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

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for Oct. 17th

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Viveca Novak, Judy Gold, Michael Hirsch, Melissa Cross, Max Kellerman, Edward Lawson

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thank you, Catherine, and thanks to you at home for watching THE SITUATION.  We appreciate it.  Hope you enjoy the hour that follows.

There‘s a lot going on tonight, including the latest installment in the Harriet Miers‘ fiasco, Saddam Hussein‘s unique way of preparing for his upcoming trial, and one high school principal‘s amazing reason for canceling his school‘s prom. 

We begin with news involving a possible resignation of Karl Rove.  According to “TIME” magazine, Rove is likely to step down immediately if he is indicted in the CIA leak case.  A former White House official says Rove‘s break with the president, quote, “would have to be clean, no giving advice from the sidelines.”  That for the sake of the administration. 

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be seriously weighing a perjury probe for his failure to tell grand jurors that he talked to “TIME” magazine correspondent Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose name was leaked. 

Joining me now, live from Washington, to discuss Rove‘s perilous situation at the moment, the reporter who co-authored the “TIME” magazine piece, Viveca Novak.

Viveca, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON:  You have, in stark contrast to most pieces on this story, which have really no new information at all, you‘ve got a couple of pretty interesting pieces of information.  One, that Rove might be charged with perjury.  Can you explain what that means, what the consequences of that would be and what the perjury in question is? 

NOVAK:  The perjury in question, if there is perjury, is that Rove initially, under oath, denied talking—he failed to disclose that he talked to “TIME‘s” Matthew Cooper about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.  He later said he remembered that he did have that conversation and he said under oath, before the grand jury again, that he did talk to Matt Cooper. 

But it‘s unclear whether Patrick Fitzgerald is going to charge him with perjury for the first—the first instance, where he said he didn‘t remember talking to Matt Cooper. 

CARLSON:  Now this is information that—at least reading your story as I read it—comes from Rove‘s side.  Someone close to Karl Rove says this is a possibility.  Do you think that Rove‘s side or Rove himself has had any indication from Fitzgerald what kind of charges may be coming?

NOVAK:  I think genuinely, the last contact that Rove had with the prosecutor last week, the prosecutor was acting like he honestly didn‘t know whether he was going to make charges or not. 

CARLSON:  This puts you in sort of a weird position and “TIME” magazine in a weird position        if it were to happen.  The prosecutor charging Karl Rove with perjury for not admitting talking to the press.  It‘s kind of, in a way, criminalizing conversations with the press, as is this whole thing.  Does it seem a weird position to be in, covering this story, and it‘s also about your own magazine?

NOVAK:  Yes, it is—it has been odd.  It‘s been odd covering it all along, perhaps not as odd as it has been for the “New York Times,” but it has been very unusual.  And Matt, of course, is—if Rove is indicted for perjury and there is a trial, which there probably won‘t be, but Matt would have to be a witness. 

CARLSON:  It‘s so—it‘s so strange and creepy, in my view.  Your piece also says, and this is even more interesting, that a source, at least as I read it, from Fitzgerald‘s office or a source close to Fitzgerald, which would indicate there is, in fact, leaking from Fitzgerald, is saying that the original source of Valerie Plame‘s name, Valerie Wilson‘s name, as printed in Bob Novak‘s column, is not someone from the White House.  What does that mean?

NOVAK:  It means that there is, you know—Bob Novak had a first source.  Karl Rove was his second source, his confirming source.  But the first source is someone, you know, that the prosecutor knows exactly who it is. 

CARLSON:  But that person, if that person is not in government, could that person be in trouble?

NOVAK:  It‘s possible; it depends on the circumstances.  With all these statute there are certain requirements, and it could be a criminal act. 

CARLSON:  What are they saying at the White House?  I mean, you‘d think they‘d be completely paranoid and freaked out.  I mean, the end could be near.  But every time I‘ve called over there and find out what‘s going on, everyone seems calm.  How do they feel about all this?

NOVAK:  I think we‘re getting the sense the last couple of weeks that there is an increasing sense of panic.  People are very unhappy.  And the prosecutor, I think, has made some real waves at the White House.  He‘s been very tough, professional, but tough.  And people are scared. 

CARLSON:  You saw the president today attempt again to sell Harriet Miers, the Supreme Court nominee, again pointing out that she was one of the most 50 influential lawyers in the world or some other meaningless statistic like that.  Then you had a man named John Hill, a Democrat, former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court get up, and he said this and I‘m quoting, of Harriet Miers, “I‘d trust her with my wife and my life.” 

What does that mean?

NOVAK:  I have no idea.  I have no idea, but I‘m not sure it‘s going to have much of an impact on the backlash from the right that the president‘s been seeing.  The reaction to his nominee has been just unbelievable. 

CARLSON:  And very, very, very negative, and I think deservedly so and good for the right for attacking.  What about the left, though?  What are Democrats saying?  Are they just so pleased by this they‘re hanging back and being quiet?  Are they going to support her?  Are they going to contest her?  What are they going to do?

NOVAK:  Well, you know, sometimes when you‘re the opposition party, it‘s best to just be quiet and watch the other side eat their young.  I think that the Democrats are going to see how she does in the hearings.  I think a lot of them are truly undecided how they‘re going to vote, and some of it may depend on how they see how the Republicans going. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Viveca Novak of “TIME” magazine.  Great piece, co-written with the great Mike Allen.  Thanks for coming on. 

NOVAK:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Joining me now to discuss Karl Rove, among many other things, an award-winning comedian.  You‘ve seen her on Comedy Central, HBO, VH-1 and in the movie “The Aristocrats,” now playing, Judy Gold. 



GOLD:  How are you?

CARLSON:  I‘m doing great. 

GOLD:  Good.

