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

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for August 2

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guest: Jim Burin, Donal Logue, Max Kellerman

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  We begin with the breaking news on the crash of Air France Flight 358, which exploded into flames after skidding off the runway at Toronto's Pearson Airport this afternoon.  Flight 358 was landing in Toronto from Paris.  It's the first major airline crash in North America since October 2001. 

Reporter Martin Himmel is in Toronto with the latest—Martin.

MARTIN HIMMEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Tucker, basically, the airport has just reopened.  The situation is slowly coming back to normal, after a very difficult day.  It started around 4:12 Eastern time, when the air (AUDIO GAP)

CARLSON:  I think we've lost Martin Himmel in Toronto. 

I'm joined now by the co-host of “CONNECTED: COAST TO COAST,” MSNBC's own Monica Crowley.  And you know him from the TV show “Grounded For Life” and the movie “The Tao of Steve,” among many others, actor and comedian Donal Logue. 

Thank you both.


DONAL LOGUE, ACTOR:  It's good to be here.

CARLSON:  We'll have more on the status of that Air France flight in a minute. 

But first up, to the other news of the day, beginning across the world.  And that is in Iraq, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein now the unwilling underwear model.  Iraq's national security adviser says that he, Saddam, expects the trial to begin before mid-October.  And that trial will be televised throughout the Arab world.  The goal of the telecast is to show Iraqis that Saddam has gone into the past and gone with the wind, and probably blowing in the wind, too. 

There's been a lot written about how, oh, about how this trial is going to expose various unattractive moments in American foreign policy.  And I totally buy that.  I think it probably will.  But what it is really going to expose is the transparency of the American system. 

Here, we are the only country, one of the few countries willing to air this stuff.  We don't have to have a public and televised trial for Saddam Hussein, but we're willing to.  And I think it sends a powerful—as much as I have concerns about the war itself, I think it sends a powerful and good message about America to the rest of the world. 

LOGUE:  That's a good point.  I mean, he's going to tell people the off-color jokes that Donald Rumsfeld told him when they were hugging and kissing back in the day.

But I think it's true.  You can say, we have nothing to hide.  You know, it's going to come out, how much we supported them, how we armed him.  And, at the same time, it's the best country in the world because we don't have to censor our press and we don't have to censor this trial. 

CARLSON:  Well, that's right.  And—and everything in the Middle East is kind of run by conspiracy theory.  I've noticed that every time I have gone over there.  I mean, the belief that Dodi Al Fayed was killed by MI-5 is universal.


CARLSON:  Or that, you know, World Trade Center was brought down by Israel is universal.  And I think this is an antidote to conspiracy theories, openness.

CROWLEY:  This is going to be must-see TV.  And I hope that American television broadcasts it, too, because we do know that Arab TV—it's going to be seen all over Al-Jazeera live.  And I hope that American television shows it, too, because this is going to be the ultimate in accountability for the world's dictators. 

This is a guy—you know, if this is his defense, that the United States armed him during the 1980s, well, sure, because that was because we had a bigger enemy in the region, which was called Iran, which was backed by the Soviet Union.  So, if this is his defense, that the United States armed him, how in the world is he going to back that up, when he's confronted with charges of crimes against humanity and mass murder, which is what he's being tried for? 

CARLSON:  Well, and, in fact, that—I mean, the points that you're making, that we were allied loosely with Saddam when he was against the Soviets and against Iran, that's a foreign policy I agree with, a foreign policy that is based on what is in America's strategic interests, not a foreign policy based on, you know, bringing democracy to the rest of the world. 

LOGUE:  Arguably, which is why we might not have gone into—into Iraq, which was to say that we had a secular state in Iraq.  We had one that we could deal with.  It wasn't run by fundamentalists. 

And part of the—part of our foreign policy has always been, OK, we tacitly accept that you're kind of a dictator, that you do some funky stuff within your borders, but, for the best—for our best interests, we want to keep you in power. 

CARLSON:  Right.  That's a very, very cynical, but very effective and I think a more humane foreign policy in the end. 

CROWLEY:  Yes, because international relations is always the field of gray.  Very little is black and white in—in foreign policy.  And this is certainly one of those times.

Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote the whole book on this called “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” which he says, sometimes, you have to back up unsavory regimes, because there are worst regimes out there that you have got to deal with.  And, sometimes, you've got to get in bed with the devil.


CROWLEY:  And that is certainly what happened with Saddam Hussein.

CARLSON:  Spoken like a true Nixon partisan.

All right, next up, a special education situation—and I mean that in the nicest way—special education situation in the state of Maryland.  Two public school systems there in Montgomery and Anne Arundel County face state sanctions because a disproportionately high number of black students have been placed in programs for students labeled mentally retarded.

Teachers say that decisions are made to help kids in need.  And special ed classes have lower student-to-teacher ratios.  But there's concern among parents that state officials that schools use special ed as a dumping ground for certain disruptive students.  And there's also a move to legislate, to impose quotas on how many kids can be put in special ed. 

I mean, look, the bottom line here is, special ed—nobody wants to be in special ed.  But the reason it's special ed is because there are more resources poured into it.


CARLSON:  There actually is a much smaller teacher-to-child ratio.

LOGUE:  Yes.   

CARLSON:  And a lot more money in.  And it's not necessarily a bad thing. 

And this is the problem with drawing conclusions based on broad statistics, like people's race and ethnicity.  It doesn't really tell you all that much. 


And I think any time, even with the well-intentioned, the well-intentioned affirmative action programs or the rule of three or five in hiring, any time you arbitrarily place these numbers and restrictions, it's absurd, this idea that, well, we're not going to allow 25 percent of the students, 25 percent of the students in special ed represent—are represented by 15 percent of the students in the general population.  So, now we're going to make it 17.5 percent or what...

CARLSON:  Right. 


LOGUE:  Where do you draw the line? 


LOGUE:  And what student falls on what side?

CROWLEY:  Because...


CARLSON:  Well, you draw the line where teachers draw the line. 


CARLSON:  I mean, you let the people who are actually doing it make those decisions. 

