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

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for April 4

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Juan Jose Gutierrez, Mudcat Saunders, Eric Pianka, Sarah Tobonen, Dan Taylor

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  We always appreciate it.

We begin tonight with breaking news out of Washington, D.C. 

Authorities have arrested the deputy press secretary for the Department of

Homeland Security tonight for using the Internet to seduce a child. 

MSNBC‘s chief Washington correspondent, Norah O‘Donnell, has the latest details.

Norah, what is this story?

NORAH O‘DONNELL, MSNBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Well, the Department of Homeland Security deputy press secretary, Brian Doyle, was arrested tonight nearby here in Silver Springs, Maryland, facing 23 charges of using a computer to seduce a child and transmitting pornography to a minor. 

Now he was arrested by officials and the sheriff at—from Polk County in Florida, who were actually conducting this investigation.  Brian Doyle with the Department of Homeland Security thought that he was talking online with a 14-year-old girl, but it was actually an undercover cop. 

The sheriff, Grady Judd of Polk County in Florida, said tonight that Brian Doyle is sick and that when his officers arrived tonight, he actually confessed. 


SHERIFF GRADY JUDD, POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA:  It doesn‘t come any more hard core.  He graphically explained to a 14-year-old girl what he would like to do to her and what he would like her to do to him. 

What shocked us was he didn‘t hesitate upon the first conversation to identify himself as a deputy press secretary for homeland security.  And quite frankly, we rushed this investigation, because we don‘t know what access he might have to confidential information. 


O‘DONNELL:  Now, I spoke with a spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.  They said they take very serious these allegations.  It is important to note that the inspector general with the Department of Homeland Security was also involved, as well.  Secret Service agents.  So they knew they had to rush this.  Because of course, it‘s a top government official who probably has some access to classified information. 

The other thing, Tucker, about this story.  We know these people are sick, but he was using—allegedly using his government issued cell phone to make many of the calls.  He gave this—what he thought was a 14-year-old girl his office phone number. 

They lured him tonight, because he had said that he wanted this girl to get a web cam so that she could send nude pictures back to him.  And this guy‘s 56 years old.  He wanted to send nude pictures back to her. 

And so she called in today and said, “Listen, I got the web cam.”  He rushed home, got online.  He was actually online, and that‘s when he was busted by the cops for this. 

And I‘m going to tell you, as you know, Tucker, this is not normally my beat.  But I happened to be covering what were these stunning hearings on Capitol Hill today about child pornography.


O‘DONNELL:  And the use of web cams and how dangerous they are.  And this case just came along, and it‘s spooky. 

CARLSON:  So he imagined that a 14-year-old girl would want to see pictures of him naked. 


CARLSON:  He seems to be sick.  He also sounds like a bad person.

O‘DONNELL:  Well, he apparently was a career employee at the Department of Homeland Security.  Before that he had been a TSA spokesman.  And I am told by a DHS official that he actually spent 20 years with “TIME” magazine.  We‘ve not confirmed that with “TIME” magazine. 

But apparently, he was since March having these very graphic online conversations, sending hard core pornographic video clips to what he thought was a 14-year-old girl.  The sheriff county spokesman said tonight that many of the conversations he initiated with the victim were too extraordinary and too graphic for public release.  The sheriff used the term “sick” tonight to describe Brian Doyle. 

CARLSON:  I‘d like details, but I suspect we‘re not going to get them. 

Norah, thanks.

O‘DONNELL:  You‘re welcome.

CARLSON:  Now another salvo in the battle over immigration.  Activists hope to up the ante with a nationwide strike and boycott they have scheduled for May 1.  They‘re calling on millions of people to stay away from work, from school and shopping in an effort to push Congress to give citizenship to all immigrants, legal and illegal. 

Juan Jose Gutierrez of ANSWER, the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition, is one of the organizers behind this effort.  He‘s also director of the Latino Movement USA.  He joins us from Washington. 

Mr. Gutierrez, thanks a lot for joining us. 

JUAN JOSE GUTIERREZ, ANSWER:  Thank you for inviting me, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Now, on your web site, on the ANSWER web site, there is a petition, and it reads this way.  “I demand full rights and equality for all immigrants in the United States.”  All immigrants, legal and illegal.  By all rights do you mean the right to vote and the right to carry a gun?

GUTIERREZ:  Well, the right to vote eventually.  What we‘re talking about first is legalization.  Then they have to wait five years, which is the qualifying period that everyone who wants to become naturalized citizens of the United States have to wait before they can file an application for citizenship. 

And then if they pass a civics and history exam, if they can manage to speak English properly and so on, then they can become naturalized.  They don‘t have criminal backgrounds and all that.     

So you know, we think that a path to citizenship is the right thing to do for America. 

CARLSON:  For all immigrants.

GUTIERREZ:  But let me clarify something.  The boycott is not being organized by ANSWER.  It‘s being organized by the March 25th Coalition, which was founded in the city of Los Angeles.  Now it counts thousands of organizations as part of its membership.  And we are the ones that are organizing the boycott.  ANSWER is one organization that‘s part of this coalition. 

CARLSON:  Right.  I‘m reading a quote here from you at a march in Los Angeles.  This is from the “Workers World”, which is a socialist publication, as you know.  Here‘s a quote from you: “We need to struggle until corporations no longer govern the world.” 

It seems to me you are, in effect, taking the side of corporations.  It is, of course, corporations who‘d like to see more illegal immigration to this country.  If you want to end their reign why are you acting on their behalf?

