Great to have you with us on the program today, folks.
And the Ditto Cam is on, as I pledged and promised that it would be.
So those of you who are subscribers at rushlimbaugh.com, you will be able to watch the program as it unfolds here for the remaining two hours.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, will you pardon me for a moment while I address the liberals in the audience?
I mean, you can listen.
I want you to listen, but I don't want you to be offended here that I am specifically addressing the liberals because I know you liberals are out there, and I know you've been listening to this first hour of the program today, and I know you listen to it every day.
And if I know you liberals like I do, and I do, I know you like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand.
I know you're out there rubbing your hands in glee.
You think the conservative movement's falling apart.
You think it's fractured.
You think that there's all this, the factions that are warring with each other, and that a party and a movement divided like this cannot go anywhere.
Well, I have a message for you liberal friends of ours out there.
I know you think this is lots of fun.
You think the conservative movement is split.
You think there's an implosion going on, but let me warn you people about something.
This is the kind of thing that you liberals should fear the most.
You liberals, if you had any sense of history, if you're able to place what's happening today regarding the conservative reaction to the Harriet Myers nomination, if you had any context, historical context, you should be cowering in fear in the corners.
The last time conservatives flexed their muscles like this was 1980.
The last time conservatives said enough is enough, the last time conservatives rallied together and started demanding that conservatism triumph when Republicans are elected, Ronald Reagan won two landslides.
That's what happens when the Republican Party embraces conservatism, and that's what happens when the conservative base is motivated to act.
Once this matter of the Myers nomination has been resolved one way or the other, the conservative movement and the GOP are going to be stronger and they're going to be better focused because that's what the purpose of debate is.
That's what the purpose of arguments is.
And that will be the outcome here.
The conservative movement and the GOP will be stronger.
They will be better focused.
They will be more energized than we have been in years.
There will be a battle in the Republican primary for president between moderates like John McCain and conservatives.
And after that battle is over, the target will be the Democratic Party and liberalism.
You will be exposed and you will be trounced just as you were in 1980.
You have been warned.
You have, if you're sitting out there rubbing your hands in glee, I mean, you feel free and continue, but you have nothing to offer.
You don't have an agenda you can be honest and get behind about.
You don't have anything positive, uplifting, or inspiring to say to the people of this country, even about this country.
We conservatives know what we stand for, and we know our principles, and they are shared by most of America.
We are proud to publicly embrace our principles, and we are proud to campaign on them.
You liberals, on the other hand, you're always acting undercover, fearful that if your true views and motives are exposed, that you can't win, and you can't.
You can't win if you expose yourselves, and you can't win when you matched yourselves and camouflage yourselves and hide.
So go ahead and get cocky.
The best thing I could ever say that would happen to us is for you to get cocky and to think you've won it and that it's all over.
Go ahead and get cocky and get giddy and start celebrating now.
But what you're watching and what you're witnessing is not a crumbling.
It is not a fracture.
It is not a split.
What you're watching is a very healthy and growing conservative movement and a very healthy party preparing to battle you.
You are making the mistake of assuming that George W. Bush is going to be on the ballot again.
You are running against ghosts.
You are speaking out against ghosts.
And you don't speak up for yourselves very well either at the same time.
So you go ahead and get all giddy and you go ahead and get all excited.
You just remember 1980, the last time something like this happened.
And 1980 was precipitated by 1976, not Jimmy Carter, by the way.
1980 was precipitated by the Republican convention, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.
It was the country club blue-blood Republicans versus the conservatives and got close in 76.
1980 went over the top.
And when you get a full-blown conservative candidate in a full-blown conservative campaign, look out, left.
And if you don't understand this, you never will.
And I don't expect you to, because you don't have the ability to do two things.
You don't have the ability to be honest about your opponents and who they are and what they are and where they are.
And you don't have the ability to be honest about yourselves either in either context.
So I'm just warning you.
Make note of the date, October the 11th, 2005.
Liberals having great fun, all giddy, rubbing their hands together in glee, thinking the 06 and 08 elections are over, standing in the sidelines, watching the conservative movement eat itself alive.
You're watching just the opposite.
You're watching growth.
You're watching the establishment of firm conservative principles for the American people to see and to understand.
You literally ought to be scared and cowering with fear in the corners, but you haven't the sense to do that.
But I'm just warning you, because you know why?
Because you are people, and I like people.
I like Americans.
I'm trying to be nice.
I'm trying to be inclusive.
I'm trying to help.
It's up to you to accept it or not.
Other news, with his popularity at an all-time low, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger turned Monday to Republican Senator John McCain to help sell his November ballot proposals to a skeptical public.
The appearances with the governor in Burbank and Oakland of the Arizona senator urged California voters to support the four initiatives backed by Schwarzenegger on the special election ballot.
