Guests: Paul Moskal, Kevin Keating, Max Kellerman, Willie Geist
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, "THE SITUATION": Thanks. Thanks to you at home for tuning in.
We always appreciate it.
Tonight, skeletons in the closet of America‘s mayor. Rudy Giuliani emerged from the devastation of 9/11 with a political halo. Tonight we‘ll talk to a filmmaker who says there‘s another side to Giuliani, a pattern of abuse of power and disregard for the First Amendment.
Also ahead, Big Brother and your kid. Soon you‘ll be able to track your children‘s every move with a GPS equipped cell phone. But should you actually do it? We‘ll debate that.
Plus, Jesus visits “South Park”. It could be the controversial cartoon‘s most outrageous moment of all time. Have Kenny, Kyle and company finally crossed the line.
But first, new developments in the Duke lacrosse rape case tonight. Defense attorneys say they expect the D.A. to issue charges on Monday. The 27-year-old stripper and college student alleges she was raped and beaten by three players on Duke‘s lacrosse team.
Earlier today a 911 call was released. On it, one of the first police officers to see the accuser talks about the woman‘s appearance. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is going to be a 24-hour hold. She‘s 1056 and unconscious.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 10-4. You need a medic truck? Or are you taking her?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She‘s breathing, appears to be fine. She‘s not in distress. She‘s just passed out drunk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: NBC‘s Ron Mott joins us from Durham with more. Ron, what‘s the latest?
RON MOTT, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tucker, as you‘ve just heard, this tape could play big in this investigation, in this ongoing investigation. Four words that are really critical here from this police officer. He says that she is not in distress. She is not in distress.
And this, of course, would run counter to what the district attorney here believes based on what he says was compelling evidence collected by that nurse at the hospital on the night in question.
Now going forward again, the district attorney says he will weigh all the evidence in this case. A lot of people are looking forward to Monday and whether charges will be filed on Monday. The grand in Durham is meeting on Monday. We have no idea whether the district attorney is going to present any evidence to that body. But we do know that the grand jury will not be scheduled to meet again for another two weeks.
So lots of anticipation of Monday but also a lot of speculation about how this latest development is going to weigh into this investigation, Tucker.
CARLSON: Ron, this case has gotten so much muddier in the last couple of days, so much less clear. What‘s the reaction at Duke from the campus? Is there—is there still a lot of turmoil about this?
MOTT: I think it‘s probably fair to say that it‘s mixed. I mean, people here, quite frankly, have worn weary of seeing us here, the media here on their campus. They‘d like to have their campus back, quite honestly.
But at the same time they want to make sure that this investigation is given its proper due diligence and that this investigation is not going to be sidetracked in any way by public pressure from either side, either from those representing the Duke players or those who are pushing for arrests to be made right away.
But I think it‘s fair to say that people want this over with. They want justice to be served at the same time.
CARLSON: We were hearing reports yesterday that the woman, the alleged victim in this case, had identified, specifically identified her assailants. Is that true? Just to clear that up?
MOTT: Well, we don‘t know exactly what that is all about. The district attorney, in an e-mail, I believe it was, or maybe it was a written letter to the attorneys working on behalf of the lacrosse players, says that he will give them more detail about that identification process and just how this alleged victim went about saying this particular individual is someone who assaulted me. We don‘t know the details of how that I.D. was made and whether it was, in fact, made, Tucker.
CARLSON: How are you getting—how is the press in general getting information from this woman? Does she have spokesmen, people who are talking directly to her?
MOTT: Well, as far as I know I don‘t know if anyone has spoken directly to her. Now, her father has appeared with us in various programs in silhouette, obviously in fear of his safety and in fear of identifying his daughter by appearing on camera.
I can tell you I went back over to the neighborhood where this house party was held last month and spoke to a couple of neighbors there. One, who appeared on varies news outlets over the past three weeks, says that they got some threatening phone calls immediately after appearing on the air.
And so there is some concern among people in that community about addressing their opinions publicly on that house and the players who live in that house over the years because of fear of what might happen.
So this community is sort of on edge, Tucker, I think it‘s fair to say. And again, they want this case over with, but they also want justice served.
CARLSON: It‘s going to be awhile, I bet. NBC‘s Ron Mott in Durham.
MOTT: You bet.
CARLSON: Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from Orchard Park, New York, just outside Buffalo. The FBI held a town hall meeting there today aimed as improving relations with American Muslims and enlisting them in the fight against terror. Also on the agenda today, encouraging them to report incidents of bias and racism against them to the federal government.
Here‘s a clip from the meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL MOSKAL, FBI SPOKESMAN: One of the themes that has come across is that Muslim Americans, Arab Americans and Sikh Americans feel that their civil liberties are being violated in some fashion. We‘re very interested in hearing that, because we have that responsibility to make sure that their civil rights are being protected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The question is, is all this the wise use of FBI resources? Here to answer that question, the man you just saw, FBI spokesman, the one who led the town hall meeting. He is Paul Moskal. He joins us tonight from Buffalo.
Mr. Moskal, thanks for coming on.
MOSKAL: My pleasure, Tucker.
CARLSON: As I understand it, one of the purposes of this meeting was to help enlist the Muslim American community in the war on terror. Is that right?