CROWLEY:  Yes.  they're—exactly right, because what—what they're talking about is trying to legislate educational policy from—from the state capital, rather than allowing the teachers to do it, the teachers to make that determination. 

LOGUE:  Right. 

CROWLEY:  And the teachers are the ones who have the day-to-day contact with these children.  And they can better make decisions about—about where those kids should be. 

If they're disciplinary problems and the state says, well, you know, teachers can deal with these discipline problems better in a regular classroom setting, well, it may be the teacher might say, yes, but with these particular disciplinary problems, those kids do deserve special attention, which can be given to them...

CARLSON:  Right. 

CROWLEY:  ... in a smaller classroom setting. 

LOGUE:  Well, you would have to create a separate—I mean, what they're saying is, yes, we'd like to trust the teachers to determine that.

But what the teachers are doing is going, dude, you're a big problem in my classroom.  Go to a program that isn't about disciplinary problems, but someone who actually has a learning disorder. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

LOGUE:  And they're just throwing them at them.  And then the justification is, well, a lot more money.  There's a lot more care.  There's a better teacher-to-student ratio. 

But what they're doing is, they're grouping kids in who might perfectly well be intelligent into a group of people who are labeled—I don't even know if they call it mentally retarded. 


CARLSON:  No, no, but that—I don't think there's any question that does happen.  Kids who are disruptive who are, you know, a pain in the butt...

LOGUE:  Right. 

CARLSON:  ... get shunted off to the dumb class.  And that is a tragedy.  But only teachers can decide, I think.

Well, diets stink.  Everyone knows that.  Strawberry ice cream, simply better than wheat germ.  Sorry to our many wheat germ-addicted viewers.  However, researchers at the University of California at Irvine have figured out a way around suffering to get skinny, brainwashing. 

The scientists successfully implanted false childhood memories in people's minds, convincing them they hated strawberry ice cream and others to convince them they loved asparagus. 

Well, that's just wrong.


CARLSON:  I mean, that's just a big lie. 

LOGUE:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  I mean, ice cream is better than asparagus.  They were unable—and I thought this was the most telling part of the whole study...

LOGUE:  Right.  Potato chips.

CARLSON:  Un—exactly right, unable to convince anybody...

LOGUE:  And chocolate chip cookies.

CARLSON:  ... that chocolate chip cookies and potato chips are bad. 

That was just the...

LOGUE:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  You can't sell that.

LOGUE:  It's like a platonic form of food that floats in space.


CARLSON:  Right. 


LOGUE:  It's an ideal that you can't mess with.

CARLSON:  Even with hypnosis, not possible. 

LOGUE:  What I think is amazing is, if you noticed on the screen—and they have just had this all over lately on television—is this weird little clip of just really obese people walking around who are cut off from the neck down. 


LOGUE:  And it's just humiliating.

CARLSON:  In fact, I think we're playing it right now.


LOGUE:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  There it is. 

CROWLEY:  Oh, yes. There it goes.

LOGUE:  Oh.  There you go, yes. 


CARLSON:  Yes, they didn't sign release forms, those people.


LOGUE:  Exactly, stock footage of this, like, what are you doing today?  Dude, I have to go out and shoot some really big butts all over town. 


CROWLEY:  How unethical is this, though, to—to instill a trauma in somebody, a trauma that never happened?


CROWLEY:  Life is full of traumas as it is. 

LOGUE:  Yes. 

CROWLEY:  They're going to instill one that never even happened to you to get you to lose weight. 

CARLSON:  No, but it's also scary. 

CROWLEY:  What about eating less and exercising more? 

CARLSON:  No, but, I mean, it's also—I mean...


CROWLEY:  Is that such a novel concept? 


CARLSON:  Can you imagine intentionally saying, yes, implant false memories in my mind, so I can wind up accusing my parents of being of part of a satanic cult or something?  I mean... 


CROWLEY:  Where do we draw the line?


LOGUE:  Well, that's called...


CARLSON:  It's true.

CROWLEY:  Where does it end?

LOGUE:  Well, that's already being done when they had all that forced recall memory hypnosis, kind of the rage, too...

CROWLEY:  Yes, suppressed memory and all of that.

LOGUE:  ... of going...


LOGUE:  ... the suppressed memory thing.  And it's like, OK, we can't get this kid to admit that there was satanic sex abuse going on in this preschool.  So, what we'll do is, we'll put him under hypnosis...


LOGUE:  ... and plant that in his brain. 

CARLSON:  But the difference here is, I don't think anybody is going to go prison based on this diet, whereas a lot of people did go to prison based on phony memories of satanic abuse. 


CROWLEY:  How lazy can you possibly be? 

CARLSON:  Pretty lazy.



LOGUE:  I could see, though, going...


CARLSON:  Look, I...


LOGUE:  Just put—like, it's for smoking. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Completely.

LOGUE:  You know, just hypnotize me. 

CARLSON:  I admit it, I'd do it in a second. 

LOGUE:  Yes. 


CARLSON:  All right, Donal, Monica, please, stick around. 

Still much more to come here on THE SITUATION.  Here is some of it. 


CARLSON:  Hot for teacher.  She's accused of having sex with her students.  But should the judge throw the book at her? 

Jennifer breaks her silence about the other woman. 

Escape from Alcatraz.  There's not a prison that can hold this dog. 

Plus, heeding nature's danger signs.  Were the pilots of this jetliner tempting fate?

It's all ahead on THE SITUATION.



CARLSON:  Rich men, chubby women and teenagers obsessed with reality TV, three distinct groups about to be analyzed by three distinct personalities.  “Op Ed Op Ed” is next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “Op Ed Op Ed.”  We spent the day perusing virtually every editorial page in the nation.  We picked what we think are the three most interesting, to which the three of us will respond. 

Now, “Forbes” magazine recently did a study that determined that, in order to live in an upper-middle-class manner, that is, with a pretty decent house, a pretty decent weekend house, a couple pretty good cars and two kids in private school, you need anywhere from $300,000 to $800,000 in income. 

