Return to Transcripts main page


Details of an Air India Crash; Ted Nugent Speaks Out; BP Gives Congress Facts on Oil Leak

Aired May 21, 2010 - 23:00   ET



JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening. Joe Johns in Washington.

Breaking news tonight: CNN has confirmed that 160 people are dead after an Air India plane crashed in southern India, this according to an Indian official. The plane burst into flames after overshooting the runway, 165 people were believed on board. Officials also say six or seven passengers may have survived.

The plane had departed Dubai and landed in Mangalore, India, at 6:30 a.m. Local time. Smoke from the plane and the rough terrain are hampering rescue efforts, though 25 to 30 ambulances are said to be on the scene.

We'll bring you more information as we get it. Stay with CNN for all the details.

360 FRIDAY starts now.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Welcome. All right. Settle down. Settle down.

Welcome to 360 FRIDAY. I hope you had a great week. Think of this as sort of a casual Friday's version of 360. Feel free to put some PJs, a bathrobe, whatever you would like.

We have got another great mix of guests lined up tonight: noted chef, bestselling author and host of the Travel Channel's "No Reservations", Anthony Bourdain, is with us tonight.

Also, guitar god, one of the most outspoken conservatives and outdoorsman you will find, the one and only Ted Nugent, is also going to be joining us.

And we will have the host of "STATE OF THE UNION", our very own Candy Crowley is with us tonight.

But we begin -- yay for Candy.

We begin with the "Keeping Them Honest" report.

The oil spill in the Gulf: it has now been more than four weeks, and the truth is that no one from BP or frankly, the government agencies working with them has been willing to admit -- admit that we have no idea how much oil is pouring into the Gulf every single day.

And the disturbing thing is that BP and even government officials have been saying that it doesn't really matter how much is leaking. Does that make sense to any of you here?

Take a look at the pictures behind us. That's the oil leaking from the ruptured pipe a mile under the Gulf of Mexico. Now, finally, just yesterday, after four weeks BP has released live images to Congress members, who have made these images public. And BP has been saying all long that about 5,000 barrels of oil are flowing from that pipe every day, but other experts say it could be as much as 70,000 barrels a day.

BP has also been using chemical dispersants to help dissolve the oil. But they even admit that they have no idea about the long-term effects of these chemicals. And there are other kinds of dispersants that, according to the EPA figures, are less toxic and actually more effective on the kind of oil that's in the Gulf.

But it wasn't until late this week that the EPA ordered BP to switch to those less toxic dispersants, which makes all us wonder, you know, what has the EPA doing all this time?

So, "Keeping Them Honest" tonight, please welcome, Douglas Brinkley, bestselling author and presidential historian.

Doug thanks. Welcome.


COOPER: Nice to see you. Welcome. Have a seat.

Also joining us from New Orleans: Democratic strategist and political contributor James Carville.

James thanks for being with us.

James, let me start with you.

A lot of folks down in Mississippi -- I was there this past weekend -- are getting -- and in New Orleans -- are very concerned about what is going on. Do you think there's been -- I mean, do you think BP has been honest?

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: No, of course, not. They haven't been honest about a single thing.

And based on what I have seen on "60 Minutes" and what's in the paper, I think that they're guilty of criminal negligence in the deaths of 11 people. I want to know, where's the United States attorney? They need to launch a criminal investigation.

They haven't told the truth about a thing since this thing started. And it's stunning that the United States government and a company that makes $2 billion a month can't tell us how much of what is pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. It's absolutely absurd. It really is.

COOPER: Well, also --

CARVILLE: I mean, it's stunning.

COOPER: -- Douglas, I mean, they have been saying now for weeks it doesn't matter how much oil is pouring in. I understand from a public-relations standpoint why BP doesn't want to know how much oil is pouring into the Gulf. But I don't understand why the U.S. government isn't demanding to know how big this oil spill really is.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I couldn't agree with you or James more. That's what people have been hammering on BP for, that we need some transparency. Be honest with the American people.

But from the get-go, BP's whole mode in Louisiana was, "It's not us, it's somebody else." They constantly try to minimize what happened. We had Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, say, "Oh, this is just a little drop in the sea." It's been insulting language. There's a movement to have him fired, Tony Hayward of British Petroleum or BP.

And, also, the Obama administration has to step up their game here. This is a national crisis. These are American waters. This is the wetlands of Louisiana that are getting the -- the oil spill in it. We're losing our oyster beds, our -- 40 percent of the fishermen now can't even bring out their catch. And so this is a national crisis.

And I think the government has to appoint a coordinator, a Colin Powell, a high commissioner, if you like, that can bring Coast Guard, EPA, BP all together and get information to the public in a rapid and honest way.

COOPER: The other thing I don't understand is why -- James -- I mean, James, the other thing I don't understand is why it has taken BP, you know, three -- it took them 23 days to release a 30-second clip of video.