MOSKAL: Absolutely. The FBI‘s primary mission these days is the detection and prevention of another terrorist act. And of course, we got out into the community every day, and one of our responsibilities is the Muslim-American community. And we wanted to address that issue with them.
CARLSON: OK. So almost five years after 9/11, why is it that this community needs encouragement from the FBI to get involved in the war on terror?
MOSKAL: Well, I don‘t know if they need encouragement. What we wanted to do was go out and let them know that we‘re their partner, that the FBI is responsible not only for the investigation and detection of another terrorist act but also to let them know that the FBI is responsible for the protection of their civil rights. We also had a tertiary purpose, to let them know that the FBI is always soliciting good men and good women to join the FBI.
CARLSON: Responsible for their civil rights. Is there a problem with the civil rights of Muslim Americans?
MOSKAL: Well, one of the concerns of the FBI is that there‘s backlash in this country as a consequence of September 11. We‘ve seen that nationally to some degree.
And we want the Muslim American, Sikh American community, the Arab-American community to know that the FBI is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the civil rights laws of this country. And if they feel that their rights are being violated we want to know about that.
CARLSON: I must have missed that. I haven‘t noticed a great backlash against Muslim Americans. Maybe it‘s going on underneath the radar. I wonder if this is the best use of FBI resources, though, to solicit complaints from people, when isn‘t the purpose to be thwarting terror?
MOSKAL: Well, I can‘t think of a better use of the resources of the federal government than to protect its population, whether that is the mainstream population or the Arab-American population. One of our primary missions is the protection of people‘s civil rights.
CARLSON: Well, of course, and I‘m not—and I‘m not—I‘m not for a minute suggesting that any group doesn‘t have to right to have its rights protected. It goes without saying. They do, of course.
I‘m merely suggesting that people know about it. And if they think their rights are being violated, they complain about it. This is America. I can‘t think of a group that needs to be encouraged to complain. Muslim Americans included.
MOSKAL: Well, I agree with that to some degree. But the town hall meeting concept has been an eye-opening experience for the FBI. I think we become more sensitive to different communities and different needs and different perceptions.
When you stop to consider that sometimes what we take for granted in this country doesn‘t exist in other countries. The last time somebody may have been interviewed by a government official they may have been tortured or beaten, and I‘ve encountered people who told me that.
CARLSON: The news reports of this town hall meeting today explained that both sides, the FBI and the Muslim American community, have misperceptions about one another. What are some of the misperceptions the FBI has had about Muslim Americans?
MOSKAL: Well, I think, as a 27-year veteran of the FBI, I think that we‘re there to enforce the civil rights laws of America and to help people.
I didn‘t realize that showing up on somebody‘s doorstep in what I would view as a neutral situation to interview them or to ask or solicit their help may be viewed as somewhat traumatizing to them or viewed as problematic for them.
Their neighbors would ask why has the FBI showed up, are they terrorists? And I think that‘s something the FBI needs to be sensitive to when we work with the Muslim American population as our partner.
CARLSON: You didn‘t know that? I‘m an Episcopalian, and I‘d be traumatized if the FBI showed up at my front door. Everyone is afraid of the FBI. Of course.
But my question is, I wonder if sensitivity—maybe we shouldn‘t be, but I know I am. I don‘t want the FBI at my house at all. No offense or anything. But you—you know...
MOSKAL: I understand.
CARLSON: You understand why. But here‘s my question. Does sensitivity to—I think you‘re describing it—cultural concerns like this one, does that make the FBI less aggressive in rooting out potential terror cells in the country, because there are some?
MOSKAL: Absolutely not. We—it‘s a delicate balance we need to strike. We need to protect the public from another terrorist act, but we also need to enforce the civil rights laws of this country. And it‘s a fine line, and the American public expects that of the FBI, and we can‘t fail.
CARLSON: Terror plots around the world have been plotted in mosques, as you know, in Europe particularly. Do you think the FBI is within its rights to put mosques under surveillance?
MOSKAL: Well, it‘s something that we‘re very sensitive to. Generally speaking, we have not done that. The mere fact that somebody congregates in a location, whether it‘s a church, synagogue or mosque, doesn‘t give the FBI a right to go in there.
What does give us a right to do that is if we have particular information that a particular crime is occurring or particular acts of terror. Then certainly, we‘ll use every legal means available to us to pursue that.
CARLSON: Do you think it‘s more likely a terror plot would be hatched in a synagogue or a mosque?
MOSKAL: Well, actually we haven‘t seen either to any great degree here in this country, thankfully.
CARLSON: Yes, but which do you think is more likely?
MOSKAL: If I knew that answer I guess I would prevent the next terrorist act.
CARLSON: Well, let me give it to you. It‘s a mosque.
MOSKAL: What I need is people in those communities to come forward and tell us about those things.
CARLSON: OK. I sure appreciate your joining us. Thank you very much. Paul Moskal, joining us from Buffalo.
MOSKAL: My pleasure.
Still to come, former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, is best remembered for his heroic efforts on 9/11. But could a new documentary kill his political future? I‘ll ask the film‘s director what he thinks.
