updated 8/1/2005 11:22:38 AM ET 2005-08-01T15:22:38

Guest: Logan Darrow Clements, Rachel Maddow, Max Kellerman

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Well, as you may have heard, in about a week, we‘ll be moving THE SITUATION to 11:00 p.m., where the audience is sleepier, but the language restrictions, much looser.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  In our place here at 9:00, starting August 8, is one of our panelists tonight, host of the new show “RITA COSBY: LIVE & DIRECT.”  It‘s the great Rita Cosby. 

RITA COSBY, HOST, “RITA COSBY: LIVE & DIRECT”:  Yay.

CARLSON:  Also on hand, a woman who could dominate any time lot and does, occasionally, Rachel Maddow. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  And a huge show, a play in Chicago, Steppenwolf repertoire theater, that includes kids with porn in the play, an easy thing to be offended at, but it‘s being defended as artistic freedom, and also a little league umpire who said no speaking Spanish on the field. 

RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  That‘s right. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  You have got a lot of good juicy topics today. 

CARLSON:  Oh, yes.  It‘s the blood-pressure show, perfect for Friday.

MADDOW:  Excellent.

CARLSON:  First up, though, the arrest today of the last of the bombers from the July 21 failed terror attack on London‘s mass transit systems. 

The dramatic daylight raid was caught on video, which you can see here.  A police source says that today‘s raids, one in Rome and this one in West London, netted the last three of four fugitives and also may have picked up a fifth bomber just a week after their crimes. 

In Zambia, police say that a man detained in connection with the July 7 attack in London was once the bodyguard of Osama bin Laden.  The front page of “The Sun,” the great British tabloid, today has a huge headline that says, “Got the Bastards,” which kind of sums it up for me, too. 

But, for civil libertarians like me, there is a lesson, I think, in this.  Security cameras played a central role in the apprehension of these guys, all of whom are going to have interesting things to say, all of whom may be able to prevent future terror attacks by the information they give to investigators. 

So, you have to kind of weight it out.  Is it—I think cameras are intrusive.  And I think that they take some of our rights away, our right to anonymity.  But is it worth it?  It‘s kind of a convincing case, after watching this today. 

COSBY:  I think, absolutely, when you see something like this, my gosh, I think, at certain points, you have to cross the line for safety and security. 

If you‘re not safe at home, it doesn‘t matter—you know, I don‘t care how intrusive you feel you are.  This is the key.  This is our homeland.  This is terrorism.  And I think you hit it on the head about getting these guys to crack.  As someone who covers a lot of these crime cases, I think the good news is, they have guys who are alive.  So many of these times in these cases, you see these suicide bombers.

You have nobody to get information out of.  The fact that this—one of these tied to Osama bin Laden so directly, they can put some squeeze.  One of these guys is going to going to crack.  They‘re going to get, hopefully, a whole chain. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  But the weirdness was, these guys—you saw the whole tape, Rachel—these guys were afraid that they were going to get shot by police. 

MADDOW:  Yes.   

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Which is sort of...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  ... able to blow up this, but wait a minute.

CARLSON:  It‘s kind of a weird thing for a would-be suicide bomber, right?

MADDOW:  Well, they don‘t—that‘s not exactly the way they want to go out. 

CARLSON:  True.

MADDOW:  Right?  They want to go out on their own terms. 

But it‘s interesting.  It‘s a—it‘s a tribute to British policing that they got them.  It‘s a tribute to the fact that their last attempt failed, so they left behind this huge treasure trove of forensic information, in terms of the unexploded bombs and everything. 

But the interesting point about the cameras is that I think that what we‘re learning from Britain should hone our arguments around cameras, because cameras don‘t deter crime.  We learned that camera—the fact that a camera is there doesn‘t make somebody not do something.  But it does—if you have tape and you can go back and look at it and you have the manpower, you can go back and use it as an investigatory tool. 

So, having unmanned cameras that don‘t tape, which is what we have most of in New York City, doesn‘t do anything. 

COSBY:  But, even so, this area is so vast.  I mean, even if there are cameras—I mean, you look at a classic case where a company is robbed and maybe there‘s one security guard.  He walks away to go to the bathroom.  You can‘t expect him to be monitoring 24 hours a day in terms of prevention. 

MADDOW:  Right. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

MADDOW:  But we don‘t—we only—we tape less than one-quarter of the cameras that are on the New York City subways right now. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

Well, I—I actually think the jury is out on whether they deter crime or not.  I mean, I think that there are studies both ways.  But, in any case, it‘s useful here. 

Next situation, the Senate majority leader breaks with the president and endorses more government funding for embryonic stem cell research, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee putting his support behind federal money for research on stem cells taken from leftover embryos in fertility clinics.  The embryos are destroyed in the process, which is why many people, including the president, oppose it. 

The president says he‘ll veto the bill.  Some conservatives are calling Frist‘s move—quote—“a betrayal.”

I think there are—but this move is a betrayal his own beliefs, as he articulates them.  He says life begins at conceptions.  We were all embryos once.  OK.  Is that is his belief—and I take him at his word that he believes that—then how can you endorse federal funding of destroying embryos? 

Moreover—and I think the public policy question here is, why would you endorse federal funding for something that a sizable percentage of Americans find morally abhorrent?  It‘s already funded by some states, including California.  It‘s funded privately.  Why force people to support something they think is wrong?

COSBY:  Who is the real Bill Frist, I think is the question.  I think you hit it on the head.  He seems to want to have it both ways.  First, on the Terri Schiavo case, he took another position.  Now he‘s taking another one now.

It‘s like—and, again, for political.  This is a guy who has political aspirations.  I‘m stunned at this move right now.  You have got to have that ultra-conservative race base to win within this party. 

MADDOW:  Right. 

COSBY:  Why is he doing this? 

MADDOW:  See, I think it‘s interesting, because it really does point up the danger that the Republicans have put themselves in by allowing their conservative wing to become so important. 

The power brokers for the Republican primaries for the Republican presidential nomination are to the right, significantly to the right of most of the party and most of the country.  And so...

COSBY:  And you have got to have that base. 

MADDOW:  Exactly. 

COSBY:  You have got to.

MADDOW:  So, if you have to play to the anti-abortion base and that puts you to the right of the country, that screws you up for things like the ‘06 midterms. 

CARLSON:  However, well, that‘s—I mean, but that‘s the oldest story in politics. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  But what does it say about Bill Frist‘s political...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well...

COSBY:  He‘s a very calculating man, in terms of smart. 