GUTIERREZ:  I‘m acting on behalf of corporations.  I‘m acting on behalf of oppressed people, people that are working hard, paying taxes, playing by the rules and who have been here for a long time.  They have deep roots in the community.  They‘re enriching it with their work, with their taxes, with their culture. 

America is better off by having all of these immigrants coming here and really helping make America great. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  Shouldn‘t America—hold on.  I mean, in some cases I think you‘re absolutely right.  A lot of immigrants are decent people and work hard.  Some of them are criminals and don‘t work at all.  I mean, it‘s a pretty broad generalization, A. 

B, shouldn‘t the United States Congress, shouldn‘t America itself be able to make that choice, not some left-wing group in L.A.? 

GUTIERREZ:  Yes, but it‘s not a left-wing group that‘s making these decisions.  I mean, there are over one million people that demonstrated on March 25th to demand legalization, you know, fair and humane immigration policies in this country so that we can regulate migration in a more rational way. 

CARLSON:  It‘s not...

GUTIERREZ:  They‘re not left-wingers...

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  Wait a second. 

GUTIERREZ:  ... in the sense that you‘re describing it.  They‘re hard working Americans.

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Hold on.  Just—I mean, as a statement of fact, as an objective statement, ANSWER, which you‘re of course, an official in, or member of anyway, is a left-wing organization.  I have a—I have right from their web site right here a statement of solidarity with North Korea, in which ANSWER says, “We stand with you with the Bush administration‘s threats against North Korea.”  You‘re taking the side of North Korea.  So that‘s a left-wing position, wouldn‘t you say, in addition to being, of course, a lunatic position. 

GUTIERREZ:  It definitely is a left—a leftist progressive position but that deviates from what we‘re talking about here.  What we‘re talking about here is rational immigration policy that really takes into account the contributions that immigrants are making to this country today.  The hard work they do, the fact that they‘re enriching all of our communities.  Because right now immigrants are all over the country.  And they‘re doing very decent work.  They‘re not criminals; they‘re workers first and foremost. 


CARLSON:  And look, I‘m not saying—most of them are.  But objectively some of them are criminals, as you know.  And just as some...

GUTIERREZ:  Very few of them. 

CARLSON:  That‘s not true, actually.  But moreover...

GUTIERREZ:  It is, in fact.

CARLSON:  Let‘s get back to the central question here, and that is about immigration.  There are tens—hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants in this country who wait a long time in line in U.S. consulates around the world,  trying to get here legally.  How insulting to them that you are suggesting giving instant legal status to people who didn‘t bother to play by the rules, who just showed up illegally. 

GUTIERREZ:  Well, here is the deal, Tucker.  I mean, we have a broken immigration system right now.  We need to adjust our immigration laws to the new realities.  In a globalized economy you have a situation where having quotas that are limited, that force people to wait for many years outside of the United States before they‘re allowed to come in and unite with their families. 

We think that we need to provide more visas for people, so that less people find themselves forced to make the choice to come into the country illegally. 

If the United States is willing to do that, and I think that the center of the United States is moving in that direction.  Hopefully, eventually, the full Congress will do it, and President Bush will sign a humane immigration policy.  I think that we‘ll all—we‘ll all be better off for it. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Maybe so.  All right.  Mr. Gutierrez, I‘m going to have to cut you off there.  You probably have some boycott planning to do anyway.

GUTIERREZ:  Yes, I do.

CARLSON:  Thank you for coming on.  Thanks. 

GUTIERREZ:  Thank you.

Now on to the other big story of the day.  That is Tom DeLay‘s resignation from the Congress.  Here‘s what he told Chris Matthews about his reasons for dropping out of the reelection race.


REP. TOM DELAY ®, TEXAS:  Every seat is precious.  And you have to deal with it that way.  And this seat is precious.  It‘s precious to the Republican majority, and it‘s precious to my constituents.  My constituents deserve better, and they deserve a Republican, not a liberal Democrat representing them. 


CARLSON:  So what does DeLay‘s bombshell mean for the Republican Party, and what should the party do now?  For more answers, we turn to a man who may be my favorite Democrat in the world, political strategist Mudcat Saunders.  He‘s the co-author of the book “Foxes in the Henhouse:

How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and what Democrats Can Do to Run Them Out.”  He joins us from Roanoke.  He has a fish in his hand. 



CARLSON:  I see.  You beat me, Mudcat.  And my fear has always been if Democrats fished more, they‘re control the government.  That‘s—you know?

SAUNDERS:  And if they used the right bait, man.  I caught that on an ultralight.  Quarter of a stick.

CARLSON:  I don‘t believe that.  Quarter of a stick of dynamite. 

Fishing like a man. 

So tell me, what is—put this in perspective for me.  You wrote a book giving Democrats advice, a very smart book.  But give Republicans advice.  And first tell me the significance of Tom DeLay stepping down.  Is this a big deal for the Republican Party or not?

SAUNDERS:  I don‘t know.  I think it‘s a big deal for the world, Tucker.  I‘ve never heard any human beings use words like “God, Christian, prayer, Jesus,” you know, since Jim Bakker explained why he was with Jessica Hahn. 

CARLSON:  You don‘t think that works for DeLay?  I mean, he‘s speaking to his support.

SAUNDERS:  Personally, I think it‘s blasphemy.  I mean, for people to continue to use God, you know, for political purposes.  You know, I don‘t go for it.  I just don‘t.  You know, God is about uniting people, not dividing people.  God is about his will.  Politics are about man‘s will.  And for Tom DeLay to do that, to this Southerner, it‘s unacceptable.  I don‘t care if he‘s a Republican or a Democrat. 

