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

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for March 28

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Tom Tancredo, David Jay, Rocky Slaughter

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”:  THE SITUATION starts right now.  What‘s the situation tonight?

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks.  Thanks to you at home for tuning in to THE SITUATION.  I‘m Tucker Carlson. 

We‘ve got a long list of stories tonight, but we begin with what just may be the first step in a large and possibly overdue White House shake up.  With the president‘s approval ratings in the toilet, there have been rampant rumors recently of the president making wholesale changes to his staff. 

Today, the first domino fell as Bush‘s chief of staff, Andy Card, resigned.  Card will be replaced by budget director Josh Bolten.  Here‘s the president discussing the move earlier today. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Earlier this month, Andy Card came to me and raised the possibility of stepping down as chief of staff.  After 5 ½ years he thought it might be time to return to private life.  And this past weekend, I accepted Andy‘s resignation. 


CARLSON:  So why did Andy Card, a devoted confidant of the president, step aside today?  And is this just the first step in a larger White House shake up?

For answers, we welcome MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan from Washington. 

Pat, welcome.


CARLSON:  I‘m great.  What does this mean?  I mean, is this just one man, tired and stepping aside?  Or is it a harbinger of something else to come?

BUCHANAN:  I have to think, Tucker, that it‘s probably the beginning of a lot of changes in the White House and maybe one or two in the cabinet.  I think the president has clearly got the message. 

I think the way he handed it today with Andy Card was very gracious, as it ought to be.  Here‘s a guy that‘s really served him loyally.  That chief of staff job is an 18-hour a day job.  And I thought the transfer of power was pretty gracious.

But again, the president went inside his home family.  Because your chief of staff is the fellow sitting between the staff of the president and the president himself.  The president‘s got to spend an hour a day with him at least, and maybe a lot more.  So he got somebody he‘s comfortable with.

CARLSON:  From what I understand, though, Andy Card has been a great chief of staff.  People that work at the White House like him.  He‘s a good manager of the staff itself, a good business manager, a good guy to talk to if you work there.  But I don‘t think—he‘s not an ideological powerhouse, is he?  He‘s not a policy maker. 

BUCHANAN:  I‘ve never though of him—I know he worked at the American Automobile Association back before he was with Bush.  I think he was transportation secretary under his father.  No one has ever associated, in my mind, Andy Card with being a powerful ideological force or someone with his own agenda. 

Everything I‘ve heard about him comports with what you said, Tucker.  That here‘s a guy that makes the trains run on time in the White House, who is respected, who doesn‘t seek a big limelight.  You rarely see him.  He certainly is not the major public figure, for example, that Karl Rove is.  I think he‘s sort of the ideal chief of staff that George Bush wanted. 

CARLSON:  Yes, so it seems odd that he‘d be the first to go.  People are, frankly, laughing at Bush.  That pains me just as an American.  You hate to see the president of the United States mocked here and abroad.  Is this going to be enough?  I mean, what does Bush need to do to stop this never-ending slide in public opinion?

BUCHANAN:  You know, Tucker, I think the—I have to say Iraq pervades everything.  Because whatever you say about the economy -- 4.5 percent growth and unemployment under five percent.  Things seem to be going pretty well. 

And then to have the president of the United States have his ratings down where they are, I think Iraq pervades everything.  And I‘ll be honest.  I don‘t know how the president deals with that to such an extent that he can make that suddenly look like some kind of success when every morning we pick up the paper and the headlines have some got some more disgusting act that‘s occurred. 

CARLSON:  So it‘s basically, you‘re saying, beyond his control.  And I tend to agree with you that there‘s this, this process set in motion, the war in Iraq, over which the president can have very little influence.  I mean, he can‘t win the war by fiat. 

BUCHANAN:  There‘s two things that can happen.  There are a number of things that can happen.  Two I can think of.

One is another Supreme Court appointment, which would be a godsend to George W. Bush.  I think he could make history with it.

Secondly, Tucker, on the back burner is this Iran situation, where the president and Cheney have painted themself into a corner.  They say Iran is not going to be allowed to continue with its nuclear program.  And that‘s on the record.  And so—and something big happening there, I think, could move Iraq off the front pages.  But I don‘t see anything else.  And I don‘t think—see anything that does it more than temporarily. 

I think he‘s going to have to start bringing those troops home pretty soon. 

CARLSON:  Boy, the whole thing is depressing.  Tell me, what do you know about Josh Bolten?  I interviewed him once, and he came off as unusually smart.  I mean, even for an intellectual, this guy seemed like a highly intelligent person.  What do you know about his politics?  What kind of effect is he going to have on the way the White House is run, do you think?

BUCHANAN:  I don‘t know Bolten personally.  I‘ve heard what you‘ve heard.  He‘s a tremendously competent person, extremely bright.  Obviously, he‘s got an excellent rapport with the president.  He goes back to his Texas days in the campaign of 2000. 

And that‘s important.  Because Tucker, you know, a president like Bush is someone, my guess is, who‘s got to have somebody in there.  And this fellow is going to be talking with him one, two and three hours a day.  He‘s with him virtually every moment.  He‘s in contact with him constantly. 

And the president—my guess is, this was strictly a George W. Bush appointment.  Unlike, for example, Howard Baker when he came in when I was there.  Or some of the other changes that were made in—even when Don Regan came.  It was Jim Baker and Don Regan changing chairs. 

CARLSON:  Right.