CARLSON:  Well, he‘s playing against...

COSBY:  He‘s thinking...

CARLSON:  ... the scenario Rachel just outlined, actually.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  But then that‘s political suicide. 

MADDOW:  Well, he‘s not for the ‘06, though.  For the midterms, they have to make the party appear less extreme than it does on...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Yes, but—but, also, if I can just point out, having covered, you know, a lot of primaries...

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  ... those people who are literally out of the mainstream on both sides, the left and right, who do control the primaries, are the people who actually believe something.  I mean, whether or not I agree with it is a separate question, though I actually do agree with most conservative primary voters. 

But, still, they‘re the purists.  I mean, they actually have beliefs.  They‘re not moving for political reasons.  I think they‘re admirable people, even if I think their ideas are repugnant. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  But, then, are you saying that Frist is not? 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  Right.  Then there‘s the politicians that have to respond to them.

CARLSON:  Yes, I am saying Frist is not. 

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  I am saying Frist is not. 

Well, our next situation has theatergoers in Chicago feeling squeamish, and rightfully so.  The Steppenwolf Theatre there is currently showing a play called “The Pain and the Itch.”  It stars two pre-adolescent girls, one first-grader, the other in kindergarten.  They are playing the same role on different nights. 

During the production, one of the girls scratches her crotch under her dress, listens to explicit language and discussions of sexual diseases, and is exposed to audio from a porno movie.  In response to complaints, the theater company says—quote—“The child actors were treated in a manner both professional and mindful of their ages.”

They ought to just hire midgets, actually, and just get...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  No, truly, I‘m serious—and not even have to deal with that.

But it‘s interesting to me that we, as a society, go to these sort of absurd lengths, or profound lengths, anyway, to protect children physically, you know, car seats for kids up to 12 or whatever, removing merry-go-rounds and swings on playgrounds.  I mean, we really do a pretty good job of protecting kids‘ bodies.  Why isn‘t—I mean, why is it still open?  It‘s sort of amazing to me how this is allowed. 

COSBY:  I want to know about the parents, too.  Who are the parents of these kids? 

I mean, because, from what I understand, they went through all these extraordinary steps.  Check with the parents.  Is it OK that your child actor is exposed to these things?  It sounds like they did take some steps.  But who are these parents that would allow these kids every day—and like you‘re talking, I mean, it‘s just repulsive things, too. 

MADDOW:  But, you know—but the parents were there at every single rehearsal.  The parents are with the kids every time they‘re off the set.  The kids are not watching the play.  The monitors are turned off.  They did actually go to some real strong lengths.

COSBY:  But they‘re allowing their—the parents are saying, here, it‘s OK for my kid to be exposed to this. 

MADDOW:  To be on the set hearing curse words and having their back turned to a snippet of a porno film, that‘s what it is. 

CARLSON:  Well...

MADDOW:  And so, do we want restrictions on the age of actors who can hear curse words and hear porno films? 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I‘m not sure we don‘t.

COSBY:  If I was a mother and if I had my—I wouldn‘t have my kids there.  No way.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  They made a deliberate decision. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  They did.  They made a deliberately wrong decision.

COSBY:  The question is, did they make the right decision?

CARLSON:  I mean, look, a parent is there when he beats his child. 

You know what I mean?  So, his—a parent‘s presence doesn‘t make it OK.

MADDOW:  But this is not like these kids are cast in child pornography.  You‘re making this out to be something that has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  But you‘re hearing—you‘re hearing porno.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  You‘re doing—the crotch.  All this is stuff is like, it is a little over the top.  I understand.  Look, I am all for freedom and expression and all those things, but I think this is way over the top.

CARLSON:  Boy, I‘m not.  I‘m not for freedom of expression when it comes to kids, at all.  I‘m for squelching expression.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  None of us have seen this play, though.

COSBY:  But not to this degree, no way...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  None of us have seen this play.  And I think—I think that the parents did take a lot of precautions here.  And I‘m not willing to condemn them for it. 

CARLSON:  I am.  Boy...

COSBY:  See, you need to baby-sit about 20 kids and...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I‘m gleefully condemning them. 

Next up, a little league baseball situation.  A coach for a team from Methuen, Mass., was calling out instructions in Spanish to his pitcher, a bilingual kid from the Dominican Republic.  The umpire stopped the game, conferred with a little league official at the game, and ordered that English only be spoken on the field. 

A national little league spokesman says there‘s no such rule.  The Methuen team lost 10-6.  The coach, predictably, said it was because they weren‘t allowed to speak Spanish. 

And—but leaving that aside, you know, this is the kind of example that makes the news, because everybody who works in the press, everyone who writes the news is appalled by the idea that, you know, bilingualism is bad, right?  So, if you say that having a country where, you know, we don‘t just have a single language, you‘re racist, if you even suggest that.  So, that‘s why this story is getting the play that it is. 

COSBY:  I mean, and this is little league.  Come on.

CARLSON:  Right. 

COSBY:  I think we‘re taking this a little too seriously. 

It‘s like, give me a break.  And I also think this is reflective of our country.  This boy, this pitcher, I understand, couldn‘t speak any English, right? 

MADDOW:  No, no, no.  He was bilingual.  He could speak both Spanish and English.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  No, no, no, one—one of the guys, one of the guys could.  And other the one, I understand, could barely speak any Spanish—barely speak any English.  So, this was his only way to communicate.  I think, if you were taking it to a higher level, I would take a different take.  But it‘s little league.  Give everybody a break. 

MADDOW:  And national little league doesn‘t have a rule about this.  National little league doesn‘t have an English-only rule on the field.  And they ought not to.  And so, they‘re saying, listen, you made this bad decision at the local level.  You can‘t undo it.  You can‘t give them the game back.  But it was the wrong thing to do. 

CARLSON:  Yes, it might have been under the circumstances.

I do think, though, the larger question is important.  And that is, is it good for America to have a single language that unifies the country?  People from diverse backgrounds speaking one language is good.  It brings people together. 

MADDOW:  We do.  We have that.  Most of America, a huge majority of America, speaks English.  People are at a disadvantage if they don‘t speak English.  And that‘s why everybody who—wants to learn. 

I don‘t think allowing people to speak other languages hurts us in that regard.

CARLSON:  But I think people should be encouraged to speak English, because it‘s good for them, it‘s good for their children and it‘s good for us as a country. 

MADDOW:  We are doing a lot of that.

COSBY:  I agree, as opposed to saying, you have to speak this.