This has outraged a man named Paul Campos, who has written about it in today's “Rocky Mountain News.”  He writes this: “Stories of this type  illustrate the extent to which a complex mix of factors are combining to transform human beings into talking monkeys, creatures who are genuinely satisfied to live lives dedicated to acquiring an endless stream of shiny new toys.”

Well, I think the point here is genuinely satisfied.  I mean, it's really easy to beat up on the bourgeois.  And I do it in private moments.  But it's not bad to have a population that is genuinely satisfied with anything that is basically positive.  I mean, look, raising a family, lusting after the Eddie Bauer Lexus or whatever it is, is a pretty harmless way to live.  It may not be the deepest way to live, but you're not smoking crystal meth and robbing liquor stores.  It's a pretty good thing. 


LOGUE:  And maybe you're employing people. 


LOGUE:  But did they say $800,000 a year or a month? 

CARLSON:  A year in Manhattan.

LOGUE:  Oh, I have a hard -- $800 a week is kind of where I'm at. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  You live in Los Angeles. 


LOGUE:  But I do smoke crystal—yes.  No.

Yes, hey, you know, go for it.  I don't know.  I just get—when you see like Loni Anderson on television and she says, I need $100,000 a month to live in the manner I'm accustomed to, I think it freaks everybody out. 




CROWLEY:  That's not most of America.

LOGUE:  Talking about alimony settlements of like $78 million, where they need this or—I mean, what do you really need?  But...


CARLSON:  That's a good point. 

I do think, if you live in L.A., it's sort of a different measure, though, don't you?


CROWLEY:  This gives keeping up with the Joneses a whole, you know, a whole new layer to this thing. 

CARLSON:  I don't know. 

CROWLEY:  And there's part of it that is just, you become a slave to your lifestyle.  And you want bigger, better, faster, more all the time, because your neighbor has it or your friend has it.  And that means that you're constantly on this treadmill, trying to keep up with everybody.  And you know what?  That gets really exhausting after a while. 

LOGUE:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  But it's also sort of the nature of man.  I mean, the middle-class has always aspired to—I mean, 100 years ago...


CROWLEY:  And it's great for the economy.  I'm just saying, on an individual basis...


CARLSON:  I'm just saying I have a problem.  I find it kind of repulsive.  But you have to admit, it's never—it's never been any different.  I mean, 100 years ago, you would see an editorial saying, you know, people just want washing machines.  And it's outrageous.  It's sinfully decadent. 

LOGUE:  There was some probably Mongolian tribe that looked over on the other hillside and said, oh, shiny pot. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

LOGUE:  You know, let's go take them.

CROWLEY:  Well...


CARLSON:  You can bet that is true.  All right. 

CROWLEY:  Mahatma Gandhi, when he died, every material possession he had could fit into a shoe box. 

CARLSON:  That is why they made a movie about him.  All right. 

LOGUE:  He also drank his own urine. 

CARLSON:  Yes, he did, every morning, a full glass, Gandhi's favorite breakfast drink, my favorite quiz question.

LOGUE:  So, you know, there you go.

CARLSON:  All right.  Next up, the Dove ad which depicts real women posing in their underwear looking really pretty, I have to say, had inspired Meghan Daum to write in “The L.A. Times” she thinks it's very annoying, for reasons such as this—quote—“Do I look better than them?  Do I look worse?  These amateur models remind us how much we need professional models, not for their jutting bones and flawless skin, but for the way they throw themselves in front of traffic, so that we don't have to.  Real women have better things to do,” apparently, than pose for Dove.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what Meghan Daum is saying.  I think it's some sort of post-feminist critique.  The bottom line for me is, these women are really pretty.  They look normal.  They look healthy.  They look happy.  I think it's a wonderful ad.  I'm going put a poster of it in my house.  I like it. 

LOGUE:  Yes, I do, too.  I don't know what she was saying.  She was like, why do—we pay these professional models to go out and take the hit for the rest of us.  But I didn't understand what she really meant by that. 



CARLSON:  I think the problem is, this ad throws feminists into sort of a tizzy.

LOGUE:  Well, the one point that she did make, though, was, hey, look, it's OK to be big; it's OK to be big da, da, da.  By the way, we're selling you cream that deals with your cellulite. 


LOGUE:  You know, it was the kind of hypocrisy of that, I think... 


CARLSON:  Well, it's one thing to be full-figured.  No one wants cellulite. 


LOGUE:  Yes. 

CROWLEY:  Well, but most women do look like this.  In fact, most American women are even heavier than these models than you see in the Dove ad. 

I think it's great.  I agree with you, Tucker.  I mean, these are realistic models that people can aspire to, you know, if they want to drop a couple pounds, so they're a size 12 or 14.  Nobody realistically in America is like a size zero.  The models that you see, those are very unrealistic images.  They're all airbrushed, these women whom are professional models, starving themselves to death. 

And I think, you know, to have real women out there, as you say, looking healthy and vibrant, is a great thing. 


LOGUE:  I would say most guys I know think they're hotter.  I know a lot of guys—I mean, like...

CARLSON:  I agree. 

LOGUE:  ... when you see some of the models, they're—I know they're famous.  I know they're well paid.

CARLSON:  It's terrifying.

LOGUE:  But they're...

CARLSON:  They're also breakable, bad. 

LOGUE:  Yes. 


LOGUE:  Exactly. 

CARLSON:  All right, Nicholas Leonhardt in “The Baltimore Sun” writes that teenagers love reality television so much, they're watching it, rather than living their own lives—quote—“American youths can stomach the sight of a green-faced guy choking down a plateful of wiggling worms on 'Fear Factor.'”  That's an NBC program, by the way.  “The image of a pale-faced private crawling through the streets of Baghdad proves harder to swallow.”

And the point is, they've living their lives vicariously through reality TV, which many of us thought was a passing phase, turns out isn't at all.  It's actually, apparently, here to stay.  I sort of agree with this.  Reality TV isn't very real, as you know, because you work in the business.  I mean, it's staged.  And, second, if you're 18 and you're watching a ton of television, you're kind of a loser.  I mean, you should be getting out and living your life. 