And it wasn't until on Thursday --


COOPER: -- that they actually gave congress people this live feed, after it's being requested by Congress members for days now.

I want to show you some of an exchange I had with a high-level BP official just earlier this week.


COOPER: But you have people -- I mean, Steven Wereley of Perdue University, a mechanical engineering associate professor, you know, with an -- who's an expert in computational particle tracking, you know, has measured, just from the little bit of video that's been released so far, he came up with this 50,000 to 70,000 barrels leaking everyday. ROBERT DUDLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, BP: We have released the video feeds all over the place, not only through the Unified Coast Guard Command Center, but we've sent it in to Congress. There are people looking at the plume all the time.

COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. It took 23 days for you to release a 30-second video clip, and that came only after pressure from the White House and the media.

DUDLEY: I think we have -- we have provided information in all directions through this. We have nothing to hide.


COOPER: Do you believe them, James? I mean, why has it taken so long?

CARVILLE: Well, no, of course I -- of course I don't believe them.

They haven't told the truth about anything. They were criminally negligent in the deaths of 11 people as they were striving to get profits.

But what I'm -- concerns me is that -- I hate to say this, but I think the United States government is naive. They're -- they're -- they're -- we could have subpoenaed that on day two.

We are the United States government. We have the power to subpoena. We have the Justice Department, the Interior Department, the EPA, the God knows whatnot.

We're sitting around, in my opinion, and just not doing anything, not treating this like what it is, is a disaster of the first order.

COOPER: Well --

CARVILLE: I mean, somebody's got to -- somebody somewhere's got to wake.

COOPER: Well, I mean, has the Obama administration taken this seriously enough? I mean, the EPA now, who's been allegedly working with BP closely, it wasn't until Thursday that they said, you know, well, actually, there's 12 out of 18 dispersants you could be using that are -- that are less toxic than the ones you have been using, and they're actually more effective. Some of them are even more effective in the Gulf.

So, what has the EPA been doing?

BRINKLEY: You know, Anderson, there's a lot of different branches of government. So, you take Interior, on one hand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife is doing a great job trying to, you know, save Breton Island and some of these wildlife refuges. That's in Interior.

On the other hand, MMS is a disaster. And we're having to break it up in the middle of this crisis. Look at -- you know, what's -- why is -- you know, the Coast Guard did rescue and relief, but now Thad Allen is in charge. But they're not really talking to MMS. And it's classic big government.

And that's why I said I think we need -- the Obama administration has to put a point person at this that could bring in all this information. This is like -- that blob in the Gulf is -- is a menace to our country. And this has to be treated as a military maneuver.

COOPER: And it does matter how much is pouring out every day, because, I mean now BP is saying, "Well, look, we're collecting 5,000 barrels a day directly that's pouring out."

What doesn't make sense, James, is that, all along, they have been saying 5,000 barrels is the limit of what's pouring out. So, now they're saying they're collecting all the oil, but we can see oil is still pouring out.

CARVILLE: I think what -- that our government is naive, thinking that they can partner with BP, that its interests are the same as BP's interests.

They're not. BP is trying to do everything it can to avoid liability. Tony Hayward, he needs to lawyer up, shut up and write checks. That's the only thing that we ought to be interested in BP is their bank account to do this, because they can't be trusted to do anything.

COOPER: Well -- we should point out that we invited BP to be on this program today, but they declined.

We have a lot more coming up.

Doug Brinkley, thank you very much, James Carville as well.

Coming up on the program: An abstinence-promoting, family-values- preaching, conservative congressman admits he cheated with his abstinence-promoting staffer.

New research on why people cheat, ahead; and the day's other top's stories. Ted Nugent, Anthony Bourdain, and Candy Crowley.

We will be right back.


COOPER: Welcome back.

Welcome back to 360 FRIDAY.

Just this week, there's been another amazing example of a politician being hypocritical. You probably recognize him by now. This is the man, Mark -- Mark Souder. He was a conservative congressman from Indiana until today. An advocate of what he would call traditional family values, married with three kids.

Here he is with one of his aides talking about the virtues of abstinence.


TRACY JACKSON, OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN MARK SOUDER: You've been a longtime advocate for abstinence education. And, in 2006, you had your staff conduct a report entitled "Abstinence and Its Critics", which discredits many claims purveyed by those who oppose abstinence education.

What did you think of this hearing?

REP. MARK SOUDER (R), INDIANA: Well, I personally feel I should have probably abstained from the hearing.


COOPER: So, obviously, you know what comes next in the story. Mr. Souder and the woman there in the video, Tracy Jackson, his aide, were not abstaining from each other. They were in fact having an affair.

And it seems that there's a lot of that going around recently. These, of course, are just some of the guys recently caught cheating or who have admitted to having affairs.

But there's some really interesting new research being done into why people cheat, studies that actually look at the brains of men and women. Now, here's an experiment you can try at home and the audience is going to try here as well.