Plus, the creators of “South Park” may finally have crossed the line. Their latest episode involved Jesus and President Bush. Why are people fuming? We‘ll tell you why when we come back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As president, I have exhausted every possible solution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Will Rudy Giuliani run for president in 2008? That is the question on the minds of many Republican strategists. But my next guest says there are plenty of skeletons in the closet of the man who led New York through some of its darkest days.
Kevin Keating is the director of the film “Giuliani Time”. He joins us now from New York.
Kevin Keating, thanks for coming on.
KEVIN KEATING, DIRECTOR, “GIULIANI TIME”: Hi, Tucker. Good to be here.
CARLSON: I just—I just watched your movie. And I thought it was compelling. I thought parts were fair, parts were unfair. But the bottom line question is why did you make it? This is an editorial against Giuliani. At least that‘s how I read it. Why make it now? He‘s not in office.
KEATING: Well, I‘m a New Yorker. This was 1998 when someone came to me with the idea. Because at that time, by ‘98 Mayor Giuliani had been in office already for over three years. There had been over 17 court cases about First Amendment violations, constitutional violations. And it was becoming a real concern to some constitutional scholars and lawyers.
They approached me to do a film about examining some of these refusals by the city to permit demonstrations and a variety of things, so we started to look into it and did some research. We were going to do a short film. It wasn‘t going to be long doing it.
But as it happened, a week after we started shooting Ahmed Diallo was killed by the street crimes unit of the NYPD.
KEATING: And we became enveloped. It literally became almost weekly, whether it was about the Brooklyn Museum and the sensation when Mayor Giuliani was upset by a painting and decided to evict the Brooklyn Museum to the killing of Patrick Dorismond. I mean, it was just a sequence of events that drove us forward. And ultimately, the film took us over five years to make.
CARLSON: Well, look, you make the point throughout the film, in every minute of the film, that Giuliani has authoritarian impulses. And there‘s no denying that. That‘s clearly true.
KEATING: I don‘t think he would deny it.
CARLSON: Right, I don‘t think he would. And no one who watched him could deny it. But there are parts of it that I thought a second ago are pretty unfair. You open the film with a series of scenes from where he grew up in Brooklyn and then on Long Island.
KEATING: Hold it. Tucker, we opened the film with him at the Republican convention.
CARLSON: You literally open the film with that. I‘m talking about the first six minutes of the film.
KEATING: Can I ask you a question, Tucker?
KEATING: When we declared in Madison Square Garden, in front of the world and in front of that convention that he looked up at the tower and watched the bodies fall and turned to Bernie Kerrick and said, “Thank God George Bush is president.” Is there anyone in that room or on this earth...
CARLSON: I was about 10 feet away when he said that. My first thought was that‘s ridiculous.
KEATING: Of course.
CARLSON: I mean, he looked up and he said, “Oh, my God! What is”—and probably profanity. No, that was absurd. I‘m not going to defend that.
KEATING: Does anybody in the world believe that? Does even he believe it? Why would he—why did he do that?
CARLSON: I could—you know, I‘ve covered a lot of political conventions, and I could give you a list of the things people say at these things. It‘s amazing. And that is on the list.
KEATING: But Tucker—Tucker, if he does that in front of the world at the Republican convention, think about all the other statements that he made publicly?
CARLSON: Give me a break. You think—I don‘t know who your political heroes are, but I‘m sure I‘ve seen them speak at political conventions. And I can—I‘ve got a list of all their phony utterances. And look, I‘m not defending Giuliani. I‘m just saying put it in context.
KEATING: Tucker, can you match that for outrageousness?
CARLSON: Can I match that? I don‘t know. Let me go back to my notebook. But I want to talk about your movie.
CARLSON: You open it—pretty much open it with the point that his father was a petty hoodlum, was a criminal. He spent a year and a half in Sing-Sing for a felony. And you say, well, we‘re not blaming the son for his father‘s crimes, but why even bring up his father‘s crimes? They‘re not his fault. They‘ve got nothing to do with him. Why do you—that‘s so cheap.
KEATING: Well, we don‘t—we don‘t make that case, Tucker. What we do is bring up not the sins of the father and the fact that he spent time for armed robbery in Sing-Sing Prison.
That—listen, Rudy became, you know, a—he went to some great schools on scholarship, Bishop Loughlin High School. He went to college. He was magna cum laude at NYU Law School.
KEATING: He worked hard. He was a great student. He left all that Brooklyn neighborhood behind and became, you know, a stellar lawyer.
CARLSON: Yes, but you‘re attacking his dad.
KEATING: No, we‘re not.
CARLSON: Yes, you are. I just saw the movie, and it attacks his dad.
KEATING: No, no. Tucker—Tucker, we don‘t attack the dad. In fact, what we talk about is his first cousin and his uncle, who ran Vincent‘s Bar, which by all accounts was a Mafia center, a loan shark operation near Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn that was well known for—you know, his father was reputed to have been the bartender. Had a bat, had a gun. This is for people who...
CARLSON: Look, I get the point. His father was a petty hood. I totally believe you. I just think it‘s cheap to bring it up.
KEATING: Cheap but interesting.
CARLSON: I agree with that. It is interesting.
CARLSON: So if that were—if you were saying that about my father, I‘d go over there and punch you out. It would make me so mad.