CARLSON:  Now just quickly, Harriet Miers, I‘m thinking today people have been—on the left have been upset because she‘s an evangelical and has been identified publicly as such.  But why shouldn‘t there be an evangelical on the seat?  I mean, there‘s this expectation that the Supreme Court and other parts of high government will represent the country, that there will be Jews and black people and Catholics, you know, that all, the whole country, Hispanics, will be represented.  Isn‘t this kind of the natural outcome of affirmative action?

GOLD:  Well, you know, this is Sandra Day O‘Connor‘s seat, and I think it‘s a really important seat for people who are pro choice.  And I think...

CARLSON:  Well, Sandra Day O‘Connor didn‘t own it; she just used it for awhile. 

GOLD:  Well, she did, and now someone else is going to use it. 

CARLSON:  Right.

GOLD:  But I would prefer—I believe that our country was based on the separation of church and state, and I just don‘t—I don‘t know why it‘s a huge issue.  And I don‘t—and that is the only personality trait we ever hear about here. 

CARLSON:  That‘s true.

GOLD:  That‘s the one thing.  She‘s an evangelical.  So what?

CARLSON:  Actually, I‘m very sympathetic to evangelicals, but I don‘t like it either.

GOLD:  Right.

CARLSON:   I don‘t think you should sell her on her religion.  I don‘t think you should sell her on her race or sex either. 

GOLD:  Right.

CARLSON:  I despise all of it.

GOLD:  Well, maybe her sex.

CARLSON:  But liberals like it.  Liberals always say, “Well, we need -

this group needs to be represented.  This group.”  Why isn‘t it the logical extension of that way of thinking that of course we need an evangelical?  How about, you know, a survivalist at some point?  They‘re a constituency.

GOLD:  As a person who is left of center...

CARLSON:  Right.

GOLD:  ... I—I don‘t want an evangelical on there.  OK?

CARLSON:  At least you‘re honest.

GOLD:  All right, so I‘m just going to let you know that right now. 

OK?  The evangelical people do not have my interests at heart.


GOLD:  And they scare me, to be honest with you.  I think that they‘re very dogmatic, and they completely scare me. 

CARLSON:  Well, they‘re not as dogmatic as the liberals I know.  But maybe I know the wrong liberals.

What about...

GOLD:  I think you do.

CARLSON:  I think I may.  Karl Rove...

GOLD:  He is attractive. 

CARLSON:  So you‘re obviously not for Karl Rove.

GOLD:  No.

CARLSON:  You‘re on the left.  And a lot of Democrats don‘t like Karl Rove for the work he does.

GOLD:  Right.

CARLSON:  But if he were to be indicted for perjury, wouldn‘t it be sort of a let down?  Wouldn‘t you rather see Karl Rove defeated on the field of ideas?  Karl Rove‘s ideas crushes, Karl Rove beaten at the ballot box?

GOLD:  Well, essentially, what‘s happening here is, you know, they‘re getting caught in their big lie about why we were going to war, and now it‘s all coming out. 

I mean, this guy was attacking a woman and, you know, the wife of

someone who kind of said, “Hey, you‘re full of it.  This is not the reason

this Iraq war was all being played with prior to any...”

CARLSON:  But he won‘t be indicted for—I don‘t support the war in Iraq, either...


CARLSON:  ... but he won‘t be indicted for the war in Iraq. 

GOLD:  I don‘t care...

CARLSON:  For the recklessness.  He‘ll be indicted, if he is, we were just—according to the “TIME” reporter we just talked to—possibly for talking to a reporter, which you‘re allowed to do in America, I thought, and ten not revealing it or forgetting it.  I mean, that is such a pointless, stupid, small potatoes charge. 

GOLD:  Well, he outed, basically, this CIA Operative.  I mean, he is not—he lied to the American people.  He is—I‘m sorry.  I feel like I have been taken on a ride into this war and all these young people are dying for a big, fat, hairy lie. 

CARLSON:  You are making the exact point that I‘m trying to make, which is all this is displaced aggression.  People are mad about...

GOLD:  As long as he goes down. 

CARLSON:  OK.  I just wanted to reveal the deep, sick, Machiavellian impulse behind it. 

GOLD:  I have to say, you know, seeing him go down would be so wonderful for me.  What‘s that?

CARLSON:  No, I just think...

GOLD:  What is up?

CARLSON:  Because I think there are important debates, like if you‘re opposed to the war in Iraq... 

GOLD:  Fine.  You know what?  No one reads.  You read, I read.  But 99 percent of the people don‘t read. 

CARLSON:  But this is such a miscarriage of justice.  I mean, people ought to be convicted for what they do and not convicted for things that don‘t matter. 

GOLD:  OK, well...

CARLSON:  Not for something that doesn‘t matter.

GOLD:  Just get him out.  That‘s all I have to say.

CARLSON:  Madonna. 

GOLD:  My bite.

CARLSON:  This is the most mind blowing story.

GOLD:  I love this.  I love this.

CARLSON:  So Madonna has basically come out of the closet as a Jewish fundamentalist. 

GOLD:  I know.  It‘s amazing.

CARLSON:  And so apparently, in her new documentary, “I‘m Going to Tell You a Secret,” she says, “The physical world is the world of illusion that we think is real.  We live for it, we‘re enslaved by it, it will ultimately be our undoing.  People are going to hell if they don‘t turn from their wicked behavior.”  I mean, she could have a sandwich board in Times Square.  I mean, do you know what I mean?

GOLD:  I know.

CARLSON:  She could be the caricature of Harriet Miers.

GOLD:  I know.  I think it‘s...

CARLSON:  what is she doing?

GOLD:  I don‘t know.  I mean, she went from material girl to un-material girl apparently.  She‘s out of her mind.  I don‘t know.

CARLSON:  This is the last taboo. 

GOLD:  Right.

CARLSON:  So 20 years ago, it was shocking to simulate sex with a corpse or whatever.

GOLD:  Right.

CARLSON:  Make fun of the pope or urinate on a crucifix, whatever. 