I've campaigned for reform efforts all over the country, McCain said.
What happens in California has significant effect in states like mine that are nearby.
It's just a reality.
Schwarzenegger is pushing a quartet of proposals that he has described as medicine for a sickly government.
They would cap state spending, strip lawmakers of the power to draw political boundaries, lengthen the probationary period for teachers from two years to five, and require public employee unions to get members' permission before dues could be used for political purposes.
McCain said he supported the proposal that would take the power to draw district boundaries away from legislators and give it to a panel of retired judges.
We need more competitive races, said McCain, known nationally for his efforts to retool the campaign finance system.
We need the voice of moderation.
So here you have Senator McCain, who is the co-author of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill.
Now, what is the aside from all the 527s and all the additional money, what was the end result?
What is the lasting effect of campaign finance reform?
What is it?
What is it?
No, it's not.
It's not.
There's a new name.
I told you you've forgotten.
There's actually a more apt title for campaign finance reform, and that's the Incumbent Security Act.
Campaign finance reform makes it tough for challengers to run ads and opponents to run ads.
You can't go out and criticize a sitting member of Congress unless it's within a certain number of days of the election.
You can't say certain things.
Your ads have to be tooled to the way they fit the interpretation of the law.
It's the Incumbent Protection Act.
And yet here's McCain talking about, we need more competitive races.
We need more competitive race.
We need more competitive races.
Limbo, more competitive races, understand?
And by the way, this business of whatever happens in California happens in his state, too.
I think, I don't think the governor and the senator see eye to eye on illegal immigration.
At least McCain was opposed to Proposition 200 in Arizona, which would take away, same thing as Prop 87, 187, California, take away all the welfare payments and health care benefits to illegal aliens.
McCain was opposed to that in Arizona.
So back here in just a second.
I know it's early, and I know that the 2006 election is just a little over a year away, so it's hard to predict outcomes here, almost impossible to do.
But I mean, this is a follow-up for my good friends on the left, to whom I just tried to help, with a message reminding you that the last time you saw this kind of what you think is a split in the Republican Party or conservative movement actually led to 1980 and two landslides.
All right, try this.
New Jersey's governor's race is tightened.
And the New York Post had a story about this last week, too.
Republican businessman Doug Forrester has gained ground on the Democrat U.S. Senator John Corzine, according to a new poll.
44% of likely voters surveyed in the latest Fairleigh Dickinson University Public Mind poll, which was released today, said they favor Corzine.
38% backed Forrester.
It was a telephone poll, 602 likely voters conducted October 4th through the 9th and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Poll seems to confirm recent good news for Forrester.
Corzine's one-time double-digit lead among likely voters has shrunk to seven percentage points in the latest Star Ledger Eagleton Rutgers poll that was released Sunday.
And a WNBC Marist poll released Monday had Corzine in front by only a single point based on a smaller sample of likely voters with a higher error margin.
Forrester has made strides in key issues in the race, including property taxes, which is the soul of his campaign, according to the latest poll.
So looks like if you talk tax cuts in New Jersey, you can win.
And maybe somebody should ask Christy Whitman about that.
New Jersey, tax cuts.
How about that?
By the way, what is the big deal about the press is having a cow over this?
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Myers told George W. Bush in a 1997 birthday card he was the best governor ever.
And in a separate vote to her boss, said she hoped that his twin daughters recognized their parents are cool.
This is a story?
What she wrote on a birthday card?
What's this supposed to prove?
Cronyism?
You know that's what this is all.
Cronyism.
So they're trying to make the case here that Bush, you know, has had his apple polished out there by Harriet Myers and is responding to that.
In 1997, Myers sent Bush a belated birthday card featuring a sad-looking dog and the note, Dear Governor GWB, you are the best governor ever, deserving of great respect, at least for 30 days.
You are not younger than me.
This is a story.
Here's Craig and Yakima, Washington.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yakima, Washington, by the way, was a place where something had never ever happened before in America first happened.
You know what it is, Craig?
Teddy Roosevelt came here on a train.
I know that, but I'm not sure if that's what you're reading.
No, Yakima, Washington was the first place to introduce 90-gallon trash cans for outside your house on wheels so that the sanitation workers could drag them out to the truck without having to carry them.
Fantastic.
No, I kid you not.
Yakima Washington led the way on garbage removal.
Well, great.
Hey, what I'm calling about is with regard to the Harriet Myers situation.
For a long time, the detractors of President Bush, and I'm a big supporter of President Bush, have kind of stated that he has kind of a thin skin.
He doesn't take criticism too well.
And I got to tell you, after hearing, you know, First Lady Bush's response to some of the criticisms of detractors of Harriet Myers and her comments that it could be sexist and in some way sexist is just laughable.