CARLSON:  Right. 

COSBY:  I mean, look, we‘re the melting pot.  It needs to be a mixture somewhat. 

CARLSON:  All right, Rachel, Rita, stick around. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  Much more ahead, as you may guess, on THE SITUATION. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  Talking Dove soap, the ad campaign that‘s got some consumers in a lather. 

Coke brews up a surefire weight-loss plan.  But is it the real thing? 

A not-so-crowning moment for Miss Universe.  Why is this reigning beauty queen being ordered to lose the tiara?

Plus, prize pooches on parade, a fetching preview of the wiener dog nationals. 

It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Well, if you enjoy washing down your daily Krispy Kreme doughnut with a can Coke and a Marlboro—And who doesn‘t? -- you may soon be a bit lighter in the wallet—a controversial new fun tax exposed when THE SITUATION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

We spent the day perusing op-eds in papers across America, almost every single one.  We‘ve pulled three of the most interesting, which the three of us will analyze and respond to.  Time for “Op Ed Op Ed.” 

OK, first up, “Boston Globe” upset about the number of drunk drivers on the roads in Massachusetts.  A lot of bad drivers in Massachusetts, I know that, but also a lot of drunk drivers.  They say...

MADDOW:  Hey.

CARLSON:  It‘s true.  It‘s absolutely true.  Come on.

COSBY:  And he looked at you when he said that.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  I know.  We are—we‘re aggressive drivers.  That doesn‘t mean that we‘re bad.

CARLSON:  Well, many of you are drunk, according to “The Boston Globe.” 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  And here‘s what they write. 

“Governor Romney would mandate a year in prison for anyone convicted of drunken driving on a suspended license, provided the suspension was related to operating under the influence.  This should be the first step.  The offender would be off the road.”

So, the point is, there‘s going to be a law in Massachusetts that the second—essentially, the second offense for DUI lands you in prison for a year, which completely makes sense to me.  However, here is the problem.  If you are going to put drunk drivers behind bars, they ought to be drunk. 

So, the national standard for DUI in this country in 49 states, almost 50 now, 0.08, right?  But the average blood alcohol level of someone who is actually in an accident, a serious accident, is more than twice that, right?  So, you don‘t want to put people who have had two beers in prison for a year.  You just don‘t.  There‘s got to be a sensible way to do this. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  And, in addition to this, one of the other things, too is that one year if you don‘t take a Breathalyzer test, which is also pretty strong, because there‘s sometimes other reasons. 

But you also have to—look, this case, it‘s based on just a horrible story. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

COSBY:  It‘s based a 13-year-old girl killed by a repeat drunk driver, multiple offenses.  I think the intention is good.  But I agree.  I think it‘s going too far. 

MADDOW:  Well, when you are talking about repeat drunk drivers, people who drive drunk on a suspended license that‘s been suspended for drinking, usually, you‘re talking about people with hard-core alcohol problems. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  That‘s true.

MADDOW:  And so...

COSBY:  Yes.  But they‘re saying, to the letter of the law—if you really look at the letter of the law, like you‘re saying, it could be just someone who went out, party, and had a drink or two casual. 

MADDOW:  But when you‘ve got repeat offenders, when you‘ve got people driving on suspended licenses for being drunk and those things, you can put somebody in jail for five years.  If you don‘t treat their alcoholism, they‘re going to get drunk and get behind the wheel again. 

You have to treat alcoholism in this country.  And that‘s actually going down. 

CARLSON:  Wait.  Wait.  Wait. 

MADDOW:  The rate of treating alcohol in this country—alcoholism in...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  ... is going down.

CARLSON:  Wait.  Rachel, I—this is a subject I know something about.  Actually, government alcohol programs—no alcohol program works as well as a free one that meets in church basements.  AA actually works.  It costs zero, right?

So, if you want to quit drinking, the most effective program is free to you. 

MADDOW:  But—but, Tucker, it matters that the overall number of people getting treated for alcohol abuse in this country is declining. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

MADDOW:  That‘s wrong, because the alcohol abuse in this country is not declining.

CARLSON:  But I‘m not sure that‘s the government‘s fault.  That‘s all I‘m saying.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW:  The government ought to be paying for it if people need more than... 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  This law is saying, essentially, look...

CARLSON:  All right. 

COSBY:  ... if you just even have a few drinks, you‘re going to get thrown in the slammer for a year.  That‘s a little—I agree.  The issue is totally a different issue than going overboard...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  All right. 

“Tampa Tribune” supports the new Dove soap advertising campaign.  You may have seen it.  It‘s on billboards everywhere and airports across the country, five very attractive women whose body types are not normally associated with “Vogue” magazine body types. 

“The Tampa Tribune” likes this—quote—“The ad campaign is sparking a fair amount of debate over whether it promotes obesity, which it does not”—and it doesn‘t, by the way—“or destroys the fantasy of advertising, which it does not.  What is important is that the bold Dove campaign has women seeing that they measure up just fine.  And that is beautiful.”

And it is beautiful.  And that‘s a beautiful campaign.  It‘s one of

the most striking ad campaigns I‘ve ever seen.  Lovely women.  And I think

it sends a terrific message.  I guess the one thing I object to in all this

·        the hype surrounding that campaign, most of which I agree with, is the notion that women are sort of driven by the media to think of, you know, themselves a certain way and to meet some certain standard of beauty.

In my experience, actually, it‘s pressure—it‘s peer pressure that causes women to feel like their bodies aren‘t perfect. 

COSBY:  What I think is sad about—and I—I agree with you on the issue of the campaign.  I think it‘s fabulous.  I think it‘s wonderful.  It sends a great signal.

What I think is really tragic is some of the e-mails that they‘ve been getting in, people who have done the ads, saying, look, that girl is too fat.  Or this girl has not—I mean, these are like normal—these are average women.  You would think they would be saying hurrah, yay.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  And they‘re lovely women, by the way.

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  Really.

COSBY:  Right.  Exactly. 

And what I think is sad is sort of the cattiness, that other women are saying, wait a minute, we should have models...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  That‘s exactly right. 

COSBY:  So, I think that‘s tragic. 

MADDOW:  But the—the issue here, people raising the issue of obesity is ridiculous, especially when you look at these women, who are basically, like, size 12.  It‘s not like we‘re talking about obesity with this campaign.  Obesity is a health problem that is serious in this country. 

But there‘s a cultural problem about women hating their perfectly normal bodies.  And the media does contribute to that.