You need to have a pen and paper ready. Now, I'm going to show you some words on the screen that you need to fill out. But, before I do, you have to visualize the scenario. Otherwise, the experiment won't work. Everyone in the audience is getting their pen and paper ready.

So -- all right, so, here's the scenario. And then right after I give you the scenario, I'm going to ask you to -- we're going to show you some words on a screen that have a few letters missing and ask you to fill in those missing letters.

So, imagine you're in a coffee shop and you bump into a friend or an acquaintance, a person you find attractive. Now, you're both happy to see each other and you strike up a conversation. It's a warm conversation. It's engaging. Maybe there's a little flirting going on and, you know, you lose track of time.

And then you finally realize what time it is and you need to go home. Now, as you're leaving, the person gives you his or her number, so you can get together for coffee again in the future.

All right, so now look at these words that are missing a letter or two and fill in the blanks.

The first word is L-O with a space A-L. Then there's D-E double space T-E-D. Then there's C double-space M-I double-space E single space. And then there's B-E single space A single space E.

Just put down whatever comes to mind as you look at those letters. Hopefully, you've had time to fill them in.

Now, for the first time, did you write the word loyal or local? All right did you put down devoted or deleted? All right. Committed or committee? Beware or became?

So, now, research shows that women tend to answer with the words on the left side of the screen -- let's show those words -- men with the words on the right side of the screen.

So, how you fill in the blanks indicates how you subconsciously respond to temptation, according to studies.

Want to bring in our experts to try to break this down for us. Joining me in the studio is Tara Parker-Pope, the creator of "Well", a daily health blog. She writes for "The New York Times," and author of "For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage."

And from San Francisco, Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of "The Male Brain".

And from Los Angeles, addiction specialist Dr. Drew Pinsky.

All right, so, Tara, this -- this quiz is part of a study that was conducted by researchers at McGill University.

I want to show those words on the screen again.


COOPER: What does it actually show? What does it mean?

PARKER-POPE: Well, what they're trying to do is get at our sort of subconscious feelings. And, you know, these word puzzles are used when they're trying to understand maybe people's feeling of, you know, racism or stereotypes. So, they use these word puzzles to get at the subconscious mind.

And what they're seeing, this pattern that they're seeing is that women are gravitating more toward these loyalty, commitment and threat words. Women are more likely to sort of get the alarm bell when their relationship is about to be challenged or threatened. And you see this -- these patterns in study after study. But these -- these words --

COOPER: So, women, after considering themselves in this kind of heightened situation where they meet somebody, and maybe flirting a little bit, they are then tending to write down words that are more about -- what, they see that as red flags?

PARKER-POPE: Right. They see it as red flags. So, they're either, you know, beware, threat. They're seeing -- seeing the relationship threatened or they're --

COOPER: Loyal, committed.

PARKER-POPE: -- they're loyal. Exactly.

COOPER: And men see what?

PARKER-POPE: They kind of see nothing.

They're just sort of neutral.

COOPER: There's a few women in the audience are applauding. I --

PARKER-POPE: And it's not that the guys are bad. I think what we're seeing is that women -- we see this in various studies. They're just more likely to protect the relationship sooner. They're more likely to sort of figure out that there's a threat.

And it's not -- you know, you think about the guy in the bar chatting with somebody. And he thinks, you know, oh, she's just really interested in my research, and he's a little bit naive about it sometime. And maybe the woman might be just a little more tuned in that this is something that might put her relationship at risk.

COOPER: Dr. Brizendine, what do you make of this? I'm always very skeptical of something like this, which is just blank words that people fill in.

DR. LOUANN BRIZENDINE, AUTHOR, "THE MALE BRAIN": Well, we know, you know, from the male and female brain studies that males and females look at sexual situation quite differently sometimes.

For example, if you have women look at two people talking, the women will more likely say that there's some sexual flirtation going on between the two of them. And the males may just say, oh, it's just two people talking.

COOPER: Dr. Drew, is that what you see in your studies?

DR. DREW PINSKY, AUTHOR, "CRACKED: PUTTING BROKEN LIVES TOGETHER AGAIN": Well, that -- oh, these are things that are absolutely accurate.

Also, what we know about men is that, when they have sexual arousal, there's always an appetite of drive connected to that, while, in women, that tends to be disconnected. They can have arousal without appetite of desire.

And the reality is, we differ so much genetically, men and women, this should not be mysterious or surprising to us. We differ from chimpanzees by about 300 base pairs. Men differ from women by an entire chromosome. And women have much more genetic information on their sex chromosomes and so there's much more diversity amongst women as well.

COOPER: We are going to have a lot more ahead on the program: how a brain scan sheds light on why men may be more likely to cheat than women.

And the day's top stories with bestselling author and chef Anthony Bourdain and hard-rocking conservative Ted Nugent.

We will be right back.


COOPER: And welcome back to 360 FRIDAY.

So, we're looking at new research on cheating and why some recent science suggests that men are hard-wired for it; probably hard-wired is not the best term.