CARLSON:  But there‘s no—and I actually tend to agree with you.  It‘s one of the reasons I was so sickened when Clinton always got up there and waved his Bible in people‘s faces and hung around with all these phony preachers like Jesse Jackson. 

But there is this religious divide, right?  I mean, people who go to church a lot say they vote Republican more often than they vote Democrat.  I mean, that‘s just a fact that we know.  You‘ve got to win those people back in order to win the presidency.  How do you do it?

SAUNDERS:  Well, Tucker I go back to blasphemy.  I mean, the most—one of the most spiritual guys I‘ve ever met is Johnny Edwards.  And Johnny Edwards, you know, doesn‘t wear it on his sleeve.  He doesn‘t talk about it, because it‘s power to him. 

Johnny, you know, hit some really tough hurdles in his life, as we all know.  But yet, he doesn‘t talk about it, because he knows it‘s personal, and there‘s no way that he would use his great spirituality for political gain.  And I think that all politicians ought to take a lead from Johnny on that. 

CARLSON:  So don‘t talk about it.  But is that an—when Bush got up there during the debates in 2000 and said, you know, in answer to the question who‘s your famous philosopher he said Jesus.  That were evangelicals around the country who said, “I don‘t need to hear any more.  He‘s on my side.”  That was really important, it turned out, to getting him elected, both then and in 2004.  You have to counter that in some way. 

SAUNDERS:  Well, you know, I think you counter it with works.  I think that you look at the works of a person.  You know, these people who wear Jesus on their sleeve, and I‘ll say it again. 

Again, suppose this would have been a Democrat that got busted like Tom DeLay did.  What would, you know, my Pharisee buddies, what would Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson be saying?  They would be saying this is the hand, this is the judgment of God on this man, this sinner. 

And you know, there‘s a double standard here.  You know, I‘m a Christian, and I‘m a Democrat, and I‘m proud to be both. 

CARLSON:  Now I wanted to—I didn‘t want to ask you so many questions about politics, but since you‘re here, I just can‘t resist.  What would your be—be your advice to the Republican Party, Republicans in Congress right now.  You‘ve got much less than a year to run and things aren‘t looking good at all right now in all the polling.  What would your message be?

SAUNDERS:  Well, what would my message be?  I would run from Bush.  And I think they‘re going to.  You know, I think Andrew Card, you know, the barn was on fire, and he got out of it.  And I think you‘re going to see a lot more Democrats take a hike, you know, once—especially those with strong challengers, come about September. 

CARLSON:  Republicans are going to start taking off?

SAUNDERS:  The Republicans, what they‘re going to do is they‘re going to—they‘re going to, you know, get away from Bush any way they can, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Mudcat Saunders.  I—you know, I hope the Democrats don‘t listen to your advice.  I don‘t want them to win.  I suspect if they do, they listen to you, they might. 

Thanks for coming on.  I appreciate it.  I like your fish. 

SAUNDERS:  And call me and come on down.  I‘ll have plenty of dynamite by the time you get here. 

CARLSON:  Thank you, Mudcat.

SAUNDERS:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Still to come, Tom DeLay stepping down got us wondering about the greatest political resignations of all time.  We‘ll give you the list, the top five, in mere moments. 

Plus, big time director Oliver Stone says celebrities shouldn‘t have to keep their mouths shut about politics.  Here‘s a question: would you rather hear Barbra Streisand sing or lecture you about the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?  Or neither one?  We‘ll debate it when we come back. 


CARLSON:  Coming up, lights, camera, activism.  Hollywood director Oliver Stone says celebrities who make their political views public aren‘t wackos.  We know they are, though.

Plus, can you imagine kids getting in trouble for wearing an American flag on their T-shirt?  It is happening.  We‘ll tell you where, next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Hollywood director Oliver Stone is going after the media for criticizing celebrities who make political statements.  The director of “JFK” and “Natural Born Killers” said today he resents being called a wacko and left-wing, despite the fact, of course, he ‘ both. 

“We have a right to speak,” Stone said of himself and his fellow famous people.  Attacks on celebrity activism, Stone said, are, quote, “slander.” 

Well, no one questions the right of celebrities to talk about politics, but do they do it too much and when they do, should we listen?  For the answers, we turn to Air America host, Rachel Maddow.

Welcome Rachel.  And I noticed—I noticed you cringe when I said that he was wacko and left-wing, but I couldn‘t resist. 

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST:  Well, you get mad at me when I call people that. 

CARLSON:  You‘re right.  You‘re absolutely right. 

MADDOW:  Jim Bunting I think is a wacko.

CARLSON:  I think—I did think that his Kennedy assassination theory stuff was—qualified as wacko, actually. 

MADDOW:  You‘re right.  The Kennedy assassination theory isn‘t wacko.

CARLSON:  I agree.  I take it back.  I think his positions are wacko. 

I think that this point said something deeper, which is that the Democrat -

the Republican Party is supported primarily by business, right?  And the Democratic Party is supported by various interest groups, including very much trial lawyers and even more, the celebrity community. 

MADDOW:  And unions and all that. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but to a lesser degree.  But a lot of money comes from celebrities.  And a lot of these so-called ideas behind the Democratic Party comes from celebrities.  And I think it‘s actually bad for the Democratic Party.

MADDOW:  I think that there is a huge double standard on celebrity political views.  I mean, when is the last time you heard somebody include in their list of celebrities that annoy me for having political views and having no standing—no standing on which to speak out, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Nobody says peep about Charlton Heston heading up the NRA.  Nobody gets upset about Sonny Bono being a Republican Congressman.