CARLSON:  I agree.

MADDOW:  But there are other things, too. 

I mean, I‘m just very happy this ad campaign is out there, so it‘s not another stick insect women frowning at me wearing a matchbook cover, which is what every other ad campaign...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  That‘s right. 

MADDOW:  This is good.  And it‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Hurrah.  Real women out there.

CARLSON:  With a Marlboro Light and a glass of chardonnay.  If you go to the Web site, these women are talking about how they love to eat pizza and french fires.

MADDOW:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  Which is itself appealing, I would think.

MADDOW:  And which is a better date.

CARLSON:  Amen.  Oh, I completely agree with that.

COSBY:  Much more fun.

CARLSON:  Well, in “The Des Moines Register,” Andrew McDowell proposes using poor eating habits as a way to fund Iowa social programs.  People in Iowa eat a ton of doughnuts, he says.  He‘s got a plan. 

Quote: “I would call it the fun tax.  The state of Iowa would assess a 1-cent tax on all foods that are bad for us.  Those who choose to drink soda, wine, beer or alcohol or eat chips, candy, cookies, ice cream, pretzels, frosting, deep-fried Twinkies, or anything else that would elicit hate mail from the surgeon general, would qualify.”

OK, see, this is what happens when people stop going to church. 

People have this innate...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I‘m serious, have this innate religious impulse. 

COSBY:  That what happens?

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  It‘s true.  They want to call some things right and others wrong.  And since they‘ve lost their ability to speak in religious terms, they have transferred those impulses to food.

So, certain food is sinful.  It‘s junk.  It‘s bad.  Food is morally neutral.  OK?  There‘s no moral value attached to food. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I‘m sorry. 

COSBY:  Although I think this is unfair to lower-income families, because some of these folks—I think some of the higher-educated folks say, wait, wait, wait, I‘m not going to—I‘m going to stay away from Cheetos or this or that. 

This is saying, I think, to these poor folks who can only afford to go and get something cheap and quick, I think this is horrible.  The other thing I will also say, it also penalizes me, because, last night, I was here late and I had a bag Cheetos, unfortunately, a bag of Cheetos for dinner. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  So, I would have had to pay a one-cent tax.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, I like junk food.  And I don‘t think...

COSBY:  Wait a minute.

CARLSON:  I don‘t want to apologize for that.  I don‘t want someone telling me what to eat.  It‘s nobody‘s business.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  I think so, too.  I think it‘s totally unfair.

MADDOW:  Whether or not there should be excise taxes that try to control our health and all of it, and our sinfulness and all of these things, consider the details of this proposal.

It would raise $21 million, from which they have to pay the administrative costs of imposing the tax, changing the prices, collecting the tax, keeping track of the money, accepting the grant proposals, disbursing the grant proposals, and writing the checks. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

COSBY:  Right. 

MADDOW:  I mean, they‘re going to have enough money left over from this to fund one basketball game.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  But you‘re also missing out.  They‘re going to...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  One bag of Cheetos.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  No, no.  They‘re going to have to pay for crowd control at the protests led by me.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  OK?  So, that alone is going to wipe out... 

COSBY:  And I‘ll wave my Cheeto bags at... 

(CROSSTALK) 

CARLSON:  Amen.  You‘ll be there, too. 

MADDOW:  It‘s not Guantanamo.  It‘s Cheetos that are going to drive to you the protest. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  It‘s upsetting. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Coming up, the CIA reportedly stops the release of a book about Osama bin Laden‘s escape from Tora Bora.  The author is a former CIA officer.  So, what is the agency trying hide?  That‘s ahead. 

Plus, a new twist in the eminent domain debate.  Libertarians are now going after the land of another Supreme Court justice.  Find out who it is and what they want to do with the property when THE SITUATION rolls on. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Libertarians in New Hampshire are trying to teach some Supreme Court justices a lesson on eminent domain.  The New Hampshire State Libertarian Party asking the town of Plainfield to seize Stephen Breyer‘s home and develop a Constitution Park. 

And Breyer isn‘t the only justice being targeted.  A campaign is also under way to take the New Hampshire land where Justice David Souter resides and turn it into the Lost Liberty Hotel.

So, just how realistic are these plans, as appealing as they are? 

Joining me now, the man behind the campaign for Hotel Souter, Logan Darrow Clements. 

Mr. Clements, thanks a lot for joining us. 

rMD+BO_            rMD-BO_LOGAN DARROW CLEMENTS, FREESTARMEDIA.COM:  Thanks for having me. 

CARLSON:  Now, as I understand it, you find the idea of eminent domain, the idea that government could take one person‘s property and give it to another, repugnant, as do I. 

CLEMENTS:  Absolutely repugnant.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Why would you want to do it to someone? 

CLEMENTS:  Well, we‘re only doing to someone who advocates it at such a high level and to someone who is going to set off a wave of cannibalism. 

And if he‘s going to do that, then he should be one of the first ones eaten in this wave.  I‘m opposed strongly to eminent domain abuse, but we need to clarify to this Supreme Court justice and the other four that it‘s completely wrong.  And so, what we‘re doing is basically using their own ruling and their own logic to teach them that private property should be protected. 

CARLSON:  But you don‘t—you don‘t feel a kind of twinge of conscience, as you do that, and betray your own principles?  I mean, presumably, you‘re against murder.  You wouldn‘t want to murder someone. 

CLEMENTS:  No. 

But retaliating against somebody is not wrong, although this is not an act of force or not an act of—I mean, we‘re—we‘re basically saying to him, let‘s see what happens if you live under your own judgment.  And that‘s what is going on here. 

CARLSON:  But it wasn‘t Justice Souter‘s judgment.  It was the majority of the court voted in this case, in the Connecticut case.  Why just Justice Souter? 

CLEMENTS:  Well, we have to start somewhere.  We may go well after the remaining four justices.  But I want to make significant inroads on our project, which is the Lost Liberty Hotel project, before we go after the other people, so that we‘re taken as being serious when we go after the remaining four. 

CARLSON:  So, as it stands, Justice Souter just has a house up in New Hampshire.  I think it‘s about 200 years old, not terribly large.  What do you plan to build on the property? 

CLEMENTS:  We want to build the Lost Liberty Hotel, which will have both rooms for rent on a nightly basis and perhaps time-share room.  We‘re also going to build the Just Desserts Cafe, where we‘ll be serving up large slices of crow pie, if Justice Souter wants to come by. 