Nobody cares about that.  Now it‘s like, be conservative.

GOLD:  Now she has a mother.

CARLSON:  Right.

GOLD:  I mean, now she is a mother.  She doesn‘t have a mother. 

Sorry.  Now she is a mother and now she‘s, you know, all high and mighty. 

CARLSON:  But she‘s like the strict mother, too. 

GOLD:  I know.  She won‘t let—did you read that...

CARLSON:  She won‘t let her kids watch TV.

GOLD:  And they have to, you know, if her Lourdes doesn‘t put her laundry away, then she can‘t wear her clothes. 

CARLSON:  What‘s more offensive to you, Madonna getting up and saying, “You‘re going to hell,” or Madonna, you know, rolling around with a priest in a video?

GOLD:  You know, I know this is going to sound so ridiculous.  I think

that it is—I don‘t care what Madonna does.  I don‘t.  I mean, it‘s so

ridiculous that this is what we pay attention to, instead of what‘s going -

young people are dying in Iraq for no reason.  It just pisses me off, that like more people care about Brad and Jen and Madonna than, you know... 

CARLSON:  But Madonna is getting back to sort of what matters here.  I mean, Madonna is no longer selling glitter and sex.  She‘s selling, you know, eternal truth.  She‘s a fundamentalist, Judy.  Isn‘t this... 

GOLD:  She‘s a Jewish fundamentalist. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  What‘s the difference?

GOLD:  I don‘t know. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Judy Gold.

GOLD:  Maybe she—I know what the difference is.  She‘s a fundamentalist who doesn‘t eat pork.  OK?  How is that?

CARLSON:  And then the most fundamentalist...

GOLD:  No shell fish. 

CARLSON:  The most fundamental of all.

GOLD:  Her daughter can‘t have any shell fish. 

CARLSON:  That is fundamental.  Thank you. 

GOLD:  No, thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thank you.

Still to come, Saddam Hussein‘s views of Iraq‘s new legal system has set himself free to make a spectacle of himself in the meantime. 

Plus, it‘s not the sex, the booze and the drugs that drove a Long Island principal to cancel the school prom.  What did make him do it?  We‘ll tell you when we come back in just a minute.




GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I have great confidence in the future of this nation and the future of the Muslim world.  I have been inspired by the courage of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Muslims are celebrating Ramadan in two of the world‘s newest democracies.


CARLSON:  That was President Bush, speaking just a few hours ago at a dinner with Muslim leaders to break fast during the month of Ramadan. 

Iraq may have all the promise of a new democracy, but it‘s also inherited some of the problems.  Today the election commission is investigating unusually high numbers in support of the constitution during Saturday‘s vote.  This as the country prepares to put former dictator Saddam Hussein on trial.

Joining us live from Washington to discuss exactly how Saddam is preparing for the witness stand, among other things, Michael Hirsch.  He‘s written an article about the former Iraqi dictator in the current issue of “Newsweek.”

Michael Hirsch, thanks for coming on.

MICHAEL HIRSCH, “NEWSWEEK”:  Happy to be here, Tucker.

CARLSON:  What do you—I mean, this does sound like voter fraud: 99 percent in certain provinces voting for the constitution.  If it is voter fraud, what would be the purpose?

HIRSCH:  Well, obviously, this was very much at issue, you know, was the Sunni no vote going to exceed the 2/3 in three provinces and defeat the constitution?  Obviously, you had the Ayatollah Sistani out there, issuing yet another fatwa, saying come out, Shiites, and vote for it.  There may have been some fraud. 

From what I heard, though, at least anecdotally, you know, most people said they saw—you know, it seemed above board and fair, I mean, for these kinds of elections.  So I don‘t think they expect to find really widespread fraud. 

CARLSON:  Interesting.  This struck me as not just a referendum on the constitution but also on whether or not there‘s going to be a civil war.  So if it passes, that means the country has a chance of hanging together.  Do you read it that way?  And what do you think the chances of a civil war are?

HIRSCH:  Well, ironically, one of the nightmare scenarios that some of the observers were sketching out was not so much that the constitution gets defeated as the worst scenario, but that it—that it passes narrowly with a sizeable Sunni opposition vote, which it appears is what we may have. 

And the reason that‘s dangerous is because the Sunnis may then feel disenfranchised: what‘s the point, why get involved?  Their continued support for, at least, the stance whereby many in the Sunni strongholds sort of look the other way as the insurgency rages continue. 

And then, you know, you also have these provisions in the constitution that allow for very strong federalism.  So the Kurds and the Shiites finally threw up their hands and say, you know, the heck with these guys, then you could have the prospects for a break up. 

CARLSON:  And you can certainly see why they would do that.  I mean, 20 percent of the population holding everyone else hostage.  I can see why they‘d feel that way. 

Saddam Hussein, awaiting trial.  What‘s he likely to do when he gets on trial?

HIRSCH:  Well, from what I hear, he very much would like to emulate Slobodan Milosevic.  You know, he‘s turned his war crimes trial in The Hague over the last couple years into a real grandstanding opportunity, you know, ranting, making long speeches about how illegitimate the tribunal is, how they have no right to try him. 

From what we hear from Saddam‘s lawyers, that‘s exactly his approach.  He‘s going to say that this is illegitimate; this is imposed by the occupation authorities.  They have no right to put him on trial.  He‘s still the president of Iraq is what he‘ll maintain.  And you know, it‘s going to be...

CARLSON:  That sounds horrible.  So why would you allow that to go on television?  I mean, since—I know we‘re all committed to the idea of democracy and an open society and all that, but since we are sort of in control, why do we allow the propaganda opportunity this will be for Saddam?

HIRSCH:  I‘m not sure that they‘re going to, but it‘s a delicate balance, Tucker, between disallowing him to do that, preventing him from just sort of making these hour-long speeches, and at the same time, it‘s very important that they give the appearance of a fair trial, which will allow him to speak his piece.  And I think that they‘ve designed it that way.

