to say, these issues—now that I have a 14-year-old.

CARLSON:  Right.

CRAMER:  I’m thinking totally realistically it could happen.  And I would kill that guy.

CARLSON:  Of course, that’s the right move. But barring that, it’s better they got married, do you think?

CRAMER:  Yes.

MADDOW:  I think the marriage is totally irrelevant. The guy had sex way 13-year-old girl and therefore has to go to prison for it.

CRAMER:  I like that.  You really agree with that? 

MADDOW:  Yeah.

CRAMER:  That’s so crazy.

CARLSON:  No, but you are leaving out, I think, the key factor.  That’s the child.  There is a child now.  I agree with you, it is a crime that he had sex with her and he should be punished.  But there is a child.  And the interests of the child matter, I think, most here.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Sending him to prison hurts the child.

MADDOW:  What if it is not statutory rape?  What if it’s rape or what if it is incest? A child is produced. Does that mean the person who raped or committed incest with a girl should not be prosecuted?

CARLSON:  No, of course not. But in this case, they’re voluntarily marrying with the blessings of their parents. Again, it’s sick. But the question, again, is who does this hurt? It hurts the child. Therefore, it’s a bad idea to send this guy to prison for 50 years.

MADDOW:  You cannot give people carte blanche to have sex with 12-year-olds. 

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  When the age of consent is 16.

CRAMER:  The middle schools would never be the same.

MADDOW:  If you are lucky enough for her to get pregnant, you won’t go to jail. That is a bad principle.

CARLSON:  Well, actually—no, no, no.   But he married her.  And that is the difference.  And by the way, just for the record here, in Kansas, the age of marriage according to case law -- 12.

MADDOW:  The age of consent, 16.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER:  Kansas and Nebraska were fighting each other.

CARLSON:  Interesting. 

Well, in education news, students at San Diego State will soon be able to major in Indian gambling. Yes, how to run an Indian casino will be a field of study thanks to Sicawan (ph) Tribe of California, which donated $5.5 million to fund the program.

Indian casinos generated $21 billion last year. That’s considerably more than all Nevada casinos combined. But a tribe spokesman says the business is still run on “intuition.” 

Now here is the interesting thing about this.  Apart from the fact that colleges have become like trade schools, which is itself and amazing trend.  This administrator, at San Diego State, says one of the things students will learn in this program is how to be sensitive to cultural issues while running an Indian casino.  Like there’s a different way to run a keno came if you’re an Indian, or different way to run slot machines. What could the cultural issues be?

CRAMER:  There’s no cultural issues. There’s winners and losers.

This is totally absurd.  I have to tell you, I actually like San Diego State. This is a step backward for them.

But why don’t you just have a minor at the Cornell Matt Hospitality School?  Why do we have to have a whole major in it? This is the same as running any other business. There are no cultural issues.

MADDOW:  But you know, what happens is, it happened with Silicon Valley.  It is now happening with gaming. It happens with everything.  You get an industry that feels they want to make a splash in the educational world because they’re not getting the workers they want.

CRAMER:  In the Indian gaming industry!  ((INAUDIBLE)) What the heck?

MADDOW:  So, they’ve decided they’re going to throw money into this collegiate program. Why shouldn’t it be for e-mail spamming?  They’re making a lot of money, too.

CARLSON:  Actually, here is the one rationale for it. 

MADDOW:  School is the first signal.

CARLSON:  That’s true, I think.

But if $21 billion were generated by Indian casinos last year, why are so many Indians still poor? I don’t think many Vegas casino owners are poor. They’re not. Something—there’s a disconnect -- $21 billion? Why is there poverty in reservations?

CRAMER:  There is a great—actually, “Time” magazine did a tremendous study. There is a lot of the money goes out.

CARLSON:  Yes.

CRAMER:  A lot of the patrons are Indians. And it is a sucker’s game to go to a casino. They lose a lot of money.

CARLSON:  Yes.  If the host of “Mad Money” says it’s a sucker’s game go to a casino, that’s the last time I’m going to the Bellagio.

Thank you, Rachel Maddow, as always.  Thank you. 

MADDOW:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Coming up, when it comes to the law, the Juice plays it fast and loose. Surprise, surprise, O.J. is back in trouble. But for how much? For what? The answer is ahead.

And other Simpson news, Jessica weighs in on the war in Iraq. A portrait of the activist in Daisy Dukes can only be found on the “Cutting Room Floor.” Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  A Kansas teenager convicted of barfing on his high school Spanish teacher. Sure it’s disgusting but you may be more grossed out by his sentence. Details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. Time again to greet “The Outsider”, an ordinary American with an extraordinary beard and reckless pension for playing devil’s advocate to me on three fresh news stories.

There he is, either fresh from his couch or another saloon sponsored beauty pageant with a $50 prize, the ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman.