And we‘re also going to have the Museum of Lost Freedom, where we‘re going to chronicle how Americans have been losing their freedom as government has been growing bigger and bigger. 

CARLSON:  Well, imagine how Justice Souter would argue against this.  What do you think his argument would be against your taking his house and turning it into a resort? 

CLEMENTS:  Well, he‘d have to argue against himself, because, under his ruling, the ruling is that a city can take your house if they believe that they can make higher tax revenue by giving it to a private developer.  So, it would be Souter vs. Souter. 

CARLSON:  Interesting.  What do you think the odds of your getting this are? 

CLEMENTS:  I think the odds are very good.  We have the money and the financing to put together.  Thousands of Americans have come forward, saying they want to finance it.  I‘m talking to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  How much have you raised so far? 

CLEMENTS:  Well, we can‘t raise anything until we acquire the land. 

But thousands are people are on the sidelines ready to finance it.  We‘re working with developers who have built similar types of resorts in the past.  And, of course, we have got customers that are eagerly sending me in reservations.  They want to reserve rooms already.  So, we‘ve got the financing.  We‘ve got the talent and we‘ve got the customers.  And now we‘ve got a new way to get it through the city—rather, the town of Weare, in using a ballot initiative.

Some of the local townspeople who support the Lost Liberty Hotel have decided that we‘re just going to go around the board of selectmen, because it seems as though the only people opposed to this project are the five people that sit on the board of selectmen in Weare.  And so, with a ballot initiative, we can just go around them and hopefully accomplish the same thing.

CARLSON:  Well, finally, it‘s my understanding you haven‘t actually been to Weare, New Hampshire, where Justice Souter‘s house is. 

Do—from what you‘ve seen, would it—is it a nice location place a resort?  Would people actually want to go there, bring their kids, frolic in the pool, go to the buffet? 

CLEMENTS:  I think people will want to go there because they‘ll go to a place where Americans took a stand against big government, no matter where we put it, if we put it in the middle of Alaska. 

It‘s not so far from major cities in New Hampshire.  But I think it‘s a place that people will go to say, here is where we took a stand against the ever-expanding size and scope of government.  We said, enough is enough. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

CLEMENTS:  And this hotel will be a living monument to Americans fighting back. 

CARLSON:  Boy, I‘m getting misty just hearing about that.  I hope that you build the hotel.  I hope you put a miniature golf in—course in—and an Indian casino.  I really hope you win this.

Mr. Clements, thanks a lot for joining us. 

CLEMENTS:  Thanks.

And, if people want to find out more, they can go to freestarmedia.com. 

CARLSON:  All right. 

CLEMENTS:  And if they...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I am going to have to cut you off there, violating our no-Web-site policy, but good luck. 

CLEMENTS:  OK.

CARLSON:  Build it and I will come. 

Coming up, a new Coca-Cola product that burns calories when you drink it.  There‘s no way that can be good for you, or maybe it is. 

Civil disagreement continues, when the Friday night SITUATION rolls on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION. Sitting in tonight for Sherman Helmsly, I‘m Tucker Carlson, joined once again by Rita Crosby and Rachel Maddow.

I hope this guy gets to build a resort on the site of Justice David Souter old home.  I hope it‘s the gaudiest South of the Border like thing ever, with neon and heart-shaped waterbeds and mirrors on the ceilings.

MADDOW:  You like targeting the justices personally for their view points?

CARLSON:  No, actually it goes against some of my principles. I‘ll concede to that. It does. It does! You‘re right.

(CROSS TALK)

CARLSON:  You‘re right. I‘m definitely selling out but I can‘t help it because it feels so good.

MADDOW:  Well, you know, Logan Darrow Clements, your former guest, got 270 votes when he ran for California governor.

CARLSON:  Yes.

MADDOW:  So, he obviously knows how to sell things to the public.

CARLSON:  And I‘m sorry I am not a California resident.  I would have voted for him.

CROSBY:  (inaudible) Says there is only five people who opposed it. I said, have you talked to the justice? Maybe there‘s six.  You know, it is like nobody is opposing this.  Give me a break.  They haven‘t even been to the area.

MADDOW:  The five people who he‘s asked and he‘s never been there.

(CROSS TALK)

CARLSON:  Yes. I‘m still—you‘re not going to change my mind. I‘m going to take my kids the second it opens.

The next SITUATION, why one author says the CIA doesn‘t want to you read his book. Gary Burnson is a former CIA officer who fought Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In his new book, he says U.S. commanders knew where bin Laden was and details the al Qaeda leader‘s getaway.

But it doesn‘t look like you‘ll be reading it anytime soon. Burnson says the agency is deliberately dragging its feet as it reviews the manuscript. Now he‘s suing to get the book out. It‘ll be very interesting to see what the reaction to this story is, because there‘s a whole group of people, based on the Valerie Plame story, who has been defending the CIA‘s right to keep the information secret. That the CIA‘s right to keep it secret trumps the public‘s right to know.

What will they say in this situation? Right?  The public, I think, has a right to know why CIA dispatched a guy who knew nothing about WMD to Africa to look into WMD. Right?  I also think we have a right to know exactly what happened in Tora Bora.

CROSBY:  Except if it‘s classified information. I will say this as someone who covers a lot of intelligence stuff, I‘m a pretty big defender of law enforcement in terms if there is something in here that might lead to his arrest in the future, and we don‘t want to get it out.  Say they are surveying him by X means, you know all the stuff of getting some of these folks on their cell phones.  Then it came out.  What are the terrorists going to do?  Get rid of their cell phones.  So if there‘s something classified in here, I agree with the CIA.  However, if it‘s just something that is just generic and they‘re covering it—

(CROSS TALK)

CARLSON:  I can promise you—look, I spent my whole adult life in Washington. Know a lot of people who work there, great people, but their instinct, their default position is—classified. Boom, you have no right to know.

CROSBY:  It‘s an automatic stance but if it is something critical that could lead to his arrest down the road, then I accept that.

MADDOW:  The situation with the Plame case, though, is that people wanted to keep a CIA‘s officer‘s identity secret. That‘s not about the CIA being overtly—being overly classifying things. That‘s not the way it worked.

CARLSON:   I don‘t know.

MADDOW:  You can say her identity as a CIA agent—

CARLSON:   I‘d like to know why her keeping her identity secret was a matter of national security. That‘s never been explained.

MADDOW:  Because covert agents can‘t be outed for political means.

CARLSON:   Well, OK. 

CROSBY:  But in her case, she wasn‘t so covert.