LOGUE:  You know what?  I was talking to a friend of mine.  I lived in Nogales, Arizona, when I was kind of 8, 9, 10 years old.  And we had friends who would go home from school and watch “Gilligan's Island” and da, da, da.  They were obsessed with television.  They just had less to watch. 

But now, ultimately, kids can watch more news now.  More news is available to them.


LOGUE:  So, maybe they are watching more news.

But to sit and watch a bunch of reality TV is—I mean, people are going to do what they're going to do.  You know, I don't know if they're going play video games all day, if they're going to watch television all day, it's pretty much a waste of time anyway. 


CARLSON:  But I think it's our job to... 


CARLSON:  ... them.

CROWLEY:  It's a different...

LOGUE:  Yes. 


CROWLEY:  ... side of escapism, though.  It's a different kind of escapism.  It's still escapism.  Like you said, go home and watch “Gilligan's Island.”

LOGUE:  Right. 

CROWLEY:  Or—or “The Love Boat” or something, as we were growing up. 

LOGUE:  Right. 

CROWLEY:  And this is just the latest version of escapist fare.

And now, in this war on terrorism, the real world is a pretty scary place.  So, if they can find an escape valve through this.

LOGUE:  I guess.

CROWLEY:  But I don't know.  I don't get reality TV at all, unwatchable.

LOGUE:  My favorite thing is, from my side of things, people get really sanctimonious about, it's putting out—you know, it's putting out of business one-hour dramas or half-hour sitcoms, as if “Charles in Charge” is something that really should have been saved, and how sad it is...

CARLSON:  Well, I think that...

LOGUE:  ... that “Small Wonder” is out of business now because people are watching “Survivor.”

CARLSON:  I think “Charles in Charge” had a right to be on the air. 

LOGUE:  Oh, sure.  Hey.

CARLSON:  And it's been abridged by “Survivor.”

All right, still to come, a horrifying few minutes for the 309 people aboard an Air France jet trying to land in Toronto this afternoon.  Thankfully, everyone is safe, reportedly.  But why was the plane apparently attempting to land during a thunderstorm?  That's next. 

Plus, more fallout from the world of Major League Baseball, where the steroid scandal involving Rafael Palmeiro may only be beginning.  We'll inject you with the details next. 


CARLSON:  Today's Air France crash landing in Toronto may raise new questions about airplane safety.  Thankfully, all 309 passengers are safe.  But what could have gone wrong to cause this mishap? 

Joining me now, Jim Burin from the Flight Safety Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Thanks a lot, Mr. Burin. 

I don't want to ask you to speculate on what caused this accident, but would you mind speculating on what caused this accident? 


JIM BURIN, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION:  Well, I think that there's enough left in terms of, they have the air crew; they have the flight data recorder, the—the cockpit voice recorder and the wreckage.  So, I think they have everything there to figure out what happened to this.  And it's probably too early piece all those together, but they will do that. 

CARLSON:  Well, a number of witnesses on the ground, motorists on the highway, said that there was a pretty severe thunderstorm in progress when the plane landed.  They saw lightning striking right around the runways.  What's the policy on landing in a storm like that? 

BURIN:  Well, the policy varies.  Obviously, you don't want to land in the middle of a thunderstorm.  I don't know what the weather was at the field at the time.  However, if the thunderstorm was in the vicinity, that's another issue. 

As we've seen on the East Coast here this summer, if you didn't land airplanes with thunderstorms if they were close to the airfield, it would cause a lot of havoc.  But you don't want to land in the middle of a thunderstorm.  And I—and I would be surprised if the pilots did that. 

CARLSON:  Well, why wouldn't you want to land in the middle of a thunderstorm?  What specifically is dangerous?  Is it the lightning?  Is it the rain?  Is it the wind? 

BURIN:  The rain, particularly in a hard thunderstorm.  The visibility would be very low.  The winds shift back and forth.  You use certain runways because you want the wind down the runway.  If the wind is shifting, that causes problems, again, visibility, amount of water on the runway, things like that.

So, in the middle of a thunderstorm is a time you—most likely, pilots would go around.  Thunderstorms move quickly.  They would hold for 10, 15 minutes, and come back and land in better conditions. 

CARLSON:  But what—what can a thunderstorm do to a plane?  I mean, could it drive it into the ground, rip the wings off?  And what's the specific fear of a thunderstorm? 


There are micro-bursts, as was discussed early on in the accident, although that would happen before landing.  And this obviously happened post-landing.  So, there are things like micro-bursts that cause strong downdrafts and shifting winds that are difficult for an airplane to handle.  So, you avoid things like that.  And that's why they have systems in the airplane and on the ground to warn about things like that. 

CARLSON:  Well, a couple of the passengers interviewed said they believe the plane was hit by lightning in the air.  I've been in a flight hit by lightning.  And it seemed terrifying.  Is it dangerous? 

BURIN:  No.  Most airplanes are designed to survive lightning strike.  It can cause some minor electronic problems, but airplanes are designed to withstand being hit by lightning. 

CARLSON:  So, who makes the decision about whether it's safe to land or not? 

BURIN:  The pilot.  The pilot is the one that makes the final decision.  The airfield is normally open, unless something has closed it, like an accident like this. 

And it's up to the pilot to decide, assuming he's within the rules—

I mean, visibility—there are certain visibility rules that you have to have to land the aircraft.  But if those exist and then it's up to the pilot to make the decision. 

CARLSON:  Can he be overruled? 

BURIN:  No.  No.  He's the one that makes the decision, unless there's a safety-of-flight issue, like another airplane on the runway.

CARLSON:  Right. 

BURIN:  And then the tower can tell him to go around.  But, no, he would be the one that would make the decision for... 


CARLSON:  I was—I was really struck to see two different accounts of how motorists saw the co-pilot of this flight on the highway shortly after it crash-landed apparently getting a ride back to the airport.  Does the pilot and does the co-pilot, do they have some obligation to stay with the aircraft?  Is it like being the captain of a ship?  What's the protocol there? 

BURIN:  No. 