MAX KELLERMAN, FOX CORRESPONDENT:  After Cramer, I feel like I need caffeine or something.

CARLSON:  Yes! Yes! Diet coke, the official drink of THE SITUATION. 

Our first SITUATION is just like you, Max.  Shocking at first but pretty interesting upon closer inspection.

KELLERMAN:  Oh, thank you very much.

CARLSON:  A Kansas student convicted of vomiting on his Spanish teacher on the last day of high school has been ordered to spend the next four months cleaning up anytime someone ralphs in a police car.

Even though the 17-year-old claims it was final exam nerves that made him loose his lunch, the judge who handed down the bizarre ruling said he considered the boy’s actions, quote, “an assault upon the dignity of all teachers.”

That’s your first tip-off that’s a ridiculous ruling. If I assault you, I’m not assaulting all bearded 30-ish, New York-based boxing analysts. I’m assaulting you.

But here’s the problem.  This violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. This kid was sick. He was disabled. Nobody can make himself throw up without the aid of his hand.  And no one is charging that. This kid was ill.  And yet he’s being punished, persecuted, indeed, for his own illness. That’s a illegal under a law signed by the first President Bush.

KELLERMAN:  The Americans with Disabilities Act?

CARLSON:  Yes, it is.

KELLERMAN:  You know, what’s amazing about this is you get to choose what side you’re on.

CARLSON:  Yes!

KELLERMAN:  And you go all the way to the American Disabilities Act to defend the wrong position.  Look, two students testified that he had told them ahead of time, I plan on throwing up on this teacher!

CARLSON:  He’s just bragging. It’s impossible. Can you throw up at will?

KELLERMAN:  No, maybe this kid can. There are lots of things that I can’t do that someone else can do.  Look, this teacher said he saw the kid getting ready to throw up, the kid made no attempt to avoid throwing up on him. He got thrown up on.

And the difference here is, it is like when Roberto Alomar—that’s a baseball player—

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  spit at the umpire, or when someone does something to a cop, that’s an authority figure. You’re not allowed to do it. Therefore, they represent a group not just an individual.

CARLSON:  I reject that entirely.  The difference between spitting is vomiting, one is voluntary act, the other, an involuntary act. The message of this ruling is how dare you be sick?  You can’t control your own sickness.

KELLERMAN:  He claims he’s sick. But even if he was sick.

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  And he knew he was going to throw up, he still planned to do it on that teacher according to the testimony of two other students.

CARLSON:  No.  A, he was merely bragging.  B, it was good luck. You can’t make yourself projectile vomit on someone.

KELLERMAN:  Let’s say you know you’re sick that day.

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  You have it out for this teacher. You tell someone—Bill Wolfe, the executive producer.

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  I’m not feeling well. I say, hey, Tucker, I’m going to throw up on this guy. I don’t have to make myself—first, if you look at this guy, it may happen automatically—then I aim for it and do it in his direction.

CARLSON:  Yes?

KELLERMAN:  That’s assault.

CARLSON:  I can promise you, you wouldn’t be punished if you were to do that.

Next up, one of the strangest drunk driving incidents you’ll ever know. Not at all like our handy file footage, seen here.  Kaelin Kesey (ph) and Melissa Fridenberg (ph) had their car brake down near Gary, Indiana.  So one of them pushed and the other steered toward a nearby hotel parking lot.  The problem, both were loaded and they pushed it into a parked car.  That, according to the police, is operating a vehicle while intoxicated—even though the engine was off.

This was outrageous. The women did the right thing. They were drink. They shouldn’t have been driving. They weren’t. They could have—I don’t know—stolen a car and driven it. But, no. They did the sensible, safe thing. They pushed it. This is like arresting Girl Scouts. This is arresting people who are doing their best to abide by society’s rules and you’re punishing them for it.

KELLERMAN:  OK, you’re missing one real big point here. This is really the central issue.

CARLSON:  OK.

KELLERMAN:  They crashed the car. They crashed it because they were drunk.

CARLSON:  Yeah, they were drunk, I know, but they weren’t driving it.

KELLERMAN:  But they were steering it. Actually, literally, they were driving it though the motor was off. What you’re saying is like, you know what? Someone robbed a bank, but they didn’t kill anyone, so they were doing their best to abide by the rules of society.

CARLSON:  Robbing a bank is illegal, you know the rules going in you get behind the wheel of a running car, you’re drunk, you get arrested, you can’t whine about it. But there’s no law or shouldn’t be a law against pushing a moving object while intoxicated.

KELLERMAN:  It’s like a two-ton object, Tucker.

CARLSON:  There’s no law against moving furniture while drunk or there is no law against mowing the lawn while drunk.

