IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for Feb. 8th

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Peter Kadzis, Jonathan Leaf, Michael Allen, Dean Ornish

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”:  That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Stay tuned, because Tucker Carlson starts right now.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks, Joe.  That‘s a great cause.

Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  We always appreciate it. 

Tonight we bring you more on a remarkable story we told you about last night: a Northwestern professor tells the Iranian press he believes the Holocaust never happened.  Someone made it up.  Keeps his job.  Anyway, we‘ll talk to the Northwestern alumni leading the charge to get him canned. 

Also in Massachusetts tonight, a first grader is suspended for sexual harassment after he pulls on a classmate‘s waistband.  Turns out feminism isn‘t dead after all.  We‘ll bring you the details on that. 

Plus, the skinny on low-fat diets.  A definitive new study says they do absolutely nothing to prevent heart disease or cancer.  Plus, of course, the food tastes terrible.  Time to switch back to Cheetos and Krispy Kremes?  Low fat guru Dr. Dean Ornish joins us with his perspective. 

We begin tonight with the continuing uproar caused by cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. 

Earlier today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of stoking the riots that have resulted in numerous deaths around the world in this past week.  Most of the American media, meanwhile, continue to refuse to show the cartoons in question.  Today one publication, the weekly “Boston Phoenix,” explained why it isn‘t publishing the images. 

Among the reasons, quote, “Fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do.  We are being terrorized.  We feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure.  This may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.”

Joining us now to discuss his paper‘s position, the man who wrote that, the paper‘s editor, Peter Kadzis.  He joins us live tonight from Boston. 

Peter, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  You are being held hostage is what you‘re saying?

KADZIS:  Well, in a manner of speaking, both literal and figurative. 

You know, let‘s step back for a second away from this—this controversy. 

Every time any of this go into a building that we used to enter freely and we have to show an I.D., we are being subject to the effects of terrorism.  Every time we stand in line at an airport and go through these interminable searches, we are feeling the effects of terrorism.  It‘s very low grade, but I think there may be more unspoken fear around this subject than many of us would like to admit. 

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s the reason that I wanted to talk to you tonight.  You are the one person I‘ve heard of in the last week to admit it, to say point blank, “We‘re not publishing this because we‘re afraid of the consequences, the physical consequences.  We‘re afraid of getting hurt.” 

Whereas a lot of other magazine publishers are saying, “Well, it‘s not really news.  And we‘re not going to publish them because the public doesn‘t need to see them.”  You‘re being direct. 

KADZIS:  Well, we‘re being direct and we do have three reasons.  But first, let‘s talk about this issue of fear. 

It‘s not just the reporters, not just the editors.  There are other people who work in our building.  We‘re a relatively small publication.  You know, we have a couple of hundred people working in our building near Fenway Park, and we have to take into account the well-being of the people who work for us.  I think it‘s a more serious issue than people want to consider. 

There are other reasons, though, Tucker.  The first is the fear of retaliation.  The second is we have an honest respect for the belief of honest, God-fearing Muslims. 

And third, we also have a hope that, by showing this restraint, that we can form a communion, if you will, with—with people to oppose the terrorists.  Fear is part of it, but so is respect and so is hope. 

CARLSON:  I think those are all fair reasons.  I wonder, though, just to get back to the first one, what effect it has on a free press, this intimidation.  If the press no longer feels free to do exactly what it wants, how is it free?

KADZIS:  Well, there‘s many different forms here.  Take some of the large daily newspapers, who have correspondents throughout the Islamic world.  I find it hard to believe—though I don‘t know this for a fact—

I find it hard to believe, though, that they don‘t have to take the well-being of their men and women in the field into account.  Look, these—these men and women reporting from overseas are the journalist equivalent of our soldiers.  Fear is—is, I think a big part of this. 

CARLSON:  And finally, tell me, you were the newspaper that got a great deal of attention several years ago when you published a link to a web site that showed the execution of Danny Pearl, the “Wall Street Journal” reporter who was murdered in Pakistan.  Has your newspaper ever been subjected to threats from people you believe are Islamic extremists?

KADZIS:  Not from Islamic extremists.  Our usual threats come from what I politically characterize as right-wing nuts. 

It‘s interesting.  When we—when we published the link to Danny Pearl—the Danny Pearl video, which by the way, was a propaganda video...

CARLSON:  Right.

KADZIS:  ... that I think showed just the awful, grisly face of what these Islamofacists are really capable of, we—we suffered the firestorm of criticism, for merely providing a link.  I—I‘m somewhat surprised to see today that NPR said they won‘t even link to the newspapers in Europe that are showing these cartoons. 

CARLSON:  I just couldn‘t disagree with that more.  But in your case, I genuinely admire your forthright position on this, explaining in a non-phony way why you‘re doing what you‘re doing or why you‘re not doing what you‘re not doing.  Peter Kadzis, the...

KADZIS:  Well, it—you know, it‘s a sad day, but I think people have to understand that this is real life.


KADZIS:  These are real consequences.  This is not an academic debate. 

These are people who want to kill us. 

CARLSON:  Yes, they certainly are.  Thanks for reminding us of that. 

Thanks a lot, Peter.

KADZIS:  OK.  Bye-bye.

CARLSON:  As the media here continue to shield viewers and readers from the Mohammed cartoons, some are wondering if those cartoons are really the cause of the violence you‘ve been watching on television this week. 