As you saw and as we all saw in some of the early pictures, luckily, after the obviously evacuation had taken place, the state of the aircraft, with the flames and the smoke, so there would obviously be no reason to stay anywhere near that.  I'm sure that they evacuated, along with the other passengers, as quickly as they could. 

And whether they went out their windows up front or went through the back and through one of the regular emergency exits will be something to look at in the investigation. 

CARLSON:  So, so, passengers said that, by the time they got off the plane, slid down the slide, the plane was on fire and there was smoke.  Are you—it seems to me amazing that they got off without being burned or suffocating or, you know, being killed.  Are you surprised by that? 

BURIN:  Not surprised by, because the overall numbers are pretty—this year, we've had 12 haul-loss accidents for big jets, basically totaled aircraft. 

And eight of those, there were no fatalities.  Last year, there were 16 accidents and 11 had no fatalities.  So, it's not surprising, although, in most of those, it was a matter of breaking off landing gear or engines, but no fire.  This one, with that fire, yes, I'm very surprised and very impressed with the work that the flight crew, the cabin crew, did to get the folks out, and obviously the people, too. 


CARLSON:  Yes.  So, finally, do you think—I mean, is that a function of improved aircraft design or is that just having a good cabin crew that herded everyone out quickly? 

BURIN:  Both.  The seats are stronger, so they don't get thrown around during an accident like that, so everyone is still sitting in their seat and their seats are still attached to the floor.  The aircraft stays relatively intact. 

And the cabin crew does their job, follows their training.  And the result is, despite what we all saw and feared initially, the good result we saw, which is, they all survived. 

CARLSON:  It's just unbelievable. 

Jim Burin, thanks a lot for joining us.  I appreciate it.

BURIN:  My pleasure. 

CARLSON:  Coming up, we'll switch gears completely. 

The king and queen of the Hollywood prom split up over the hot chick from the smoking lounge.  Finally, Jennifer Aniston breaks her silence. 

A doctorate of international relations, an Irish-American actor and I break out the heavy gossip next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION.  Sitting in for Buzz Aldrin, I'm Tucker Carlson. 

Welcome back, Donal Logue and Monica Crowley.  I was in—about four years ago, I was in a plane that crashed in the Middle East.  And they did not—no member of the cabin crew indicated that we should get off the plane, right?  So everyone was afraid. 

I mean, the passengers opened the door and scampered out, you know, fearing it was going to blow up.  It points out the only difference between, you know, what happened today and a tragedy where everyone dies is a...

LOGUE:  Coping.

CARLSON:  That's exactly right, is a cabin crew that actually knows what its doing, is brave under pressure, really.

CROWLEY:  And a great pilot. 

CARLSON:  Never talk back to stewardesses—flight attendants, pardon me.  They make all the difference.  It's true. 

LOGUE:  And it's when they lose their cool when you're freaked out. 

CARLSON:  That's right. 

LOGUE:  “Everybody sit down!”  Aren't you supposed to pretend like everything is cool?

CARLSON:  When they start crying or getting in fetal position, rocking back and forth...


LOGUE:  I don't care.

CARLSON:  ... mumbling the rosary, right, that's when it's time to flip out. 

All right, next situation, more on the steroids scandal that rocked Major League Baseball this week.  Suspended Baltimore Orioles star Rafael Palmeiro is sticking by his story he did not intentionally use steroids, whatever that means. 

However, an industry source claims the substance he used is, quote, “a serious steroid,” as opposed to a minor steroid, apparently.  The member of the committee Palmeiro spoke to in March says they will look into the possibility he committed perjury by testifying before Congress he didn't use steroids. 

Also today, Seattle Mariners pitcher Ryan Franklin received a 10-day suspension after he tested positive for steroids.

I'm completely primed to defend these guys, because I'm not sure that steroid use should disqualify you from playing baseball, or that it's even that different from a lot of things they do, the enhanced medical care they get.  But this guy got up in front of Congress, right, and wagged his finger...


LOGUE:  How absurd to do steroids after, “I never have done steroids, period.” 

CARLSON:  Right, well, that's—Max Kellerman had the smartest line, I though, of all last night when he said, “This is the Gary Hart syndrome.”  You know, I dare to you follow me.  I don't have a girlfriend, check and see!

LOGUE:  Right, exactly. 

CROWLEY:  I'm just so disappointed in this.  I'm a huge baseball fan.  And when I was watching those hearings, you know, Palmeiro was the guy who came off looking the best, you know? 

He looked the classiest.  Canseco is standing over there going, you know, “Dude, I wrote this whole book.  You're clearly guilty.”  And he went in front of Congress and said he never did it. 

Everybody believed him.  And now it comes out that he did, in fact, do it.  And the fact that he said, “I unknowingly took,” I mean, here's a guy who makes his living with his body.  You don't think he knows everything...

LOGUE:  How many times have you unknowingly shot up steroids?

CROWLEY:  ... little substance that goes—yes.  I mean...

CARLSON:  Yes, but, also, do you think—I mean, as a practical matter, Congress is going to hold him in contempt.  He's going to get some sort of federal penalty? 

LOGUE:  How can they penalize him?  Maybe he hadn't used steroids up to that point.  They can only prove that he used it after that point. 

CARLSON:  That's exactly right.  And also, I mean, you know...

LOGUE:  Who cares anyway?

CARLSON:  ... if everyone who lied on the floor of the House of Representatives...


LOGUE:  The bummer is they have to either let athletes say this is a wide-open field, use whatever combination of Viagra, steroids or whatever Rafael Palmeiro has to do, or Tim Montgomery, or Marion Jones, or else you're going to—you know, because the problem is you're always going to come up with the clear or some form of—or they're doing human growth hormones, or they're doing insulin...

CARLSON:  That's right.

LOGUE:  ... or they're doing things now that you can find within your body anyway to give them an edge, and it's like. 

CROWLEY:  The solution is ban them all, as they've done.  Don't allow one person to have an unfair advantage by using steroids. 

LOGUE:  Or let everyone have an advantage. 

CARLSON:  Or let everyone have...

CROWLEY:  You know, using steroids and then lying about it.  These guys are role models.  Kids look up to the guys.  This is just a total bummer.