But I want you to look at this. These are brain scans. On the left is the male brain. And you can see the red part. That is apparently activity that happens in the brain when it's aroused. On the right, the female brain; notice the arousal process, much less going on here at the height of arousal compared to men.

Now, take a look at this. You see the green circle on both those brains. That's -- the circle is around an area that's of particular interest to scientists, because in there could be one of the core biological reasons for infidelity. It's there that scientists have found the sexual pursuit area of the male brain is much larger than that of the female brain, two-and-a-half bigger, as a matter of fact.

Let's talk to our guests about it, author of "For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage" and the creator of "Well," the daily health blog she writes for "The New York Times", Tara Parker-Pope; also addiction specialist and the host of "Loveline" on Westwood One Radio, Dr. Drew Pinsky; and neuro-psychiatrist and author of "The Male Brain," Dr. Louann Brizendine.

So -- so, Dr. -- Dr. Brizendine, what's the sexual pursuit area of the brain? I have never even heard of that.

BRIZENDINE: Well, you know, Anderson, we -- as males and females, the brain starts out different from the moment of conception.

And we now know that the genetic differences get exaggerated by hormones. For example, testosterone marinates the male brain, changing the area for sexual pursuit in the male to be 2.5 times larger than in the female brain, for example.

COOPER: And what does that part of the brain do? I mean, when -- what makes that -- I mean, I know what makes that part of the brain get excited, but, I mean, how does it actually work?

BRIZENDINE: So, it actually works in many different ways. And you can see from the brain scan that male's arousal gets more excited more quickly than a female's. But we females, of course, catch up. The male gets excited and more activated.

The sexual pursuit area in the male brain, of course, runs on a fuel called testosterone. And all of a man's life, from about the age of 15 onwards, he has 10 to 15 times more testosterone running the area for sexual pursuit and the areas for sexual interest.

COOPER: So, Dr. Drew, it does seem like this gives a perfect excuse for a guy just to do whatever he wants.

You can just blame it on your brain.

PINSKY: Yes, which is unfortunate. Now, that's -- yes, that's really not the point.

Just because there are these motivational priorities, it doesn't mean that people have to be excused for following those motivational drives. The fact is the problem I have today is that most people don't understand what's required to have a healthy relationship, really what a stable intimacy is, and how much cheating can diminish and injure a real intimacy.

Because we have poor models for that in our families, because we have never experienced that before, and our culture doesn't really put values on it, then we go, well, what are you going to do? It was just in their brains, rather than saying, look, that may be their predisposition, but there's something much more important here, that they should be pushing aside those drives, controlling those drives, using those -- that big cortex and that executive function for a higher, higher order.

COOPER: It's interesting, Tara. In your book, you write about something called the -- you call it the fidelity gene. What is that?

PARKER-POPE: Well, this has been dubbed the fidelity gene. It's not really a fair -- but this is what people are calling it.

And Swedish scientists have studied -- you know, it all starts with a little animal called the prairie vole. And they have seen that the --

OOPER: What, the prairie what?

PARKER-POPE: Prairie vole. It's a little rodent.

They like to study rodents when it comes to monogamy in nature. They're a rare example of it. It doesn't occur a lot. There's a California mouse. There's a prairie vole. And they have done a lot of really remarkable research showing fidelity among these animals. And they have identified, you know, genetic differences in prairie voles compared to other types of voles.

And they have taken this research and they have looked at humans. And they have done a study of Swedish twins. And they identified patterns, genetic patterns, that if a man has two copies of this variant, he's more likely -- he's less likely to be married, he's more likely to have had a marital crisis in the past year.

They didn't actually measure -- measure cheating. It's been called the cheating gene, but they didn't actually look at that. But it does suggest that there is, you know, a genetic basis.

We see this with women. You know, there are these -- they do these T- shirt studies where they have 20-year-olds wear T-shirts for two days, and the women sniff them and pick the one that -- you know, that they're sort of attracted to. It's kind of an odd kind of research.

COOPER: Wow. That's a charming study.

PARKER-POPE: Interesting, right? Charming. But what they find --

COOPER: How would you like to volunteer for that?

PARKER-POPE: Well, apparently, plenty of people do volunteer and what they find is that they -- they sniff out somebody who is genetically different.

And, when they don't, they have looked at sort of patterns over time, and they have seen that these women are less likely to be happy if they have made sort of a poor genetic match.

So, we do see these patterns, but I think it's important. It's not an excuse. It's not giving people permission. It's just understanding our biology and understanding, you know, these drives and understanding the brain system. But, you know, we're humans. And what makes us remarkable is our ability to make choices.

And I think that's the message that often gets lost, you know? And if you do surveys of couples, they will tell you that the number-one priority for a happy relationship is fidelity.

But they all want that. They strive for it. It's definitely a priority with them.

COOPER: Interesting.

We're going to have to leave it there.