Unfortunately, Iraqi tribunal law has not even been passed yet by the national assembly.  So the law they‘re still operating under is the one imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

And Dan Senor, the former coalition spokesman, told me last week that they—they were very concerned that Saddam would do just this, and they tried to prevent him from turning this into an opportunity where he can just speak at length whenever he wants to. 

And so the rules of evidence, he has to be much—they‘re much more assiduous in terms of what he‘s allowed to speak on at length.  He has to make a fair claim, a legitimate claim that he‘s speaking specifically about charges brought against him, rather than simply ranting. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I mean, that would just be a complete disaster. 

Michael Hirsch from “Newsweek,” thanks for explaining. 

HIRSCH:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Stay tuned.  Still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION.


CARLSON (voice-over):  From Peru a stimulating affair between dolphins and pregnant women.

Also an unusual display of brawn versus ball. 

Plus, what led one high school principal to implement a zero tolerance policy for student orgies?

And one alien from a galaxy far, far away found a new home on planet earth. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It‘s even better.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It will be wonderful.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

You probably think rock stars like Axl Rose and Ozzy Osbourne were just born with the ability to scream?  No, sir.  My next guest says rock star quality screaming is a talent honed through meticulous practice.  She is Melissa Cross, the vocal coach to some of the biggest acts in rock and roll.  She‘s known as the queen of scream.  Her DVD is called “The Zen of Screaming.”  She joins me live in the studio tonight. 

Melissa Cross, thanks.


CARLSON:  You‘re a screamer?  Good for you.  And you admit it.

CROSS:  I‘m a screamer. 

CARLSON:  When did you learn you had a talent for screaming?

CROSS:  When I was about 5. 

CARLSON:  Did you parents say...

CROSS:  “Mommy!”  No, I loved Janis Joplin. 

CARLSON:  So did I.

CROSS:  So I was always figuring out how to do that.  I would eat potato chips, and how does she do that?  And I spent a lifetime trying to figure that out. 

CARLSON:  How did she do it?

CROSS:  She ripped herself apart inside her throat, and that‘s optional.  You don‘t have to do that. 

CARLSON:  So what‘s the difference between a good scream and a bad scream?

CROSS:  In sound or in technique?  Because in sound, a good scream is one has a lot of overtone. 


CROSS:  You could hear the highs and the lows, and it‘s, like, a big spectrum of overtone. 

CARLSON:  Right.

CROSS:  It‘s not, like, thin and quacky.

CARLSON:  Right.

CROSS:  Like nice and big and round. 

CARLSON:  Not sharp and piercing and stuff like that.

CROSS:  Yes.  It‘s big and round.  Right?


CROSS:  That‘s a good scream.  In technique, a good scream is one that doesn‘t hurt you.


CROSS:  It‘s one that you can actually speak after you do it.  It has control. 

CARLSON:  So, give me an example of a good scream.  What does a good scream sound like?

CROSS:  Now?

CARLSON:  Yes, go ahead. 

CROSS:  (screaming)  I make the face and...

CARLSON:  That‘s a good scream? 

CROSS:  Well...

CARLSON:  I‘m not criticizing your screaming in any way.  Now give me a bad scream, just so I can compare and contrast. 

CROSS:  (screaming) How is that?

CARLSON:  That was more like a whine and a shriek.

CROSS:  Yes.  That‘s ugly, isn‘t it?  (screaming) I can do that all night.  The other one I‘ll lose my voice. 

CARLSON:  That is just prehistoric, that scream. 

CROSS:  Like a brontosaurus, right?

CARLSON:  it really is.  Pterodactyl, I was thinking.

CROSS:  (screaming) Right. 

CARLSON:  Very good.  You are a screamer.  I like that.

CROSS:  I was a dinosaur in a previous life.  Right?

CARLSON:  So if you scream enough, I mean, do you just speak—does it sound like you smoke four packs of Camels a day, I mean are you just—after awhile?

CROSS:  If you do it wrong, yes. 

CARLSON:  But if you do it right, you can scream a lot and preserve your ability to scream more?

CROSS:  Absolutely.  And you can finish that tour and make the next


CARLSON:  Is that really an issue for screaming musicians?

CROSS:  Absolutely.  The ones who don‘t do it right, they‘re brought to me for that very reason. 

CARLSON:  Does it permanently affect their ability to talk or sing?

CROSS:  You can have surgery these days.  You can remove the scar tissue that occurs. 

CARLSON:  Boy, that scars your throat if you don‘t scream well?

CROSS:  Absolutely.  Vocal chords are muscles.  So if you overuse a muscle, it scars up.  Vocal cords touch together like this to make sound.  If there‘s bumps there, then you get that kind of like, that kind of like the chord, the bump closes before the whole cord closes, and you get that air.  Like, that‘s laryngitis.  You can‘t do a show like that. 

CARLSON:  No, you can‘t.  And you can‘t—I mean, there are a lot of jobs that entail screaming.  Apparently, you work with people on Wall Street who scream?

CROSS:  I have worked with people on Wall Street who need to be heard on the floor.  They do not scream like brontosauruses.

CARLSON:  Do you have screaming, I didn‘t mean to criticize your screaming.  I was very impressed by your scream.  I thought it was a great scream. 

CROSS:  Yes.

CARLSON:  It wasn‘t a “call the cops” scream.  It was a “what is that?” scream?  Which is better than a “call the cops” scream.  And it wasn‘t an “I‘m being murdered” scream.  That was a very—it was good.

How do you train screamers?  Like I‘m a Wall Street screamer?  I need to be heard on the floor.  How do you—go to screaming classes?

CROSS:  That is more about projection, and I use imagery to teach this.  I say you take the vowel and you launch the vowel across the floor.  So it‘s like “Five, four.”  Like that.  But you don‘t quack it, you launch it.  And I use a lot of imagery to teach people how to do this properly.  All in the imagination. 

