Guests: Ann Coulter, Irving Joyner
RITA COSBY, HOST, “LIVE AND DIRECT: That does it for me. Let‘s go to Tucker and THE SITUATION starts right now.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thank you, Rita.
Thanks to you at home for tuning in. We always appreciate it.
Tonight, author Ann Coulter stops by to discuss her new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”. I‘ll also ask her about President Bush‘s stance on gay marriage, illegal immigration and how the U.S. ought to deal with Iran.
Then Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy leaves drug rehab and walks into controversy. He says that from now on he wants to be treated like a black man. What the hell is he talking about? Will he be charged with DUI?
Plus road rage, is it a disease? Some shrinks are now referring to it as intermittent explosive disorder. Is aggressive driving something that you can‘t control? Can you catch it from a toilet seat?
We‘ll debate all that in just a few minutes. But first, the new book from best-selling author Ann Coulter, “Godless”, released today on 6-6-06, contends that liberalism is a religion with its own rituals, saints and fiercely held superstitions.
Joining me now live from New York to explain, Ann Coulter.
ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, “GODLESS”: Hello, nice to be here.
CARLSON: We think of liberals as less religious than conservatives. And all surveys of voting behavior bear that out. The more often you go to church, the more likely you are to vote Republican. Not a pejorative statement; just a fact. How is it that liberals, as you say, are every bit as religious as conservatives?
COULTER: Well, it‘s a godless religion. It bears all of the earmarks, often the less attractive earmarks of the ways they attack religion, the hysteria, the intolerance, the self-righteousness.
I mean, as I say at one point in the book, you never run into a fundamentalist Christian as intolerant of—take anything, you know, homosexuality as a liberal who has just found a lit cigarette in a nonsmoking section.
CARLSON: I can verify that that‘s true. So without God, though, I mean, there are no absolutes, right?
CARLSON: I mean, it‘s easy to that something is absolutely good or absolutely bad unless you appeal to a higher authority, whether it‘s real or not. So how is it people who tend not to believe, at least in your telling it, in absolutes are absolutely convicted of certain things?
COULTER: Right. No, that‘s right. It is a godless religion. It‘s basically set up in opposition. It‘s the opposition party to God. Where liberals derive their self-righteousness, I don‘t know. They tend to cite the Constitution or science. But in both cases, the Constitution or Constitution never refers to the actual Constitution; it just means what liberals like.
The same thing with science. I have a whole chapter on liberals‘, really, repulsion from science because science isn‘t subject to their hysterics and crying jags, whether it‘s on breast implants, stem cell research, the fact of I.Q.
CARLSON: You‘re talking about secular liberals, and I tend to agree with you that—that...
COULTER: Oh, yes, and the Summers. Remember the reaction to Larry Summers‘ remark.
COULTER: Science is something that you have facts. They can be tested. They can be checked. Heterosexual AIDS, another one.
CARLSON: Right. But what about—what about religious liberals? I mean, there are many, and I know some authentic religious liberals, people who believe in Christianity or Judaism, who are also politically liberal. What do you make of them?
COULTER: I think they‘re lapsed liberals.
CARLSON: So there‘s no room for a kind of legitimate disagreement on religion? There are people in my own church, the Episcopal Church, who I don‘t agree with, but I think are genuinely trying to be Christians. But they‘re screaming lefties, who you know, summer in Vermont and all that. But I think they‘re for real when they say they‘re Christians.
COULTER: I don‘t know who you‘re talking about. And this...
CARLSON: Sure you do. Imagine the stereotype.
COULTER: Well, OK, but I‘m not—let‘s not personalize this. I‘m not talking about specific liberals the same way. I mean, you can describe Christianity and you can also describe liberalism.
Christianity has certain beliefs, tenets, doctrines. Not all Christians are always living up to them. Similarly, not all liberals are living up to the tenets of liberalism.
But there is a vector. There is a movement. You can describe certain aspects to this religion of liberalism, which advances, which infects the schools, has school children for six hours a day, 12 years of their young lives in baptizing them in the religion of recycling and condom use.
But a moment of silence, that‘s banned, and that is banned because of the alleged separation of church and state. Well, they are a church. It‘s separation of our church and state, not their church and state.
CARLSON: Well, speaking—speaking of the intersection of politics and religion, gay marriage, obviously an issue that has gotten a lot of press in the last two days. But I wonder, though, about the conservative argument for gay marriage, and there is one, and it‘s this.
That marriage is a civilizing force in society. People are more productive, happier citizens when they‘re married. And that gay people, once given the opportunity to get married, will, in fact, be happier, more productive citizens. And in fact, it‘s conservatives who allow people to make lifelong commitments. What do you make of that argument?
COULTER: It‘s—it‘s an argument. I don‘t buy it, and apparently, the American people don‘t buy it. I mean, ultimately, you forget the reason for an institution that‘s been around for 3,000 years. But ultimately, the purpose of marriage is to transmit civilization to the next generation. There has never been an institution that does it as well as marriage, and that is marriage between a man and a woman.
And I must say, I sort of feel sorry for gays being the last ones at the sexual revolution window. We‘ve had liberalizing rules on divorce. We‘ve had the sexual revolution. We‘ve had, you know, the pill, and burning bras and rampant premarital sex and polymorphous perversity.