BUCHANAN:  And Reagan accepting it.

CARLSON:  Finally, the Republicans, obviously, very spooked about these upcoming midterm elections.  They think they‘re going to get creamed in Congress and the House and the Senate.  I think they‘re likely to.  They‘re pushing Bush to make changes.  Who are they pushing him to move out, do you think?

BUCHANAN:  I think they‘re very probably pushing him to move out probably John Snow, but I don‘t know what good that is going to do.  They‘re probably saying push out Rumsfeld, because Rumsfeld is a lightening rod.  And I would say probably those two.

But again, Tucker, I don‘t think that does it.  I think—I think what the president and Cheney are going to do, probably the right strategy is, you know, they know if it‘s a referendum on their record they‘re in trouble.  Therefore, you start a fight on your strongest issue: taxes, national security, and they want to impeach me.  And then you take a look at that line-up in the Democratic House—Conyers, Barney Frank and the rest of the Star Wars crowd.  And I think they‘ve got a couple issues they can win on. 

CARLSON:  Conyers and Barney Frank.  There‘s an election for you.  I totally agree with you.  Pat Buchanan in Washington.  Thanks a lot, Pat.

BUCHANAN:  Take it easy.  Bye-bye.

CARLSON:  Our “Hot and Bothered” segment was basically built for my next guest.  After the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would grant legal work status to millions of immigrants who entered this country illegally, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo did not remain silent. 

Tancredo, who recently called illegal immigration, quote, “a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation,” vowed that the bill would never pass in the House of Representatives.  The congressman wants to crack down on American employers who hire illegal aliens.  He also wants to build a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border to be patrolled by the military. 

We welcome now the original anti-immigration crusader, one of the most straight talking members of the House of Representatives, Tom Tancredo of Colorado. 

Congressman, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  So what happened?  Why these Republicans...

TANCREDO:  It‘s outrageous.  It‘s outrageous.

CARLSON:  Yes.  I thought Republicans, the people who vote Republican across the country were opposed to illegal immigration. 

TANCREDO:  Listen, not the people, just the people that vote Republican, Tucker.  Seventy percent of America wants an end to illegal immigration.  A majority want a reduction in illegal immigration. 

Who are these guys listening to?  That‘s what you have to ask yourself.  Who are the members of the Senate who voted for this and who will vote for it, by the way, when it gets to the floor?  Who are they listening to?  Could it possibly be business interests?  Could it possibly be big labor?  It sure as heck is not the American public. 

CARLSON:  Wouldn‘t a middle way here that might satisfy more people than the pretty ugly compromise that‘s being hammered out now, in my view, anyway, be increasing legal immigration?  Legal immigrants, by definition, aren‘t breaking the law.  It‘s a self selected group.  They are people who really want to be here and will wait, you know, for years to get their visas in some cases and in many cases are skilled.  They actually are bringing knowledge that we could use to this country.  Why not increase their numbers?

TANCREDO:  You know, Tucker, if that were the case, if we actually today—you know, you‘re referring to a time in America that is long past, when we actually said we need a particular type of skill or particular kind of ability before, you know, you can get access to the United States legally. 

We don‘t do that anymore.  That‘s all gone by the boards.  It‘s now just a complicated formula.  What is happening is that if you allowed more immigration into the country, what you would get, frankly, unless you became fairly selective, just as what you‘re saying, is millions and millions of people who are, in fact, not able to contribute more than low level of skills.  Hence they do not contribute to the overall economy in a way that‘s helpful.  Because in a short period of time, those folks become a cost to society, not a contributing factor. 

CARLSON:  Then why not change the rules?  I mean, if Microsoft and other big American companies are clearly going to be building more and more manufacturing plants in, say, India which has a very highly educated population.  People I think would be contributors to American society.  I think most other Americans agree.

Why not structure the immigration rules such that well educated people from Ethiopia and India and Korea, you know, people who have high-tech skills could move here. 

TANCREDO:  Absolutely.  It only makes common sense.  It will never happen over here. 


TANCREDO:  Well, for one thing, it makes too much sense.  But in reality—you know, being just a little facetious there.  In reality, what we are hooked on is cheap labor.  Cheap labor, and I mean millions and millions of people who provide cheap labor.  It‘s really that that forces this whole thing. 

Here‘s what happens, Tucker.  You get, let‘s say, 13 to 20 million people here in the United States that are still attached, you know, both emotionally, linguistically and even politically to their country of origin, most of them from Mexico. 

They come to the United States.  They start—they do menial jobs and work hard.  God bless them.  They‘re good people for the most part.  And believe it or not even with the low wages they get, they send billions of dollars back home. 

That creates all of these lobbying entities out of these countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and the rest to come here and pressure us to keep those borders open to allow cheap labor.  Not high-tech labor.  They have no interest in exporting that to the United States. 

CARLSON:  Right.  It‘s—isn‘t it—I completely agree with you.  There are foreign interests at play here.  There are American business interests who have a financial interest in keeping a serf class, basically. 

TANCREDO:  Absolutely.  That‘s right. 

CARLSON:  But aren‘t there also are a lot of upper middle class Americans who employ illegal immigrants in their own homes?  Essentially yuppies who don‘t want to give up their cheap housekeepers?  I mean, that plays a role here, too, doesn‘t it?