CARLSON:  In the end, it's going to hurt the business that is Major League Baseball, I fear.

Next up, a rock 'n' roll legend hits what could be a sour note.  Guitar god Carlos Santana played to a sold-out crowd at a concert earlier today.  The show took place in Hiroshima, Japan, the site of the world's first atomic bomb attack 60 years ago.  Santana called it a mission to ignite peace. 

I don't hold this against Carlos Santana, a great guitar player.  I do hold it against the Japanese government, though, which every year has this festival to commemorate the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to tell the world the lesson of Hiroshima. 

And the lesson of Hiroshima is the United States is bad and is responsible for killing 200,000 people, half of which is true. 

But they never hold the commemoration, you know, to remember the lesson of Bataan, or Nan King, or for that matter Pearl Harbor.  I mean, the fact is Japan started the Second World War, or at least our entry into it, and has conveniently forgotten that, has not taken time to atone for its many sins throughout Asia. 

And it's a bit much to be lectured about peace by Japan. 

CROWLEY:  The other lesson, also, of Hiroshima is that the dropping of the bomb hastened the end of the war, which saved countless lives. 

CARLSON:  Right.

CROWLEY:  And they don't highlight that fact. 

LOGUE:  Although, if you had a nuclear device dropped on a city in the United States, there's no way in hell they would not commemorate it. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I agree with that. 

LOGUE:  And another thing is like, Carlos Santana—and I think the idea, the only time we've ever used nukes was in the Second World War...

CARLSON:  Right. 

LOGUE:  ... that it kind of transcends.  Because certainly Japan has a lot, especially with China, to deal with, as opposed to—they have a lot of reparations that they have to make.  But it's like he's kind of this citizen of the universe in a really legitimate way.  He just is—I'm a musician, I'm an artist, I'm a spiritualist, or however.  And I think that Hiroshima kind of exists above and beyond Japanese-U.S. relations. 

CARLSON:  In some ways, that's true.  And I think I agree with you, that if a bomb was dropped here, we would commemorate it.  I think there's a larger political message at work here.  And I also think it's out of context.

And I think it plays to the larger question of, has Japan appropriately atoned for its many, its manifold sins in World War II?  And it hasn't.  And I think it's important to recognize what your country is responsible for, to be honest with yourself and the world, because then it won't happen again. 

CROWLEY:  Yes.  Well, look, war and terrorism aren't going to end because Carlos Santana plays a great set in Hiroshima.  And how many countless concerts have we had in Berlin since the end of World War II?

LOGUE:  That's true. 

CROWLEY:  You know, so I mean, I think this is...

LOGUE:  You've never seen Santana, have you?  Because we saw him in T.J., and it was...

CARLSON:  He played in Tijuana? 

LOGUE:  He played at the Bull Ring in Tijuana. 

CARLSON:  Outstanding.  I've been there. 

All right.  Now to some really important news, the situation in Hollywood, California.  There's no shortage of celebrity scandal there, of course.  But the big Kahuna, the breakup of Brad and Jen.  Yes, we've sunk to this.

Now the wronged wife is speaking out for the very first time.  Jennifer Aniston tells “Vanity Fair” magazine she was shocked and hurt by her husband's relationship with the other women, Angelina Jolie.  The former “Friend” says she always will love the Hollywood hunk, but she did take a shot at Pitt's newly bleached hair, joking, “Billy Idol called.  He wants his look back.” 

Well, I think her husband's going to call back and want his wife back.  I'm probably the only person in America who thinks he made a tragic mistake. 

LOGUE:  Well, aren't they broken up already or something? 

CARLSON:  I'm sure they will be.  And she just looks like—I mean, I'm sure she's a delightful person.  But she looks complicated.  And his wife does not look complicated.  She looks sweet.  And I think you should always choose sweet over complicated. 

CROWLEY:  Well, how about making your commitment to somebody?  I mean, when they said, “I do,” that was a lifetime commitment, or should have been.  And the fact that Brad Pitt—and look, there are two people in every relationship. 

We have no idea what went on in that marriage, what her role is, what his role is, and so on.  But they did make a public commitment when they got married and had this big Hollywood wedding.  And then he turns around and publicly humiliates her.


CARLSON:  We have an actual Hollywood actor here.  Let me put that...


LOGUE:  It's not even an actor. 

CARLSON:  Should we be shocked? 

LOGUE:  Hey, come on, man.  Even in my hometown of El Centro, California, everybody is, you know, I mean, doing whatever they're doing at some skanky hotel on the outskirts of town.  They don't have to be Brad Pitt. 

But the weird thing that's—it's kind of like the rule that, if your girlfriend in college is going to do her junior year abroad in Florence...


LOGUE:  ... you have to break up with her before she gets on the plane. 


LOGUE:  And it's like, if Brad Pitt's going to go do a movie with Angelina Jolie, you know, best she end the relationship before the inevitable goes down. 

CARLSON:  Lower your expectations?  That's exactly right. 

LOGUE:  Because they're going to hook up. 

CARLSON:  What do you expect?

CROWLEY:  But that's the Hollywood culture you're talking about. 

LOGUE:  Not Hollywood.  I mean, I will say this:  Anywhere you go, people—I mean, you know, Hollywood—look at Maury Povich, you know, or one of those shows where—it's like, “Hi, I have 12 children from 82 different guys.” 

None of those people are Hollywood stars.  They're just all the people out there getting it on. 

CROWLEY:  You're making a bigger point about where we are as a society, in terms of commitment and how we value that and honor it.  And, apparently, we're not doing a very good job. 

LOGUE:  That's why I've never gotten married. 

CARLSON:  Probably a good thing.  All right, thank you both very much.

LOGUE:  Have you been married? 


CARLSON:  Oh, we'll have a fun commercial break talking that through. 

Donal Logue, thank you very much.

CROWLEY:  Goodbye, Tucker.

CARLSON:  And always Monica Crowley, thank you. 

CROWLEY:  Nice to see you, too.

CARLSON:  Coming up, it seems like high school has changed.  Another female teacher gets caught fooling around with the big men on campus.  A genuine scandal or a dream come true?  It's a legitimate argument.  We'll have it. 