And 30 years later, gays come to the window and say, “We‘d like our little slice, too,” and suddenly, the nation erupts in rage. So I do feel sorry for them for that, but I don‘t like the rest of that stuff either. And I think that‘s what this is a reaction to.
CARLSON: Marriage seems a lot more wholesome than bath houses to me. And a point that was made last night on the show, which I thought was a compelling point. I thought about the last 24 hours, and it‘s this. Divorce strikes me as much more damaging to society and much more damaging to children than marriage of any kind, including gay marriage.
Why aren‘t conservatives, you and I, more up in arms about divorce, which is so common and so insidious we barely even notice it, even as it undermines society?
COULTER: I do agree that divorce is—is insidious. And I think conservatives are up in arms about it. There‘s a limit to what you can do. You can‘t really require people to stay married. That‘s more of a social pressure issue, and I think you do have a lot of social pressure coming from conservatives.
But as for bath houses versus marriage, there‘s nothing that prevents gays in being in lifelong committed relationships. The point of—the reason I think so many Americans, I suppose, including myself, have reacted so badly to courts announcing, you know, discovering rights to gay marriage in the Massachusetts constitution is that there should be benefits.
Marriage is under attack from so many different areas. There should be benefits associated with married people. Life is unfair. Maybe you won‘t find the right person and you won‘t end up getting married. Oh, well, life is unfair.
But married people, because of their capacity to have children, even if they‘re not going to end up having children, even if they‘re unable to bear children, marriage is an institution that is absolutely central to civilization.
CARLSON: And yet—and yet it would be nice to see conservatives respond to say to the latest Gallup poll, which shows the overwhelming majority of people under 35 thinks it‘s totally fine for unmarried people to have kids today.
Now, that, it seems to me, in the hierarchy of things that hurt the country, that hurt civilization, is a lot higher than gay marriage. That‘s a big deal when ordinary people, straight people think it‘s totally fine to have kids and not be married. I don‘t know. That threatens us. Why aren‘t we barking about that?
COULTER: I think conservatives are, and I agree with you that it‘s something that deserves to be barked about.
CARLSON: So tell me. The question of gay marriage has obviously been in the news because the president has rolled it out once again. I think it‘s his right to do so. As you pointed out, I think, in your book, he‘ s responding to public feelings on the subject, but it raises the question of how are Republicans going to survive the mid terms and hold onto both houses. I know you‘re a Republican. Seems to me they‘re unlikely to keep the House and Senate. What do you think‘s going to happen?
COULTER: I don‘t follow it election by election. I‘m not—I‘m not close to a Michael Barone on this. I‘d ask him for specifics.
But I mean, just as a general matter, the historical precedent is overwhelming that the Republicans ought to be losing seats. And this is six years in. Bush already contradicted the historical precedent in his first midterm election.
CARLSON: Don‘t they deserve it on some level? I‘m not praying for a Democratic victory. I‘d be upset if there is one. On the other hand, the Republicans have done just about squat to win my loyalty. They‘ve alienated me on a whole host of issues, including immigration. So what is it for people to vote Republican this time around?
COULTER: Well, unfortunately, the president and most of the Republican senators, who are—who are for—well, I don‘t know which side of the immigration issue you‘re on, but I think you‘re on now that I think about it.
I think the House guys are doing just fine. They want a wall. They don‘t want amnesty. They‘re up for election. Even in the Senate, the Republicans who are up for election, tend to be the toughest on or want enforcement of our immigration laws. And the president isn‘t up for re-election, so we can‘t really punish the Republicans who need it.
CARLSON: Yes, I would like—someone does need to be punished for the debacle of the last couple years. Ann Coulter, please stay there.
We will continue our conversation with Ann Coulter in just a moment. We will ask what the U.S. ought to do about the Iranian nukes. Should we pay the mullahs to stop producing them? That‘s the idea on the table.
Plus, a popular high school class president and basketball star banned from his own graduation because of death threats against him from a gang. Here‘s a question, though: why isn‘t the school doing anything to protect him. That story when THE SITUATION continues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, NBC‘S “THE TODAY SHOW”: On the 9/11 widows, and in particular a group that had been outspoken and critical of the administration, “These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefarazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband‘s death so much.”
LAUER: Because they dare to speak out?
COULTER: To speak out using the fact that they‘re widows. This is the left‘s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 Commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism. How about sending in somebody who are allowed to respond. No, no, no. We have always to respond to someone who just had a family member die. Then if you respond, oh, you‘re questioning their authenticity.
LAUER: In the middle of the story?
LAUER: So grieve, but grieve quietly.
COULTER: The story is an attack on the nation.
LAUER: And by the way...
COULTER: That requires a foreign policy response. That does not entail...
LAUER: And by the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration for their failures leading up to 9/11.
COULTER: Not the ones I‘m talking about. No. No. No.
CARLSON: That was our guest on “The Today Show” this morning with Matt Lauer, debating her new book. It is called “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.”
Anne Coulter joins us tonight live from New York. Ann, welcome back.
COULTER: Thank you.