MADDOW:  Not necessarily, that‘s the case that‘s being made in this situation, my problem with this is I think there‘s incredible diligence being deserved about the book about Osama getting away. In the meantime, in today‘s news we learn we can export bomb-grade uranium.  That‘s in the energy bill. The Homeland Security Department has evaluated four of the 60 chemical and biological agents they think that terrorists have, that they can target against us.  They‘re going to cut the number of airport screeners.

I mean, if you think about the priorities, the things we really exercise diligence about, it‘s weird the Osama-got-away book—

(CROSS TALK)

CROSBY:  But did we turn a blind eye? Were we bargaining? All the stories I‘ve heard is there was some sort of deal between the Taliban and the others. Did we make serious mistake that we go, Oh my gosh?

CARLSON:   The difference just to answer your question very briefly is in one case you have the Congress—which can‘t keep anything secret—in control.  And in this case you have a federal agency—CIA, which is al about secrecy—in control. The latter is much better at keeping secrets.  And it‘s not always good.

MADDOW:  We need to know the priorities going on here.

CARLSON:   This guy, by the way, for the record, the author apparently is a big Republican and Bush supporter.

CROSBY:  And also left disgruntled.  So there are some issues there, too.

CARLSON:   I can‘t wait to read his book. I hope it is out tomorrow.

Our next SITUATION, from Southern California, pits a doctor against her lesbian patient. That‘s after the doctor refused to artificial inseminate the woman, claiming a religious exemption from performing a procedure.  Now a gay group is suing the doctor and the state‘s largest medical association for discrimination.

Now, I see why they‘re mad.  But the bottom line here is, you can‘t compel a physician perform a procedure he or she is opposed to morally. I just don‘t see how you can do that.  I just don‘t see how the government can say, you may be opposed to this, but we‘re going to force you to do it.  There‘s nothing liberal about that. That‘s authoritarian.

CROSBY:  Give me a break. What‘s appalling in this case, I‘m truly middle of the road. But I think it is shocking, he basically said in depositions later—he goes back to the fact she wasn‘t married—that was the real reason. But then he said the lesbian issue.

Give me a break. He‘s a doctor. If this is what he‘s supposed to do and what the state is saying he should do—

MADDOW:  And if were a tonsillectomy and this doctor said I‘m not going to perform a tonsillectomy on this woman because she‘s a lesbian. Is that ok?

CARLSON:   I would say the doctor has a right—isn‘t the Left always saying it‘s up to the doctor and the conscious and the conscious of the patient. It ought to be up to the conscious of the dr. It‘s a sole practioner that could make the decisions.

MADDOW:  What if a person is bleeding on a hospital bed? He going to say I‘m not going to operate because she‘s a lesbian?

CARLSON:   You don‘t draw the line.  If this doctor is not an employee of the government, you can‘t tell him which job he has to perform and which job he can‘t?

CROSBY:  But this was through her health care process. She was part of this healthcare system.

CARLSON:   Well, first of all, she got the procedure done somewhere else, which is not even germane to the principle of it. 

(CROSS TALK)

MADDOW:  The standard historically is that a physician can decide not to do a particular kind of procedure because he or she doesn‘t want to.

CARLSON:   That‘s right.

MADDOW:  You can‘t decide which patient you‘re going to do it on or not. That‘s discrimination. It‘s the same reason I can‘t walk into a restaurant—

(CROSS TALK)

MADDOW:  If I walk into a restaurant and a person who owns the restaurant says I‘m not going to serve you a meal because you, Rachel, are gay. That person can‘t do that, because that‘s discrimination.  That‘s why we have the—

CROSBY:  Maybe they don‘t like blondes. Give me a break.

CARLSON:   In the end you can‘t force someone to do something he‘s morally opposed to if he doesn‘t work for the government.

CROSBY:  Then you know what then, don‘t be a doctor. Also if you are going to be a doctor, have a big sign out saying I‘ll only take patients who do X.  Make it clear.

CARLSON:   Make it clear, but it sounds like this physician, who is a woman, did make it clear. She‘s still being sued by a group that wants to force her, ram it down her throat.  They cannot call themselves liberal.  There is nothing liberal about that.  Liberalism is allowing people to do what they think is right.

(CROSS TALK)

MADDOW:  Could a restaurant owner say I will not serve gay people?

CARLSON:   It‘s prohibited by law. I believe that private organizations ought to be able to make their own decisions, however repugnant they are. However much I disagree with them you can‘t force people to do things.

(CROSS TALK)

CROSBY:  But this was part of her healthcare plan.

MADDOW:  Are you OK with the segregated lunch counter?

CARLSON:   I‘m totally, totally, morally opposed to it!

MADDOW:  OK, but you defend the right to do it.

CARLSON:   I‘m not defending the rights in this case. You‘re not going to suck me into that.

(CROSS TALK)

MADDOW:  But what about—

CARLSON:   Hold on. Let me you asked me a question. Slow t down.

MADDOW:  OK, let me clarify when you are done.

CARLSON:   Let me answer.  I won‘t be pulled into a false analogy to the civil rights movement, where I sound like Bull Connor (ph). I‘m stipulating that ahead of time.

Let me just say, again, a doctor should never be compelled to perform a procedure he or she finds morally repugnant. Even if we disagree; even if I disagree, you disagree, you disagree, it‘s a private doctor. You can‘t force him to do something against his conscience.

MADDOW:  Tucker, if that doctor performs inseminations.

CARLSON:   Right.

MADDOW:  And that doctor will perform an insemination on a straight person but not a gay person, is that ok?

CARLSON:   If that doctor says, as this doctor did, it is against my religion to do this—and by the way, I don‘t want to inseminate a single parent, then I say you can‘t force him. I can say it‘s outrageous. I can say it is wrong, maybe I will say it‘s wrong, but you can‘t make him.

(CROSS TALK)

CROSBY:  I say he gets out of the business. I say he‘s in the wrong profession.

MADDOW:  The doctor said in a sworn deposition, I won‘t do this because the patient is gay. Marital status is a complete red herring and so therefore—

CARLSON:   Hold on, we don‘t know it‘s a red herring.

MADDOW:  The doctor admitted in a sworn deposition, I did not perform this procedure because the patient is gay.

(CROSS TALK)

CARLSON:   Well, let me just say, for the record, the California Medical Association is taking the position, this is not a crackpot group of religious extremists, it‘s the California Medical Association, which has fought for gay rights in medicine, is saying the doctor didn‘t want to do it because she didn‘t want to inseminate a single mother. That‘s their position.