TANCREDO:  Every time I speak to a group and it‘s in an affluent area, I can tell, you know, there‘s a lot of people who are sitting there while you‘re talking about all these people coming across the border illegally and the potential threat to the country and blah, blah, blah.  And they‘re going, “Hmm”. 

And then you say, “And you know what?  Even people who are hiring nannies and gardeners and they know it.”  And all of a sudden, there‘s a change in the atmosphere in the room.  Because they‘re all thinking, “Wow, does—does he mean I‘d have to send Juan home?”

CARLSON:  Right.

TANCREDO:  Oh, now that‘s different. 

CARLSON:  It just means you‘ve got to pay taxes for someone you employ, like every other person in the country.  So when is the Congress of the United States going to truly punish employers in this country who benefit from illegal immigration but who aren‘t paying what everybody else pays who‘s obeying the law?

TANCREDO:  Which would be the one thing we could do. 

And you know, Tucker.  We do not have to pass another single law.  Congress doesn‘t have to do anything.  Congress already has passed the laws long since—a long time ago saying it‘s against the law to hire people who are here illegally. 

What we need desperately is a president who will enforce the law.  We don‘t need another law on the books.  All we need is somebody in the White House who will tell the head of homeland security, “This is what you‘re going to do.”

CARLSON:  That‘s right.

TANCREDO:  “You‘re actually going to enforce the law.”  Until then, Tucker, we can—over here, we could pass—we could pass all the bills that I‘ve introduced.

CARLSON:  That doesn‘t matter.

TANCREDO:  And we still would not be able to fix the problem until you get the executive to go along with it. 

CARLSON: I just think it‘s such a shame that this is not the executive to do it.  It depresses me.  I think you.

TANCREDO:  Me, too, buddy. 

CARLSON:  Thank you, Congressman, for pointing that out.  Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado.  We appreciate it.

TANCREDO:  Likewise.

CARLSON:  Still to come, an abstinence only program gets the axe in Rhode Island.  Should schools be teaching our kids about sex in the first place?

Plus, some fans of “The Sopranos” are unhappy with this season‘s story line.  Is it time for that show to sleep with the fishes?  We‘ll debate it when THE SITUATION rolls on. 


CARLSON:  Still ahead, what it‘s like to be a pregnant Scientologist.  We‘ll tell you.  Plus, we raise the issue of asexuality with the red-blooded man who swears by it.  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.

The American Civil Liberties Union is sticking its nose in sex education.  The ACLU says the Right Time, Right Place abstinence program developed for the Rhode Island school system endorses particular religious views and promotes sexist stereotypes.

Rhode Island‘s Department of Education apparently agrees.  They pulled the program from public schools this week.  Here to tell us why schools ought to be teaching sex ed of any kind, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow.

Rachel, welcome.


I don‘t like the idea of anybody putting their nose in sex education.

CARLSON:  Creepy.  Well, the whole thing is creepy.  I mean, I guess my preference is they‘re teaching sex ed to, you know, 14-year-old girls.  I don‘t have a problem with telling them to be abstinent.  I‘m for that, actually.  I don‘t want a 14-year-old -- 14-year-olds, they‘re not ready for sex.  I think we can all agree on that.

But why is the school getting involved in this in the first place? 

It‘s none of their business.

MADDOW:  I feel like it‘s reasonable that schools give kids basic information about the world around them.  I think that by the time you get out of school, you ought to know how to balance a checkbook. 

I think you also probably ought to know that you‘re not going to get pregnant from swimming in a public pool.  Like you ought to understand how sex works.  You ought to understand how people get pregnant, how people get STDs and how to avoid them.  I think it‘s just basic information that‘s useful to have.

CARLSON:  But it‘s also information on which there is broad and deep disagreement.

MADDOW:  How to get pregnant?

CARLSON:  No, about whether kids should be exposed to this knowledge at this age.  It‘s not really the school‘s place, it seems to me.  You are making a value judgment that it‘s not your place to make.

MADDOW:  Giving people information about how you get pregnant is basic biological information about how human bodies work.  I mean, it‘s not necessarily—like telling somebody how you got pregnant, you‘re not making it more likely that they will.

CARLSON:  I‘m not saying you are.  I‘m merely saying, though, once you start talking about sex with kids, it‘s a very slippery and easily descended slope.  I mean, why—why not tell kids how to have the best sex they possibly can?  Why not technique?  It‘s a serious question.  Once you raise it, like, why stop with how to prevent pregnancy? 

Why even start is my question.  Parents—every kid knows how you get pregnant.  Let‘s be honest.  Every—everyone.  Come on, everybody.

MADDOW:  You‘ve got 800,000 teenagers getting pregnant in this country every year.  How many of them want to be getting pregnant?

CARLSON:  How many of them don‘t know how you get pregnant?  Zero. 

Everybody knows how you get pregnant.  Some people make mistakes anyway.

MADDOW:  And these abstinence education programs, we spent somewhere between a half billion and a billion dollars on, as taxpayers. 

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  These programs are telling kids condoms don‘t stop you from getting pregnant.  Condoms don‘t stop you from getting STDs.   It‘s like the equivalent of telling people, we don‘t want to get in a car crash, so don‘t drive.  And by the way, if you do drive, the seat belt is not doing to save you.  It‘s wrong.  The information they‘re giving is wrong.  It‘s actually very dangerous. 

CARLSON:  It‘s quite literally true.  You can get pregnant while wearing a I condom and you can get an STD.  They decrease your chances of both those events dramatically, but it‘s still possible.  So if we‘re going to tell the truth, let‘s tell it.