CARLSON:  Are there other—I mean, I‘m thinking Marine Corps drill instructors, porn stars, other people who could use...

CROSS:  Porn stars!

CARLSON:  ... who could use help?  You know?  But I mean, they scream. 

You know, horror actresses, in horror movies. 

CROSS:  Yes.  In fact there‘s a film out now, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”.

CARLSON:  yes.

CROSS:  And apparently there‘s a scene that they actually discuss the mechanism of that kind of scream.  It occurs up in the higher part of the throat.  Those are the false cords.  And there is a lawyer in this film that actually talks about how it is possible for a human being not to be possessed.  Right.  And it‘s hip right now. 

CARLSON:  Is this a musically recognized form of expression?  I mean, is screaming considered singing, or is it apart from singing?

CROSS:  By some people it is.  There‘s many, many C.D.‘s that are sold with that sound on it. 

CARLSON:  But if you go to Berkeley—if you‘re a trained singer, if you‘re an opera singer, for instance, does part of your training entail screaming?

CROSS:  I was an opera singer. 

CARLSON:  Really?

CROSS:  Yes.  I don‘t know if my mom thinks it‘s music.  I don‘t know if you would think it‘s music.


CROSS:  I do, too.  I think it‘s an expression.  I mean, a lot of people said rap‘s not music; it‘s expression.  Anything goes.

CARLSON:  I like screaming better.  Melissa Cross, you‘re a great screamer. 

CROSS:  Thank you!

CARLSON:  Thank you. 

CROSS:   Bye.

CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, what do Karl Rove and this ferret have in common?  Remember, a ferret technically not a weasel, so that‘s not the dumb joke we‘re telling.  We‘re telling another dumb joke.  We‘ll tell you when we check THE SITUATION voice mail, next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Joining me now, a man who brings argument to an art form, the Rembrandt of rhetoric, the Picasso of polemic, a man we like to call the Outsider.  Welcome, ESPN Radio and HBO boxing host Max Kellerman, live from Las Vegas tonight. 

KELLERMAN:  The Picasso of polemic?


KELLERMAN:  I love the alliteration, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thank you.  I‘m like Jesse Jackson of cable.

All right, first up, prom night is canceled at one Long Island, New York school, and the problem is not sex, drugs or even rock and roll.  The principal, mad about what he calls an orgy of affluence, who has pulled the plug on the prom.  It‘s a Catholic school, Max, in Long Island, where the principal said, look, people are spending too much money, kids and the parents are spending too much money on prom night, and it is just offensive.  It‘s just offensive to our values, and so we are canceling prom. 

This is—there is no question that it is offensive when parents spend whatever, $50,000 on a prom or a bar mitzvah or a birthday party or whatever, Christmas. 

But that‘s not what‘s going on here.  What is going on here is envy.  This man, the principal of the school in question, is a member of a Catholic order that takes a vow of chastity and also of poverty.  And I think this guy looks around at his students driving BMWs and going off and you know, having fancy weekends in the Hamptons, and he‘s infuriated and feels envious, and so he‘s cutting off their prom, and I think it‘s wrong. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  Interesting, because of course you are right, and it‘s ridiculous.  He‘s angry that they put a $10,000 downpayment on a -- 46 seniors put a $10,000 downpayment on a house in the Hamptons—not each, just all together.  So...

CARLSON:  That‘s not such a bad deal, actually.  Yeah.

KELLERMAN:  (INAUDIBLE) -- it‘s not, you know, on Long Island, that‘s not the worst deal I ever heard. 

What‘s ironic is, he is—Brother Hoagland, as he‘s referred to in the article, Brother Hoagland—it is a Catholic school and there are values in the Catholic school that they want, you know, affirmed by school activity.  And if one of those values is that vanity is a sin, then I guess it‘s OK.  Although you bring up a very good point.  Another sin is envy, and to kind of counteract vanity and the root of that is envy, probably that‘s not...

CARLSON:  Well, I think you‘re right.  This is all—look, I applaud the school, the Catholic Church, the Christian Church, religion in general, for reminding us that material goods are not the end of our existence.  I mean, we don‘t live to acquire.  And that‘s a nice thing to be reminded of, and good for the school for reminding these kids of that.

However, this is an ongoing problem in schools that are affluent, with lots of affluent kids, is the people who work there are often envious of the people who go there.  Right? 


CARLSON:  They you are spoiled and they treat them poorly as a result.  I mean, it‘s not the worst crime that takes place in America, or it‘s not the worst example of injustice, rich kids being mistreated by their teachers, but it is annoying. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  That goes on.  I don‘t know if this is actually a really good example of that, because if it was a public school or if it were a private school that wasn‘t a Catholic school, but it‘s a Catholic school, and they said that they would sponsor another school event that—a prom, they just felt that this was becoming an orgy, not a prom.  And he didn‘t, in his words, and they weren‘t going for it.  And according to the school, of course, most of the parents agree with them. 

CARLSON:  Sponsor a walk for hunger or something instead of the prom. 

I don‘t know.  I‘m for the prom.

Here is a story of bureaucracy run amok.  One of many—we just pulled this out of our today‘s bureaucracy run amok file.  A woman in the town of Loveland, Ohio was detained by the cops last week and could face a $4,000 fine and a year and a half in jail.  Her crime?  She hasn‘t filed a tax return in five years, and she owes the town of Loveland $1.16.  They are taking it pretty seriously.  The city manager called her, quote, “a flagrant offender.”  She faces a hearing October 20th.

Now, we called the city manager of the town of Loveland, who said this story had been misreported, she was not actually arrested, and that she clearly is a (INAUDIBLE), and perhaps you can have him on later to rebut what I‘m about to say, which is, so?  Of all the bad people in this society, they harass this poor woman pulled over for some traffic offense, and they bother her and detain her and make her pay a bond because she owes $1.16 and she forgot to file her tax returns?  I mean, come on, leave her alone. 