CARLSON:  First of all—first of all, Arnold Schwarzenegger annoys me, and I say it all the time.  Sonny Bono is dead.  And Charlie Heston had a movie made about him by Michael Moore.  So people did complain about it.  But they are not providing the talking points for their party.

MADDOW:  Wait.  Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston. 

Those are guys...


CARLSON:  But they are not the brain trust.  And I would say Barbra Streisand...

MADDOW:  How about Ronald Reagan?  How about Ronald Reagan?  Does he count as the brain trust?  Come on.

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  Ronald Reagan was an actor.  He was also governor and then president. 

MADDOW:  Right.

CARLSON:  But unelected—and that‘s the key—unelected celebrities like Barbra Streisand giving unsolicited and really dumb political advice to the Democrats, which they have to sit and sort of take—“Yes, Ms.  Streisand”—because they need the money. 

MADDOW:  Wait.  So once you get elected—once you‘re Sonny Bono and you get elected, once you‘re Ronald Reagan and you become governor, then you‘re no longer a celebrity?

CARLSON:  Yes, and I‘ll tell you exactly—I‘ll tell you exactly why.  Because you have the imprimatur of the people at that point.  You are elected.  The people have said, “Yes, we want to hear your views.” 

I think it‘s very alienating when Michael Jackson is a major fundraiser for your party, as he was. 

MADDOW:  One Democratic fundraiser, and you decided to cash in on that for five years.

CARLSON:  Untrue, untrue.  More than one.  I know of at least two.  And I bet you $1 million there are more.  But the point is, that is—if you‘re trying to win back, like, the NASCAR dads, or whatever they‘re calling those middle—the middle America vote that the Democrats need so much, it hurts you to take Barbra Streisand seriously. 

MADDOW:  You‘re trying to make me argue—you‘re trying to get me to argue from a position that celebrities are the nucleus of where Democratic Party ideas... 


MADDOW:  ... comes from.  And it‘s just—it‘s no more true for the Democratic Party than the idea that Bo Derek is somehow driving conservative party politics, as well.  It doesn‘t work that way.  There are celebrities on the left and celebrities on the right.  Celebrities on the left get attacked for being celebrities who have political views.  It‘s not true of celebrities on the right. 

CARLSON:  Boy, there is not—there is not parity at all.  There are, like, millions of annoying celebrities on the left and there are a couple of annoying celebrities on the right. 

MADDOW:  And then all of these celebrities on the right who we don‘t consider annoying, because they‘re serious politicians, like Sonny Bono and Ronald Reagan.

CARLSON:  Once you get elected—once you get elected, people take you seriously. 

MADDOW: I will never take Arnold Schwarzenegger seriously.

CARLSON:  If you get—if you get elected, Rachel Maddow, I will never argue with you again.  Rachel Maddow, thank you.

MADDOW:  I‘ll never run.

CARLSON:  Up next, Congressman DeLay did it, so did Richard Nixon.  But who had the most memorable resignation of all time?  We‘ve got the list.  Stick around to find out what it is. 


CARLSON:  Can Republicans maintain control of the House and the Senate in the next election in the face of the president‘s low approval ratings?   And what about the widening ethics scandal within the party?  That has cost the political career of Texas Representative Tom DeLay.  He‘s resigning due to allegations he funneled illegal corporation donations into state legislative races. 

Tonight‘s top five features a few other controversial political figures who have buckled under the pressure and called it quits. 


CARLSON (voice-over):  Harry “Give ‘em Hell” Truman may have said it best when he advised his fellow politicians that if you can‘t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. 

She was the U.S. surgeon general with a somewhat liberal bedside manner, and in 1994, Joycelyn Elders recommended masturbation as a means of safe sex.  Bill Clinton apparently was offended, and the doctor was out. 

JOYCELYN ELDERS, FORMER SURGEON GENERAL:  Any time we talk about sexuality issues, I think everybody takes on a different context. 

CARLSON:  In 1974, this popular Cincinnati councilman quit after cops found one of his personal checks inside an illicit massage parlor. 

JERRY SPRINGER, TALK SHOW HOST:  I wish I hadn‘t done that.  The truth is, I wish no one would ever know. 

CARLSON:  A happy ending for Jerry Springer, nevertheless.  He‘s found a new way to appeal to the masses. 

James McGreevey, family man, New Jersey governor, homosexual.  Not that there‘s anything wrong with that, unless of course, your former lover accuses you of sexual harassment.

JAMES MCGREEVEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY:  I have decided the right course of action is to resign. 

CARLSON:  This once powerful lawmaker‘s little black book read like a single man‘s guide to a good time in D.C.  But when 29 women outed Oregon Senator Bob Packwood for sexual harassment, he agreed to pack it in. 

BOB PACKWOOD, FORMER SENATOR:  It is an honorable thing to do. 

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I shall resign the president see effective at noon tomorrow. 

CARLSON:  All the president‘s men couldn‘t put this administration back together again.  And so on August 8, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first American president to turn in his key to the Oval Office. 

NIXON:  Those who hate you don‘t win, unless you hate them.  Then, you destroy yourself.

CARLSON:  The perfect epitaph, excluding this one, of course. 

NIXON:  I am not a crook. 


CARLSON:  Neither am I, for the record.  Illegal immigration is bad for our economy and for our culture.  For the sake of America‘s future, we ought to end it.  If you watch this show, you know that‘s my position, and it is heart felt. 

Those on the other side of the debate, though, do have at least one good point.  Illegal immigration doesn‘t happen in a vacuum.  The rest of us make it possible.