But the argument we‘re having right now is a prefect example of why you shouldn‘t even begin to have the conversation.  Parents, that‘s their purview.  They‘re parents.  They and they alone have the right to talk to their kids about that kind of stuff.

MADDOW:  I want—I don‘t want to be so squeamish in schools that we feel like you can talk about how, you know, bears get pregnant and you can talk about how amoebas reproduce. 

But when it comes to human beings, that can only be discussed in the home.  I want kids to know basic information about the human body, sex, STDs and pregnancy.  And I don‘t think we should be so squeamish about it.  I don‘t think...

CARLSON:  We‘re not squeamish.  OK.  Maybe they can, but it‘s—the school isn‘t ultimately in charge of the children.  The parents are. 

MADDOW:  Sure.

CARLSON:  It‘s only the parents‘ problem.  And so then...

MADDOW:  So why should parents be teaching their kids about balancing check books. 

CARLSON:  It‘s totally up to the parents, as far as I‘m concerned. 

We all want kids to have a happy and fulfilling sex life.  Why shouldn‘t the school teach the kids, you know, this position is actually the most satisfying for both partners?  Why not, honestly?

MADDOW:  I think the Jocelyn Elders shouldn‘t have been fired for saying, “You know what?  Masturbation can be discussed in schools without the school blowing up.  I honestly think...

CARLSON:  She works for a coward.  That was her problem, I guess.

MADDOW:  Do you think that Jocelyn Elders should have been fired for that?

CARLSON:  Jocelyn Elders was—I know a lot about her, having covered her when I was at a newspaper in Arkansas.  There are many reasons that I don‘t have time to get into right now, she was an appalling figure.  She should not have had at public expense in the first place.  That statement, whatever.  She was a buffoon.

MADDOW:  Well, come on, Tucker.  The issue is whether or not we‘re going to be honest and we‘re going to step up.  We‘re going to be adults and be able to say, “This is how human beings get pregnant.  This is how you stop it.  This is how to have sex without getting an STD‘s.” 

Or whether we‘re going to say that can‘t be discussed in school. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  And then we would never have this argument.  That would be an argument ender.  There would be peace in our land, Rachel.  And I think you should contemplate that tonight. 

MADDOW:  I always thought you were kind of a pro-sex kind of guy. 

CARLSON:  I totally—I totally am.  I just don‘t want some creepy fourth grade teacher weighing in on it with my girls.  Period.

MADDOW:  Yes, but as long as your girls understand how these things work, I‘m happy to her about it.

CARLSON:  That‘s up to me.

Rachel Maddow, thank you.

MADDOW:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Still to come, playing hooky could cost high school kids their cars.  We‘ll explain, when THE SITUATION comes back. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Each year, Washington raises about $2 trillion in taxes and fees. 

That‘s “trillion” with a “T.”  Where does all that money go?

Highways and armies, yes.  A surprisingly large amount also goes to studies designed to prove the obvious or the not worth knowing.  Booze makes you drunk.  Head injuries are bad.  A new study will be analyzing urine in waste water to determine how much cocaine you‘re using.

Are these all valid uses of your tax dollars?  You be the judge. 

Here now, our “Top Five” examples of tax-funded studies we might have lived without. 


CARLSON (voice-over):  April 15 is just around the corner, and Uncle Sam wants your hard-earned cash.  Why?  When it comes to federal spending, the government has taxpayers over a barrel: a $25 billion pork barrel, that is. 

Ever spend sleepless nights wondering about the sexual behavior of lizards?  Government funded researchers to.  They‘re spending $900,000 of your tax dollars watching these guys go at it.

You may want to notify your local PETA representative about this one. 

For $2.3 million, scientists may be able to tell us how rhesus monkeys react while being tortured under the influence of mind altering drugs.  Couldn‘t they just study this guy?

When it comes to explaining the unpredictable flow of catch up, scientists just can‘t cut the mustard.  That‘s right, a $57 million NASA study.  They‘re the same brain trust that put us on the moon.  Talk about one small step for man.

The American Medical Association thought coed lifestyles required extensive research.  The study‘s fascinating conclusion?  Stop the presses.  Sex and intoxication among women, more prevalent during spring break. 

And tonight‘s No. 1 spot is reserved for those dedicated researchers who whiled away the time watching horses masturbate.  That cost tax payers $200,000.  Keep in mind, some day we may finally learn what horses really think about when they seek self gratification. 

ALLAN LANE, VOICE ACTOR:  It‘s the truth.


CARLSON:  Your tax dollars at work. 

Well, Bill Clinton gave a speech in London today.  It almost doesn‘t matter what he‘s supposed to be talking about, but when Bill Clinton gives a speech in a foreign land, you can be certain he‘ll focus on two topics, his own greatness as president and America‘s moral shortcomings. 

Sure enough, today‘s talk gave special emphasis to the second point.  Not have are Britain‘s economy and its foreign policies are the enemy of the United States.  In other words, they‘re better, because, as Clinton never tired from complying, the U.S. is not as impressive as you think it this.

He‘s made that same point in Africa, as well as most damagingly in the Middle East.  Yes, it is offensive to see a former president cast these thoughts on his country.  He is only 59 years old.  He has no job and unlimited free time.  I some cases, it‘s ever popular and loved around the world. 