KELLERMAN:  Oh, boy, you gave me a doozy today, Tucker. 


KELLERMAN:  Here‘s the thing.  It is $1.16, but it‘s not the dollar amount that‘s really at issue.  What is at issue is, she hadn‘t filed in five years.  Now, you don‘t simply forget to file tax returns for five years.  You are avoiding filing them.  And there is a penalty.  You have to file.  Even if you owe the government money, even if the government owes you money.  You must file your tax returns, and she didn‘t for half a decade. 

CARLSON:  I‘m assuming these are federal tax returns, and I think they are.  That‘s a federal question, not a local one. 

Second, not filing is a much smaller offense than lying when you do file.  Better you not file than misrepresent your income, as any tax attorney will tell you. 

And third, again, so what?  I mean, crime—it just came out today, you saw that—rape up dramatically in this country, murder—almost 10,000 people murdered in this country.  I‘m sorry to make this all relative once again.

KELLERMAN:  Fifteen thousand, 15,000 murdered in this country.

CARLSON:  OK, exactly.  So there you go. 


CARLSON:  And they‘re (INAUDIBLE) this woman over $1.16?  I mean, they ought to be ashamed, but they‘re not ashamed, because they are bureaucrats, and bureaucrats by definition can‘t feel shame, which is one of the reasons I don‘t like them. 

KELLERMAN:  Pass.  All right!  I mean...


KELLERMAN:  I can‘t believe that it‘s $1.16, Tucker! 

CARLSON:  Well, I‘m going to take the tougher side in this one, Max.  It seems the State Department has never heard the old saying about not looking a gift horse in the mouth.  Government—the U.S. government rejected more than 300,000 British meals ready to eat, known as MREs, donated in the wake of Katrina.  The problem?  They contain British beef, which is banned in this country because of mad cow fears.  That‘s not stopping us from sending them onto other needy countries.  And it shouldn‘t.  And in fact, a lot of countries that, you know, both don‘t have prohibitions against British meat—I think that is something Congress passed—and that are willing to eat British food. 

But the government made the right choice in this case, because we are not one of those countries willing to eat British food.  We love the British, they are our closest allies, they‘re great people, they‘re tough, hardy people from whom we‘ve taken most of our culture.  Their food is terrible.  It‘s appalling.  And no matter how poor and stunned and bewildered the survivors of Katrina are, they should not be expected to eat British food.  Nobody in America should be asked to do that.  It‘s demeaning.  They may be poor, but they have pride, Max.

KELLERMAN:  Listen, I love the British, but you are certainly right about the food—awful, awful.  The best hamburger you can get in Britain is actually at Burger King, if you get a whopper...

CARLSON:  Exactly, and it‘s still only like 30 percent meat. 

KELLERMAN:  But people are starving, and our staunch allies, the British, send food.  Look, the bird flu, people are really concerned about, scientists are concerned about if there is a mutation and it becomes, you know, spread from person to person.  If it spread from person to person rather than from—from chickens to people, from birds to people, it could be a pandemic and a big deal. 

Mad cow disease was really overstated.  The danger of mad cow disease is not so great, according to the scientific research that I‘ve seen, or at least reports that I‘ve seen, that we can‘t have...

CARLSON:  But that food is dangerous in a different way.  I don‘t think you‘re going to get brain disease from British MREs, but that‘s not the point.  Your pallet could be destroyed for life.  Their food is terrible.  Now, I agree with you, that it was wrong of us to publicly, fragrantly insult our closest ally, very great people, the British.  I‘m not in any way attacking the British.  I feel sorry for them because of what they eat.  But I think in this case...

KELLERMAN:  Did you ever hear Eddie Murphy‘s whole thing—I think it was from “Delirious” or it may have been “Raw,” about how if you throw a starving man a cracker—you know, you throw someone a cracker, you or me, it‘s a cracker.  But if you throw a starving man a cracker, he‘s, what is this?  Never had a cracker that good. 

CARLSON:  No.  No. 

KELLERMAN:  Even British meat, to a starving man, would taste good.

CARLSON:  I disagree.  When you take a piece of gristle in your pork chop, you take it, put it in your napkin, and feed it to the dog.  Suddenly, nobody is offended, but the threat has passed.  We should have done that with this stuff.

KELLERMAN:  I thought you liked dogs. 

CARLSON:  I love dogs.  But you know, they don‘t mind gristle.

Max Kellerman, live from Las Vegas, thanks.

KELLERMAN:  Tucker, see you tomorrow.

CARLSON:  You heard us debate it just a moment ago.  Now, hear what the parent of one student has to say about being canceled, the prom, banned from the prom.  Parents outraged.  That‘s next on THE SITUATION.


VANESSA MCDONALD, “SITUATION” PRODUCER:  Coming up, Chewbacca renounces his native planet and signs up with Team America.  So how will American citizenship change the big Wookie?  Tucker faces off with you when he checks THE SITUATION voicemail. 

CARLSON:  Wookies.  Don‘t miss it. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for our voicemail segment, in which the lucky few A-list celebrities to whom we have given our unlisted number call in and leave their messages.  Let‘s hear what they said. 


LANI:  Hey, Mr. Carlson.  My name is Lani Ryan (ph), and I‘m calling from Palm Springs, California.  When you were talking about the Rove investigation, you said you had a problem with these special investigations getting way beyond the point for what they were originally began for.  And I find it interesting that you would make that comment, when in fact the United States government spent over $52 million investigating Whitewater, and we came out with oral sex in the White House. 


CARLSON:  If you can find a tape of me defending Whitewater, I‘ll take you to lunch.  Because I sort of agree with you.  I think there are a lot of things that were appalling about Clinton.  I think Clinton‘s recklessness as president helped to bring about the terror attacks we saw four years ago.  I don‘t think he protected this country well.  I think he‘s probably responsible for that.  And I think he is annoying, and I enjoyed seeing him under fire. 