But here‘s to the core of your case. You spend a lot of time in this film making the case that Giuliani was not, in fact, responsible for the miracle of transforming New York City, particularly with crime.
And I just want to read to our viewers the crime statistics. 1990, 2,245 murders. 2004, there was a total of 566 murders. That very roughly corresponds to Giuliani‘s term. I know the first two years were Dinkins.
But look, there‘s no way to take that mantle from Giuliani. He did transform New York, and you can‘t change that.
KEATING: Tucker, can you cite me the statistics for San Diego and Boston during the same period?
CARLSON: Yes, crime went down—look, I was a crime writer when this happened. I know that crime went down around the country.
CARLSON: Right? But partly because police departments aped the techniques of Jack Maple and Bill Bratton and Rudy Giuliani, the people behind what was going on here.
KEATING: You mean the broken windows theory?
CARLSON: That‘s exactly what I mean.
KEATING: From Kelly and all that.
CARLSON: James Q. Wilson, yes.
KEATING: They were certainly aped in London around the world. It was spread around as the new doctrine.
But I think that there were cities that didn‘t ape that doctrine that had significant drops in crime. There were many things that played into this. There was the evaporation of the crack epidemic. There were thousands of narcotics junkies, street junkies who died of AIDS during the period. The criminologists are still trying to sort this out.
And you saw the film, and we try to...
KEATING: It‘s not a miracle. There are a lot of forces that came into it. It‘s a material change. It wasn‘t a miracle.
CARLSON: I‘m aware of that. I just think you‘ve got to give the guy some credit. But we‘ll let people—we‘ll let people judge for themselves. The movie is “Giuliani Time”. I believe it‘s coming out soon. Kevin Keating is the director. Thanks a lot for joining us.
KEATING: Thanks for watching it.
CARLSON: Still ahead, Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney signs a health care bill that is being hailed as a model for the nation. But why are people being forced to buy health insurance?
Plus 28-year-old teacher Pamela Rogers gets busted again, this time for communicating with the 13-year-old student she had sex with. How‘d she get caught? We‘ll tell you in a minute.
CARLSON: Now to a story that happened in Massachusetts but that will certainly affect the rest of us before long.
On Wednesday Massachusetts‘s governor, Mitt Romney, signed a bill that makes his state the first to require residents to buy health insurance. Supporters, and they range from Republican leaders all the way to Hillary Clinton herself, have applauded this plan, saying it comes about as close as possible to universal coverage.
Well, just about everyone is saying the new law will almost certainly serve as a new model for the rest of the country. Is that good?
For her thoughts on all this, we welcome Air American Radio Host Rachel Maddow—Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST: Hi, Tucker.
Look, I‘m opposed to this on philosophical grounds. I mean, well it doesn‘t cover enough people. It covers a lot of people. It benefits believe it‘s wrong for the government to force people to protect themselves, to require people to buy health insurance. Why not require people to eat right or to exercise? I mean, I just don‘t—the rationale doesn‘t make sense. It gives government too much power and it‘s kind of scary.
MADDOW: Well, there‘s the principle of the matter about how it affects the individual. There‘s also the overall question of how we deal with health care in this country. And right now, we‘re trying to kind of deal with it and somewhere between a right and some sort of good that you purchase. And neither one of those makes very much sense.
I mean, I give Massachusetts credit for trying to come up with something. I don‘t like what they‘ve come up with either. And I think that they‘ve got...
CARLSON: For the same reasons?
MADDOW: Well, I mean, requiring people to protect themselves on principle is troubling. That said, you sometimes weigh principle against what practical value you get out of it. I‘m not sure you‘re going to get any practical value out of it, and so therefore why even wade into that sort of territory?
Our health care system is right now—is screwed up. It‘s not like -
health care isn‘t like car insurance. You know, health care isn‘t like something that you buy at the grocery store. Health care isn‘t—you don‘t save up for heart surgery the way you say up to buy a new house or buy a new car. It doesn‘t work that way.
But we‘ve got a system that‘s totally deregulated based on this for-profit insurance system that has all of the wrong incentives for covering Americans. And our health care outcomes as a nation are embarrassing, awful.
CARLSON: I don‘t know if they‘re embarrassing or awful. I mean, as compared to what? I mean, no, I don‘t think they‘re embarrassing.
MADDOW: ... s the same as Poland‘s, our life expectancy is the same at Cuba‘s. And we spend more money than anybody else.
CARLSON: If you—that‘s a very complicated statistic that you just threw out there. And that is caused by a small group of people whose behavior causes that statistic. That is not a product of our health care system. It‘s a product of individual behavior.
MADDOW: You can‘t blame people for being sick.
CARLSON: I‘m not blaming people for being sick. This is not about being sick; this is about children dying. Infant mortality was the statistic you raised, and that is a product of the way people live and delivery. I mean, that‘s only marginally a product of our health system.
Look, here‘s the point. The idea that your behavior affects everyone else, therefore we have a right to regulate your individual behavior. Why not, you know, outlaw unprotected sex? I mean, that is—if you allow this you could be for that. In principle, they‘re the same.
MADDOW: If you approach it from the other way and you say, “Listen, we‘re the only industrialized country in the entire world that doesn‘t have a health care system, that doesn‘t have a health care system designed to provide everybody some level of care. We don‘t have it. We‘re the only ones that don‘t.