Here to explain is Jonathan Leaf.  Mr. Leaf resigned from the “New York Press” in New York last night after his paper decided at the last minute to pull the Mohammed caricatures from today‘s editions of the paper.  He joins us live tonight from New York.

Jonathan Leaf, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON:  So here‘s the story as I understand it.  The cartoons that we have been told are leading to all this violence in the Middle East, these 12 cartoons originally published in a Danish newspaper, may be not really be the cartoons that are inciting people to violence?  Is that true, do you think? 

LEAF:  That‘s exactly right.  Yes.  The leaders of the campaign, or the instigators of the campaign against these cartoons, were three clerics from Denmark who went to the Middle East and met with a variety of high-ranking Middle Eastern Islamic officials, including Amr Moussa, who‘s the head of—the secretary of the Arab League. 

And they went to Egypt first and then they went to Saudi Arabia and then they went to Iran.  They also went to Syria.  And they presented a portfolio of supposed cartoons, and this included the 12 cartoons that were published in Denmark in a publication called “Jyllands-Posten.” 

And those cartoons are extremely mild.  They were not satirical in any kind of vicious or disrespectful way.  That‘s completely false.  And I would strongly advise anyone who‘s interested in the subject to go onto the Web and do their own Google search...

CARLSON:  That‘s right.

LEAF:  And look at the real cartoons.  They were not—and that was one of the reasons we wanted to publish them, because we felt that literally and figuratively it was important to illustrate what the actual cartoons were and that they were the mildest form of political commentary. 

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s exactly right.  In fact, the vast majority of those 12 cartoons made no editorial point at all.  They were merely depictions of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. 

Now, these three cartoons, these essentially phony counterfeit cartoons...

LEAF:  Right.

CARLSON:  ... that were taken on this road show by these radical Danish clerics, were offensive.  I saw at least one of them today, and it portrayed an Islamic person praying and being—it‘s hard to even say, but being raped by a dog.

LEAF:  That‘s right.

CARLSON:  But this was not a real cartoon.  This was propaganda cooked up by Islamic extremists.  Correct?

LEAF:  That‘s right.  And in fact, when they were asked by reporters where they got this, reporters noticed that there was an inconsistency in what was being shown.  They made a variety of excuses.

But this is consistent with the fact that they had made false statements to Danish television and the Danish government and Danish reporters about a variety of things, including in Denmark, they said they were against the boycott of Danish goods.  In the Islamic world, they supported it a boycott of Islamic (sic) goods.

One of the particular ironies of this is that one of the clerics involved in this, who claims that he‘s a moderate cleric but in fact, it turns out he has a long history of support for Islamofascism and for totalitarian ideology, Sheikh Ahmed Abu Laban.

Abu Laban, it turns out, actually had said some time ago that anyone who put forward a derogatory cartoon of the prophet should be punished with death.  And it‘s ironic, because it appears that he himself inserted such a cartoon for the purpose of stirring up propaganda raising money, which seems to have been one of his principle motives. 

And I think that‘s something people should be aware about Islamofascism and about terrorism in general, not only Islamo terrorism but terrorism around the world.  Terrorists are often motivated by money, believe it or not. 

CARLSON:  I do—I do—nothing shocks me about their motives.  This guy, Abu Laban, though, clearly, I mean, from the evidence you‘ve just told us about, incited people to violence and in some cases to killing.  Where is he now?  Is he under arrest?  Is the Danish government going to put this guy in custody?

LEAF:  No.  They‘ve—some members of the government made harshly critical comments about him.  But that‘s as far as things have gone.

In the meantime, in Afghanistan alone, 30 people have been killed in protests about the cartoons.  A Catholic priest in Turkey was killed by an assassin.  So obviously, it‘s provoking very intense reaction. 

But this also being—I think there‘s no question it‘s being promoted by officials in the governments of a variety of countries, including Syria, which has a history of being secularists, its government being secularists, because they are concerned about their own stability and their interest is in provoking anti-western sentiments as a way of strengthening their regimes. 

CARLSON:  What‘s shocking to me is how little this information has been in our daily newspapers, which again, for the 20th time, are withholding these cartoons, preventing average people from making judgments on their own about how offensive these cartoons are.  What a shame.  What a cowardice on the part of the American press.

Jonathan Leaf, from New York, thanks a lot for joining us. 

Still to come, more on the tenured Northwestern professor who‘s keeping his job after claiming the Holocaust never happened.  His own school president called him reprehensible.  But apparently not so reprehensible he can‘t teach your kids.

Plus Andrea Yates is in a mental hospital after drowning her five children.  Postal worker Jennifer San Marco struggled with serious psychological problems before she killed five innocent people and then killed herself.  Is it wrong to forcibly treat potentially dangerous mental patients who refuse to take their meds?  We‘ll debate that question next. 


CARLSON:  Still ahead, are you still struggling to maintain a repulsive but supposedly healthy low-fat diet?  Give it up.  It won‘t work.  We‘ll tell you why.

Plus, a 6-year-old boy is suspended for sexually harassing a female classmate.  Where?  In Massachusetts, of course.  Why?  We‘ll explain when we come back. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Should the mentally ill be forced to get help?  Would it have prevented a former postal worker from killing eight people including herself in California last week? 

And if Andrea Yates was forced to seek treatment, would her five children still be alive? 

New Mexico is considering allowing family members and doctors to seek court orders forcing mental patients into treatment.  To tell us why he thinks it‘s a bad idea is Michael Allen.  He‘s a senior lawyer with the Baslan Center for Mental Health Law in Washington.  He joins us live tonight from Albuquerque. 