Tara, thanks so much for being with us, Dr. Brizendine as well, and Dr. Drew Pinsky. Thank you very much.

BRIZENDINE: Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: We appreciate it.

Coming up next on the program: taking out the big guns. Rocker and Tea Party fan Ted Nugent joins us. So does Anthony Bourdain, the chef and bestselling author. He's not about to host a tea party any time soon. We will be right back.


JOHNS: I'm Joe Johns in Washington with breaking news tonight. CNN has confirmed that 160 people are dead after an Air India plane crash in southern India, this according to an Indian official. The plane burst into flames after overshooting the runway. Officials also say six or seven passengers may have survived.

The plane had departed Dubai and landed in Mangalore, India at 6:30 a.m. local time. Smoke from the plane and the rough terrain is hampering rescue efforts, we're told, though 25 to 30 ambulances are on the scene.

Another delay in BP's effort to stop the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico; it will be at least Tuesday before engineers can shoot heavy mud into its blown-out well, a fix known as a top kill. Meanwhile, the spill is now washing into wetlands and on to at least one public beach.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today said North Korea must be held accountable for sinking a South Korean warship. Clinton said it's important for the international community to send a clear message that this cannot be quote, "business as usual".

The Texas State Board of Education today voted to adopt new educational guidelines for its primary schools. The board says the more conservative standards are meant to correct a liberal bias in the existing curriculum.

360 FRIDAY continues next.


COOPER: All right. Welcome back to 360 FRIDAY. A lot of news to talk about with our panel.

First up, he's a renowned chef, critic, host of "No Reservations" on the Travel Channel and best-selling author. "Medium Raw" is the title of his newest book. Please welcome Anthony Bourdain.

Also, I'm very excited. He's a rock legend, a guitar hero, avid hunter, always outspoken. His newest book is "Ted, White and Blue". Welcome Ted Nugent.

TED NUGENT, ROCK STAR: Thank you. I feel welcome.

COOPER: And our chief political correspondent, host of "STATE OF THE UNION" on Sundays. Candy Crowley is with us.

Nice to have you here.

All right. So let's start with BP, the oil spill. This week, Senator Barbara Boxer accused the company of a cover-up. Ted, what do you think? Is BP lying to the American people?

NUGENT: Well, very painfully, I dialed 911 just a minute ago because I actually agreed with Mr. Carville on your show.

Yes. There's a -- there's a gross epidemic, a pandemic of abandonment of accountability out there. And the bureaucrats and in this case, BP, are certainly guilty of it. It's an environmental catastrophe that could have been remedied.

And let me put it in simple terms for you, Anderson. I've never had a fire in my house, but I have fire extinguishers in all my rooms. I've never had an invader, but I've got a gun in all my rooms. They didn't have the contingency plan in a responsible and intelligent way. And it's criminal, and somebody should pay, and I mean with criminal prosecution.

COOPER: It was interesting, Anthony. You said that this is actually a reminder that people just don't care about New Orleans. What did you mean by that?

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, CELEBRITY CHEF: Well, it would be nice, wouldn't it, if we finally, as a country, did the right thing by New Orleans and the Gulf Coast? We got it so horribly wrong last time.

I'm just stunned and thrilled and delighted to agree totally with everything that my Uncle Ted just said. We usually find ourselves on the opposite end of the spectrum. But I -- I agree here. I honestly --

COOPER: Do you think we should stop offshore drilling?

BOURDAIN: I -- it's pretty to think so. I don't know. Given our -- given the cost of relying on exclusively or mostly Middle Eastern oil, whether we as a nation want to or will be able to do that. So I don't know.

In a perfect world I'd like to -- I'd like to ban all offshore drilling, but I think the best I could hope for is some sensible middle ground.

At very least, I'd see people -- when you make a mess, you should go to jail and pay to clean it up; at the very, very, very least. And I think that, you know, both government and the private sector, it is necessary for them to guarantee us a reasonable expectation that this will never happen again.

COOPER: It is interesting, Candy, when you look at how, I mean, in bed some of these watchdogs have been with the folks that are supposed to be looking over them. They're more like lap dogs. And they were literally, in some cases, in bed and doing coke with some of the people in the oil industry, literally.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN HOST, "STATE OF THE UNION": And let's just sort of look at the whole notion of regulation, toy safety, food safety, oil- rig safety. We always are finding these lapses. In part -- and I don't want to besmirch -- you know, lots of people work for the federal government. They are hard-working, smart people.

But a lot of times what you have in these agencies are people who want to work for the companies that they're overseeing. And that is a built-in conflict of interest. You know, so you're -- I mean even if you don't knowingly help them, you are necessarily friendly.

You need, you know, you need an adversarial role, I think. It can't be, "Well, let's all just get along, and we'll work this out."

COOPER: Ted, do you think this should in any way stop other offshore drilling? Does it make you think twice about that?