Imagine a respected former president making our case to doubters abroad.  We could really use that right now.  Too bad bill Clinton is the sort of man who can only brag about himself. 

Coming up, what‘s it like to be asexual?  We‘ll ask someone who created an online community for people who don‘t want to have sex, next. 

Plus, a California teen takes on health nuts who want soda machines

back in school.  Can‘t he make a guilt-free

We‘ll be right back. 


CARLSON:  Still to come, how do asexuals get aroused?  We‘ll tell you. 

And should chronically absent students lose their driving privileges?  We‘ll get to all that in just a minute, but first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.


CARLSON:  Time now for “Under the Radar” segment which comes to us tonight from San Francisco, California. 

David Jay is a 23 ladies man who is also a virgin and plans on remaining one.  He‘s not a priest.  He doesn‘t want to become a priest.  He just says he‘s not interested in sex.  And apparently he is not alone.  Dave started an online community for asexuals called  He claims to have more than 6,000 members worldwide. 

Here to talk about a community “Under the Radar”, David JAY 

David, thanks for coming on. 

DAVID JAY, FOUNDER, ASEXUALITY.ORG:  Thanks very much for having me.

CARLSON:  Now, how does asexuality different from celibacy? 

JAY:  Well, celibacy is a choice.  Asexual people don‘t experience sexual attraction.  For whatever reason most people in the world feel the need to make sex a big part of their lives, asexual people just don‘t. 

CARLSON:  So you don‘t think about sex?

JAY:  Not—I don‘t desire sex.  I mean, I see sex in the world around me all the time, so I think about it.  I know that it‘s there. 

CARLSON:  You‘re aware that the average man has a porno movie on a continuous loop going in his brain all times, and you don‘t? 

JAY:  I‘ve been told that, more or less.  I have a hard time believing it.  But if you say so. 

CARLSON:  So why aren‘t you the most successful man in the world?  I mean, you‘re freed from the enormous energy it takes the average person, average man, anyway, to think about sex all day long.  I mean, I don‘t, you‘d have time to cure cancer.  What are you doing with your free time?

JAY:  Let‘s see.  Well, right now, I‘m being on national television.

CARLSON:  Good point.

JAY:  Other than that, I mean, in a lot of ways, we just exchange one set of kind of things we have to worry about for another.  I mean, asexual people, I‘ve got the same emotional needs as everyone else.  So I still have to worry about relationships.  I have to worry about, you know, the complexities of non-sexual intimacy rather than the complexities of sexual intimacy.  But...

CARLSON:  How did you determine you were an asexual?

JAY:  Well, all of my friends when I was 13, 14, all my friends kind of started realizing that they were sexual people, talking about being sexually attracted to people.  And I just couldn‘t relate to what they were saying. 

And so at that time no one was talking about it.  No one was acknowledging that you could not like sex and that was OK.  So I went through kind of a really complicated process of just figuring myself out.  And once I had, once I was comfortable with myself, I founded this web site,  And a whole community has really grown up around it. 

CARLSON:  So you never have sexual impulses?  You never have a physical sexual response?

JAY:  I and a lot of other asexual people can experience sexual arousal, but that doesn‘t mean we desire to be sexual in our relationships with people. 

CARLSON:  So in other words, your body desires sex, but you don‘t feel like entering into sex with another person?

JAY:  You could put it that way.  I would just say that my body reacts a certain way.  What that means, you can‘t really ascribe a desire.

CARLSON:  It‘s a significant question because it suggests that it‘s not the product of a hormonal imbalance. 

JAY:  Yes.

CARLSON:  I mean, people who have been, for instance, castrated, I suppose, don‘t have the same kind of sexual impulses that men who have not been castrated have. 

JAY:  Yes.

CARLSON:  But you have the ability to be sexually aroused?

JAY:  Yes, yes.  And right now, there‘s been so little research done on asexuality that for the most part we don‘t know.  But what little there has been in the case that there‘s no hormonal imbalance, there‘s no emotional disorder associated.  There‘s nothing wrong with asexual people.  It‘s just the way that we are. 

CARLSON:  OK.  I think a lot of viewers, and I know as I‘ve been talking about this segment during the day, a number of people have said, well, he‘s gay and he‘s just repressed.  Do you get that a lot, and is that true?

JAY:  A little bit.  I mean, the thing is that asexual people still experience attraction. 

CARLSON:  Right.

JAY:  Can you be asexual and gay, asexual and straight, asexual and

bi.  Personally, I‘m attracted maybe 80 percent to women, 20 to men.  But -

and other asexual people all over the spectrum.  So it‘s not about attraction, sexual attraction maybe I‘m not having that I don‘t realize. 

And also, I‘m pretty active about how I explore my relationships with people, how I explore intimacy.  And I‘m not holding anything back. 

CARLSON:  Do you feel like you‘re missing out?

JAY:  No.  No.  I think that sex is a great part of a lot of people‘s lives.  And it‘s really important.  It‘s a great way to do a lot of things to show that you love someone, to express intimacy, to have fun. 

CARLSON:  And to have children, too, for that matter. 

JAY:  Yes.  It‘s also not the only way to have children. 

CARLSON:  Well, actually it is kind of the only way to have children.

JAY:  So I‘m interested in all the other ways. 

CARLSON:  I think even now, a man still has to—still has to ejaculate for a child to be born. 