Mr. Allen, thanks for coming on.


Thank you very much.

CARLSON:  It seems to me people who are mentally ill almost by definition have difficulty making clear, informed, rational decisions.  Why shouldn‘t the people around them who love them and know them well be able to make those decisions when they can?

ALLEN:  Well, I think that, Tucker, that fundamentally misunderstands the problems with mental health issues in this country.  The surgeon general has told us that, in any given year, one out of five Americans will suffer the symptoms of mental health problems.  And certainly, people with mental health problems still retain the decisions to make decisions about what‘s best for them and what‘s best for their family. 

CARLSON:  No, that‘s not true.  That‘s not true.   Some people with some mental health problems, and of course, people who are depressed.  But people who have severe schizophrenia cannot make decisions for themselves.  I know that because I know some of them but also because I live in the city, and I see them on the street.  And they‘re incapable of making those decisions or capable of knowing where they are.  Why shouldn‘t we step in, as a matter of compassion, and help them make get better?

ALLEN:  We absolutely should.  And there‘s proven technology that allows us to do that in places like New York City.  The Pathways to Housing program works with people who are actively mentally ill on the streets, perhaps substance abusing, alcohol and drugs, people who may have HIV and long criminal histories. 

Pathways to Housing doesn‘t use force to get people into treatment.  Pathways to Housing uses the open hand, an invitation to come in, to build a stake in the system and to build a stake in their own wellness. 


ALLEN:  Force is not what‘s necessary.

CARLSON:  OK.  I‘m against using force against people under almost any circumstances.  However, people...

ALLEN:  And I understand that libertarians like you, Tucker, should be particularly concerned about the government listening in on people‘s lives. 

CARLSON:  And I am particularly—I am particularly concerned.  But I have some sense of what schizophrenia is. 

ALLEN:  And overriding their decisions about mental health.

CARLSON:  But people with schizophrenia cannot make rational decisions.  I know you know that, because I know you‘ve been around.  They also don‘t like to take their meds because of the side effects, which are unpleasant, as you know. 

But people with untreated schizophrenia do, sometimes, dangerous things.  They hurt themselves often.  They sometimes hurt other people.  So why is it compassionate to let them spin off into their craziness, lie in their own filth in the street and murder other people occasionally when we could stop that by forcing them to take their meds?  It‘s pretty clear.

ALLEN:  But it‘s not really just about medications, Tucker.  As you said yourself, medications often have very severe side effects.


ALLEN:  And psychopharmacologists will tell you that they don‘t understand why medicines work.  Fundamentally, what people with schizophrenia and other mental health issues need is a range of mental health services that can keep them well and can keep the public safe. 

CARLSON:  Right.

ALLEN:  The lie of Kendra‘s Law, which is being considered in New Mexico now, and appears to be going down to defeat, is that forced treatment will keep the public safe by keeping people with mental illnesses safe and well.  And it simply doesn‘t work. 

Every scientific study that‘s been done on out patients has indicated that the court order is not what helps.


ALLEN:  It‘s the availability of services. 

I think you‘re taking an extreme ideological position on this, with all due respect, because you know as well as I that there are some cases where people are a threat to themselves, obviously, possibly a threat to other people and they are unwilling because of their mental illness to seek or accept treatment. 

In those cases—and I‘m willing to believe there are not many of those.  But we know there are some.  Why can‘t we have a mechanism to force that person to get help, for his own sake and for our sake?  Shouldn‘t we have the ability to do that when we really need to?

ALLEN:  Once we‘ve identified the people, Tucker, if we can do that, the technology that‘s available in terms of assertive community treatment, mobile outreach teams, persistent persuasion to people about getting right with their lives and overcoming their mental health issues is what works. 

The force not only is ineffective with respect to the subjects, but it will also have the effect of pushing what helps with the subjects but it will push other people who are awaiting other mental services to the back of the line, thereby creating even further crises. 

CARLSON:  Now, you‘re someone...

ALLEN:  These are comprehensive participatory services.

CARLSON:  Someone who‘s having a manic episode can not be reasoned with.  Are you telling me that you can reason with someone who‘s having a manic episode, because I happen to know you can‘t?

ALLEN:  Absolutely.  And peer support services around the country.  That is, support is provided by people who themselves have had mental health crises is among the best public intervention.  And it‘s among the best safety issue on clue.

Starting with Memphis, Tennessee, the police department has used the principles of peer support and assertive community treatment with its crisis intervention team so that we‘re not talking about this as a police or public safety issue. 


ALLEN:  This should be a public health issue.

CARLSON:  It should be, but sometimes it is a public safety issue and sometimes people are just—and I say this with real sadness, but it‘s true—really, really crazy.  And you have to calm them down, slow them down and keep them from hurting themselves and us.  I just—you know, I‘ve seen it.


ALLEN:  Absolutely.  Every state provides for inpatient...

CARLSON:  Provides for inpatient care for those people.  Well, I...

ALLEN:  Inpatient care.  And for people who meet a dangerousness standard, the state can take people in.  We‘re talking to people who aren‘t dangerous, who haven‘t broken the law and by and large, people who are competent to make their own decisions.  That‘s what should scare libertarians, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  It does scare me.  I just see the threat on the streets and I don‘t believe a compassionate society its one that lets people, again, live in their own filth and bark at passersby.  Nothing dignified about that.  It‘s terrible, and we should do something about it, even if it violates the principles of libertarianism.  It pains me to say that.  But I can‘t see any other option.