Consider what‘s happening right now in New Orleans.  Two years ago there were virtually no illegal aliens there.  Today there are tens of thousands, mostly from Mexico.  They‘ve come to work on construction crews rebuilding the city after Katrina.  These are not lettuce picking job.  This is relatively high paid work.  It‘s honorable and it‘s skilled work, and there‘s a lot of it to be had. 

Thousands more jobs are unfilled in that region.  Soon, they‘ll be filled by illegal immigrants coming every day.

Meanwhile, thousands of Katrina evacuees, all of them American citizens, remain in Houston and other states along I-10.  They‘re unemployed and are now living on government aide. 

So why aren‘t Americans choosing to return to New Orleans to do the work.  And since they‘re not choosing to return to New Orleans, why should taxpayers continue to support them?  These are good questions.  They‘re depressing questions. 

Say what you want about illegal immigrants, and we do every night, but you‘ve got to admit they‘ve got what we used to think of as an American work ethic and good for them. 

Up next, everyone is free to speak in this country, but should Americans have the right to dance wherever they want to dance?  We‘ll debate that when THE SITUATION comes back. 


CARLSON:  Still to come, patriotic clothing that could get kids booted out of class.  Plus, a man who says the world would be a lot better off with fewer humans.  We‘ll get to all that in just a minute, but first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight. 


CARLSON:  Now to a story that will get you hot and bothered, the Texas Academy of Science recently gave its top honor to a University of Texas biologist who says the earth would be better off if 90 percent of the human population was wiped out. 

Professor Eric Pianka says people have grown fat, apathetic and miserable.  He predicts a disease like the Ebola virus will give the human population a much needed correction. 

Here to talk about his doomsday scenario, from Austin, Texas, Professor Eric Pianka.

Professor, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON:  It sounds like you don‘t like people very much, describing the earth as widely overpopulated and saying we‘d be better off if 90 percent died.  Do you hate people?

PIANKA:  No, I don‘t hate people. 

CARLSON:  Then why would the earth be better off if 90 percent of us were dead?

PIANKA:  I didn‘t say 90 percent.  But there are too many of us on this earth. 


PIANKA:  Ninety percent was somebody else‘s number.

CARLSON:  What percentage do you think would be good to reduce the human population by?

PIANKA:  We need to get down to sustainable levels.  We passed those back in the ‘80s. 

CARLSON:  But people are still living here, and they‘re being sustained by definition.  I mean, they‘re alive.  So why do we need to kill people off?  Or why is it good that people die? 

PIANKA:  I‘m not advocating any kind of homicide or anything. 

CARLSON:  Right.

PIANKA:  I‘ve been misquoted and abused, and my words and views have been distorted and twisted by fools. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, you have an opportunity now to tell us your views directly.

PIANKA:  There are too many of this on this earth and we are taking too much of the earth in too many habitats.  And there are more people on this earth than earth can support.  And there were 25 years ago. 

CARLSON:  Right.  There are far more people now then there were on earth 25 years ago, that‘s right.  But those people are being sustained perfectly well. 

PIANKA:  Well, half of them are starving, and they don‘t have access to food or fresh water.  You call that being sustained?

CARLSON:  Half the people on earth are in fact not starving.  I mean, that‘s a completely made up statistic.  I don‘t know where you got it.  People...

PIANKA:  People in India and Bangladesh and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Africa are in very bad shape. 

CARLSON:  Right.  There‘s a lot of misery in the world, no doubt about that.  Would it be better if those people were dead?

PIANKA:  I‘m not saying anything like that.  Don‘t try to put words in my mouth. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not.  I‘m merely asking a question.

PIANKA:  The point of my talk, which has been widely distorted and misinterpreted, was that there—that we have taken too much of the surface of the earth and that we‘re not leaving anything for anybody else. 

I‘m an ecologist.

CARLSON:  Right.

PIANKA:  I need—I need wild animals and pristine natural environments to study my discipline.  And we are destroying those at an incredible rate.  And we haven‘t stopped. 

CARLSON:  Right.

PIANKA:  We now—humans are now using half of the surface of the earth and half—more than half of the fresh water.  And half of the solar energy that hits this earth.  That means we‘ve left only half it of it for all the other denizens of this planet. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  There are a lot of people.

PIANKA:  That‘s pretty greedy. 

CARLSON:  It may absolutely be, but I guess ordinary people, normal people, look at that scenario and say that‘s right.  The animals may be getting short changed here.  You may be absolutely right about that. 

But on the other hand you have people getting born, children growing up to be adults.  I mean, that‘s a good thing.  People are good, right?  It‘s good to have people around.  Children are good. 

You look at it and you say—you describe the people on this earth as useless.  You described us as a fat biomass. 

PIANKA:  I don‘t know—I don‘t know if I actually said that or if those are words that were attributed to me.


PIANKA:  But I have two granddaughters, and I‘m very concerned for their future.  I‘m not sure in 18 years what it‘s going to look like, but it‘s going to be awful. 

CARLSON:  You‘re quoted here, one of the most controversial quotes from this address that you gave.  It‘s been quoted in a lot of places.  It‘s about disease.  And you‘re talking about the various naturally occurring diseases that could thin the herd, basically.  You‘re talking about Ebola.  And then you said, “HIV is too slow; it‘s no good.”  Most people think HIV, you know, isn‘t bad because it‘s too slow, it‘s bad because it kills people.  What did you mean by that?

PIANKA:  We are an epidemic waiting to happen.  And because we‘re so mobile and so dense, we can get on airplanes and fly across oceans, disease is going to spread fast. 

CARLSON:  Well, I think...

PIANKA:  And the people who have studied this, the epidemiologists...