JAY:  It‘s not the only way to raise children. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Interesting.  Do you get people judging you?  I mean, this is such a heavily sexualized society.  When you tell people, “Incidentally, I‘m an asexual,” do people say “Ew!”  Do they say, “That‘s great”?  I mean, what do they say?

JAY:  For the most part people have been accepting.  I think that there are some people out there who really just think that sex is kind of a vital part being human. 


JAY:  And they‘ll sometimes take issue with us.  But other than that, we‘ve had—our community has been pretty well accepted.  I think we‘re kind of creating some new discussions about sexuality and the different ways that it can or doesn‘t have to fit in someone‘s life that have never happened before. 

CARLSON:  How about this: why don‘t you just try it once, and then you‘ll know for certain whether you like it or not?

JAY:  A lot of other asexual people have and haven‘t like it.  And also, from what I understand, a lot of times the first time isn‘t that great.  How many times do I have to try it before I can actually say. 

CARLSON:  It‘s like goat cheese.  You know, when you‘re little you think, “I would never eat goat cheese.  It comes from a goat.  I didn‘t even know they had milk.”  And then you try it, and it‘s sort of intriguing.  Then after three or four goat cheese experiences, you know, you like goat cheese. 

JAY:  I mean, honestly, did you have to try sex to realize that it was something that you wanted to do?  Do most 15-year-old boys have to try sex?

CARLSON:  It wasn‘t a hard sell in my case.  But I don‘t know, on the principal that everything is worth trying at least once, you don‘t want to try it?

JAY:  I don‘t—I don‘t really see why I should.  I mean, there‘s so many other things that I‘m very interested in that I have strong feelings about that I‘m still exploring.  Right.  There‘s a whole—a whole huge world of experiences out there.  One tiny sliver of that is sex.  And why should I focus—you know, why should I be focused and worried about this one tiny sliver when the rest—there‘s so much in the rest of it that I‘m passionate about. 

CARLSON:  I think that‘s a totally fair point.  Maybe some day you‘ll try it.  If you do, come back on and tell us what you thought. 

David Jay from San Francisco.  Thanks. 

JAY:  Thanks. 

CARLSON:  We turn now to a man who has dabbled in asexuality himself. 

He is “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  I like how you explored the George Costanza of it all, Tucker.  The “once you don‘t have to worry about sex, you should be a super genius.”  Right? 

CARLSON:  It‘s totally true.  I mean, it‘s completely true.  Totally true.  He should be curing cancer.  Maybe he will.

All right, Max.  What‘s the worst that could happen if you cut class in high school?  They could suspend you, like you stay home for a few days?  That‘s not much of a deterrent. 

But if a proposed law passes in the state of Illinois, the government will be able to yank the driver‘s licenses of kids who skip school.  Any student under the age of 18 who misses at least 18 days of school without a valid excuse would have their license taken away. 

I think it‘s outrageous the state is getting involved in high school attendance.  Max has fallen in love with the idea of yanking kids‘ driving licenses away just because they miss a couple days of school. 

Max, look, the idea that your driver‘s license forever hangs over your head, a privilege to be taken away from you if you step out of line if you displease the state, makes me really uncomfortable.  If you skip class, you should be punished, but it‘s got nothing to do with your driver‘s license. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, in the first place, driver‘s license, it is a privilege; it‘s not a right.  But let‘s talk about for a second. 

Truancy.  What‘s our national character?  Nations have characters.  The laws tell you a lot about that character.  One thing that‘s very important in our country, to our country is education. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  You must be in school until you are 16 years old.  And that law has been around for a long time.  We really care about it. 

So how do you enforce that rule?  Because when you talk about, you know, holding the parents responsible, making them accountable, you don‘t like it. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  You know, we‘ve done segments talking about that. 

CARLSON:  Yes, that‘s true.  I don‘t like it.

KELLERMAN:  How do you make the kid accountable?  I mean, this is kind of—it‘s a good thing.  You know, if you‘re going to make the kid account annual, you take a privilege away.  And it‘s a privilege.  It‘s not a right. 

CARLSON:  You know, actually, I agree with you.  I do.  I‘m sorry, I do.  Now that you put it that way, you‘re absolutely right.  I agree with you.  I‘m going to stop right there.  Max, you win.

KELLERMAN:  I love it.

CARLSON:  It‘s true. 

On to the next one.  Did “The Sopranos” lose its magic during the 21-month layoff.  That‘s what some people are saying after three episodes of the new season.  It‘s still the top rated show on all of cable, but its ratings are the lowest since season two, six years ago. 

Critics say competition from “Desperate Housewives” and a boring story line have hurt the show.  Everyone needs to settle down.  There‘s nothing wrong with the best program in the history of television.

Max will be forced against his will to argue that “The Sopranos” is finished. 

Look, for the sake—I‘m arguing my heart.  I know you‘re arguing for the sake of arguing.  But let me just put this all in context. 


CARLSON:  Maybe this hasn‘t been the strongest season ever, “The Sopranos”, but compared to what?  I mean, this is the greatest television show, hour-long show, any way, certainly hour-long drama, ever made for television ever, ever, ever. 


CARLSON:  So maybe it‘s not quite as excellent yet as it was last season.  But it‘s still the greatest.  And to give it up for “Desperate Housewives”, how lame is that?  That‘s disloyal. 

KELLERMAN:  The reason it‘s against my will, not only do I also love “The Sopranos”, but I work for HBO Boxing, which is, not incidentally, the best sports programming in the world by far.  Period.  And Tucker, in sports, let me tell you, it ain‘t close.