And because of that we have a very, very, very expensive system, more expensive than anybody else‘s. And we have poor health care outcomes from what we get for it. We‘re spending a lot of money for very bad care. And we have this system if you have infinite resources you can get infinite health care. But we also have poor infant mortality, poor life expectancy and a lot of bad stuff going on in this country in terms of health.
CARLSON: But some of those—my only point is some of those things are not going to be changed or made better by a centralized system. You can‘t—it‘s very difficult in the end to force people to make good choices about their own health.
And a lot of the statistics you‘re pointing to are the result of bad choices. People smoke, people don‘t have good prenatal care because they don‘t show up to get good prenatal care. They‘re otherwise occupied and irresponsible. And there‘s nothing you can do about that.
MADDOW: But 40 million people and growing don‘t have health insurance right now. And you can say that they‘re making bad choices about not getting health insurance, but a lot of people, it‘s either too expensive to buy it on their own or their employer doesn‘t offer it or when their employer does offer it, it‘s too expensive for them to by it. Our health care coverage sucks in this country.
Before I started working at Air America, I was paying for individual coverage. My individual coverage every month was $419 a month. I was making eight bucks an hour. Do the math. It hasn‘t worked.
CARLSON: You could make the rational case that a 27-year-old healthy woman shouldn‘t be wasting her money on health insurance.
MADDOW: And when I break my leg who pays for it?
CARLSON: That‘s actually a...
MADDOW: I‘m making eight bucks an hour. Who pays for it?
CARLSON: You would be smart to put, you know, one quarter of what you‘re paying in premiums in a checking account and use that money for—
MADDOW: Wait. If I don‘t break my leg, what if I have a heart attack? Then my little quarter of my statement I‘ve been making isn‘t going to help me. People of my state are going to end up paying for it down the road, and our health care system...
CARLSON: The odds, as a young healthy woman, if you have a heart attack, you‘re probably getting hit by lightning. OK.
MADDOW: Everybody‘s playing against the odds, but we need a system that takes account of those odds.
CARLSON: Not an authoritarian one. Rachel Maddow, thank you.
MADDOW: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Still to come, just when you thought you had heard everything from Tom Cruise, out comes yet another bombshell. Do we really need to know details of this man‘s alleged sex life? I don‘t think we do.
Plus, Gibson‘s “Passion of the Christ” saw heated debate in this country, but was “The Passion” Jesus‘s most controversial moment in the media? Find out when we unveil our nightly top five list. That‘s next.
CARLSON: Still to come, “South Park” explores the outer reaches of decency with a graphic scene involving George Bush and Jesus.
CARLSON: Welcome back. We turn now to a man who likes a good debate almost as much as he likes a trip to his beard manicurist, and he has one. He is “The Outsider”, EPSN Radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: But not as much as I love “South Park”, Tucker, and it was a great episode.
CARLSON: We‘ll get to that in a minute. That‘s a little over the top, even for me, I have to say.
KELLERMAN: But they were making a point about how everyone‘s a target, including the Prophet Mohammed. And you‘ve done that topic on your show.
CARLSON: Yes. Not all prophets are equal in my view.
But in any case, want a quick way to make your kids hates them forever? Buy them one of the new cell phones that allows you to track their every move with GPS technology.
Sprint Nextel rolled out its family locator service today. It allows parents to look at maps on their cell phones and computers that pinpoint the exact location of their kids. Mom and Dad can also program the service to send them text messages to confirm their children have arrived at school or at home.
What happened to good old fashioned trust? These phones sounds creepy to me, Max. Max, of course, wants to take the concept a step further and implant homing devices in every American child.
Look, Max, the problem is not even so much the violation of trust between parent and child—parents have a right to know where their kids are—but it‘s a question of too much information.
Do you really want the ability to know exactly where your kids are?
No. It would drive your crazy. You would become just a ball of neuroses.
You couldn‘t live if you had access to that information.
KELLERMAN: Well, I mean, the whole idea about what happened to trust. Parents can‘t and shouldn‘t trust their kids. “He lied to me. He looked me right in”—don‘t ask them a question. Ask them no questions and they‘ll tell you no lies.
Here‘s the point about this, Tucker. Big Brother, no. Big mother, maybe. You know, maybe. Technology is enabling parents to—it‘s sending them alerts when they‘re near a child predator, for instance. It‘s letting them know where their kids are, actually letting them know, without having to rely on trust with their kids.
CARLSON: I tend to agree with you. I mean—I‘m kind of—I‘m not sure I‘m for big mother exactly. There‘s something very kindergartenish about that, and it bothers me.
But I see your point. I don‘t think kids have a right to secrecy.
But parents will be tormented by this. Right? There are some things
that—some information comes to us too quickly. The ability to know if someone has read an e-mail you sent to him is one of those things that is bad and should not have been invented.
KELLERMAN: You can what?
CARLSON: Yes, because it makes you hate people. You check. Has this e-mail been read? Yes, three days ago. Has he responded? No. I hate him. The mystery of not knowing whether he read the e-mail is what keeps you from hating him.
KELLERMAN: Tucker, I didn‘t even know they had that. But that‘s the point. This is the point. Technology changes the world in ways that we can‘t—we can‘t anticipate the ripple affects.
