TODAY

TODAY   |  April 24, 2012

Rosie joins the fray with TODAY’s Professionals

TODAY’s Professionals Star Jones and Donny Deutsch, along with guest professional Rosie O’Donnell, debate whether a stronger female presence in the Secret Service could have prevented the prostitution scandal.

Share This:

This content comes from Closed Captioning that was broadcast along with this program.

>>> we're back now at 8:09 with "today's professionals." star jones and donny deutsch have their hands full this morning because rosie o 'donnell is sitting in for dr. nancy.

>> what?

>> good morning.

>> what?

>> good to have you here, rosie. you ready to have at it?

>> i'm ready to have at it.

>> let's start with a subject that's been making headlines over the past couple of weeks. the scandal involving the secret service and prostitutes in colombia. over the weekend a couple of lawmakers, in particular susan collins of maine and new york weighed in and said that this boys on spring break mentality might not exist were there more women hired by the secret service , and more women on trips like this. how do you feel about that?

>> the studies have actually shown that gender diversity really does add to a company's bottom line . and if you put that on the secret service , it makes more sense. if you put people of different backgrounds and experiences, especially gender, at the table when decisions are being made, you're not going to run into the same kinds of problems.

>> i'm not sure you're getting my question. i'm saying if they're on these trips and there are women there, are these guys going to be less likely to go out and misbehave?

>> yes, absolutely. because at the table when you're sitting around planning to go out and meet the hookers, you're not going to be making that plan with chicks sitting there with you.

>> when i was a young comic i'd go on the road with young comics who were in their 030s and i knew their wives, all of them hooked up on every single trip. once there start to be more women comics on the bill it wasn't as easy.

>> we're forgetting one thing, what these people do for a living. they protect the president. i'm going to give you guys a news flash. there's a reason the olympics, women and men don't box together. or they don't run together. physically, physically, the big part of this job, is men are, say the word, superior. women are superior intellectually --

>> they're bigger -- guys guys, i'm sorry --

>> i'm sorry, i just threw up on live tv . all you have to be able to do is take a bullet. a woman could take a bullet for the president.

>> guys, would you just --

>> wait a second. we're talking about some people who were in colombia, they're dog handlers, they're logistics people. they're looking at locations. these aren't people who are necessarily going to take a bullet.

>> and one of them ended up doing the right thing was a woman.

>> that is a good point. paula reed is getting a lot of credit. she's the head of the miami field office because she found out about this and called this team home. but is that about her gender? did she do the right thing because she's a woman or because she simply upheld her responsibility?

>> she's a competent employee who did her job.

>> well, i think because she's a woman.

>> would a man have been less likely to do the right thing?

>> yes, because there's a boys club situation. i don't think it's so shocking that men in power sometimes use prostitutes. prostitution is legal where they were.

>> i'm going to say it again, i think we want them on that wall. guys there's a reason that men fight wars. women are superior intellectually superior. but, guys, let's not be so quick --

>> women are fighting wars, too. and why is it that men use the prostitutes and women don't?

>> the next topic --

>> we want idiots protecting the president?

>> would you want to know. " usa today " did this subject on line on monday. if you had a 50/50 chance of developing a hereditary disease that took the life of a close family member of yours at the age of 45 would you want to have the medical gene testing that might tell you if you carried that same gene, and could die of that same disease?

>> i had that. my mother died of breast cancer at 39 and i had the bcra test to see if i was positive. and it was a very tough decision. took me about eight years to decide to do it. because i thought, if i was positive, it didn't necessarily mean you were going to get it, you were just more at risk. so i finally took it. and wanted to know, because of life decisions.

>> what was the upside?

>> the upside was i could prepare myself emotionally. i could maybe, maybe plan out health things that were a little more regimented than going every six months. but, i was negative luckily. but i think i would want to know.

>> would you guys have done the same thing?

>> i would want to know. i think because i haven't had a heart issue, i would want to be able to plan out the rest of my life.

>> i would want to know because "a" i'd be tortured by not knowing. and "b" i'd like to know if i'm dying at 45 versus 85. i might live life a little differently.

>> but changing your whole life if you did find out you had that gene necessarily be a good thing? wouldn't you live a very kind of conservative, contrived existence?

>> i think it would be the opposite. maybe you'd let it rip.

>> really?

>> like that country song , live like you're dying.

>> you know, it may influence your decision to have more children if you knew there was a good chance you were going to get a life threatening disease.