KELLERMAN:  It’s a two-ton object—normal car weighs what, 3,000 or 4,000 -- it’s a heavy object.

CARLSON:  It’s a big thing.

KELLERMAN:  In a road where other vehicles are moving, it’s hazardous. They could call a towing company. They could call a cab and go home. They could walk home and get it the next day. There are many different options. They chose to push it. And had they done so without incident they wouldn’t have been caught. It’s not like a cop—they’re steering that car erratically. Let me pull them over. They crashed it!

CARLSON:  It was an accident.  I mean, they could have jump started that thing and driven it away.  These two beer sodden good Samaritans are being punished by a system that doesn’t recognize their good deeds. I, for one, am outraged.

Max, you once lived in Washington, D.C., I know, you no doubt noticed how unusually good-looking people congregate in Washington, D.C.  Well, it turns out to be true. “The Hill”, a D.C. newspaper, has published the 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill.  On the list, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Illinois Senator Barak Obama.  Among the notable snubs, the dashing Joe Lieberman and the debonair Robert Byrd of West Virginia and the noted chick magnet, Dick Cheney.  It kind of makes you question the whole list, but not the whole premise.

OK, here’s the idea.  Didn’t we used to say, politics is show business for ugly people, right? 

KELLERMAN:  Yes.

CARLSON:  Only ugly people are into policy.

KELLERMAN:  Clearly.

CARLSON:  The federal government is now so powerful, so over weaningly (ph) powerful, that successful, smart and indeed good-looking people go—almost by instinct to the power center—to Washington.

KELLERMAN:  Like John Kerry is -

CARLSON:  It’s crawling with beautiful people. I’ll just throw one up.  Kate Michaels, she works in the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions.   This is hardly an unattractive policy woman. Washington crawling with people who look like Kate Michael.

KELLERMAN:  Well, crawling, maybe literally like on all fours, bow wow, Tucker—Washington, D.C., I have a theory about this, OK?  I think the attractive women have murdered and hidden the bodies—the unattractive women murdered and hidden the bodies of the attractive woman. It’s unbelievable. It’s like there is a force field in D.C.  I lived in D.C. for a year and a half. I thought to myself after awhile, this is beyond the realm of probability.  It can’t just be coincidental that there are no good looking girls in D.C. 

CARLSON:  Oh, you must be talking about Caitlyn Dial, in the Senate Republican Cloak Room. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Is that who you are talking about? 

KELLERMAN:  She’s good-looking.

CARLSON:  There you go.

KELLERMAN:  But you know what, I guarantee you she lives in Virginia or Maryland.

CARLSON:  Or are you talking about Kate Dumite (ph), a lobbyist in Washington.  Do we have Kate Dumite’s picture here? 

KELLERMAN:  Let’s see. 

I guarantee you they live in—there is like a force field—listen, here’s the difference, New York, Vegas, Miami, L.A., cheerleaders, the best-looking girl in the class, they move there, you know, from the middle of the country to try to make it big. The person from the model U.N., the girl from the model U.N. moves to D.C. Everyone in D.C.—

CARLSON:  The girl from the model U.N., who represented Sweden moves to Washington, D.C., I’m just saying—

KELLERMAN:  Everyone in D.C.—every girl in D.C. is either on her way to or on her way from an obo recital. It is not the sexiest girls they’ve ever seen, Tucker. Even the good looking ones—she’s good-looking. She’s not bad looking at all. I guarantee you she does the less with more.

CARLSON:  Let me just say, Washington has the most attractive oboists of any place in America.

KELLERMAN:  I’m not into them.

CARLSON:  You’re not convinced? We’ll do our show from Washington, I’ll convince you. Max Kellerman, as always.

KELLERMAN:  The great Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON:  Coming up!  First he won “American Idol”, now quite a feat.  Now  Kerry Underwood has an new equally prestigious and even more important crown. She’ll proudly wear it on the “Cutting Room Floor” next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  It’s that time again, time for the “Cutting Room Floor”.  We sweep up all the dusty odds and ends of news we use and bring them to you. Willie Geist does that.

Willie?

WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Hello, Tucker.

Tucker, you should take Max’s criticism of D.C. with a grain of salt because he has never been West of Tenth Avenue, in New York City.

CARLSON:  I knew that.

GEIST:  I wouldn’t worry about it at all.

CARLSON:  I live here now, though.  My days of defending Washington are over.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  All right. It’s time to summon the dream team, because O.J. Simpson has himself in some legal trouble yet again.

GEIST:  Uh-oh.

CARLSON:  U.S. judge has ordered Simpson to pay $25,000 to DirecTV for stealing cable service. A 2001 raid on O.J.’s home turned up two illegal devices used to steal the DirecTV signal.

A spokesman says this ruling serves as a reminder there are consequences to signal theft, whether you are O.J. Simpson or John Q Public.