KELLERMAN: And so people are scared of it. Look, I‘m sure with the printing press there were many who thought everybody—everyone‘s going to have access to these dangerous ideas now, potentially dangerous. And you know what? People did and it changed the world for better and for worse, in ways that people couldn‘t possibly imagine.
CARLSON: That‘s right.
KELLERMAN: And yet the printing press is a great thing.
CARLSON: It was a great thing and tens of millions of people died in the 20th Century alone because of books and their dangerous ideas. So in fact, you know, the worry-worts were rights on that story.
KELLERMAN: Ban the printing press.
CARLSON: Well, Tom Cruise has already lectured the rest of us on modern medicine. Now he‘d like us to know a thing or two about having a successful sex life.
In the latest issue of “GQ” magazine, Cruise says he and fiance Katie, seen here in a “GQ” photograph, have, quote, “a spectacular sex life.” He explains, “Great sex is a by-product of a great relationship where you have good communication, where it‘s just free. It‘s spectacular.” Cruise says meaningless sex is, quote, “really horrible and pathetic and lonely.”
Speaking of really horrible and pathetic, I think it‘s time Tom Cruise stops speaking publicly about anything. Max begs to differ, “Jerry McGuire” being one of his favorite movies. You just cannot get enough Tom Cruise. I‘m sorry about that, Max.
KELLERMAN: “Jerry McGuire” was a pretty good movie. I‘m not fronting on “Jerry McGuire.”
CARLSON: No, I‘m not actually against “Jerry McGuire” myself. I just think Tom Cruise is hurting himself, he‘s hurting the Church of Scientology, not that I‘m mourning that or anything, and he is destroying the life of this poor Katie Holmes victim here. And I just think it would be better for him and all of us if he just never said another word.
KELLERMAN: Well, I‘m going to—I said fronting before. I‘m going to introduce you, and maybe you‘ve heard of it, to a hip-hop term. OK?
KELLERMAN: Are you ready for this? Here‘s the phrase. See if you can repeat this, Tucker. You have to respect his gangster. You ever hear that? You have to respect...
CARLSON: In my neighborhood everybody respects his gangster. It‘s common.
KELLERMAN: You have to respect Tom Cruise‘s gangster. Why? Because this guy has chosen his projects so well that the perception is that he‘s this great box office attraction, which may or may not be true. But that‘s his status.
And here‘s the 800-pound gorilla that can jump around like a monkey on Oprah‘s couch, doesn‘t do a thing to him. Say whatever he wants, sound like a fool, doesn‘t do a thing to him.
“South Park” can come out with an episode where he‘s in the closet—he‘s a Scientologist who‘s in a closet and then John Travolta knocks on the door and gets in the closet with him. And Tom Cruise can get the episode pulled from Comedy Central and have it not reair. That‘s the kind of weight he throws around.
So you have to respect his gangster. He can kind of do whatever he wants.
CARLSON: But he can‘t do one thing, Max. And that one thing is this.
He can‘t lecture the rest of us on what it means to have a good sex life. That‘s just too creepy and weird and only a man who lived in an entirely irony-free world would even think about doing something like that.
Tom Cruise lecturing us about what it means to have a normal sex life.
That‘s just too much. I‘ve got to call foul on that.
KELLERMAN: I concede the debate.
CARLSON: Thank you, Max. Max Kellerman. Have a great weekend.
KELLERMAN: Thanks, Tucker. You, too.
CARLSON: Well, those merry pranksters from “South Park” have outdone themselves yet again. WE can‘t show you exactly what the latest controversy is about. Suffice it to say the foul-mouthed Comedy Central series has kicked up yet another holy war by depicting Jesus and President Bush in a graphic bathroom scene. It‘s pretty over the top.
Not good comedic timing, given that this is Holy Week on the Christian calendar. And no matter what time of year it is, depicting Christ on the small screen or on the big screen can be a touchy matter. Today‘s “Top Five” features some of the most controversial references to Jesus.
CARLSON (voice-over): Hollywood loves a superstar, but trying to cash in on “Jesus Christ Superstar” can often be a thorny matter.
Few know that better than director Martin Scorsese. Critics hailed his 1988 film, “The Last Temptation of Christ”, a masterpiece. Yet many Christians found the depiction of a fearful, sexually confused Jesus blasphemous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You couldn‘t drag me into that trash.
MADONNA, SINGER: make a wish.
CARLSON: If Madonna‘s wish was to incite controversy she certainly succeeded with her 1999 music video “Like a Prayer.” Pepsi paid the pop star $5 million bucks to help resurrect the sale of soda, but the commercial fizzled because of its somewhat devilish content.
Critics call this the gospel according to Mel Gibson. Still, despite a storm of controversy and sometimes hysterical criticism, “The Passion of Christ” won the hearts of his many followers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I came out of the movie it made me want to be a better person.
CARLSON: In 1966 mop head John Lennon sacrificed his worldwide appeal by declaring that the Fab Four were more popular than Jesus. Millions of Beatles disciples fled the flock in protest.
JOHN LENNON, MUSICIAN: If I‘d said television is more popular than Jesus, I might have got away with it.