CARLSON: Enjoying their husband‘s deaths so much. I understand your point about just because you‘re a victim doesn‘t make you an expert but enjoying their husband‘s death so much is an awful thing to say.
COULTER: I think its true, and I think this is something liberals do all the time. It‘s an ugly way to...
CARLSON: You think it‘s true that these women are enjoying—A lot of these women are left with children, and their husbands were killed on 9/11. I mean, gee.
COULTER: So were hundreds of other widows but they weren‘t cutting campaign commercials, and they weren‘t going around demanding commissions..
CARLSON: But enjoying their husband‘s death is prime facia so nasty that it discredits what I think is a pretty good book.
COULTER: The point is, why—why can‘t we hear these half baked liberals bromides from Howard Dean? Why do liberals always choose spokesmen like the Jersey girls, like Cindy Sheehan, like Joe Wilson who because of some personal aspect of their life we are not allowed to respond to?
CARLSON: I absolutely agree. And to some limited extent, you see it, you know, on both sides. John McCain, nobody is questioning him on matters of war, for instance. But no, I get your point and I agree with it completely.
COULTER: I don‘t question McCain at all, and I‘m not a fan of McCain‘s.
CARLSON: Maybe it doesn‘t. But I want to just focus in on this reoccurring problem that I think you have. I read a lot of your book, 300 pages long. I think a lot of it‘s reasonable. It‘s very smart. I agree with the vast majority of it.
The headline tomorrow, however, will be confined to your exchange with Matt Lauer and that single sentence about the widows enjoying their husband‘s deaths so much. And people who know people who perished on 9/11 or average Americans are going to think Ann Coulter is a whack job and a bad person, and I‘m not buying her book. And I‘m not listening to her ideas.
Isn‘t that self-defeating to say things like that
COULTER: I guess we‘ll see by my book sales. I don‘t think they will say that. If people are going to use personal a tragedy in their lives to inject themselves into a national debate, I‘m sorry. You can‘t just say, “We‘re off limits. Oh, now we‘re going to invoke the fact that our husbands died and you can‘t criticize us.”
They were specifically using their husband‘s death and there were hundreds in fact thousands of widows.
CARLSON: It doesn‘t mean they were enjoying it. Their husband‘s gone, and their kids are there and geez, it‘s depressing.
COULTER: And so are the thousands of widows who are not cutting campaign commercials for Clinton. These women got paid. They ought to take their money and shut up about it.
If they want to take about something else, that‘s fine. But no, people going out and citing some family tragedy so that they can give us what Howard Dean could have given us, what Hillary Clinton could have given to us. But then saying, “Oh, but you can‘t respond.”
CARLSON: This is a liberal talking point, but there is an element of truth to it, and it‘s this. The president himself has leveraged 9/11 in ways that are legitimate and also in ways that are vulgar, in my view. The 2004 Republican convention, Dallas, you were there. I were there.
It was using—that whole convention was using 9/11 to political effect. And as someone who was sympathetic to most Republican ideas, I was terribly offended by that. Were you offended?
COULTER: Well, you might be offended. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I‘m talking about.
He is the president. He is in charge of the executive branch. He is the commander in chief.
CARLSON: But Rudy Giuliani did it. The whole Republican Party does it.
COULTER: It is his job. Yes, and that was their job. You think FDR didn‘t run on the war? That‘s their job.
CARLSON: Of course, he did. But he also interred Japanese-Americans.
COULTER: Bush was not saying I knew somebody who died.
CARLSON: Right. Right.
COULTER: That‘s completely different. To invoke your personal experience. And liberals do that all the time in order to shut down the debate, and it‘s an ugly part of American politics.
CARLSON: I do think that this president and his party have used 9/11 in a similar way to shut down debate, particularly in the early days of the Iraq war. And the notion was if you‘re opposed to the Iraq war or even have hard questions about it, then, I don‘t know, you wouldn‘t mind another 9/11.
And that offended me as someone who did have, as a traditional conservative, a real conservative, who had questions about the war in Iraq.
COULTER: I‘ve got to say, I don‘t see the connection at all. The president arguing about what his response to the war on terrorism is going to be is not the same as weeping widows using their husband‘s death to inject themselves into the national debate and demand that we listen to them out of pity.
CARLSON: Speaking of the party switching places, conservatives are outraged when, correctly I believe, when the Clinton administration opened negotiations with Pyongyang and said to the whackos running North Korea if you stop your nuclear program, we will build you stuff. We‘ll pay you off. Right? And conservatives are mad about that. They said that‘s ugly and that‘s immoral.
Now you see this White House openly discussing paying off Iran to stop building nuclear weapons. What‘s your take on that?
COULTER: Well, we‘ll see what happens.
CARLSON: No, but the idea of it, the principle?
COULTER: Conservatives were—were right the last time. We‘ll see what happens here. As we now know, North Koreans instantly went to work feverishly building nukes.
CARLSON: So why is the Bush administration...
COULTER: The paper wasn‘t worth as much paper as it was written on.
I don‘t know.
CARLSON: Of course, it‘s an outlaw regime. Why can you, you know, trust them in any negotiations. So why are we even suggesting entering into a negotiation with Iran where we pay them off to stop building nuclear weapons? I mean, do we trust them? Is the Bush administration going soft? Would you defend that?