GEIST:  That’s a strong message, lesson learned.

Now, out of force of habit, they let cable—led cable guy on low-speed chase around the driveway, which is a very odd moment. But he has been down this road before. He will be fine. Get Dershowitz on the phone, drag Cato out if the moth balls and let’s do this thing.

CARLSON:  The cable don’t fit, or something to that effect.

GEIST:  The DISH.

CARLSON:  The DISH, exactly.

Who better to educate us on the horrors of war, than Jessica Simpson?

Jessica filmed a Fourth of July special in Iraq with her husband, Nick Lachey and she is still peeved that the most harrowing footage of the couple’s trip was not shown.

Simpson said, quote, “They didn’t show what went on with the enemy attacks. It really did teach me the definition of sacrifice. I can’t even fathom being out there right now.

GEIST:  I can’t fathom you being there either, Jessie.  I want you right here with us.

But I find it—I find it hard to believe, they were in the middle of the insurgency, so newlyweds have war stories.

CARLSON:  You don’t know the horror, the horror.

GEIST:  Now I do, thanks to Jessica.

CARLSON:  It was like “Apocalypse Now”.  That’s exactly right.

Scientists have gathered in California this week to finally answer the age-old question, how much gas does a cow emit? Researchers have built a biobubble to house eight Holstein cows, whose every gaseous emission will be recorded and studied. Cows are believed to be big contributors to declining air quality in the state of California.

GEIST:  Wow.  That is the Dutch oven of all time. You are in a tent with eight cows, that’s disgusting. And there is one of these scientists is really touchy. He says he really resents his work being called fart science and he wants to be taken more seriously.

CARLSON:  There is no chance of that. He will never be taken more seriously.  I can confidently predict that.

GEIST:  Let’s agree, if you use the word fart, I will not take you seriously.

CARLSON:  Yes, I completely agree with that.

What a year for Kerry Underwood.  First she won “American Idol”, and now she’s been named the World’s Sexiest Vegetarian. Oxymoron, if there ever was one. Underwood shares the PETA honor with Chris Martin, of the band Cold Play. PETA noted that Underwood wore a T shirt, V is for vegetarian on “American Idol”.  And that Martin and his wife Gwyneth Paltrow had a vegan birthday cake for the child’s first birthday.

Wow, that’s got to be child abuse.

GEIST:  That sounds like a miserable birthday party. She also had—the child’s name is Apple.  So again, more reason to win the vegetarian—

CARLSON:  It’s not T-bone?

GEIST:  Right, not Porterhouse.

CARLSON:  Or Ground Chuck.

GEIST:  That’s right. I actually did a little research here, which I am pretty proud of. I got a short list of the least sexy vegetarians.

CARLSON:  Oh, that is such a long list, we don’t have time.

GEIST:  Let me just give you three.  These three are confirmed vegetarians:  Ed Begley Junior, Billie Jean King.

CARLSON:  Check.

GEIST:  And Cy Sperling, the president of the Hair Club for men. Least sexiest vegetarian.

CARLSON:  He’s vegetarian and he wears a wig?

GEIST:  That’s right.

CARLSON:  Boy. That kind of sums it up.  It’s really plugs?

GEIST:  I don’t know.

CARLSON:  I never watch the infomercial until the end.

Well, Ezekiel Rubottom, of  Lawrence, Kansas, apparently that is his real name, had his foot amputated a few weeks ago. And he naturally decided to keep it in a bucket full of formaldehyde on his front porch. Of course he did.

Police stopped by Rubottom’s place over the weekend on a tip that someone was showing off a severed foot.  You can see it there. 

Rubottom wasn’t home so the cops took the foot into evidence. Rubottom  returned home to see his foot was missing, not from the leg, but from the bucket, and called authorities to clear things up.

Rubottom said, it’s all good. I got my foot back. That’s all I wanted.

GEIST:  What kind of country are we living in Tucker, when you can’t even keep a severed foot in a bucket on your front porch without being harassed by the cops?  It’s outrageous.

CARLSON:  That shakes me to my Libertarian soul.

GEIST:  Our civil liberties.

CARLSON:  If you can’t keep amputated body parts on your front porch, it is basically Soviet Russia.

GEIST:  That damn Patriot Act.

CARLSON:  Whew!  That’s it for THE SITUATION tonight.  Thanks for watching.  Have a great night.  Scarborough Country up now with Joe Scarborough. 

Joe? 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY:  Tucker, all I can tell you is we can keep severed body parts wherever we want in Florida.  I mean, what’s the deal?  Is that a D.C. thing?  A New Jersey thing? What?  Where is that from, Tucker?

CARLSON:  I can’t hear a word you’re saying.  I hope you have a...

SCARBOROUGH:  I guess Tucker can’t...

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

,