But I absolutely agree with you on principle.  There is no defending that, that independent investigation of Whitewater.  I think it turned up what we already knew.  He was friends with a lot of creepy people, and he probably had low ethical standards.  OK.  But it didn‘t prove a crime in the end, and for that reason, at least that he was responsible for, yes, I agree.  I haven‘t defended Whitewater. 

And that‘s the lesson here.  As much as you enjoy seeing your enemies pounded by a special prosecutor, stand up and say it‘s wrong, because it is wrong, it is wrong.  Whether you enjoy it or not. 

Next up. 


SHANEY:  Tucker, this is Shaney from Brooklyn, New York.  This is the second time I‘m actually calling you in two days, because frankly, you piss me off.  Has it ever occurred to you that people are choosing to become more emotionally mature and therefore more ready to make concise decisions regarding marital relations before they do so? 


CARLSON:  Well, I‘m glad I made you mad, Shaney.  Thanks for calling. 

Hope you‘ll call again next time you‘ve had a few drinks and you‘re angry.

Yes, it has.  I think you are referring to the segment we did on people having children older, getting married older.  I‘m a big believer in letting people do what they want to do, and I‘m not in any way criticizing people‘s decision to wait.  I was merely pointing out, there is a huge difference in the states politically.  People in states where people have kids younger and get married younger vote Republican, and the states where people tend to marry later or not at all vote Democrat.  I wasn‘t even assessing a value judgment, other than, obviously, I‘m personally strongly in favor of getting married and having kids.  But if you‘re not, that‘s OK.  I‘m not judging you.

Next up.


ALEX:  Hey, Tucker, my name is Alex Finelan (ph), I‘m from Cincinnati, Ohio.  I‘m calling in response to your piece on the ferret, the woman who was suing because of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  You contradict yourself there, because if you are against the Americans With Disabilities Act, then you should be for the school‘s rule that, you know, can‘t have ferrets or animals in the dorm rooms. 


CARLSON:  No contradiction there, Alex.  I‘m against the ADA.  I think the school has the right to ban the ferrets if it wants, for any reason.  Private institutions have the right to do whatever they want, it seems to me, pretty much.  I just think it‘s a dumb rule.  They have the right to make the rule.  ADA should not exist and have no bearing on any of this, but they should not have the rule, because it‘s a dumb rule.  Let the girl have her ferret.  Come on.  I like ferrets.

Let me know what you are thinking about ferrets or anything else.  You can call 1-877-TCARLSON.  I (INAUDIBLE) we‘ve got one more voicemail.  Here it is. 


TRAVIS:  Hey, Tucker.  This is Travis Bader (ph).  I‘m from Linthicum, Maryland.  I go to school at North County High School, and every day I seem to discuss topics that I learn about on your show with my AP U.S. history teacher.  My teacher bet me that if I can get on your show, then I will get an A for the rest of the year in my AP U.S. government class.  So I would really appreciate you helping me out, and thank you very much. 


CARLSON:  Wow, Travis, your teacher has very low standards.  My kind of teacher.  Good for her!  All we had to do was play your voice on the air and you get an A?  Travis, I hope you go to Harvard.  I really do, and good for your teacher.  We need more teachers like that.  A lot of them have these pointlessly high standards that make it difficult for students everywhere.  So Travis, I hope I helped you out.

And I hope we can help you.  You can call 1-877-TCARLSON.  That‘s 877-822-7576.  You can also send me your questions via our Web site.  Send an e-mail to  I‘ll respond every day to anything you come up with, no matter what—politics, culture, fishing.  Especially fishing.  Relationships.  Whatever is on your mind.  My responses can be read at 

Well, still ahead on THE SITUATION, the quest to create the perfect child reaches a new low.  We‘ll tell you why swimming with dolphins may very well turn your unborn child into Albert Einstein.  That, of course, can only be found on “The Cutting Room Floor.”


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  A $10,000 party house in the Hamptons, limousines loaded up with liquor, a booze cruise filled with teenagers.  Brother Kenneth Hoagland, the principal of Kellenberg Memorial High School in New York heard these tales of teenage excess involving his school‘s prom and decided to do something about it.  As we told you earlier tonight, he canceled the prom, not because of the sex and the booze, but because of what he calls “the financial decadence” surrounding the event. 

Here now to express his feelings about the prom cancellation, the father of a Kellenberg Memorial High School senior, Edward Lawson. 

Mr. Lawson, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  Financial decadence.  Are you financially decadent? 

LAWSON:  Oh, I don‘t think so.  We pay tuition to go to that school, and it‘s our tuition that keeps that school functioning.  My wife and I work very hard to send that child to that school. 


LAWSON:  Financial decadence?  I don‘t see it by me.

CARLSON:  So you weren‘t planning on giving your child, you know, 10 grand for a booze cruise or something like that? 

LAWSON:  No.  I can see the cost of a tuxedo, splitting a limousine price, flowers for his date, and the prom bid.  I don‘t think...

CARLSON:  So what is this about?  I mean, is the school out of control?  Is everybody a mini-Donald Trump, jetting off in a private plane to the Hamptons for a drug-fueled weekend?

LAWSON:  Well, I have never seen it.  They say it happens.  But it‘s

not going to happen by me.  I mean, the after-prom party, not that kind of

that‘s ridiculous.

CARLSON:  So I noticed your shirt says “got prom?” 

LAWSON:  Sure.  I have got to say that was my son‘s idea.  A couple of the boys at school kept yelling him, “got prom, got prom?”  And he came up for the idea for the shirt, and he went online, went to an Internet site, and had the shirts made up. 

CARLSON:  So what is—it‘s Brother Kenneth Hoagland—Brother Kenneth I guess, who is the principal of the school.  Have you gone to him?  Have you talked to him and expressed how you feel about this? 

LAWSON:  I wanted to have a meeting with Brother Kenneth about certain things, but he refused me—he refused to talk to me. 