NUGENT: Well, we're all complicit, Anderson. I mean, we're all demanding energy. We're all using it in a rather gluttonous fashion here in the United States of America. That goes to the core of our quality of life: the mobility factor, the conveniences, the -- the indulgences that America has perfected. And I'm not criticizing them so much, because I'm as guilty as anybody else.

But when you make that kind of demand on a resource, and you have so- called professionals plunging pipes into the good Mother Earth without a plan, a multilayered emergency safety plan ready to rock, you've got corruption and abuse of power at its most criminal and life- threatening.

We're talking about a life-threatening air, soil and water environmental catastrophe here.

We've got to get more oil. We've got to get more gas. But we've got to do it in the most professional, caring and scientifically up-to- date process possible.

And I figured that out all by myself, and I'm just a guitar player. So you think the professionals might be able to do it.

COOPER: Can any of this be put at the feet of the Obama administration? I mean, what has the EPA been doing if it's taken them a month to just decide, you know, that these dispersants, that they should use less toxic dispersants?

CROWLEY: Sure. Were they too quick to believe BP and everything that BP said without putting out their own people and saying, "Well, let's just see how much of this is leaking out"?" Would it have made any difference? Maybe not. But it would be nice to know how much is leaking out.

COOPER: The government also has not been demanding that we find out exactly how much oil is leaking into the Gulf. I mean, there's no --

CROWLEY: Right. That's what I mean. Yes.

COOPER: They've all been going along with BP, saying yes, it won't really affect how we're trying to clean it up.

CROWLEY: Exactly. Maybe it won't affect the cleaning up, but it might affect like how much dispersant you get. I mean, it has to affect something.

But I think the other thing that we should say is it's not just inside the regulatory agency's pressure of somebody that might want to work in that business. It's also the pressure of us. We need to get more fossil fuel. We need to have more oil rigs.

I mean, you saw the President's plan. His energy plan was to have some more offshore drilling. Why? Because we need it. Why do we need it? Because we use it.

COOPER: If Tony Hayward is, in fact, in England celebrating his 54th birthday, would you bake him a cake, Anthony?

BOURDAIN: I think hemlock would be the principle ingredient. COOPER: Guys, stick around. When we return, want to talk about the rise of the Tea Party, which this week helped get Rand Paul on the Republican ticket in Kentucky. Can't wait to hear what Ted thinks about that. And what it means for Sarah Palin. Can the Tea Party take her to the White House?

We'll be right back.


COOPER: And welcome back.

This is a very good week for the Tea Party, winning a key victory in Kentucky, making it clear that this movement has now become a political force to reckon with and for centrist members of both parties maybe to fear.

Let's bring back our panel: Anthony Bourdain, Ted Nugent and Candy Crowley.

Anthony, have you ever been to a Tea Party? What do you think?

BOURDAIN: You know, I was just reading "Hellhound on His Trail," a book about the -- about the assassination of Dr. King and about -- particularly about the Wallace-for-president campaign in California back then. And you're looking, I think, at basically the same demographic: a lot of marginal, very angry white people.

I'm pretty happy about the Tea Party, because I think they're ensuring that no reasonable electable Republican will be -- will be president. They're taking over the party in a way that makes them look more or less crazy.

If I were a conspiratorially-minded person, I would think that Michele Bachmann, for instance, was a creation of some evil Democratic group to make them all look like loony tunes and dumb as a sack full of hammers.

COOPER: I think I heard Ted Nugent's head explode -- Ted.

NUGENT: Well, Anthony, booby, I bring you garlic and butter ingredients from the grilling epicenter of America. However, sir, I've attended a bunch of Tea Parties. And what the Tea Party is, in a nutshell, is working hard, playing hard Americans that are demanding a very simple thing, that we, the people, who are the boss of the bureaucrats, demand accountability.

"Honey, we're in debt up to our ass. Let's go shopping." That's not cutting it with working hard, playing hard America. I am 100 percent behind the Tea Party. In fact, it's really late -- better late than never.

But we the people are supposed to be suspicious of bureaucrats. We're supposed to monitor our elected officials. We're supposed to communicate. It's an experiment in self-government, and the apathy is the No. 1 curse in this country. And the Tea Party is an indicator that maybe apathy is starting to be remedied. So I salute the Tea Party activists.

COOPER: And Ted, for you, is it financial concerns that really drive both your interest in the Tea Party and other -- the other Tea Party folks you see? I mean, is it less social concerns and more financial?

NUGENT: It's a combination of both. I think the oil spill is a perfect example. We want financial remedy to this horrific negligence.

Remember, I'm a gun guy. There's no such thing as a gun accident. There's only gun negligence. And this BP oil spill is the tip of the culture war's fear, in that Fedzilla continues to blowtorch our paychecks without any accountability. And it's not just the paychecks themselves but the audacity of bureaucratic corruption and disregard for what we, the people, demand in an outline of how they're spending our money.