Anyway, I made my point and you‘ve made yours and I appreciate it. 

Mike Allen, thanks for coming on.

ALLEN:  Thank you for your time.

CARLSON:  Still to come, never before has duck, duck, goose seemed so threatening.  Six-year-olds accused of sexual harassment.  The unbelievable story coming up next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

There is outrage tonight directed at Northwestern University.  A professor there who told an Iranian news agency that the Holocaust never happened.  What has people even more upset is that the university did not fire Professor Arthur Butz for saying this. 

Here to share his thoughts on the matter of Sean O‘Shea.  He‘s an attorney who graduated from Northwestern Law School in 1981.  Mr. O‘Shea joins us live tonight from New York. 

Sean O‘Shea, thanks for coming on. 

SEAN O‘SHEA, NORTHWESTERN U. PROTESTOR:  Thanks for having me, Tucker.

This guy Butz sounds like kind of—kind of a nut honestly.  Why is he teaching at Northern?

O‘SHEA:  Well, that‘s a good question and perhaps the better question is why has he been teaching at Northwestern for the past 30 years.  The comments that have spawned all the outrage and the denials by President Bienen of the university, in fact, should have been 30 years ago when he first published his Holocaust denial book. 

CARLSON:  Well, my understanding is that he, in fact, got tenure after the book was published?

O‘SHEA:  I think that‘s correct.  I think that‘s correct.  I think he had tenure in 1974.  The book was published in 1976.  And the Northwesterners allowed him to use their web site, for example, as a forum for his ideas and for his book. 

So Northwestern has not shown any outrage or embarrassment until actually, they got sort of caught with the radical Islamist president of Iran saying what a great scholar Professor Butz was. 

CARLSON:  Well, that is insult to injury, I have to say.  The president of Northwestern has come out and said that this man is an embarrassment not just to Northwestern but to all decent people in the world.  And I agree with that.

If he‘s bad for Northwestern, though, that seems to be what the president of the university is saying.  Why are they letting him stay there?

O‘SHEA:  Well, that‘s a good question and perhaps the better question is what have they done to try to remove him or disavow his beliefs before now, because now they are press expressing embarrassment but in fact they‘ve done nothing for 30 years. 

CARLSON:  Here‘s what I don‘t get.  Alumni, especially the private university, like Northwestern, which is a private university, I think.

O‘SHEA:  It is.

CARLSON:  Alumni have a great deal of influence.  They give the money, for one thing?  Why haven‘t alumni banded together to demand that the university do something about this?

O‘SHEA:  It‘s a good question.  Perhaps the alumni are busy people and don‘t know the facts.  Northwestern Law School has as a professor Bernadine Dohrn, who is a person who has gone to jail for contempt who‘s expressed a nonbelief in the Constitution.  And yet she teaches law at Northwestern Law School.  Sometimes the busy alums just don‘t know what‘s going on like the people who are actually responsible and whose mandate it is to protect the reputation of...

CARLSON:  But it hurts you all, the alums of the school, because ultimately Northwestern becomes associated with the whackos who work there.  Oh, Northwestern, isn‘t that where the Holocaust denier and the former weatherman girl worked?  I mean, it becomes embarrassing to be an alum of a university like that.  You have an interest in preventing your university from being discredited.

O‘SHEA:  Absolutely.  It hijacks the reputation, the good reputation, the scholarly reputation of the university.  But moreover, it gives aid and comfort to people like this crazy president of Iran, because he‘s allowed to say that Arthur Butz is a scholar. 

By the way, he‘s not a professor of history of sociology.  He‘s a professor, an associate professor, of electrical engineering.  He‘s able to cloak himself in the good name of Northwestern.   So it not only diminishes, Tucker, the—the reputation of the university and its alums but it really diminishes all of us, because it allows Butz to take his insidious ideas and wrap themselves in the cloak of authenticity and—and legitimacy of the university. 

CARLSON:  You‘ve been a thorn in the side of the university over this question and I think overall, such as Bernadine Dohrn teaching at law school, which is almost as appalling, even as appalling in my view. 

In your conversations with the people who work there, the administration of Northwestern, has anybody ever once voiced concern about what effect having a guy like this at the university will have on the kids?  Does anybody care about the education that the students of Northwestern are receiving with someone like this working there?

O‘SHEA:  That has been absolutely absent in any of the concern.  In fact, the concerns have been sort of tut-tutting me and acting as if this is not something that the alums has a right to speak about. 

What they‘ve done, according to a professor who used to teach law at Northwestern, is essentially launder evil in Bernadine Dohrn‘s case, provide a platform to launder her bad acts and give her a platform and to give a Professor Butz a platform with essentially evil ideas and—and cloak themselves and give them this forum.  Because no one, certainly no one outside Chicago, probably no one outside Evanston, much less over in the Middle East would know who Arthur Butz was...

CARLSON:  That‘s right.

O‘SHEA:  ... were it not for his association with Northwestern University. 

CARLSON:  Well, good for you for doing something.  It‘s your school.  The school belongs to the alumni of the school.  And I just hope they rise up as one and do something about it.  Thanks a lot.

O‘SHEA:  Thanks for having me. 

CARLSON:  We appreciate your coming.