Plus, competitive dog paddle?  You believe it.  An intrepid pooch, dogs of the self-serious swimming set.  It shakes himself dry on the “Cutting Room Floor.”  We'll be right back. 


CARLSON:  It's “Outsider” time, when we welcome a man who leaves his life in the sports section to dive into news and play the devil's own advocate to me on a series of stories.

From Las Vegas, Nevada, tonight, a man whose Dippity-Do habit has either made bad hair days a thing of the past or an everyday situation, depending on who you talk to, ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host, Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST:  Dippity-Do doesn't work on my hair. 

I have to get the strong stuff, Tucker.

CARLSON:  It's looks like Vaseline to me, Max.  But we can talk about it off camera.

All right, first up, guns and oil!  Max, your friends at the National Rifle Association have called a nationwide boycott of Conoco Phillips because the oil company bars its workers from having guns in the workplace. 

Conoco Phillips is one of several companies challenging a 2004 law that would allow employees to keep guns locked in their cars in the parking lot.  A federal judge has blocked enforcement of the law until the challenge is resolved. 

OK, this, Max, is an argument about guns, but not really.  That's what it's posing as.  It's really an argument about class.  It's an argument between the blue-collar employees of this company, the kind of people who own guns, who use them to hunt, who use them to protect themselves, and mostly just to shoot deer, and the people who run the country, all of whom went to Harvard Business School and are horrified by the idea of guns, find guns scary, have never shot a gun, right? 

So they're trying to impose their class values on their employees, and I hope they fail. 

KELLERMAN:  I'm surprised how often you go to class values in these arguments, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Because it's true. 

KELLERMAN:  I'm not necessarily saying you don't—you may have a point there.  Let's not debate the Second Amendment.  You think it's clear.  I think it's ambiguous, whatever. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  Let's think of gun law under common sense.  Does it make sense the guns are legal at all?  Guns are legal in this country.  200 or 300 million are produced every year.  We have a very high murder rate. 

In countries like England, where they're just illegal, the murder rate is much lower.  So should you be allowed to have a gun in your car?  Yes, I guess, because you should be allowed to defend yourself.  And so many people have guns.  But if they were just not legal, you wouldn't need one. 

CARLSON:  Yes, that's absolutely true.  And if you were executed for cross walking, no one would—you know, jaywalking, no one would jaywalk, OK?  The point is, guns keep us free.  But that's the larger point.  The specific point...

KELLERMAN:  Guns keep us free from whom, the king of England? 

CARLSON:  From our own government and free from crime. 

But, look, the point here is, the people running this company have no precedent to terrify them.  No one on Conoco Phillips has ever gone on a shooting rampage, right?  They just don't like the idea of it.  That's the problem.  They just don't like the idea of guns.  You know that's true.

KELLERMAN:  Look, I'm all for the—you know, this is my argument about boxing over golf all the time.  Network executives have never been in fist fights.  They've been on the golf course.  So they prefer playing golf.  And so they air it instead of boxing. 

I get the class thing.  No, I really think this is more about whether guns should be legal at all.  And I really think the answer is no, Tucker.  I think common sense says, once upon a time, yes, it kept us free from the government. 

But the government is way too sophisticated.  The military is way too advanced for a private militia with hand guns to resist the government.  It doesn't...


CARLSON:  Well, it's a matter of symbolism.  I fear I've made no inroads on this debate.  I'm going to keep trying, though, another night. 

Well, another high school teacher is in trouble for getting too close to her students.  Forty-two-year-old Sandra Beth Geisel is free on $20,000 bond after she was charged with rape for having intercourse with one of her 16-year-old students at Christian Brothers Academy in Albany, New York. 

Ms. Geisel reportedly had sex with three other boys, but they were all 17, which makes the act an indiscretion, but not a crime. 

She's being brought up, Max, on felony rape charges, felony rape charges.  Now, this woman, by all accounts, was a great teacher.  One of the most popular in the school, very popular with certain groups. 


KELLERMAN:  A great teacher.  I mean, a great teacher. 

CARLSON:  She was a great teacher.  And she gave her all.  I think there's no dispute about that. 

KELLERMAN:  All right. 

CARLSON:  But felony rape charges.  Consider what that means.  Boys must, in some biological sense, participate, or else no act can take place.  The same does not go for girls.  So it's very difficult to imagine how a 16- or 17-year-old boy was raped by a 42-year-old very attractive woman.  It does not make any sense. 

KELLERMAN:  Every time these teachers, especially hot teachers, wind up in these situations with students, female teachers and male students, my response is always the same, Tucker, it's been on this show. 

Nothing in my life now could possibly make me as happy as something like this happening to me when I was 16 years old.  So the fact that she's being brought up on rape charges is ridiculous. 

But let me just make this argument.  If it were a male teacher and a female student, that guy would be in big trouble.  And you would not be on TV saying that.

CARLSON:  And rightly so, because there's an age of consent for girls.  For boys, there isn't really, because boys always consent.  And you know that's true. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, the act itself implies consent, doesn't it? 

CARLSON:  Exactly right.  Doesn't imply, it actually proves. 

All right, next up, the California Supreme Court ruled that country clubs in California must offer gay members who register as domestic partners the same discounts given to married members.  Birgit Koebke, who pays $500 a month in membership fees to the San Diego club, which had allowed only the children, grandchildren, and spouses of married members to play golf for free, challenged the club's policy after being told her long-time partner could only play as a guest six times a year and would have to pay $70 a round. 

OK.  Here's the argument, Max.  And I understand why this woman is annoyed.  However, she is not married.  There is a difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage.  That's why the California state legislature did not make gay marriage legal. 

If they want to and they do, I think she's got a good case.  But marriage is not the same as domestic partnership.  They're different.  And it's cheating the other members to allow someone to break the rules and allow just a partner to get in. 

KELLERMAN:  Actually, I see the exact same thing you just said oppositely.  And this is legitimate debate.  The domestic partnership act is there to ensure similar treatment under the law to married people.  The very fact that gay people are denied marriage licenses means they don't have a choice.  They can't be married.  That's why this act exists, to protect them in situations like this. 