TERRY JONES, COMEDIAN: Let me share your burden, brother.
CARLSON: Four hundred years ago the Monty Python gang might have been burned at the stake for making “Life of Brian”. As it was, this 1979 biblical spoof did ignite a religious war of words.
MICHAEL PALIN, COMEDIAN: You suddenly find that the way they see it is something quite different than the way you‘d intended.
CARLSON: Twenty-seven years later, “Life of Brian” is worshiped as a comedy classic, which goes to prove what might happen when you always look on the bright side of the life.
CARLSON: Almost exactly 24 hours from now, New Jersey will join the long and growing list of states that have banned smoking in restaurants. And not just in restaurants, but outside of them. As of this Saturday it will be a crime to light a cigarette within 25 feet of a dining establishment in New Jersey.
Well, no matter how you feel about smoking, you may be wondering where the state got the right to regulate tobacco use outside, where it injures nobody but the smoker himself. Good question.
According to New Jersey‘s health commissioner this new law will prevent groups of smokers from congregating outdoors, a practice he says that is, quote, “not only unsightly but unpleasant.”
In other words, government can now punish you for doing thing it believes are unattractive, not dangerous or immoral but, quote, “unsightly and unpleasant”. Aesthetics at the point of a gun.
This is a big step and also a scary step. Once we give government the power to ban things simply because the majority doesn‘t care to look at them, there isn‘t much the government can‘t do. And not just to cigarette smokers. But to you. Remember that the next time you see someone doing something unsightly and unpleasant outside of a building.
Well, coming up on THE SITUATION, the next presidential election is still two and a half years away, but some people can‘t wait that long to see George Bush out of office. We can discuss the president‘s future when THE SITUATION returns in just a moment. We‘ll be right back.
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, a grade school teacher is in trouble for having sex with a 13-year-old student. Plus, what prized possession did Michael Jackson have to sell to dig himself out of debt?
CARLSON: Don‘t tell me he sold Bubble the Chimp. We‘ll tell you when THE SITUATION returns in just a second.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for our voice mail segment. All week you‘ve been leaving messages on our machine. Here‘s some of the best ones.
First up, Gary from Nashville, Tennessee.
CALLER: You always say that you‘re against the war in Iraq. But then at the same token, you say that it‘s a silly waste of time for Bush to be impeached. We have to impeach him because he set a terrible future precedent for future presidents that they can say, “Well, Bush got away with this, and they‘re going to just keep pushing the limit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Good plan, Gary. So that means Dick Cheney becomes president. Hope you enjoy that.
Look, the point is we went to war in Iraq. I think that war was a mistake. I think it was a bad choice. But we went to war in Iraq after the Congress voted on it. Your Democratic leadership, buddy, endorsed this war.
Now, they‘ve been trying to excuse away that vote ever since they cast it. “Oh, Bush lied to us.” No, he didn‘t. They had roughly the same information we have now, except now we know there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was a cowardly vote on their part. It‘s their fault—it‘s mostly Bush‘s fault but it‘s also their fault.
And there‘s no grounds for impeaching the guy. There are grounds for not liking him, grounds for considering him a failed president, but impeachment? No.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Amy in Richmond, Virginia. One of the main criterias of becoming a citizen is to be born in the United States. And now a lot of children born to illegal immigrants are now—they‘re voting age, and now -- I want to know what you think about the criteria of actually being born in the United States can make you a citizen.
CARLSON: Well, it‘s constitutional. You‘d have to change the Constitution to change it.
And I think as an American there‘s something nice about the idea people born here are Americans by birth. You‘re born on American soil. But you make a good point. Immigration will change the nature of our country. Maybe for the better, maybe not.
But there‘s no denying that 30 years from now, when your children and my children are older, this is going to be a different country from—a very different country from what it is now. Maybe that‘s a good thing but we should all be very honest about the fact that it‘s going to change dramatically because of immigration. Let‘s not lie to ourselves about that.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: This is Jay from Chicago. I was wondering if you could list the following in the following order that they annoy you the most. Guitar playing comedians, illegal aliens, ventriloquists and Canadians. I hate your hair. Peace out.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: Peace out to you, too, Jay. Actually, I kind of like Canadians. They amuse me. Guitar playing comedians? Not bad. Illegal aliens, they do annoy me. You know who really annoys me, though? Mimes. People—mimes and birthday clowns.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: This is Erin from Lexington, Kentucky. I‘ve always loved the bow tie. I think you‘re probably the sexiest conservative ever. It‘s like a 19th Century romance novel. I mean, the sexual tension builds. I‘m watching the show, and thinking how great you are and then boom, there in the last two minutes, off it goes like a money shot. You‘ve got to keep it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: I love the porn references there, Erin. The money shot. Well, this is just a more explicit show now. You don‘t have to wait till the end for me to open up and expose my neck. Hope you like it.
Keep the calls coming. The number: 1-877-TCARLSON. Numerically, that‘s 877-822-7576. We‘ll play the best of your voice mails again next Thursday and every Thursday.
You can also e-mail us at Tucker@MSNBC.com. I do read them, actually.
Don‘t forget to check out my daily blog written fresh every day:
Still ahead, this grade school teacher went to jail for having sex with a student. So what did she do when she got out? She immediately tried to rekindle her teenage flame. The incredible details lie in “The Cutting Room Floor,” back in a second.