LAWSON:  You‘d have to ask him. 

CARLSON:  Well, doesn‘t he have to, if he‘s the principal of the school?  

LAWSON:  Well, it was on a subject that he felt had been settled by him already in the letter.  He said, that‘s all I have to say about the matter, and there was no reason to have a meeting with me.

CARLSON:  That‘s pretty patronizing.  So what are you going to do next?  Will there be a prom or some sort of party? 

LAWSON:  Well, right now, as far as I‘m told, that the students are meeting with Brother Kenneth, to have some kind of a senior evening, and—within the guidelines of Kellenberg Memorial and what the seniors may want, and we‘ll go from there and see what we‘re going to do.

CARLSON:  But do you think it‘s going to be with Brother Kenneth? 

LAWSON:  I don‘t think so, but it‘s supposedly going to be an evening that Kellenberg would endorse.  And I would like to see something for the seniors.  I really do.  I mean, that‘s, you know, it‘s for them, it‘s not for me. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.

LAWSON:  But I would like to see them have something. 

CARLSON:  I hope they get it.  Mr. Lawson, thanks for coming on and explaining it, and I hope if Brother Kenneth wants to come on and tell us his side of the story, he will.

LAWSON:  More than welcome to.


LAWSON:  Thank you for having me.

CARLSON:  Thanks, Mr. Lawson.

LAWSON:  Thank you, sir.

CARLSON:  Still to come, how much will they have to pay you to spend a weekend in the woods hunting Bigfoot?  How does $1 million sound?  It could be yours.  We‘ll tell you how to get it when we visit “The Cutting Room Floor.”


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Willie Geist‘s flight has landed.  He‘s here to bring us “The Cutting Room Floor.”

WILLIE GEIST, THE SITUATION:  A little late.  Some delays, weather delays, but I‘m here.  Let‘s get right to it. 

CARLSON:  Thank you, Willie.  Well, nothing brings nations together like elephant polo. 

GEIST:  It‘s true.

CARLSON:  A team of Pakistanis and a team of Germans got together in India for a goodwill game over the weekend.  The rules of elephant polo are the same as traditional polo—we all know those, of course.  The pace of the game is a little bit slower.  That tends to happens when you replace horse with five-ton elephants.

GEIST:  Tucker, just when you thought polo couldn‘t get less exciting, along come these folks.  It‘s always India, too.  Have you noticed this?  We‘ve done a couple stories—there are robots riding camels.  Can we get them some football or some baseball?  You can do better, India.  There are better sports out there.

CARLSON:  It‘s another tragic legacy of colonialism. 

GEIST:  Well, it is.  It‘s terrible.  Get some real sports.

CARLSON:  That and warm gin and tonic.  They never get over it.

Well, Chewbacca didn‘t say much in his role as the beloved Wookie in the “Star Wars” movies.  Chewey quietly went about the Business of being a fiercely loyal friend to Han Solo, a terrific mechanic on the Millennium Falcon, and a strong supporter of the rebels‘ cause.

Then the big fellow finally did speak.  British actor Peter Mayhew, who played Chewbacca, recited the oath that made him an American citizen.  7‘3“ Mayhew married a Texas native six years ago, and today, was sworn in as a naturalized citizen of the United States.  We welcome all Wookies.

GEIST:  Totally, totally.  Good for Chewey.  I love Chewey, but I will say, I think this sets a little bit of a dangerous precedent.  Next thing you know, every Tom, Dick and Hank from the (INAUDIBLE) cantina is going to marry American just to get into town, and I don‘t think we should be sending that message to Boba Fett (INAUDIBLE) and the rest of the gang. 

CARLSON:  We learn that every single one of our cameraman, particularly Tom, does an excellent Wookie impression. 

GEIST:  Can we hear it, Tom? 


GEIST:  Oh, chilling.

CARLSON:  Disgusting.

GEIST:  I like it, though.  Thank you, Tom. 

CARLSON:  Well, laugh all you want at people who spend their weekends looking for Bigfoot, but they will be getting the last laugh if one Maine scientist has anything to say about it.  Warren Coleman (ph) is offering a $1 million reward for any photograph leading to the live capture of Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, or the abominable snowman.  There have been more than 2,500 reported Bigfoot sightings over the last century... 

GEIST:  And Tucker, I‘m offering $40 for any photograph leading to the caption of Warren Coleman (ph).  This man has to be stopped.

CARLSON:  He has to come on our show to explain it.

GEIST:  Yea, we‘ll have him on as soon as possible.  We‘re trying to get him, actually.

CARLSON:  For the record, I am open to the possibility of Sasquatch. 

GEIST:  Why not.

CARLSON:  I‘m not embarrassed. 

Well, perpetual race by parents to create uber-children has taken another strange and potentially horrifying twist.  Mothers in Peru are exposing their unborn kids to the ultrasonic sounds of dolphins.  Some doctors say the sounds stimulate brain activity and help the development of senses in the fetus.  These dolphins have been trained to swim up to the mother‘s bellies and make their high-pitched noises. 

GEIST:  Wow.  I‘m not sure what to say about this.  This looks...

CARLSON:  It‘s like the screaming lady we had (INAUDIBLE)...


GEIST:  I would say this is strange, but we do some pretty strange things here.  There are people in New York City who put their kids on waiting lists for high schools before they are born.  So we‘re not—we‘re not immune to things like that.

CARLSON:  I‘m not from the school of cultural relativism, Willie.  I‘m willing to say that Peruvian dolphin moms are even weirder than the women on the Upper West Side.

GEIST:  Yeah, you‘re probably right, and actually, (INAUDIBLE) a little better, I think.

CARLSON:  Yeah, it does.

Willie Geist!

GEIST:  All right, Tucker.  See you tomorrow.

CARLSON:  That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Up next, “COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN.”  Thanks for watching.  See you back here tomorrow night.


Copy: 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.