CROSBY:  They‘re saying it‘s OK.  I also take issue with them.

MADDOW:  You can‘t get out of saying you are right or wrong by saying somebody else says it too.

CARLSON:   I think we‘re making progress, but my position remains unchanged. You can‘t force people to act against their own conscious.

MADDOW:  You‘re wrong.

CARLSON:   Next up, drink more, lose weight. Sounds too good to be true but coke, that is a cola, along with Nestle, is reportedly working on developing a tea that would actually burn calories. It‘s expected to come in several flavors including green tea, lemon-lime and orange. Dieters are wondering, is it real? When I was little, there was a product that promised weight loss, more energy, sparkling conversation. Supposedly it wasn‘t bad for you.  Cocaine! That‘s what people said in the 1970s about cocaine. I don‘t know.

CROSBY:  Look at the name Inviga (ph).  I thought it was Viagra that made you lose weight. I love the name.

CARLSON:   It works. Not that I‘ve tried it.

MADDOW:  I feel like this is the next Olestra. Remember, Olestra it was going to be the chips that made you lose weight.

CROSBY:  And then everybody was in the bathroom at once.

(LAUGHTER, CROSS TALK)

MADDOW:  Because you are actively metabolizing your last three meals, while still eating -- 

CARLSON:  Now, we‘re reaching—

(CROSS TALK)

CARLSON:   All right, coming up, she may be Miss Universe but she‘s not welcomed everywhere in her home country. What gives the beauty queen banned north of the border.

Picked on, laughed at and teased in the puppy school playground, Weiner Dogs get revenge. Geared up for an exclusive competition and ready to run across the “Cutting Room Floor” just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:   Welcome back. If I were in a car, I‘d roll up the windows, lock the doors and step on it. I‘d be driving by “The Outsider. A man from the outside the world of news, who swerves into our lane and blows exhaust at me, as devil‘s advocate on two pressing stories of the day.  It is the ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host, the always chromed out Max Kellerman.

(LAUGHTER)

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO, HBO BOXING:  You‘ve seen the chrome? Oh, the 20s.

CARLSON:   Yes, I‘ve sent he chrome.  The 20s, I‘ve seen these spinning hub caps.

Next up, we know Germans love David Hasselhoff and soccer. When the World Cup comes to Berlin this fall, one company is trying to cash in by building a really big brothel.

The 60-room Artimus Complex is being built right across from the Berlin‘s Olympic stadium. It apparently will be a top-rate brothel with whirl pools, a sauna, even a buffet restaurant with a staff of 100 prostitutes.  An Artimus spokesman says it won‘t be a place where, quote, “clients are taken for a ride.” Of course it won‘t.

Now I‘ve defended legalized prostitution, as you know. In fact, I think I did it last night. In fact, I‘m totally opposed to this. Why?  Because it‘s the Germans.

KELLERMAN:  OK?

CARLSON:   You know, Germans, sex, same sentence—dissonance. Here‘s the problem.

KELLERMAN:  Yeah?

CARLSON:   Prostitution legal in Germany, right? It‘s been legal for two years. That means it‘s regulated, which means it‘s sterile.

KELLERMAN:  Wait, the Germans are regulating something?

CARLSON:   Yes.

KELLERMAN:  Are you sure?

CARLSON:   It‘s regulated. It‘s regimented. It‘s efficient. It‘s like a medical procedure.

KELLERMAN:  You take the sexiness out of sex.

CARLSON:   Exactly, once there‘s no guilt, when there‘s nothing covert, it‘s just plain creepy. I‘m opposed to it.

KELLERMAN:  I don‘t know, if you think of the Germans, you can imagine

if you‘re into dominatrix sorts of things actually, maybe it‘s the perfect

--

CARLSON:   Yes, but it would still be sterile.

KELLERMAN:  I mean, look, Europeans in general are hairy and smelly that goes for France, Italy, all over Europe. They are, let‘s face it. The women with the hair underneath, they don‘t wear deodorant. Germany just fits into that picture, Tucker, there‘s really no difference.

CARLSON:   How could you defend a 60-room brothel?

I want to say also, something else. German law requires people on unemployment, women under 55 who are on unemployment, who‘ve been looking for a job for a year or more to take any job they are offered. There have been cases where German women have been compelled—compelled—essentially by the government to go into prostitution. White slavery, sex slavery sponsored by the government. I don‘t want to add to that. I think it‘s wrong.

KELLERMAN:  That‘s really interesting question. You mean to tell me the German government is forcing people into immoral situations?

CARLSON:   That‘s exactly the right.

KELLERMAN:  Yet, based on their history, that doesn‘t surprise me.

CARLSON:   So, you‘re not going to defend this at all? You don‘t think there should be a brothel in Berlin?

KELLERMAN:  I agree with legalized prostitution, your position on legalizing prostitution. You can barter goods and services, including your body. I think that‘s  perfectly fine. I think if you‘re in favor of Italians or French doing it, then the Germans should be able do it, too.

CARLSON:   I‘m imposing a double standard. I think it‘ll be a total flop.

KELLERMAN:  Plus, French people can go and surrender, live out fantasies.

CARLSON:   Once again those Canadians find themselves in a ridiculous situation. The city of Toronto barred Miss Universe from opening a festival there, because they‘re worried about sexual stereotyping.

Toronto native, Natalie Glebova, was told she couldn‘t open the Tastes of Thailand Festival because city law prohibits, quote, “activities which degrade men or women through sexual stereotyping in public places.” She apparently could open the event of the just not as Miss Universe, which means, no crown, no sash, maybe not even hairspray.

It should be said that the city realized how ridiculous this was and apologized. It seems to me, however, she was still prohibited from doing this Taste of Thailand thing. They‘re objectifying her by not allowing her to go as Miss Universe.

KELLERMAN:  How‘s that?

CARLSON:   Right? They‘re forcing her to deny her essential femininity. They‘re saying you look too female.  You looked too much like a woman, like a stereotype of woman, therefore you can‘t go. That‘s denying who she is.

KELLERMAN:  Is it stereotype or kind of the perfect—or is it the ideal? Then it‘s the question of whose ideal? This is Canada, first of all.  Let‘s start off with that.

CARLSON:   Which has no freedom of speech.

KELLERMAN:  Yes, you know, I just dissed half of Europe. So, let me now take a shot at Canada.