COULTER: I don‘t know. We‘ll see what happens. I certainly know where the Democratic Party stands on it, listening to them all talk about Iran not being an imminent threat.
I wish you‘d have—one of the Democrats we‘re allowed to respond to on to ask them to describe precisely when the lunatic running Iran, claiming he has nukes, will be an imminent threat.
Because the other alternative is military action and I don‘t want to hear a bunch of weeping and whining from the left if we take military action and then it turns out he didn‘t have a nuke yet.
Yes, I think you have to take these threats seriously when they come from crazy people. But we also have Democrats who will not acknowledge a threat is imminent until an American city is gone.
CARLSON: Why is the president on the Democrat side when it comes to immigration?
COULTER: You have to ask the president.
CARLSON: Then I wonder why there are a number of Republicans in the Senate who are on his side who think, essentially, exactly as the Democrats think, that this country should not enforce its own immigration laws. Is there going to be uprising from conservatives in the midterms where they‘re punished for this? Like I say, I think that‘s difficult.
COULTER: There is certainly an uprising from Americans on the immigration issue. The vast majority of Americans support the House bill. That is that is being made evident. The ones for amnesty and not building a wall are deploying useless National Guard troops. They‘re not useless National Guard troops except at the border. What are they going to do shoot illegal aliens crossing?
It‘s pretending we have a border while not actually creating a border. But anyway, the Republicans who support that aren‘t the ones up for re-election, and so I don‘t really know how to effect that punishment.
CARLSON: Boy, if you can figure a way, call me.
CARLSON: Ann Coulter, author of “The Church of Liberalism: Godless”. No. 5 on Amazon at last check, and I suspect people who hate you buy your books anyway for some reason. That‘s always been my theory. People love...
COULTER: Maybe there are more conservatives than you think.
CARLSON: I hope so. Ann Coulter, thanks.
COULTER: Thank you.
CARLSON: Still ahead, in 1898, a gang of white men seized control of the city of Wilmington, North Carolina. They also murdered a number—a large number of black citizens. A hundred and eight years later, the state is being urged to pay reparations, but to whom? Everyone is dead. We‘ll ask that question when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
News flash. It turns out no everyone agrees with Ann Coulter. Joining us now, someone who most likely falls into that category, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow.
RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: She‘s actually an ex-girlfriend of mine. Little known fact. So it‘s a lot—it‘s very personal. A lot of our disagreements are personal. But I can see her politics, too.
CARLSON: You got the video, I‘ll pay cash. No, excuse me.
Ann Coulter is one of those people best experienced in print, I think. If you actually read Ann Coulter‘s columns, you read her book, you might actually say this is pretty thoughtful. She‘s a very tight writer. She‘s a nice writer, I think quite clever.
It‘s statements—and I agree with most things she says, and I like her because she infuriates these kind of uptight liberals. They want to eat her, they hate her so much.
MADDOW: She‘s the bulls-eye.
CARLSON: But when she makes comments like this about the 9/11 widows, it—it just allows people to dismiss her completely. It‘s almost a form of masochism. Why would you say something like that?
MADDOW: It is—I do think it‘s a form of masochism is right. And I think that it‘s designed to make a lot of people pay attention and to get very angry and think of her as something worth talking about. It‘s a way of kind of throwing a tantrum in public.
But what I think is important about the 9/11 widows thing is actually the point she‘s trying to make, not just the headline.
MADDOW: Not just insulting these people. But she‘s trying to say that this liberal infallibility doctrine, that‘s her point, right? That you—that liberals put up people who you‘re not allowed to argue with, which it—it‘s kind of a bizarre argument that only makes sense. You would only think that you can‘t argue against a 9/11 widow if the way you argue with people is by attacking who they are.
CARLSON: Well, no, I think—yes, that may be right, but a deeper point that I think that‘s she‘s making or least that I have noticed over the years is the liberal belief, and it‘s an article of faith, that suffering confers wisdom. And in fact, suffering does not confer wisdom.
MADDOW: That‘s not true.
CARLSON: I think it is true. Simply because you have suffered through something, you have been the victim of this, that or the other thing. I‘ve suffered. I‘ve been there. I‘ve—I don‘t know, I survived whatever it was that you survived, doesn‘t mean you have moral authority that exceeds anyone else‘s authority. Nor does it mean you have particular insight or wisdom into anything. It doesn‘t make you an expert.
MADDOW: I don‘t think it‘s that victim equals expert. I think what liberals and particularly academic liberals have prioritized is people who have been there, people who have seen things firsthand should be allowed to speak for their own experience.
And whether that means you‘re a victim or whether that means you‘re an expert because you saw it with your own eyes, it‘s an eyewitness priority.
CARLSON: It doesn‘t mean they should be—of course, they should—no one is preventing them from speaking from their own experience. The question is, should they make public policy?
So you go up to Capitol Hill on any given day into the Senate, and some Democratic senator has a victim of this, that or the other thing up there telling you what federal law ought to be on this, that or the other question. It‘s the Jim Brady syndrome. I think Jim Brady was a great guy. I‘m so sorry about what happened to him. What happened to him does not allow him—not give him the authority to take my guns away or control how I use my guns.