CARLSON:  That‘s a common view. 

PIANKA:  The medical people are very, very concerned about the next pandemic. 

CARLSON:  Absolutely.  I think probably everyone in America knows that.  The difference is you seem to be saying that was a good thing. 

Let me ask...

PIANKA:  I‘m not saying anything is good.  I‘m saying if we don‘t control our population, the microbes will. 

CARLSON:  Professor, thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it. 

Professor Eric Pianka from Austin, Texas.  Thanks.

We turn now to a man with a slightly—just slightly—cheerier worldview.  He is “The Outsider”, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman—Max. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST:  I‘m actually scared of the microbes, too, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Well, scared of the microbes.  The question is...

KELLERMAN:  I‘m not looking forward to it as a Darwinian solution. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.

This story is so outrageous it‘s hard to imagine how even the great Max Kellerman will defend it.  So buckle your seatbelt.

Students at Shaw Heights Middle School in Westminster, Colorado, are no longer allowed to wear patriotic American clothing to school.  That includes anything with an American flag on it, even camouflaged trousers. 

The school‘s principal says patriotic clothing is creating problems in the hall ways because of tensions surrounding immigration.  People for illegal immigration apparently don‘t like it. 

Well, obviously, I‘m going to defend the kids and their American clothes.  Max, on the other hand, believes in squashing freedom of expression and crushing the dreams of children.

This is so out—the idea that—the idea is that flags aren‘t allowed because they increase tension.  I understand that if it‘s a foreign flag.  But you should always be proud of the American flag. 

KELLERMAN:  This is a tough one, Tucker.  But I‘ll give it a shot.

First of all, you‘re always asking in cases like this where‘s the ACLU.  You know where the ACLU is?  Right here... 

CARLSON:  That‘s a very good point.  All right.

KELLERMAN:  ... arguing against this. OK, that‘s the first thing.

Secondly, the very idea that it‘s disruptive is ridiculous.  Right?  Because we‘re all Americans or want to be.  And therefore, that really shouldn‘t be at issue. 

But this is the argument I‘ll make.  Like—like Israel in the Middle East we are held, Americans, are held to a higher standard than everybody else, certainly than our neighbors.  And in fact, that is the case because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than anybody else holds themselves to. 

Could you imagine this ever even being an issue in Mexico?  A Mexican school saying you can‘t fly the Mexican flag because it offends some illegal immigrants who are here.

CARLSON:  Yes, the Guatemalans who snuck in. That is one of the

reasons that everyone wants in, and it‘s one of the reasons, Tucker, that

we‘re better than everybody else

CARLSON:  That is both brilliant and grotesque.  You should never be ashamed to do a good thing.  That‘s like saying, you know, “I‘m offended when you give money to charity.  Therefore, don‘t.” 

To which your response ought to be, “You know what?  Tough luck for you, pal.                

KELLERMAN:  Higher standard, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  That was a good try, though.

Should dancing be a crime?  A New York state judge says it should be.  A judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to allow to allow private social dancing in all New York City bars, clubs and restaurants.  Confused?  Well, the strange Prohibition-era cabaret law bans dancing in many New York City bars.  The lawsuit argued the no dancing law infringes on freedom of expression.  The law—the judge disagreed.  I say let the kids dance, Max.

Meanwhile, you like being able to do the Macarena only in the privacy of your own home.  Presumably you‘re against this. 

KELLERMAN:  That is the electric boogie, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Higher stander.  The bottom line is this is a way—this is an invitation to graft and corruption.  Right?  These dumb laws like this are an invitation to cops to take pay offs to allow people to dance in bars.  It‘s the oldest scheme in New York.  They ought to change the law and then get rid of the temptation. 

KELLERMAN:  The problem is you‘re talking about a bar not a club.  If you allow dancing in the bar, it‘s automatically a club.  You know, you can sell alcohol for instance.  It‘s not illegal to sell alcohol.  You can‘t sell alcohol at a record store.  Just two different entities.  Right?

CARLSON:  Why not?  Why shouldn‘t you be able to sell booze at a record store?  I think you should be able to sell alcohol—sell alcohol pretty much wherever you want.

KELLERMAN:   Well, there is—OK, fine, but that‘s a separate issue.  You can‘t.  I mean, there‘s freedom of speech that‘s protected.  That‘s one of the reasons, you know, you can‘t shut down people who want to sell books on the street.  Right?  Because it‘s freedom—it‘s a First Amendment issue, really.

But you can‘t just walk into a movie theater and start selling your books out of the movie theater.  It‘s a movie theater, not a book store.

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  This is not a club.  And if it were a club, if you allowed dancing and it just by default becomes a club, there are all kinds of attendant issues, noises, crowds.  There are levels of danger.  All kinds of issues.

CARLSON:  Danger?  Wait a second.  First of all, just for the record if I have a movie theater and I want to sell books in my movie theater I get to do that if I want to. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  That was a bad example. 

CARLSON:  In the same way that if I have a bar and I want to allow people to jump around and do the Macarena, that‘s my problem.  If I bother the neighbors with noise, that‘s a separate issue. 

KELLERMAN:  Right.  That‘s a bad—if I go back to the—to the record store issue.  If you don‘t have a license to sell alcohol you can‘t sell it out of your record store.  Right?  You have to be—you have to have a permit for dancing or it‘s not a bar.  It‘s a club. 

CARLSON:  But the difference is nobody has ever driven into a telephone pole after dancing.  Right?

KELLERMAN:  I grew up in New York City.


KELLERMAN:  I can tell you outside of clubs at 2, 3 in the morning, one of the more dangerous places to be. 