But the first episode this year was great.  It was great.  You know why?  You called it the greatest ever.  You do want to all it the greatest ever something.  Maybe you like “Curb Your Enthusiasm” better or whatever.  But it‘s the greatest kind of drama, right? 

But it‘s not really a drama.  When it‘s best, it‘s a dark mob comedy.  That‘s when it‘s really great.  And when it focuses on funny mob stuff, it‘s great.  When it focuses on—when it becomes a soap opera and tries to become everything to every one, a woman‘s show, men don‘t care.  No one, certainly not men, we do not care about A.J.‘s report card.  And you know, for two episodes, Tony‘s in a coma.  Everyone goes into a coma with him, because it becomes a soap opera. 

CARLSON:  No, but see, that‘s the beauty of the show.  It‘s an everything show.  It‘s “Days of Our Lives”; it‘s ultimate fighting and cage matches.  Right?  The soap opera element appeals to a certain demographic, but then the homicide element appeals to another, all wrapped together in the seamless package.  It‘s brilliant. 

KELLERMAN:  But when they turn their back on their core constituency, Tucker, when they try that big tent politics and sell their core out, it loses its way.  I‘m trying to put it in political terms.

CARLSON:  It‘s a political show.  It‘s the third way show.  It offends you as a purist.  I can see that, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  No, no.  I love it.  I love it. 

CARLSON:  It‘s still the greatest.  Max Kellerman.

KELLERMAN:  The folks at HBO, don‘t listen to him.  I love it.

CARLSON:  Thank you, Max.

KELLERMAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, is it really possible that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes‘ relationship has become even more bizarre?  There‘s one thing Scientology has taught us, it‘s that anything is possible.  The latest mind blowing twist when THE SITUATION comes back. 


VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, things get ugly in a school yard brawl over soda.  Plus, Tom Cruise finds a way to make the beautiful process of child birth creepy and awkward.

CARLSON:  Boy, what has Tom done now?  We‘ll tell you when THE SITUATION comes back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Beginning next summer, California high schools will have to start ridding themselves of soda.  By July of 2009, there will be no sign of Coke, Mountain Drew or even Mr. Pibb.  The soda ban is part of an initiative backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to combat childhood obesity. 

My next guest is fighting, and fighting pretty hard, I might ad, for his right to drink soda in high school.  Rocky Slaughter is a senior at Shasta High School in Reading, California, and the founder and president of the High School Student Union of California.  He says the soda ban reminds him of prohibition. 

Rocky joins me from Sacramento tonight.  Rocky Slaughter, welcome. 


Hi, Tucker. 

SLAUGHTER:  So are you addicted to soda?  I mean, what‘s—I mean, look, let me just say at the outset, I‘m completely on your side.  Banning soda is a stupid idea.  But you have taken to the streets on behalf of Mr.  Pibb.  Why have you done that?

SLAUGHTER:  Yes.  Well, actually, our senior group hasn‘t taken a political move in pursuit of getting soda back in school.  Actually, there‘s in the San Francisco Chronicle today that explained that you‘re trying to push for soda back in schools. 

And the point that we‘re trying to clear up is that we‘re not for soda; we are against the soda ban.  Because we actually believe that any time you put a ban on anything, it‘s not going to be effective in fixing the problem.  And the problem that they cited was the childhood obesity problem that‘s going on in California high schools.  And by placing this ban on them, they‘re only masking the obesity problem and not trying to fix it. 

CARLSON:  So what you‘re saying is you‘re not for soda; you‘re just against a ban.  So you‘re pro-choice on the soda question.  You don‘t want to see back ally sodas here is what you‘re saying?

SLAUGHTER:  That‘s correct.  Pro-choice for sodas.

CARLSON:  For sodas.  Now Rocky, with the energy and the intelligence, which clearly you gave; you‘re spending on this soda ban.  You could be president of the United States some day, but you‘re focusing on soda?  Why is that?  Why is this so important to you?

SLAUGHTER:  Actually I started the Shasta High School Student Union at the beginning of this year.  And it was brought to me as a concern from the student body.  And as a representative of the student body—the student union isn‘t a student council that deals with senior proms and dances or anything that deals with the school.

We actually are an organization to protect student rights.  And what happens is the concern was brought to me and in wanting to represent the student body at my school, I started investigating the soda ban and found out that there is a lot of issues, from revenue loss to the fact that students haven‘t actually changed any of their choices, because you‘re just taking away from them on campus. 

CARLSON:  They go off campus and get it. 

SLAUGHTER:  That‘s correct.  You have to remember that the soda ban doesn‘t extend to the mall.  It doesn‘t extend to the movie theater. 

CARLSON:  Right.

SLAUGHTER:  And any time, like I said, you have this ban.  Actually, some people would argue that sodas become more desirable. 

CARLSON:  Of course they do.  It‘s like prison.  It‘s like you can‘t smoke in prison.  All of a sudden, you know, a pack of Newports cost $100.  It‘s like you can‘t smoke. 

Some of our viewers are going to be a little suspicious of the fact you go to Shasta High School.  That‘s like going to Fresca High School or Mountain Dew Junior High.  Is there any relationship between the name of your school and this crusade you‘re on? 

SLAUGHTER:  No, there‘s actually not a relationship between—I belief that Shasta soda that you‘re referencing, that‘s very interesting.  But the first person to ever bring you up. 