CARLSON: All right, ladies. It‘s 12:55. You‘ve literally waited all day for him. Here he is, Willie Geist.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Which ladies?
CARLSON: There are no ladies. You‘re right.
GEIST: Nobody‘s waiting for me.
CARLSON: It‘s 11:55, says my producer.
GEIST: That‘s another thing. Other than that, it was a great.
CARLSON: That, too.
GEIST: You know, there‘s something I‘ve been meaning to tell you.
GEIST: God, I respect your gangster.
CARLSON: Thank you. I‘ve been working on my gangster for some time.
GEIST: I‘d tell you I respected you, but I didn‘t have the courage to tell you.
CARLSON: Kind of have that gangster vibe.
GEIST: Being around Max Kellerman is an education every day.
CARLSON: It really is. I want to start rhyming.
GEIST: He‘s so street.
CARLSON: It turns out that having a 3,000 acre ranch with an amusement park and a zoo in the backyard is hell on the pocketbook. Michael Jackson agreed to a plan today to begin getting him out of his estimated $300 million debt. As part of the deal, Michael will have to sell half of his prized music catalog to Sony. That catalogue includes some extremely valuable hits by the Beatles.
GEIST: I guess that level of eccentricity is just expensive. And I bet in hindsight, you look back, when you‘re $300 million in the hole, you say, “You know what? I didn‘t need that roller coaster in my backyard.”
GEIST: I didn‘t have to fly to Paris for brunch.
CARLSON: I‘ve got too many chimps on the payroll.
GEIST: Exactly. You do have to wonder, though, how does Michael Jackson get $300 million in the hole? It‘s like Mike Tyson. These guys are always bankrupt.
CARLSON: That‘s buying a lot of Jesus juice. Wouldn‘t you say?
GEIST: M.C. Hammer, remember the “Behind the Music”?
GEIST: He said he made $33 million on “You Can‘t Touch This.” And they asked him how he went bankrupt. He said, “Well, you buy a new home, that‘s $11 million right there.” You don‘t have to buy the $11 million house.
CARLSON: Two words: room service. That‘ll kill you.
Time for tonight‘s hot teacher in trouble story. We‘ve got one every night. Tennessee grade school teacher Pamela Rogers recently spent six months behind bars for having sex with a 13-year-old student. As part of her probation she was ordered to stay off the Internet and avoid contact with the boy.
Well, she had a little trouble sticking to that. She‘s been communicating with the boy on MySpace.com. She posted photos of herself in a bikini and listed her heroes of Jesus Christ and the boy in question. She‘s been arrested and may now go back to the slammer.
GEIST: If a 13-year-old boy is your hero, doesn‘t that just say everything about the relationship she‘s had with men in her life? Her dad? Like, she‘s so sad. A 13-year-old boy.
CARLSON: Actually, that‘s such a deep point, Willie, you stopped me in my tracks.
GEIST: It is.
CARLSON: That is completely right.
GEIST: Yes. She didn‘t have a lot of good men in her life.
CARLSON: There was something leading up to this. I always blame the men, too.
GEIST: There‘s something really right with the 13-year-old. I‘d like to know what it is. She‘s not bad looking.
CARLSON: His friends are searching for the answer right now.
Someone has finally mustered the courage to do something about the growing problem of gossip in liquor stores.
CARLSON: And thank God for that. The Cumberland County, North Carolina, Alcohol Beverage Control Board recently issued an order that bans gossip and threatens to fire anyone who spreads rumors in any of the county operated liquor stores. The rule is expected to boost morale and increase worker productivity.
GEIST: Yes, this one‘s been a long time coming, Tucker. I‘m sick and tired when I walk into a liquor store to buy my four-pack of wine coolers, the whispering, the looks, the judgment. I don‘t want rumors spread about me, especially in a liquor store.
CARLSON: Every morning when I shuffle in around 9 for my handle of pop-offs, the one thing that puts me off and makes my friend stop over pop-offs (ph), I just can‘t stand to listen to the gossip.
GEIST: I‘m sick and tired, and thank God for these legislators.
CARLSON: Any good realtor will tell you should really take down your meth lab when you‘re trying to sell your home. Four men have been arrested and charged with running a meth lab out of a house that‘s for sale in Akron, Ohio. A realtor was doing a walk through inspection when she found that meth lab in a bedroom.
GEIST: Well, I mean, that‘s all in the eye of the beholder. It depends what you‘re looking for in a home. Right? Maybe they left it there on purpose. If you‘re appealing to a certain demographic, I would say...
GEIST: ... a meth lab is kind of appealing and it adds a little value to the home.
CARLSON: Totally. I mean, I think a lot of people would be, you know, kind of impressed to walk in and find 40 pounds of antihistamine in the spare bedroom.
GEIST: Chlorine tablets. You know, it‘s kind of like having a finished basement. It‘s a value add.
CARLSON: Meth is awful but it makes people do funny things, I have to say.
Willie Geist, have a great weekend.
GEIST: All right, Tucker. You, two.
CARLSON: That‘s it for us tonight. Thanks for watching. We‘ll see you back here on Monday. Have a great weekend.
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.