MADDOW: He doesn‘t have the authority to take your guns. But he does have the authority to speak to the issue of somebody who suffered gun violence. And I want to know his perspective on it.
CARLSON: He doesn‘t know about the dynamic in society of gun violence than any other person who studies it and less than many, in my view. He was the victim of a horrible crime. It does not give insight into what the laws ought to be. You see, that‘s the distinction.
MADDOW: When we make laws, we need to know about the various perspectives of the issue. So we need to know about the perspective of people who experience gun violence.
When it talks—when it comes to making policy on 9/11, when it comes to responding to the 9/11 Commission and to those recommendations, we should hear from the people who most directly suffered the effects, who are the family members. It‘s not controversial.
CARLSON: Tell me, how much does the left hate Ann Coulter? I mean, it‘s like a seething obsession, right? Ann Coulter. I imagine when everyone from Air America radio gets together to, whatever, eat macrobiotic food and smoke pot, Ann Coulter is topic A of conversation. Correct?
MADDOW: After we smoke pot there‘s not much talking. There‘s a lot of sleeping and twitching. No.
The thing about Ann Coulter. Listen, I expected—look, I knew you were going to be talking to her for two segments, I get to responds for a few minutes afterwards. And I expected to be outraged and to storm onto the set and grab your microphone and take over.
But you know what? I don‘t think she makes very much sense. And so I don‘t feel very threatened by her. When she says liberals are...
CARLSON: Cool contempt, huh?
MADDOW: ... liberals against science. Liberals are—and then she cites stem cell research? I just kind of think, you know what? I don‘t really need to respond to that, because when you think about science and conservatives right now, science and the Bush administration, which she‘s so worshipful of, and she‘s going to say liberals don‘t like science. Like you know what? She‘s a little...
CARLSON: As someone who you believes science is overrated myself, I‘m not even going to take a stand in this argument. Rachel Maddow, thank you very much.
MADDOW: Thank you, Tucker. Appreciate the opportunity.
CARLSON: I‘m not sure that was equal time. But you pack a lot into a short period. Thank you.
MADDOW: Thank you.
CARLSON: Still to come, do you scream obscenities when someone cuts you off in traffic? Do you flip slow drivers the bird? Then you, my friend, could have a serious medical condition. Details next.
Plus, Congressman Patrick Kennedy might be delusional from the sleeping pills. Why else would he think he‘s going to be treated like any other black man busted for a crime? What the hell does that mean? THE SITUATION tells you next.
CARLSON: Still to come, should a popular class president be barred from his high school graduation ceremony because of death threats against him? Plus, what do Princess Diana, Elvis Presley and Brangelina all have in common? We‘ll answer that question in just a moment. But first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.
CARLSON: “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from Wilmington, North Carolina, where more than 100 years ago, racial violence killed as many as 60 African-Americans and forced 2,100 black residents to flee the city for their lives. Now a state-appointed commission is urging North Carolina to pay what could amount to billions of dollars in reparations to the victim‘s descendents and minority owned businesses.
Joining us from Raleigh, North Carolina, tonight to explain the idea is vice-chairman of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission, Irving Joyner.
Mr. Joyner, thanks for coming on.
IRVING JOYNER, VICE CHAIRMAN, 1898 WILMINGTON RACE RIOT COMMISSION: I
don‘t—first, let me just say that the more you read about this 1898 massacre, the more horrifying it is. And I‘m not in any way attempting to minimize what happened. You can‘t minimize it.
My question that was simple, to whom would you pay reparations, since nobody—or pay anything, because nobody who was alive then, the perpetrators or the victims is alive today. So who gets paid?
JOYNER: Well, we‘re not trying to get paid for anyone.
JOYNER: What we‘re trying to do is to redress—redress a wrong that occurred, a wrong that happened not only to individuals, but to an entire community, and it is the community that deserves to be repaired. And it is that community that our recommendations are directed toward aiding and assisting in this situation.
CARLSON: OK. Now you‘re talking about taking public money and giving it to a group of people in repayment, in part, for wrongs that happened long ago to people who are no longer alive, committed by people who are also no longer alive. And so why should...
JOYNER: That‘s one approach. That‘s one approach. I mean, that‘s one way to look at it. I think the better way...
CARLSON: OK. That‘s factually accurate, I believe.
JOYNER: We‘re taking—we‘re taking tax money that these people are putting into the government and redirecting it back to that community, so that that community can be repaired. So it‘s not this money is coming from some third party or from your pockets.
CARLSON: Wait a second. Well, it‘s coming from everyone‘s pockets, including from person who had—I mean, every person it‘s coming from had no role in this massacre. I mean, nobody who pulled the trigger or incited people to riot is still alive. Why should people who were not responsible for a crime pay for the crime? How is that fair?
JOYNER: Well, because many people benefited—many people benefited from the wrong that was done, primarily the Democratic Party of North Carolina. The state of North Carolina itself. The Raleigh News-Observer and others.
These are individuals or groups that we can document involved themselves in the harm that occurred. So the state is the only organ left that can provide the redress that is needed to repair this community.
CARLSON: It‘s just so unfair, though. The state is all of us. So when you say my tax dollars, you tax dollars. Our next door neighbors tax dollars. None of us had anything to do with this.