CARLSON:  How many sodas a day do you drink, Rocky, honestly? 

SLAUGHTER:  I used to drink—I used to drink about three sodas a day or more.  It was quite a bit.  I used to drink quite a bit of soda.  But I did research, and our policy is calling for the education of nutritional decisions. 

CARLSON:  Right.

SLAUGHTER:  And in practicing what I preach, I have actually cut my soda consumption down to maybe one or two times a week. 

CARLSON:  And tell us what—when you do indulge in the soda one or two times a week, what soda do you prefer?

SLAUGHTER:  I like Pepsi, not making an advertisement. 

CARLSON:  It‘s the choice of a new generation.  That‘s not surprising. 


CARLSON:  Rocky Slaughter, I wish you all the luck.  I hope you win this.  I hope you take your case on to the California assembly, on to the governor‘s office and that we‘ll be hearing much more from you.  Rocky Slaughter of Shasta High School in Reading, California.  Thanks a lot for coming on.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, how much for that kid in the window?  We‘ll have a special SITUATION investigation sees the alarming trend of children getting stuck in vending machines when we visit the “Cutting Room Floor”. 

And don‘t forget, THE SITUATION voice mail is back by popular demand.  This Thursday, you can call 1-877-TCARLSON, 877, rather, TCARLSON to let us know what‘s on your mind, 1-877-TCARLSON.  Give us a call.  We‘ll be right back.  Our voice moil is back.  Call us and we‘ll be right back. 


CARLSON:  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.”  And that means, of course, Willie is here. 


CARLSON:  Just a little dance move. 

GEIST:  Rocky Slaughter is serious about soda.  Isn‘t he?

CARLSON:  Yes, he is.

GEIST:  God, he‘s serious about soda.

CARLSON:  I like that kid. 

GEIST:  One thing he‘s wrong about.  Pepsi, incorrect.  Coke.  Pepsi, of course, communist.

CARLSON:  I know.  Lee, Marlboro-Winston, I could go on.

GEIST:  Of course.  Chunky peanut butter, Skippy.  You could go on and on.  McDonald‘s and Burger King.  There‘s a long list. 

CARLSON:  I know.

GEIST:  Want to go back real quick: goat cheese analogy to sex.  That was actually shocking.  But I kind of...

CARLSON:  It‘s so accurate.  And can I say, I thought of that as we were talking.  I discounted goat cheese for many years until I tried it. 

GEIST:  So wise.  Kind of like Roquefort.  It‘s a little strange.


GEIST:  You‘re not sure what you‘re getting into. 

CARLSON:  I have a feeling Mr. Jay is going to be dipping in at some point. 

GEIST:  He should.

CARLSON:  You may have heard that under the rules of Scientology, Katie Holmes will not be allowed to make a sound during the birth of the child she‘s about to have with Tom Cruise.  The practice is called silent birth.  Scientologists believe it is traumatic for newborns to hear their mother‘s scream during birth.

If Katie gets the urge to yell, she can simply refer to one of the many signs Cruise has reportedly had installed in his house.  They read, quote, “Be silent and make all movement slow and understandable.” 

GEIST:  Wow.  Did you ever stop and say to yourself when did this happen?  Like one minute we‘re watching “Top Gun” and everything‘s going fine.

CARLSON:  I know, I know.

GEIST:  Tom Cruise is cool.  “Mission: Impossible.”  Then I turn around and he‘s telling the girl from “Dawson‘s Creek” to be quiet while she‘s having his child.  What have you done with Maverick?  It‘s crazy. 

CARLSON:  That man needs a stern deprogramming. 

GEIST:  I wonder what happened.  I do.

CARLSON:  Well, you generally don‘t have to have sounds coming from the vicinity of your underwear. 

GEIST:  So true.

CARLSON:  But what if those sounds were sweet, sweet music?  A new line of men‘s underwear offers a handy carrying pocket for your iPod.  Function and fashion collide with these drawers, designed for people who like to work out, but don‘t have a place to put their iPod. 

GEIST:  And you know what this is really about, Tucker?  Stuffing your pants.  Because nobody‘s buying that for the iPod.  You slide a nice piece of produce right in there.

CARLSON:  Exactly.  Twenty bucks Apple will provide a zucchini shaped iPod by the end of the year. 

The national epidemic of children getting stuck in vending machines has continued in Minnesota.  This 3-year-old boy ended up in a toy machine at Godfather‘s Pizza on Sunday.  The mother said, she turned her back for just a minute and the boy climbed into the machine‘s discharge shoot. 

When firemen finally rescued the boy, he didn‘t want to come out.  Now this is the third stuck in a vending machine kid we have seen in the last two years.  Wow.

GEIST:  That‘s a trend.  You know, we never tell people how to raise their kids, but if your child ends up in a vending machine, it‘s time to review your parenting techniques.  How long did you turn your back, for three and a half hours?

CARLSON:  Just a second.  Just a second, Willie. 

GEIST:  That guy did not want to go out.  I‘m swimming in toys.  Leave me alone. 

CARLSON:  He looked like a very happy child.

GEIST:  I think you would be, too.

CARLSON:  I think you‘d need to be covered with pizza grease to go up that chute.

Willie Geist.  Thank you.

GEIST:  See you tomorrow.

CARLSON:  That‘s it for us tonight on THE SITUATION.  Thanks for watching.  We‘ll see you back here tomorrow from Washington.  Have a good night.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. 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.