Up next, a bombshell for broccoli eaters.  Does a low-fat diet really make you more healthy?  A new study suggests possibly not.

Plus, what‘s more intense than the Super Bowl?  How about the spelling bee?  You won‘t believe how far one girl‘s parents go to keep her in the contest.  Details next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  A touchy situation brewing in Brockton, Massachusetts.  A first grader suspended for three days because school officials say he sexually harassed a girl sitting in front of him in class. 

The 6-year-old boy‘s mom says her doesn‘t even know what sexual harassment means.  He wasn‘t born when the Clarence Thomas hearings were in progress. 

Here to talk about whether this country‘s gone completely insane, MSNBC contributor Flavia Colgan, joining us live tonight from Burbank, California.

Flavia, rumors that feminism was dead, collapsed under the weight of its own silliness, turned out to be false.  It‘s alive in Brockton, Mass.  I‘m upset. 

FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  This is just—this is just absurd.  I mean, forget about just P.C.  These people couldn‘t find common sense with a floodlight. 

I mean, why couldn‘t—at the very least, why not just bring in the parents and talk about it?  I mean, this is just so absurd.  I can remember getting wedgies and people snapping bras.  I mean, not that I want to bring that back. 

But you know, I‘ve had three younger siblings.  I‘m not a psychiatrist.  But kids at 6 years old, I mean, come on.  It‘s a he said-she said thing.  He touched her waistband.  I just think that this is absurd. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know—back up here.  I didn‘t know that girls got wedgies.  I‘m not quite sure how I feel about that.  That‘s going to take some time to digest.  It raises an interesting question, though, and it‘s this.  What is sexual harassment?  I actually don‘t know.  Do you?

COLGAN:  I mean, I guess it depends.  Unfortunately, I think that it has chilled so many people even being affectionate or complimenting people.  I think that sexual harassment really is when you‘re aggressively pursuing someone or making or creating a sexually hostile environment where they feel that to keep their job they have to either—I mean, whether it‘s phone sex, you know, the whole—you know, people talking about falafels.  Anything from that to more serious, you know, physical advances.  And that‘s...

CARLSON:  So it‘s basically everything related to sex that we don‘t like is now sexually harassment—is now sexual harassment.  See, that‘s the problem I have with this category itself.  Is I think it‘s too amorphous.  Sexual harassment... 

COLGAN:  No.  I agree with...

CARLSON:  ... is a kind of crime.  Right?  So, yes.

COLGAN:  ... you on that.  And I think that these anonymous—these anonymous sexual harassment tip lines are just absurd.  I mean, people that have vendettas and so forth are leaving—you know, are leaving these unprovable—I mean, again...

CARLSON:  They‘re always busy when I‘ve called.  I‘ve never gotten through. 

COLGAN:  He said-she said.  But look, when I first saw this story, Tucker, I said this is ridiculous.  Big whoop.  What‘s the big deal?  Why are we even talking about this?

But then I thought, you know, there are a couple casualties that come out of this.  There are legitimate sexual harassment things that are very significant and very serious, and especially in the workplace when people are wielding their power over others.  I think it‘s terrible.

You know what this does?  It makes people like you and me and a lot of

a lot of other regular Americans be very cynical.  And it creates like a “cry wolf” syndrome.  Next time they read something, they go, “Oh, great.” 

CARLSON:  I think that‘s true.  But just to get back to, very quickly, to what sexual harassment is.  Sexual harassment is a scenario where one person demands sex in return for an economic favor: I‘m going to keep you employed.  I‘m going to promote you, if you have sex with me.  If you don‘t, I won‘t.  That‘s what it is?  Or is it just someone hitting on someone else in a way that person doesn‘t like?

COLGAN:  Right.  Well, unfortunately, I think that the tent, like you said, has gotten way too big.  And I think the expectations and what people view them as, it‘s very hard for people to conform their behavior, if they don‘t even know what‘s unacceptable. 

So if people want to have certain standards, then they need to have, you know, some kind of training to let people know what the expectations are.  But you know what?  I‘m a big girl.  I mean, I certainly wouldn‘t want anyone, you know, making inappropriate advances at me, but if someone comes up and asks me on a date, I say, “No.”  Move on.  What‘s the big idea?  Again...

CARLSON:  You always say no?

COLGAN:  Good thing for you—good thing for you I don‘t have to worry about that, because you‘ve got a gorgeous wife and you‘re a very... 

CARLSON:  I‘m not talking about myself.  I‘m just, you know, always interested.  Flavia Colgan, let me say, I think this kid is going to have serious shrink bills when he‘s older. 

COLGAN:  I think...

CARLSON:  He touches this girl‘s trousers and boom, he‘s suspended.  I mean, you know, he‘ll never touch another woman again, poor kid. 

COLGAN:  I think it‘s very traumatic for the kid, on a serious note. 

I really do.

CARLSON:  I agree with that.  Flavia Colgan from Burbank, great to see you, Flavia. 

COLGAN:  Likewise. 

CARLSON:  Stay tuned, there‘s still plenty more, and we mean plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION.


CARLSON (voice-over):  We‘ve got the skinny on low fat diets.  Why are some doctors now being advised to put their prognosis where their mouth is?

Then she said, he said.  This eight grader‘s spell of bad luck leads to a courtroom showdown. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I was pretty sure I had it right.

CARLSON:  Plus, celebrity airhead or tough talking hothead?  We‘ll tell you why Paris has one Hollywood producer fearing for his life. 