It‘s so unfair it seems to me, so contrary to principles of American justice, based of course, on the individual, individual perpetrator, individual victim to do this.
I mean, why not say—I could say, well, my great-great-grandmother was killed by your great-grandfather. You owe me $15,000 for the mental distress I‘ve suffered as was a killed by your great grandfather and you would say to me, I didn‘t have anything to do with this. I‘m not responsible for what my great-grandmother did. And you‘d be round.
JOYNER: I though you‘re talking about something entirely different in what we are dealing with ears in Wilmington, North Carolina.
We made a case for a documented overthrow of a legitimately elected government. It harmed people not only in Wilmington, but African Americans all over the state of North Carolina.
CARLSON: I believe that.
JOYNER: It has nothing to do with your grandfather being harmed by anyone.
CARLSON: I believe everything...
JOYNER: We‘re talking about, Dan, we‘re redirecting—let me job name this prize. We are talking about redirecting state money into an area that is devastated, that has a lingering impact or effect from this massacre, which occurred in Wilmington, North Carolina and it‘s time for the state middle to repair the damage that was done there. That‘s all we ask. And it‘s time for the...
O‘REILLY: And at this point the help to more that jackanapes.
Mr. Joyner, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.
O‘REILLY: We turn now to a man who is seeking republic reparations but the man who styled his beard. Rightly so. He‘s “The Outsider”, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman.
Max, you deserved that money, and I hope you get it soon.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: I kind of halfway buy that gentleman‘s argument, because in North Carolina, partly as a result of occurrences of that one. It paid to be white for hundreds of years. And to hurt to be black for hundreds of years. And no scale of justice.
CARLSON: That is probably still true. No question about it. It‘s one of the many deeply offensive and unjust things that happen in this world, but the question is, who should pay for it? Should the innocent pay for it?
Anyway, the senior class president of a Pennsylvania high school has been banned from his graduation ceremony—speaking of unjust—for his own good.
Cops say 18-year-old Tyrone Lewis of Levittown, Pennsylvania, could be the target of gang violence if he shows up at his graduation on his Friday. His sister recently testified against a gang member in a murder trial, and police fear retribution about her family.
He was scheduled to be the commencement speaker, but police have ordered him to stay home. Lewis‘ mother said her son is devastated. She plans to take the school district to court.
Max planned to increase security at the graduation. You‘re going to let the kid make the choice. I mean, talk about penalizing the kid unfairly. He‘s this impressive kid, president of his class. His sister did the right thing and is testifying against an alleged gang member and just because you don‘t feel like defending the school in the way that I think you‘ve got an obligation to you‘re cheating this kid out of graduation? No way.
KELLERMAN: Well, first of all, congratulations Tyrone Lewis, who not only graduated, apparently with the highest grade point average but also has the courage to want to go in the face of death threats.
CARLSON: Exactly, exactly.
KELLERMAN: So congratulations, Tyrone Lewis. Deserves a lot of credit.
KELLERMAN: Here‘s what I like about, playing devil‘s advocate, what I like about the police making him stay home. It shines the spotlight, Tucker, on their own failure. What is this? Is this, you know, the nation of Columbia where we feed part of the nation to drug cartels, because they can‘t be controlled?
CARLSON: I was just going to say, is this Medayeen, because it sounds like it. That‘s right.
KELLERMAN: It‘s unbelievable that law enforcement—this goes up to the governor‘s office, right, in Pennsylvania. Law enforcement and the executive branch of the government in Pennsylvania has so failed this community that they can‘t ensure the safety of students at their graduation, even though they know not only that there‘s a death threat but where the threat is coming from?
CARLSON: That‘s right. This is like Rudy Giuliani‘s advice to New Yorkers after 9/11, go outside, raise the finger to the people who did this. That‘s so the people who would intimidate an entire high school, up yours. And allowing Tyrone Lewis to go will send that message.
KELLERMAN: And by the way, really, with the police, it‘s an outrage what law enforcement is doing. In New York City, it‘s analogous to New York City when there are power outages in the middle of summer and Con Ed has the nerve to put out messages: “conserve electricity.”
No, do your job.
CARLSON: I agree.
That‘s why I‘m against gun control. The cops, when it comes down to it, are not necessarily going to protect you. Your job is to protect yourself.
KELLERMAN: That‘s the strongest Second Amendment argument I think there is.
CARLSON: It‘s the lesson of Katrina. I can tell you that.
Next time some maniac gets red in the face, lays on the horn, gives you the finger in traffic, have compassion. He‘s probably suffering from a profound medical condition.
The very same people who brought you attention deficit disorder for hyper kids, we have intermittent explosive disorder for people with road rage. Doctor‘s say the, quote, “disease” is characterized by multiple outbursts that are out of proportion to the situation. It‘s also known in some medical circles as having a bad temper.
An estimated 16 million Americans suffer from this so-called condition. You don‘t get to claim you have a disease when you smash some guy‘s windshield. The golf club, Max. I want to see this, Dr. Kellerman.
CARLSON: This camera guy, I don‘t like what he did at all. You know, right, it‘s called having a bad temper.