The reality is men see women primarily, generally, men see women primarily as sexual objects. When a man first sees a woman, the question goes through his head, yes or no. By the way, more often than not I think it‘s a yes. The point is—

CARLSON:   I‘m going to officially deny that.

KELLERMAN:  The point is that‘s regulated by law. There are rules, laws in this country that attempt to modify the way men behave in the workplace, for instance, towards women. In the street towards women and this is—can be seen as an extension of that sort of thinking.

CARLSON:   I don‘t think so in 1991, the band, Bare Naked Ladies, a Canadian band—which I believe has fled to the United States since—was prevented from playing in Toronto, why? The name Bare Naked Ladies was deemed to objectify women.

KELLERMAN:  For instance, again in the workplace, there are all kinds of rules you can‘t objectify women, right? If it‘s called sexual harassment laws—what‘s the difference there?

CARLSON:   Because there is no law in this country barring women from objectifying themselves, however we‘re not talking about this country.

KELLERMAN:  You can‘t objectify yourself.

CARLSON:   That‘s right.  This is a sensible country. Then there‘s Canada. I‘m merely saying there should be a law in Canada protecting the right of people to objectify themselves.

KELLERMAN:  It‘s absurd.  Also, it‘s the imposition of one feeling about gender roles on someone else‘s feeling about gender rules.

CARLSON:   I‘ve brought you over again.

KELLERMAN:  You have.  You‘ve won me over.

CARLSON:   Successful week.  Max Kellerman, thank you. See you on Monday.

Coming up, what do Paula Abdul and Bill Clinton have in common?  Opposable thumbs, of course, but they share something far more onerous that could only be found on the “Cutting Room Floor”.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:   Welcome back. The appetizer and the entree are complete, so not it is time for dessert, “The Cutting Room Floor.”  Our producer Willie Geist is serving a one-game suspension for a cookie throwing incident in the commissary, so I‘m joined now by our infamous executive producer, Bill Wolf.

BILL WOLF, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, THE SITUATION:  How are you feeling, Superstar?

CARLSON:   Outstanding.

WOLF:  I would like to apologize to all our woman viewers, and the German public for Max Kellerman.  Because he does not represent the views of anybody on this show.

CARLSON:   No.

WOLF:  You have a hot stack there, buddy.  Have at it.

CARLSON:   Thank you, sir.

All right, connoisseurs of “American Idol”, that would be many of you, will remember that last season‘s drama included allegations by former contestant Cory Clark that he had had a torrid sexual affair with kind-hearted pop star turned judge of talent, Paula Abdul.  The scandal blew over when his nationally televised interview fell flat.

WOLF:  Sure did.

CARLSON:   But a top FOX TV executive revealed Thursday, the network has hired an independent counsel to investigate the allegations.  No, joked the executive, it will not be Kenneth Star.

WOLF:  It can‘t be Ken Star.  Not the right experience.  The guy can‘t work for FOX.  Homer Simpson is out.  Luke Perry, good, but he‘s got a lot on his plate.  My prediction, and it is worth what you are going to pay for it, Wink Martindale.  Turn the whole thing into a game show.

CARLSON:   He‘s the man.

WOLF:  He‘s got a game show. Let me tell you something, FOX has already thought of it.

CARLSON:   You know his first question?  What is the strangest place you made Whoopi?

WOLF:  That was Bob Eubanks, by the way.

CARLSON:   Maybe so, maybe so.

You want to party with the computer nerds this weekend?  Sure you do.  Then head for the Netherlands.  Take a left past Amsterdam and find your way to the town of Bachtell (ph).  There is a new fashion geek festival to beat all.

More than 3,000 computer hackers from around the globe literally have camped out, Woodstock style, for a three-day gathering to share ideas about the internet, security and freedom of speech.

WOLF:  Yeah, right. Dude! Is another way to say it.  You know this happens once every four years, these are computer hackers, imagine what goes on in the tents after hours, you know what I‘m saying?

Out of control (INAUDIBLE) games. Anagram orgies.  Woo-hoo-hoo!  Man, what—what happens in Bachtell, stays in Bachtell.

CARLSON:   Whacked out on Twix bars.

WOLF:  Wish I was there.

CARLSON:   Well, New Zealand‘s sheep farmer (ph), John Lee is resisting local authorities who want him to take down hundreds of bras from the fence surrounding his property. For years, females passersby, many of them on the way home from local bars, have strung their upper frontal supporters on Lee‘s fence, much to his delight.  But much to the chagrin of some of his neighbors.  Mr. Lee doesn‘t understand the fuss. He says they have a magic quality about them, for me, they have all my life.

WOLF:  Sheep farm we are a life-long bra fascination. Nervous sheep.

Nervous sheep.

CARLSON:   That‘s revolting, Bill.

WOLF:  What can I tell you, it was sitting right there.

CARLSON:   I think you‘re right.

WOLF:  Low-hanging fruit.

CARLSON:   Well, breaking news from Ohio tonight.  It is State Fair time in Buckeye Land.  And among other things that means unveiling the 40th annual butter sculpture. This year the American Dairy Association decided to pay tribute to our old friend the ice cream cone. The sculpture took 322 hours to shape and required 2,000 pounds of rich, creamy butter.

WOLF:  I‘m front the Midwest and I have one concern, that‘s security.  An ice cream cone made out of butter, to people in the Midwest is like gold made out of platinum.  You know what I‘m saying.  Throw a little Ranch dressing, you have a riot.  Careful people.

CARLSON:   And finally from Kansas City, Kansas. The most prestigious event of the year is the wide world of Weiner dogs.  It is the 12 Annual Weiner Dog Nationals. Where 64 finely tuned Daschunds put their waddling into overdrive and race for the title of grand champion Weiner dog. The finals are Sunday. Today was spent putting their pooches through their paces before the big event.

What‘s going on in the Midwest, Bill, since you‘re from there.

WOLF:  A lot of good stuff.  I‘m from there.

There are a lot of rules for this.  I went to their web site.  Humans should remain sober until their dog‘s race is done, and no spectator dogs.  One interesting note, Max Kellerman, very competitive, showed up tried to get into a heat.  Then he found out it was for Weiner Dogs!  Get it?

CARLSON:   Turned away, even from the Wiener dog championship. 

WOLF:  True.

CARLSON:   It‘s been a tough day, but it has been a great week.

Thanks, Bill.

WOLF:  My pleasure.

CARLSON:   That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks for watching.  Have a terrific weekend.  “Scarborough Country” is up next.  Filling in for Joe, Monica Crowley—Monica.

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

,