And caught on tape, a behind-the-scenes look at your tax dollars at work. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  They do all seem to be adult women, young adult, but adult women. 

CARLSON:  Wait until you hear who‘s behind this sneaky babe cam.  It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.

PARIS HILTON, HOTEL HEIRESS:  I thought it was pretty freaky.



VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, drama at a middle school spelling bee.  It‘s the controversy that has one student‘s mother threatening to take her kid to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CARLSON:  Sounds pretty serious.  THE SITUATION returns in just 60 seconds. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

It‘s considered common sense that eating your vegetables keeps you healthy.  Well, some genuinely shocking research released today suggests common sense may be nonsense. 

A massive, $415 million federal study published in today‘s issue of the “Journal of the American Medical Association,” found low-fat diets do not reduce your risk of cancer or heart disease. 

Dr. Dean Ornish is the president of Preventative Medicine Research Institute and a longtime advocate of low-fat diets.  Dr. Ornish joins us live tonight form San Francisco.

Dr. Ornish, thanks for coming on. 


Thanks for having me.

CARLSON:  So $415 million study of 49,000 patients.  The “New York Times” calls it the definitive study, likely to be the final word on the subject.  In other words, you are now retiring?

ORNISH:  Well, you know, it‘s too bad because nothing could be further from the truth.  I read about this in...

CARLSON:  Wait.  Nothing, meaning the study could—the study is false?

ORNISH:  The study—the conclusions that the “New York Times” talked about are false.  And I wrote about this on for people who want to go into this in more detail.  But the short version is this.

It doesn‘t matter if you have 49,000 people or if you spend hundreds of gazillions of dollars.  The whole point of the study was to say if women eat a lower fat diet, do they have less heart disease, do they have less cancer? 

CARLSON:  Right.

ORNISH:  The problem is, they didn‘t eat a low fat diet.  And the other problem is that the comparison group changed their diet almost as much.  So the differences between the groups were hardly negligible.  So it‘s not surprising that they didn‘t find anything.  It doesn‘t matter how many women you have.  If both groups are eating pretty much the same thing, they‘re not going to show a difference.  That doesn‘t mean the low fat diets aren‘t good for them.

CARLSON:  When you say they didn‘t adhere to a low fat diet, they didn‘t adhere to a diet as low fat as yours, which is extremely low, by any definition?


CARLSON:  The study, at least in the “Times‘” description of it, claims that these women radically reduced the amount of fat in their diets, and they did so for eight years and they showed no benefit another all.  Even if they didn‘t reduce their fat as much as you suggested they should, shouldn‘t they show some good from it? 

ORNISH:  No, no, no.  Tucker, they didn‘t reduce their fat as much as the study people wanted them to do it.  They got it down—they wanted them to get down to 20 percent.  I would be talking about 10 percent if you‘re trying to reverse disease.  They only got it down to about 30 percent. 

And if you look at the cholesterol levels between the two groups, there were only two percent difference, 2.6 percent difference.  You wouldn‘t expect to find a difference when you only show such a modest reduction in fat and when both groups reduced it to almost the same amount. 

CARLSON:  The study said—the study conceded that some of these women, many of them, had great difficulty reducing the level of fat in their diets radically, but they tried really hard.  They are, I assume, a cross section of America.  Trying hard for eight years to reduce the fat in their diets.  Again, wouldn‘t you expect to show some improvement in cancer rates or heart failure rates?  But there was none.

ORNISH:  No, look.  It‘s kind of like it‘s hard to quit smoking, right?

CARLSON:  Right.

ORNISH:  But if people don‘t quit smoking, you wouldn‘t say that quitting smoking—that the study failed—that it shows that smoking is good for you.  You say...

CARLSON:  No.  That‘s—you‘re reducing.

ORNISH:  Smoking—that‘s a separate issue. 

CARLSON:  Wait.  Hold on.  Your analogy, actually, is my point.  If you reduce smoking, if I go from three packs a day of unfiltered Camels to, you know, four Merit Ultralights, I reduce my risk of lung canner.  I haven‘t quit smoking but I‘ve reduced my risk of getting ill. 

These women reduced the fat, and I‘m just really surprised and surprised that you‘re not surprised that they didn‘t show any improvement. 

ORNISH:  No, that‘s not what happened, Tucker.  They were—but to use your analogy, if they reduced their smoking from 60 cigarettes a day to 58 cigarettes a day, and the comparison group reduced their smoking from 60 cigarettes to 57 cigarettes a day, you wouldn‘t expect that to show that there would be a difference in heart disease.  That doesn‘t mean that smoking is good for you. 

Now, when they looked at the subgroup of patients that actually did make bigger changes, they found that they did reduce their risk of heart disease.  They had a nine percent lower risk of breast cancer.

And that‘s what we found in our studies, too.  When people make bigger changes, not only in terms of preventing heart disease and cancer.  We showed and we published, also in the “Journal of the American Medical Association,” you can reverse heart disease.  And in our latest study, which we published last September in collaboration with the chairman of urology at both UCSF and Stone-Kettering, you can stop and reverse the progression of prostate cancer. 

CARLSON:  I can‘t get past...

ORNISH;  Here‘s the thing.


ORNISH:  If you don‘t change much—if you don‘t change much, you don‘t improve much.  That‘s the bottom line.