CARLSON:  That‘s probably true.  Maybe if there were more of the, there wouldn‘t be so...

KELLERMAN:  As though outside a bar is so much better.

CARLSON:  Max Kellerman.  Anti-dancing, wow.  Thanks, Max. 

Coming up on THE SITUATION, another student-teacher romance.  Just when we‘ve begun to forget about Debra LaFave, an even uglier story comes along.  The stunning details of a relationship between a 13-year-old boy and his science teacher.  We‘ll tell you all when we come back. 


VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up you won‘t believe the details of a torrid affair between a teacher and her 13-year-old student.  Plus, the scientists prove Jesus walked on water.

CARLSON:  And if that doesn‘t keep you around, we give up.  We‘re going to go sell insurance instead.  We‘ll be back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  You‘ve all seen the traditional Hallmark greeting cards.  You know, the ones that say happy birthday or get well soon or good luck with your retirement.  Those are nice.  But tonight, we show you a side of Hallmark you have never seen.

You can find the best of Hallmark‘s rejected cards in a new book called “Shoebox Greatest Hits and Misses”.  They‘re the cards that were too hot for your local stationery store.  The book will be available later this month.

I‘m joined tonight from Kansas City by Dan Taylor.  He‘s a writer for Hallmark Shoebox.  And by Sarah Tobonen.  She edits the cards.  Dan and Sarah, thanks for coming on.

SARAH TOBONEN, EDITOR, HALLMARK SHOEBOX:  All right.  Thanks for having us.

CARLSON:  I am so glad this book is in print, because some of these—some of these cards are a riot and deserve to be in print.  And it just makes me feel sick to think that they never would have seen the light of day.  I want to read a couple of these.

Here‘s a fun game.  Next time you get pulled over and the cop asks, “Do you know why I stopped you?” you just start listing stuff.  “The body in the trunk?  The Uzi?  My meth lab?”

That‘s a pretty amusing card.  Now Sarah, you‘re the editor, I guess. 


CARLSON:  Why would you have struck that card?


TOBONEN:  Why?  Well, I‘m often asked that by the writers.  I wish we could only write No. 1 cards.  I really do.  But that doesn‘t happen, so it takes a lot of tries before you can get real cards out there.  And while we think it‘s funny, and you and I have a perverse sense of humor, we need people to pay money to give these cards.  And...

CARLSON:  OK.  How about this one.  Wait.  Hold on.  I just want—I mean, I‘m sorry to be mean.  I‘ve dealt with editors all my life, and I know it‘s an antagonistic relationship between writer and editor, so I don‘t mean to take out my frustrations out on you.

TAYLOR:  It can be.

CARLSON:  But tell me what‘s wrong with this one:  “Thanks!  If I was a dog I‘d like your face.  Oh, what the heck.  C‘mere!”

Now, that‘s a clever card.  I think it‘s amusing.

TOBONEN:  It is.

CARLSON:  Why not run that?

TAYLOR:  It is.

TOBONEN:  It is, yes.  And it‘s not offensive.  I think it could be.  And a lot of times, to be honest with you, we‘ll look at funny but no‘s, and they may just be ahead of their time.  And we may look at them six months, a year later and have the exact same reaction you‘re having.

So just know that that was written, possibly—this is Shoebox‘s 20th year. Hence the book.  It‘s the 20th anniversary.  So that card may have been, you know, 15 years ahead of its time.  And maybe you will.  Maybe it will be card.  But for now, it‘s living in funny but no.

CARLSON:  Here‘s one that I don‘t think will ever see the light of day, except in this book.  Dan, I believe you wrote this.  I don‘t know if you want to take credit for it.  It says, “I planned to get you heirloom jewelry for your birthday.  But Grandma rallied.  Stupid modern medicine.”

TAYLOR:  Yes.  That‘s mine.  That‘s mine.  Yes.

CARLSON:  You wrote that.

TAYLOR:  You wrote that.

CARLSON:  I applaud it.

TAYLOR:  Sad to see it go.

CARLSON:  Did you think that was actually going to wind up in a Hallmark card?

TAYLOR:  You know, if I—I don‘t really think about it as I start to write; I just write.  And then later on I find out what—what worked and what didn‘t work and find out how they went.  I don‘t really think about how they went, because if I thought about it, I would never write anything.  So that‘s...

CARLSON:  Did you write this one?  Here‘s a greeting card that—this is kind of vulgar, but I love it.  “You‘re like the NBA of the 1980s.  You, too, have a Magic Johnson.”  You wrote that?


TOBONEN:  Actually, the person who wrote that is no longer with...

TAYLOR:  As it turns out.

TOBONEN:  Not as a result of that card, we think.

TAYLOR:  As it turns out.  Yes.  It‘s subtle on some levels (ph).

CARLSON:  That is—that is a riot.  “Honey, I wanted to surprise you this Valentine‘s Day.  So I‘m leaving you.  Bye.”

Is there a market for cards that perverse?

TAYLOR:  Right.  Not really.  That‘s the whole point.  They‘re in the book.  There is.  And we‘ve discovered online at that‘s really popular.  People do want to—you know, they want to see behind the scenes.  They want to see the DVD version.  But what you would actually send on Valentine‘s Day, that‘s probably not going to happen.

CARLSON:  Yes, it‘s probably not.  Now...

TOBONEN:  And as an editor, I‘m paid to be, essentially, just a really good guesser.  So I need to know that if we put that card out in the world, it could bomb.  And that‘s OK.  We‘re going to have some stinkers.  But I mean, in general, I‘ve got to go with my gut.  And my gut says it‘s not going to make a lot of money.