KELLERMAN: Here‘s what you object to, Tucker, about the idea of labeling it a disease. You feel in some way that people get out of the responsibilities for their behavior, right?
CARLSON: Yes, I do.
KELLERMAN: And that‘s certainly a legitimate point of view. When—here‘s the upside, the flip side to this. When you label it a disease, there is something implicit in that, where you‘re saying there can also be a cure. There can be treatment.
There can be a way to prevent the bad behavior, not simply saying, have self control. Just concentrate harder on having self control, because clearly that doesn‘t work, right?
CARLSON: I think, actually, self control works pretty well.
KELLERMAN: Not for these people.
CARLSON: I don‘t know. Are they trying to exercise it? I mean, it‘s one of those I don‘t have self control myself. I no one to lecture anyone else. But I do know through experience, that when you attempt to flex the self control muscle, it gets stronger.
CARLSON: The whole idea that just because you get grouchy in traffic and give somebody the bird, that you‘ve got a disease? I mean, like you can catch it from a drinking fountain? That‘s ridiculous. It devalues the concept of disease.
KELLERMAN: But this is not just people—this is not just people who are flipping other people off, which I can tell you from experience, by the way, is the best way to actually handle something that could turn into road rage.
KELLERMAN: Because it drives the other person nuts, especially if you smile while you do it. But this is for people who actually behave violently. And if you‘re telling people, you know, there‘s a way to treat this and it‘s not just a bunch of guys on TV going, “Just control yourself.” But it‘s actually doctors saying if you do X, Y and Z, or if you, perhaps, take this medication. Let‘s face it. You know, the bad result won‘t occur. That‘s probably a step forward.
CARLSON: Doesn‘t seem a step forward to me at all.
KELLERMAN: That‘s it.
CARLSON: Stop whining. This is just one click better than blaming your parents for your halitosis or whatever.
Max Kellerman, a man who blames no one but himself.
KELLERMAN: What did you say? Sorry.
CARLSON: Thank you, Max.
KELLERMAN: Thank you.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION, the world sits on pins and needles, waiting for the first picture of Brad and Angelina‘s baby. So where does their uber child rank against future king of England? That‘s all in our “Top Five” list. We‘ll tell you when THE SITUATION returns.
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, Congressman Patrick Kennedy says he wants to be treated like a black man.) We‘ll try to figure out what he means.
Plus, Brad and Angelina make some big cash off their new child.
CARLSON: Nothing like exploiting a newborn baby when THE SITUATION returns in just 60 seconds.
CARLSON: She‘s not even two weeks old yet, but already she‘s one of the most south after celebrities in the world, referring of course, to Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt. She‘s the new daughter of Brad and Angelina.
“PEOPLE” magazine reportedly has secured exclusive rights to publish the baby‘s first authorized pictures. They paid a whopping $4.1 million. But the Internet may have scooped people with a still unconfirmed picture of the happy trio.
Shiloh, of course, isn‘t the first celebrity baby to arose the excitement of newborn gawkers worldwide.
In tonight‘s top five, we recall other famous tots who were not just the apple of their parents‘ eyes.
CARLSON (voice-over): The birth of any baby may be a blessed event, but if it happens to be a celebrity offspring, well, then that‘s a media event.
Movie queen Grace Kelly was one of the most watched women in the world, even before she took on the role of her serene highness, Princess Grace of Monaco. No Hollywood premiere could have matched the excitement that surrounded the birth of her first child, Princes Caroline, on January 23, 1957.
OK. She‘s not true royalty, but Lisa Marie Presley is, after all, the only known offspring of the king of rock ‘n‘ roll. She got Elvis and the press all shook up on February 1, 1968.
And while Lisa Marie may have inherited the Elvis estate at age 11, her father‘s musical talent, sadly, was never passed on.
LISA MARIE PRESLEY, DAUGHTER OF ELVIS: I have the same reaction.
CARLSON: Pop star Michael Jackson recertified his credentials as Whacko Jacko when this in famous video emerged from Germany on November 19, 2002. Sure, Jackson may have been anxious to show off then 9-month-old Prince Michael II, but this was photo op was a bit off the wall.
Let than a year after worldwide celebrated wedding, Prince Charles and Princess Diana presented their loyal subjects with a new heir to the British thrown.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: May we see your son, your royal highness?
CARLSON: Prince William was born on June 21, 1982. As you might guess, these first shots of his little highness were a crowning moment for England‘s faithful royal watchers.
Fifties sitcom fans loved television‘s whacky redhead, but Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz‘s popularity soared to ratings heaven when on January 19, 1953, Lucy Ricardo gave birth to little Ricky. Sixty-eight percent of all television sets in the country were tuned in. But Lucille Ball probably wasn‘t watching. She was in the hospital that night, giving birth to her real life son, Desi Arnaz Jr.
DESI ARNAZ JR.: He‘s Little Ricky. No, he‘s Desi. We used to trick people.
CARLSON: Speaking of celebrity offspring, there are only two things you need to know about Congressman Patrick Kennedy‘s run-in with the Capitol Hill police last month. Kennedy was driving a car, and he was impaired. These facts are not in dispute. The only question is why hasn‘t Kennedy been arrested? No one seems to know.