CARLSON:  I just wonder why a study that cost virtually a half a billion dollars and studied almost 50,000 patients and was reviewed by all these smart people and commented upon by all these Harvard medical professors in the “New York Times” today didn‘t notice what you are telling us now, that this whole study was bogus, they wasted all this money on the study?  And somehow everyone believes it except you, who‘s in the low fat diet business.  I mean, come on. 

ORNISH:  Actually, Tucker, give me a break.  If you actually read the journal of the AMA, the “New York Times” was not a very good—that was not a very good report.  If you actually read the “JAMA” report, as I have done, as you might want to do, you‘ll see that the authors made the same points, that the patients who ate a healthier diet, who followed their own recommendations, which were not nearly as low as what we found if required to reverse disease, actually did prevent heart disease. 

CARLSON:  Wait.  You‘re talking about—you‘re saying the authors of this almost half a billion dollar study conceded in the study that the study itself was bogus?

ORNISH:  They considered that the study was flawed and that if they followed these patients for a longer period of time or if all of the patients had made the changes that they asked them to make, they may, in fact, have shown that this actually did make a difference in their lives. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, maybe I shouldn‘t read it.  I will say that, Dr.  Ornish, I like bacon and this made me feel better about liking bacon.  But maybe I‘m wrong.

ORNISH:  I‘m not telling you—I‘m not telling you not to eat bacon.


ORNISH:  I‘m not telling you not to smoke.  Just don‘t kid yourself. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Dr. Dean Ornish, thanks a lot.

ORNISH:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION tonight, could listening to your iPod at the office actually make you more productive as a worker?  Of course not.  But a new study suggests it does.  We‘ll explain when THE SITUATION comes back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “There is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.”  What a segue.  Joining me now, “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman—Max. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  But what did Napoleon Dynamite have to say about that?

CARLSON:  That‘s a very good question.  It‘s not in Bartlett‘s yet.

First up, iPod invades the workplace.  More and more employees are plugging in their ear buds on the job and turning out their—tuning out their co-workers, a trend that some bosses call unprofessional. 

But one study suggests 80 percent of technical and creative employees, like programmers, engineers or graphic designers, listen to music more than 20 percent of their working hours.  They say the music puts them into a zone that helps them focus. 

Of course they say that, Max.  What else are they going to say?  “I‘m

spacing out because I‘m bored at work”?  That‘s the truth.  There is no way

and I‘m all for music.  I have an iPod and I love it.  There‘s no way that listening to an iPod at work makes you more productive, any more than drinking beer at work, fun as it is, makes you more productive. 

KELLERMAN:  I don‘t know.  For some people it might.  I don‘t really think—I think the real issue here is people in the former generation—this happens every time technology changes the world, which it always does.  And people in the former generation, who are not used to that technology are scared about what it may mean.  What are the implications?

And the truth is, we can‘t possibly know what the implications are: if it helps you concentrate, if it isolates you from coworkers, if it‘s good because it creates private space in a public area.  I mean, there are many different ways it can... 

CARLSON:  All of those are plausible.  And I agree with you.

KELLERMAN:  ... we can have.

CARLSON:  We don‘t know.  Here‘s what we do know about creativity: it often happens in moments of silence.  If you‘ve ever had the experience of taking a shower and an idea comes to you that you‘ve been working through and it just sort of appears fully formed in your head. 

KELLERMAN:  And what were you doing at that moment in the shower?

CARLSON:  You were spacing out, looking at the soap.

KELLERMAN:  You were probably singing show tunes, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  The whole score from “Oklahoma.”  No.  Look, you were spacing out.  You were allowing silence the opportunity to get inside you, and then the creativity comes up.  Look, there is something to be said for not being distracted by background hum, by noise.  That‘s when, you know, the true you comes bubbling forth. 

KELLERMAN:  What if it‘s white noise that‘s distracting, really intrusive noise?  Aha!  You know, we don‘t know what the implications are.  And as most things—as most new technology changes, you have to wait and see before you react. 

CARLSON:  Tell that to H.R., Max. 

Next up, a Brooklyn judge issues a ruling that would make King Solomon proud.  Judge Sarah Krause (ph) has issued ordered a soon to be divorced couple to divide their home into his and her halves using sheet rock walls.

The wife got an order of protection against her husband in August, but because of the husband‘s heart condition, Judge Krause (ph) decided, quote, “The best way to deal with this was to split the home.”  And so they did, in two.

Now, this is an obvious violation of this couple‘s right to live apart as they want to.  But I‘m still for it.  And here‘s why.  Too many people clog the courts with disputes that ought to be and could be in many cases handled privately.  Work it out between yourselves.  But instead of doing that, people hire lawyers and they show up in court.  They expect the judge to solve everything. 

This judge‘s ruling is unreasonable, and that‘s why I like it.  It‘s a warning to people deal with it yourself.

KELLERMAN:  Well, it‘s a very—I mean, I think the guy is going to wind up with a 900 square foot, one bedroom, one bathroom which is in New York.  It‘s like a mansion, by the way. 

This guy has many residences all over town.  And either he or his wife could move to one of those residences.  This really looks like, from the outside, a “War of the Roses” situation where it‘s become an issue.  You know, who‘s going to get the house?  And neither one wants to budge.  And the judge copped out, Tucker.

CARLSON:  The judge copped out but the judge sent a really clear message, which is judges and the legal system itself can never really bring justice in matters of marriage, in a matter as personal as in marriage and the dissolution of a marriage.  Divorce, right?