CARLSON:  What‘s the most offensive card—what‘s the most offensive card you‘ve actually put into print, do you think?

TOBONEN:  Most offensive that actually made it?


TOBONEN:  You know, there‘s several in the book that I think, beyond the “funny but no” section, cards that made it into the book I‘m actually surprised made it into print.  You know, just things that we poke fun of that we traditionally don‘t.

TAYLOR:  Our vibrating phone joke.  There‘s...

CARLSON:  Love the vibrating phone joke.

TAYLOR:  See, there‘s animals at the zoo with the second graders coming by.  There‘s—there‘s subject matter in several cards in the book and in the store that we were surprised by every day.  Because we kind of can‘t tell, you know, when you deal with censors and that kind of thing.  You can‘t tell what will work.

CARLSON:  The day I walk into a pharmacy on Valentine‘s Day late in the afternoon, desperate to get those cards, and find a vibrating phone joke, I‘m going to buy eight of them.

TAYLOR:  Good.

CARLSON:  Thank you all, both, for coming on.  Sarah and Dan.

TOBONEN:  We‘ll hold you to your word.

CARLSON:  Trust me; I will.


CARLSON:  The book, “Shoebox Greatest Hits and Misses”, genuinely amusing.  Thanks.

TAYLOR:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Coming up, it‘s not easy being a schoolboy these days.  Not only do you have to worry about sports and girls and your homework.  You also have to fight off the advances of your lusty teachers.  We‘ll tell you the latest incredible story of teacher-pupil romance when THE SITUATION continues in just a moment.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor”. 

Introducing a man who is really a nightcap for a lot of you, Willie Geist.

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  I like to think of myself that way.

CARLSON:  You are.

GEIST:  Smooth, a little bite to it.

CARLSON:  Kind of like amaretto.

GEIST:  Yes.

CARLSON:  Very good.

GEIST:  Speaking of amaretto, Professor Pianka, the guy that wants the world to end, he needs a drink himself.

CARLSON:  He‘s coming to my next dinner party.  Kind of a cheery guy.

GEIST:  Professor, everything‘s going to be fine.  Get yourself a cold drink, watch some TV.  It‘s going to be fine.

CARLSON:  Willie, is it me or are teachers having a lot more sex with their students than they used to, at least when I was in school?

GEIST:  I think you‘re right.

CARLSON:  The latest case is by far the most incredible yet.  Thirty-four-year-old Delaware science teacher Rachel Holtz (ph) has been charged with rape after police say she had sex with one of her 13-year-old students.  Twenty-eight, yes, 28 times in a single week.

GEIST:  Wow.

CARLSON:  Cops also say she provided the boy with alcohol and let him drive her car.

GEIST:  That is actually disgusting.  It‘s a pathetic teacher, obviously, who couldn‘t get another adult to give her the time of day, so she moved down about two decades.

CARLSON:  Well, she‘s not going to find an adult who can do it 28 times a week.  I‘m sure.

GEIST:  No, I don‘t think so.  And I‘m going to go ahead and say what everybody‘s thinking and no one is saying out loud.


GEIST:  Twenty-eight times in a week.  That‘s good.

CARLSON:  I‘m going to say the second thing nobody is saying out loud, which is this woman, unlike Debra LaFave, is going to do hard time.

GEIST:  Yes, she is.  Yes.

CARLSON:  Based on her appearance, yes.

GEIST:  Good looks equal justice.

CARLSON:  I know.  It‘s sad.

Well, Suge Knight is a physically menacing man and probably knows where all of us live, so we want Mr. Knight to know we‘re simply reporting this news.  We‘re in no way judging him on it.

Rap music mogul has filed for bankruptcy in California.  Knight, who heads Death Row Records, owes $107 million from a previous legal judgment.  He‘s unable to come up with the cash, so he‘s opted for bankruptcy.

GEIST:  Tucker, you said it right out of the gate.  I feel bad for him.  I don‘t know if you ever saw the E! through Hollywood story about Vanilla Ice, but there‘s a little scene in there, legend has it, that Suge literally shook Vanilla down for money by holding him by his ankles off the balcony of a hotel.


GEIST:  So let me just say, best wishes to you, Mr. Knight.  Tupac, Snoop, all the guys you worked with.  Geniuses like yourself.  Good luck.  Hope it works out for you.

CARLSON:  Exactly.

To those of you who doubt Jesus really walked on water, I refer you to Professor Doron Nof.  A Florida State University professor, Nof is an oceanographer who says Jesus may very well have walked on water, albeit the frozen kind.  Nof says unusual combination atmospheric conditions in what is now Northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee, allowing Jesus to stroll right across.

GEIST:  Tucker, I hate to call a man of Jesus Christ‘s statures on a technicality, but I don‘t think I‘m giving him that.  I mean, yes, you walked on water, but it was ice.  You know what I mean?

CARLSON:  That would kind of defeat the whole purpose of the New Testament.  You know what I mean?  If it was, like, a party trick, walking across the water.  Yes.

GEIST:  Right.  That‘s right.  But I think what happened was people saw him far away on the horizon.  He was on the ice—this is actually the theory.


GEIST:  And it looked like he was walking on water.  They didn‘t know there was ice out there.

CARLSON:  So we‘re afraid to insult Suge Knight, but Jesus, no problem.

GEIST:  No, no.

CARLSON:  OK.  Willie Geist, thank you.

GEIST:  I‘ve got my priorities straight.

CARLSON:  That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thank you for watching. 

See you tomorrow.



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.