CARLSON:  Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  Because in fact, there's no gay marriage in California because the California senate and legislature hasn't made it the law. 

They could.  They're afraid to.  They're cowards.  So instead, they create something called domestic partnership.  Who knows what that even means?  Nobody.  It's...

KELLERMAN:  Well, actually, the courts are ruling it means they get the same discount. 

CARLSON:  OK, well, then I think people ought to be able to bring their girlfriends, their college roommates in, and just the pal from work.  I mean, who's to say what the relationship is, right?  We should all get discounts on golf. 

KELLERMAN:  We're talking about golf courses.  So they should be allowed to have Jewish and black people on all the courses, too, but they're not.  These are golf courses.  They're discriminatory by nature. 

CARLSON:  OK.  That's just a whole another debate.  You're not going to get me on the wrong side of that debate.  Max Kellerman, you'll have to wait until tomorrow night, and I know you will. 

Max Kellerman, thank you. 

Coming up, who knew transsexuals could make such beautiful music?  I did, for one.  Tranny pop is all the rage in South Korea.  It's hugely popular, of course, on the “Cutting Room Floor.”  We'll be right back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  It's that time again, time for dessert, the “Cutting Room Floor,” where we sweep up all the odds and ends of news we couldn't use and bring them to you. 

Willie Geist does that.  Here he is.

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Hello, Tucker.  We should, first and foremost, thank Donal Logue for joining us. 

CARLSON:  We certainly should.

GEIST:  Was it just me, or was there a little magic between him and Monica at the end of the segment? 

CARLSON:  I felt it.  I felt it.  It was palpable. 

GEIST:  He'd be a lucky man.  No, she has a—she's taken, so... 

CARLSON:  I'm not weighing in.  Keep going, Willie.

All right, Kim Jong Il's growing list of super powers just keeps getting more impressive by the day.  Today, he declared he has trained his mind so that he never forgets anything. 

North Korea's dear leader says he remembers the phone numbers of every worker in his government and can recite computer code from memory.  It's the latest feat for a man who produces movies, writes operas, and miraculously made 11 holes-in-one on the very first time he played golf.  He also controls the weather, by the way. 

GEIST:  That's true.  What a life this guy has.  He just makes these declarations.  Not only will no one question him, they cannot, by law.  So if I were him, I might shoot a little higher than having a good memory or playing golf.  Tell him you have x-ray vision or something.  Nobody's going to call you on it, right?


CARLSON:  Not bad for a man who's 5'2” with bad hair.  That's amazing. 

Well, while Kim Jong Il is acting crazy up north, normalcy prevails in South Korea in the form of transsexual pop music.  A quartet of former men that goes by the name “Lady” is storming the South Korean charts.  The girls openly admit to having had sex change operations.  They put on a steamy stage show.  Predictably, they want to be recognized for the music and not just because they're transsexuals. 

GEIST:  Of course.  Actually, I hate to say this, they don't look that bad.  But tranny pop is nothing new.  We had the Backstreet Boys years ago. 


This is not—love the South Koreans, but they shouldn't be taking credit for this. 

CARLSON:  That's just mean. 

GEIST:  It's true.

CARLSON:  It is.  I know.

Well, the icy waters of San Francisco Bay may have kept prisoners from escaping from Alcatraz, but they couldn't keep Jake the Dog from beating hundreds of human beings in the Alcatraz Invitational Swim Race on Sunday.  Jake, a 4-year-old golden retriever, swam 1.2 miles with his owner.  He finished 72nd out of more than 500 competitors.  He made the swim from Alcatraz to the San Francisco shoreline in 41 minutes, 45 seconds. 

GEIST:  And those 400-some people should be ashamed of themselves for losing to a dog. 

CARLSON:  I know.

GEIST:  I was actually in San Francisco on Sunday.  I unfortunately didn't see the dog.  But if I could relate another story.  Just outside on the Fisherman's Wharf, a former Alcatraz inmate named Darwin Kuhn was set up at a card table signing autographs for money. 

CARLSON:  Did you get one? 

GEIST:  No, I didn't.  I refused to give into that.  I just thought it was very odd. 

CARLSON:  To give into it?

GEIST:  He shouldn't be profiting. 

CARLSON:  Well, in other animal racing news, the utterly tedious sport of donkey racing was on display in Croatia yesterday.  Ten thousand people lined the streets of the small Croatian village to watch 12 donkeys stroll their way through the race. 

Last year's winner won again this year, presumably just by making it to the finish line.  

GEIST:  All right.  Leave the donkeys alone.  They have donkey basketball.  Just let them hall things up the sides of mountains, and just stop harassing the donkey.

CARLSON:  They're a very versatile animal, though.  They do almost anything with them, not that you should. 

GEIST:  Donkey racing exceeded in excitement only by sloth racing.

CARLSON:  Well, he probably wouldn't call it the greatest day of his life, but Joshua Miracle's wedding day was certainly memorable.  Miracle plead guilty to stabbing a man to death, and then proudly got married in the very same California courtroom. 

The 26-year-old handcuffed and wore an orange prison suit, much like the ones you see here, for his big day.  He exchanged vows with his long-time girlfriend before being hauled away to face either a life sentence or death. 

GEIST:  Very, very...

CARLSON:  Joshua Miracle?  You made this up, didn't you? 

GEIST:  No, I did not.  It's a very sweet story.  And I hear they're registered for a shank.  But it's a nice one, it's like Waterford handle.  It's very nice. 

CARLSON:  There are hacksaws in the wedding cake. 

GEIST:  Yes, exactly.

CARLSON:  So cool.  You always have the best, Willie.  Thank you. 

That's THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks for watching.  A quick reminder:  THE SITUATION, this show, will go live Eastern every night, 11:00 p.m., beginning next Monday, the 8th.  Stay tuned for that.

But now stay tuned for “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY” with the great Joe Scarborough.  Here he is.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”:  Thank you, the great Tucker Carlson.  Greatly appreciated.



Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 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.