It's really so simple, it's stupid. So it's both social and economic, and one and the same, really.

COOPER: Candy, Rand Paul this week said that this is the first sign of a Tea Party tidal wave. I mean, is he an anomaly? Because he did have, you know -- his father is well known. He had a lot of backing from a lot of folks.

CROWLEY: Sure. I mean -- look, every race is an anomaly. Everything is sort of multi-determined why a candidate wins. And Rand Paul is an example of that. He did have a name. Ron Paul is a very popular fellow inside the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

COOPER: And in some ways, he gave birth to a lot of the kind of ideas behind the Tea Party or at least the enthusiasm.

CROWLEY: Yes. Yes, yes, and he -- and Ron Paul tends to win the straw polls when you go -- when you go to the places where Republicans have conferences. Ron Paul tends to always win the straw polls, because they like his ideas, because he's conservative.

But let me -- first of all, there's no Tea Party. You know, there's no -- there's a lot of people who sort of fit under the general rubric that Ted is talking about. And it's a huge number of people that, even if they -- there are a lot of things they don't like about the Tea Party, if they don't like their attitude or they don't like, you know, certain positions, if you look at the polling, what are people upset about?

They're upset about a big-spending government. And that's not, you know, Tea Party people, per se. That's a huge number of Americans who don't identify with the Tea Party.

COOPER: We have seen Sarah Palin, though, a lot in the last several months kind of embracing the Tea Party movement.

Ted, I know you're a big fan of Sarah Palin's. I know you're going up hunting, I think, in Alaska in the next couple days. Are you going to invite her to go out bear hunting with you? NUGENT: Well, you know, I hope I get to have a little moose barbecue with the Palin family up there. They certainly deserve me. I've been utilizing their precious renewable resources for about 40 years now. And I thank them very much.

Sarah Palin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Here was a citizen taking care of home duties with her family. And she saw bureaucrats in Alaska being unaccountable, wasting tax dollars and not following through with their pledges to the citizens of Alaska.

So she stepped in, much like Sonny Bono did. He saw bureaucrats going mad, and he stepped in because he knew that we, the people, could remedy this with logic and self-evident truth.

So what she's done is she's taken that to a podium. And I'd like to just dismiss the celebrity fiasco. It's not about celebrity. Anthony Bourdain doesn't have a wonderful show because he's a celebrity. He's just a darn nice guy and a good cook.

So Sarah Palin is just a darn nice gal, and she represents a huge voice in America here.

COOPER: Anthony, you a big fan?

BOURDAIN: I'm a big Ted fan; Sarah Palin not so much. Listen --

COOPER: Do you think she'll be -- run for president?

BOURDAIN: No. She'll take a pay cut? No way. I mean, Ted's talking about accountability. Ok? This is a person who couldn't hack it one term as -- you know, as governor of Alaska. I don't think she's going to go through the inconvenience and the pay -- and the salary cut of running for president.

I think she's in it for the money. She's making some nice money right now. And I don't think -- I don't think that situation is going to change. That's --

NUGENT: I don't agree with that at all. I love you anyhow, Anthony.

COOPER: Do you think she's going to run, Ted?

NUGENT: I don't think anybody knows. I don't think she knows. I think she ended her governorship of Alaska because of the outrageous violations of her office by a media out of control, and she saw that it was counterproductive to stay there. And she put it in the hands of an effective person so that Alaska could stay on track.

COOPER: So you don't think she quit?

NUGENT: Then she's gone out and taken advantage of her bully pulpit, just to celebrate the things that the people are prodding her onward to do.

So once again, she's simply a "we, the people" gal. She isn't in it for the money any more than you are, Tony. BOURDAIN: I'm in it for the money.

NUGENT: No, you're not. You're in it for the travel and the free Vietnam food.

COOPER: Very quickly, two people who, I think, are clearly in it for the money popped up again this week. And I hesitate to even mention their names. I sort of think they should be like Voldemort, the name that's not mentioned. But the Salahis popped up again on the radar.

They were actually stopped near the White House in a limousine the night of the state dinner, all dressed up with photographers in tow. Whether or not they were trying to get near the White House to somehow yet again make an appearance at a White House state dinner, is not clear.

Ted, I mean, this is -- these people, I don't even know what to say about these people. But I hate the fact that I'm even bringing them up, because it's exactly what they want. I'm falling into their trap.

NUGENT: Well, Anderson, if you don't know what to say, I'll say it for you: tsk, tsk, who gives a rat's ass? These people are clowns.

COOPER: But they're going to get their own show on Bravo. I believe --

BOURDAIN: It's inevitable that they end up in a reality show. And I mean there's an arc with these things. It will start out with one. They'll end up on "Celebrity Rehab."

COOPER: That's right. And then Dr. Drew will get involved, our earlier guest.

I want to thank Ted Nugent. Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time to be with us.

NUGENT: My pleasure. God bless you.

COOPER: When we come back, join our guests as they take a "360 Challenge." You think you know the news? Let's play the game and find out.