During a speech yesterday in Boston, Kennedy claims he welcomes an arrest and mug shots and fingerprinting and all the rest. Quote, “What anyone else would have done to them if they were an African-American in a poor part of town,” as if his DUI were a part of the larger civil rights struggle somehow.
It‘s time for law enforcement to take the congressman up on his offer and it‘s well past time for Kennedy‘s fellow Democrats to demand their colleague be held to the same standards as anyone else who endangers the public by getting behind the wheel while wasted. Otherwise the rest of us may begin to wonder if it‘s OK for Patrick Kennedy to drive blotto, what can‘t I? Good question.
The question will remain until Mr. Kennedy is fingerprinted. Let‘s hope it happens soon.
Still ahead on THE SITUATION, no, the earth was not swallowed by the fires of Hell today, but there were some very unusual things happening on 6-6-06. The work of Satan or merely coincidence? We‘ll investigate when THE SITUATION continues.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for “The Cutting Room Floor”. Joining us now, the man you just saw dancing on television, Willie Geist.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: I thought he we were going to lock that away forever. We don‘t need to see that, do we?
CARLSON: TV never dies.
GEIST: You and Ann Coulter, good together, I have to say. And we...
CARLSON: Like chocolate and peanut butter?
GEIST: We haven‘t received this much e-mail since Mikey the Chimp was running around the set. Massive response to Ann Coulter.
CARLSON: The thing with Ann Coulter is nobody—Nobody, I mean nobody including Pol Pot is hated as much as Ann Coulter, and for that reason, I always defend Ann Coulter. Plus, I think she‘s smart.
GEIST: And we had the courage to put her on for half an hour.
CARLSON: I guess we did.
Well, there‘s still about three minutes left for the planet to explode, but so far, we appear to have escaped June 6, 2006, or 6-6-06, without major incident. That doesn‘t mean there haven‘t been some disturbances in the force field, though.
This baby boy was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, at 6 a.m. this morning. He weighed six pounds, six ounces. That‘s an awful lot of sixes, just the way the devil likes it.
GEIST: Very, very eerie, isn‘t it, Tucker.
Also, there‘s a New Hampshire man stands six feet six inches, turned 66 today on 6-6-06. And wait, it gets weirder. He was once an alderman in Manchester, New Hampshire, in the Sixth Ward.
CARLSON: Ronald Wilson Reagan, six letters in each name, ladies and gentlemen.
GEIST: Thirty-year mortgage rate today, 6.66, no joke. It‘s no joke.
CARLSON: Too much.
Now for a story about killing two birds with one stone. This minor league pitcher from the Durham Bulls struck out the batter, but not before the ball hit a seagull on the way to the plate. Watch closely as the ball leaves the pitcher‘s hand, hits the bird, then goes past the hitter for an unconventional strike out. The stunned bird flapped around on the ground for awhile but eventually flew away in pretty good shape.
GEIST: It‘s good. I was worried about the bird when I saw that picture. But good he got away.
But there was a much better version of the same incident from the major leagues, 2001. That‘s Randy Johnson, watch him just vaporize this dove with a fast ball. Gone.
CARLSON: Is that real.
GEIST: That is real. That happened. That was in a spring training game about five years ago. Growing guy. (ph)
CARLSON: Bagging his limit.
CARLSON: Well, the British have a little different idea than we do about what constitutes a sport. When they‘re not injuring themselves by chasing a wheel of a cheese straight downhill, they‘re kicking each other in the shins for fun. These shin kicking good times were part of the Cotswold Olympics in rural England. Contestants stuff their pants with straw to protect against the vicious kicks of their opponents.
GEIST: You know, Tucker, we don‘t stop enough and thank the Founding Fathers, because that could have been us. If they didn‘t have the courage to revolt, we would be kicking each other in the shins and chasing cheese downhill. So once again, thank you to the Fathers.
CARLSON: You‘ve got to give them credit. I mean, they‘ve bad teeth and even worse food, but they are a tough people.
GEIST: They‘re still ready to kick each other in the shins.
CARLSON: They are tough.
GEIST: I love them.
CARLSON: What 6-year-old kid doesn‘t love a blowout birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese? The kind of 6-year-old kid who was left by his family at Chuck E. Cheese for a full day after the party.
CARLSON: The mother and another relative of Michael Emmanuel Jr. said they thought the others had taken the boy home after his birthday bash. Chuck E. Cheese employees called cops late Saturday night after no one claimed the boy.
GEIST: That‘s bad on the parents‘ part, but for the kid, is that really the worst thing in the world? I mean, he was drinking Mountain Dew and playing skeet ball, right? He didn‘t want to leave, right? He‘s at Chuck E. Cheese. In fact, if they‘re kind of parents who leave you there is probably better to be there than at home? Don‘t you think?
CARLSON: Definitely. There‘s no question.
CARLSON: There‘s something so sad about this story, I don‘t even know what to say.
GEIST: It is kind of sad. It‘s sad parenting.
CARLSON: I would say better than leaving him outside of a casino on a hot day. But still, pretty bad.
CARLSON: Willie Geist, ladies and gentlemen. That‘s it for us tonight.
Thank you for watching. We‘ll see you here tomorrow. Have a great night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
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.