In the end, you‘ve got to do it yourself.  You‘ve got to achieve your separate peace with your former spouse.  I think it‘s practically the only way.  Morally it‘s probably your obligation.  This points up the limits of civil justice when applied to the family.

KELLERMAN:  And let‘s face it.

CARLSON:  How‘s that for deep?

KELLERMAN:  And I agree with you in this sense, that you‘re pro marriage, and it makes it more difficult.  Right?  Suddenly the divorce isn‘t so comfortable and you could just go each on your own way.


KELLERMAN:  You‘re kind of forced to deal with it.  The marriage of institution has been—is mocked, basically, by how easy it is to get a divorce.  So Tucker, you‘ve won me over. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.  Buy her a necklace, apologize and tear down the dry wall.  That would be my advice.  Max Kellerman, thank you.

KELLERMAN:  Tucker Carlson.       

CARLSON:  See you tomorrow.

Still ahead on the show, no, this is not the latest “Girls Gone Wild” DVD.  We‘ll tell you which public servant was behind this racy hidden camera video when we visit “The Cutting Room Floor,” next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.”  Here to join us, Mr. Low Fat Diet himself, Willie Geist. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Actually, aren‘t you surprised they spent $415 million on that? 

CARLSON:  They got it completely wrong, according to Dr. Ornish.

GEIST:  You could invade somebody with that kind of cash. 

CARLSON:  Yes, and should.

GEIST:  It‘s a waste of money.

CARLSON:  Canada.  There are so many questions entering tonight‘s 48th Grammy Awards.  I‘m not sure what they were.  But I‘m told there were many.  U2 is tonight‘s big winner.  The band took home five Grammys, including album of the year, song of the year, and best rock performance by a group. 

My man Kanye West took home awards for best rap album, best rap song, and best rap solo performance.  I‘m in heaven.  He won.

GEIST:  I know how it pleased you.  And also the other story line I know you were following, Mariah Carey won three.  Of course, the drought she‘d been in in the last 16 years since she was a fresh faced ingenue in 1990 and took home a couple there.

CARLSON:  So glad. 

GEIST:  Congratulations.

CARLSON:  I‘m going to feel a certain lightness tomorrow when I wake up. 

GEIST:  Kelly Clarkson got a couple, too. 

CARLSON:  That‘s excellent.  Who‘s she?

GEIST:  We‘re celebrating tonight.

CARLSON:  That‘s the news next.  This one later.

This Florida sheriff‘s deputy either makes traffic stops only on women with bikinis or he‘s using his dashboard camera for something he shouldn‘t be.  Deputy Jack Muncy has been fired from the Martin County Sheriff‘s department after he was caught recording women‘s back sides with his dash cam.  The 10-year veteran said he was filming women because they were pretty.  That‘s a good reason, I guess.

GEIST:  Makes sense.  Tucker, that‘s profiling in the most wonderful way. 

CARLSON:  Yes, it is. 

GEIST:  If I might say.  No, that‘s terrible.  It‘s awful.  But you know what‘s funny.  This guy is actually appealing his firing.  On what grounds, exactly?  Doing surveillance on—butt surveillance or what?  You‘re not getting your job back.

CARLSON:  The problem is these women are not organized.  They don‘t have a pressure group.  Nobody represents them.  You know what I mean?  You‘re not going to see them protesting in front of the state house in Tallahassee. 

GEIST:  I‘m just worried about his defense. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  I am, too.  We‘re going to cover that. 

GEIST:  Breaking out the bikini ring or something.

CARLSON:  It‘s clear that Paris Hilton‘s very existence is a threat to our way of life.  But you would never really feel physically threatened by her.  Would you? 

One 37-year-old male event promoter apparently does feel threatened.  Brian Quintana has applied for and received a restraining order against Paris because he claims she has threatened and harassed him.  Quintana says Paris pushed him on several occasions.  She even had the nerve to bad mouth him. 

GEIST:  Ooh, sounds vicious.  Paris Hilton weighs 68 pounds.  If you need the court to protect you against her, hand in your man card right now, Brian Fantana—what‘s his name?

CARLSON:  You know what Liza did to David Gest, though.  They can be dangerous, these starlets.  Exactly.

Controversy is swirling once again around the high stakes cutthroat business of spelling bees.  The parents of a Reno, Nevada, eight grader are threatening to sue after their daughter was incorrectly eliminated from the Washoe County spelling bee. 

Sara Beckman correctly spelled the word “discernible,” but the judge mistakenly rang the bell signifying a wrong response.  Beckman will not be given another chance to win the bee.  Her mom says, quote, “I‘ll take this to the U.S. Supreme Court.” 

GEIST:  And you know, Tucker, I think it will be interesting to see where Alito comes down on this.  It‘s his first—it‘s a litmus test.  Is he conservative?  Isn‘t he?  I think this is an important decision for the Supreme Court. 

What is it about spelling bees, by the way, that attract these sort of weirdoes?  Have you seen the movie “Spellbound,” the documentary?

CARLSON:  No I haven‘t. 

GEIST:  I think these people put a lot of their life‘s eggs in the spelling bee basket.  And things start to get weird when they don‘t wind.

CARLSON:  It‘s even worse than, like, junior pageants?

GEIST:  It‘s much worse.  Yes.

CARLSON:  More intense.  More at stake, Willie.  Willie Geist.

That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thank you for watching.  Up next, “COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH.”  Have a great night.  See you tomorrow. 



Transcription Copyright 2006 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.>