We'll be right back.


COOPER: All right, welcome back to 360 FRIDAY.

It's time to test your news acumen. It's the "360 Challenge", a news quiz for our guests. Because Ted Nugent was a remote guest, he couldn't play the "360 Challenge." So Anthony, Candy, I apologize, but we're bringing in a ringer, Steven Staffer (ph). Steven, will you come up?

Welcome. Thanks for coming in. Have a seat over there. So this is Steven Staffer. Steven, how old are you? STEVEN STAFFER: Fourteen.

COOPER: Fourteen years old.

I should also point out that you're actually in college, right?


COOPER: Where do you go to college?

STAFFER: Morehouse College.

COOPER: You're going to Morehouse College. What are you studying?

STAFFER: I have a triple major: biology, mathematics and computer science.

COOPER: OK. Cool. Candy is now very scared. And Anthony Bourdain is regretting this and trying to call his agent.

So what do you want to do when you grow up?

STAFFER: I want to be an obstetrician with a specialty in infertility.

COOPER: Wow, ok. Sounds good. Are you ready to play the challenge?

STAFFER: Yes, sir.

COOPER: All right. Let's do it.

I should also point out -- I'm sorry, I almost forgot -- our disgruntled producer Jack Gray will also be playing along.

JACK GRAY, CNN PRODUCER: Hi. Dr. Drew, good to be here.

COOPER: Thanks very much. All right. Let's get started. I'm going to show you a series of questions. We'll have about ten seconds or so to answer them. A series of multiple choice answers.

Ready? All right. Let's start. Here we go.

Here's the first question. What politician came under fire this week for falsely claiming to have served in Vietnam? All right. Here are the possible answers. Was it A, Richard Blumenthal; B, Governor Charlie Crist; C, Gavin Newsom; or D, Justin Bieber.

All right. The Connecticut Senate candidate said he misspoke but will not allow a few misplaced words to impugn his record of service. Let's see the answers.

Steve, your answer is A, Richard Blumenthal. Candy says A. Anthony Bourdain says A. Jack Gray says?

GRAY: I said Rod Blagojevich's bangs.

COOPER: No. The -- the answer was Richard Blumenthal. Very nice. Yes, well, done.

All right. Here's the next question. There's only four questions now.

This week, a student asked first lady Michelle Obama a question that made news. What was the topic? All right, what was the topic? A, alternative energy; B, immigration; C, Wall Street; or D, "Gossip Girl"?

You got your answer already. All right, pens down. Let's see your answers. B, immigration. Candy, B, immigration. And Anthony says B.

Jack Gray, still writing -- Jack, you're writing too long. What are you writing?

GRAY: I wrote, "Does Anderson Cooper wear a wig?"

COOPER: Sadly I do.

B, immigration, you're all getting it right. Very good. All right. Only two more to go now.

What is this? All right. This is our first video question. Take a look at this. Let me play this here video. This is sea lions and a dolphin trained by the Navy were used in California this week for which of the following? There's the video; cute little sea lion and the dolphin. So sea lions and dolphins trained by the Navy were used in California this week for which of the following?

Here are the answers. Was it A, anti-terrorism exercises; B, help with oil spill cleanup; C, tourism commercial; or D, new underwater reality show? Got a few seconds. Candy looks very skeptical. All right. Let's see your answer. You say B, help with the oil spill. Candy?


COOPER: You say A, anti-terrorism exercises. Anthony, you say A, as well. Jack?

GRAY: I wrote they were lunch at Anthony Bourdain's house. He loves his endangered species.

COOPER: That's not nice at all. Not funny.

The answer, A, anti-terrorism exercises. Very good.

All right. I think we have one more here. All right. Now this one -- this may be unfair, because you're 14, right? You probably shouldn't know the answer to this question, but we'll see.

All right. A waitress says her bosses at this restaurant chain put her on a weight probation for gaining too many pounds. This is actually a word scramble. All right. So here's the word. See if you can figure out what restaurant -- what restaurant chain she's talking about. And for the record, the restaurant chain has denied the accusation, just so I don't get sued.

All right. Let's see your answer. Hooters. All right. Wow. I'm not even going to ask how you know that.

CROWLEY: He's around all those college kids.

COOPER: Hooters. Anthony, Hooters. And Jack?

GRAY: I wrote -- it says "Anderson's House of Pancakes".

COOPER: All right. All right. So there's the answer. Who won? Candy and Anthony tied. So congratulations. Appreciate it.

Now, instead of a prize -- Steven did a great job, congratulations, Steven -- Instead of a prize, the winner today, a donation is going to be made to one of the charities on the CNN "Impact Your World" Web site. There's the Web site. You can always check out what the charities are there.

So that does it for 360 FRIDAY. I want to thank all my guests, everyone here in the audience, plus all of you at home. Be sure to watch 360 all week.

Have a great weekend. See you soon.