>> you wouldn't have children at 45 if you thought -- all right let's move on. therapy. volunteer basis. raise your hand if you have been in therapy, or are currently in therapy. okay. interesting -- would you guys be more comfortable lying on a couch?

>> by the way, i get frequent flyer miles .

>> interesting article in "the new york times" over the weekend, suggesting that the longer people go in therapy, perhaps the less effective it is. how do we feel about that?

>> i don't think you can draw a overall statement. i always like to say therapy is like a -- whatever works for you works. the thing that i think is important to realize, that these people are human beings . and you have to use it as something for yourself, versus what they say is the gospel. i mean that's the big problem with therapy. is people use it as prescriptive versus using it as something kind of just to help you balance things around.

>> how long have you been in therapy?

>> seriously, since i'm 16.

>> according to the article --

>> pretty good.

>> according to the article the best results in therapy come between sessions seven and ten.

>> i don't believe that at all.

>> i disagree completely. it took me two years to get a breakthrough to talk about why i became a 300 pound woman at 5'5". it really did take two full years of sitting down, every week. i had closed off walls about it. so i can't imagine that you can do it in six or twelve sessions.

>> wouldn't you agree there is a lot of ineffective therapy out there?

>> yes. and you have to really find somebody who is able to match what your needs are. after being in therapy many years and then starting again a few years ago, i didn't want to go back to childhood stuff. i wanted to now deal with my present-day life. so you have to sort of find the therapist that fits the place that you are.

>> are you going to be a freudian therapist? or are you going to go to a behaviorist? do you want to change behavior or get into your brain.

>> there are good doctors and bad doctors.

>> college graduation season. hundreds of thousands of college grads are going to hit the job market in the next couple of months. according to a recent poll, one in two of them will be unemployed or underemployed, which isn't good news. is one of the reasons for this that many college students are studying useless majors?

>> no.

>> and they get out of college with no real employable skills.

>> no. i hired tens of thousands of college graduates. your major, unless you are going to be an accountant or a doctor, is irrelevant. it's irrelevant. i'm just going to say --

>> i don't agree with that.

>> let me finish one other thing.

>> all right.

>> i'm tired --

>> i'm teasing you. i'm teasing you. you're such a professional but you use a lot of words.

>> i do.

>> you're so much, therefore i believe --

>> so.

>> and further more --

>> yes.

>> i'm also tired of this learned helplessness with young people that there are no jobs out there. that's ridiculous.

>> i think if you get a degree in theater the chances of you getting a job in theater, minimal. right? if you love and you want to do that get a fine arts degree, there's not a lot of jobs out there.

>> nowadays getting a law degree is very difficult, as well. to get a job as an attorney. i think you have to create your own niche. when you graduate from college , don't walk out thinking that the world is my oyster. it's not. you have to create it.

>> but in today's employment situation, are degrees in things like fine arts , drama, philosophy, religious studies , are they useless when it comes to getting a job?

>> yes!

>> i don't know. i could use each one of those and come up with a niche market for me to go out and get a job.

>> college versus the overall experience and i never looked at a major in my life in hiring people.

>> let's wrap up with one of our favorite people. lindsay lohan it was announced yesterday has been cast to play a young elizabeth taylor in a new movie for the lifetime network . is this a good idea?

>> i feel very sorry for her. i think she needs a lot of help. she needs a lot of time away.

>> is it a good idea to cast her in this movie?

>> no. because she's had a lot of trouble doing every single movie, including "snl." she was out and not at rehearsal. i think she's not in a place to work.

>> i used to think she was extremely talented. but i have not seen enough of her as an actress in recent years to really make an evaluation.

>> it's a great idea. she's our generation's elizabeth taylor . she's the only one --

>> oh, come on!

>> get out of here!

>> -- before you shut up?

>> the last thing she did good, she was 16.

>> she's a great actress and she's got all that sensationalism.

>> how do we know she's a great actress?

>> she's good for it because she's right for the role or will bring attention to the movie?

>> both. both. and i think she's going to be this generation's in real life .

>> i don't think she's right for the role and i don't think she's capable at this point of doing what's needed to --

>> you're an ad man because you are looking this as a marketing opportunity.

>> given what she's been through over the last several years when you attach her to a movie project does she attract viewers or repel viewers?

>> i think neither. i think kind of the interest level in hers awa shas waned.

>> i think she's going to attract viewers, but i don't think for her talent. i think it's going to be for the train wreck she's going to see.

>> on "snl" it wasn't as though she delivered. people watched expecting. she needs a lot of help.