I mean, I think it's actually kind of maybe bearing some of those criticisms of President Bush out to be true because he, you know, he for a long time has had a tight control over what's being said, and this is no different.
And I think that, you know, for President, I mean, if President Bush had nominated one of the slate of female justices that most people would actually have approved of, the conservatives would be just cheering his selections.
And I think for them to say that it's sexist is showing some thin skin on their part for some of the criticisms that they have over the selection of this.
There may be some thin skin.
I know that the president is one who values loyalty high.
His whole family is that way.
But I don't think that the president's thin-skinned.
He would have cracked long ago if he were thin-skinned.
This is nothing compared to what he's gotten in the past.
Difference here is this is coming from his supporters.
I don't think that they're out there saying that the opposition to her is based on sexism or elitism is indicative of anything other than that's all they've got seller.
Nobody really knows.
They talk about her as the first woman pioneer this, the first woman pioneer of that, which, you know, that's as a caller from Bethesda, Maryland said earlier on in the program, she may well be in that sense, but that's not news anymore.
There have been a lot of first women to do a lot of things now.
We've had our first woman co-president.
We've had our first black president.
We have had Clinton.
We've had the first woman Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State.
It is sort of an antiquated appeal.
I think it's just primarily based on the fact that there isn't much else.
And the criticism is coming at her, well, from a variety of substantive points and views.
And there's no way to refute those simply because there's no way they can say, yes, she has constitutional scholarship.
Yes, she does have a constitutional philosophy.
Because if she did, they'd be able to tell us what it is.
If she does have one, they're keeping it hidden.
I just don't know.
And the point is that there's no need or reason to have somebody that's such a stealth candidate in these circumstances.
Here's Steven, Philadelphia.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Ditto's big guy from the one-time city of brotherly love.
Thank you.
I really appreciate what you're doing on this, but if you're concerned about his Supreme Court picks and the trust me attitude as a Wall Street investor over the last couple of years, I am frightened to death over what he will do with Greenspan.
Now, you think about the deep bench that he had with the Supreme Court picks.
Look at the deep bench that he has with the economic picks and what he's done with it.
Everybody speculated in 2000 that Larry Kudlow would be gone.
And he really wasn't that prominent in television the way he is today.
He can speak.
He's articulate.
He has the vision.
Wait a minute.
He'd be gone.
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
No, I thought Larry Kudlow would be drafted by the Bush administration.
No, that was never going to happen.
Who told you that?
No, no, who told you that?
I didn't.
George Bush didn't tell me that, but I thought that they would pick somebody like that who was very articulate.
But in any event, when they passed over, I thought so many good picks, even Nick Tear and things like that.
They picked Paul O'Neill.
I mean, Mr. McGoo.
This guy was terrible.
He was a disaster.
And again, we have the deep bench.
Christy Todd Whitman.
This is very disconcerting to me.
Wait a minute.
He can't hear me because our phone's all screwed up still.
But, and I've got little time here, but in a roundabout way, you're making an excellent point.
Even with those picks, the president was supported 100%.
So for those of you who think that there's some defecting going on here, there hasn't been some loyalty.
There has been total loyalty.
Back in just a second.
I was waiting for this next question, so let's just go ahead and grab it.
Then I want to talk about earthquakes and natural disasters for just a second after that.
Tim in the nation's capital, Washington.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Good.
Yeah, just kind of go on with your opening monologue.
I just was kind of wondering, you know, I look out at my...
Well, first off, before that, what did you think of the monologue?
Well, brilliant as always.
Well, okay.
No, I wanted to see whether you agreed or disagreed.
That's so I wouldn't know where you were going.
Oh, no, I'm not looking to bust chops or anything like that.
This is an honest question.
You know, the potential frontrunners right now are people, or potential frontrunners for the Republican nomination, are people who aren't staunch Reagan conservatives.
Yeah, and who's establishing them as the frontrunners?
Well, that's a good point.
I mean, obviously they're being focused on by our buddies in the media.
Yes, of course, that's a conventional good old conventional wisdom.
Right, right.
But are there Republicans who would have a shot, who are actually conservative?
I mean, there are plenty of rhinos out there.
And, you know, even amongst conservative publications, not that I get a chance to read them all that much in D.C. Who's out there that actually believes in a basic question, okay, Russian, your brilliant monologue, who is Reagan?
There's not going to be another Reagan, but I guess.
I know, but that's basically, okay, for 1980 to be repeated, the first monologue, if you missed it, I said the last time there was an upheaval in the conservative movement like this was actually 1976 at the Republican convention.
It led to 1980, which gave us Reagan in two landslides.
Now, your question is quite well posed.
Who is today's Reagan in that theory or equation?
And I have to be the first to admit there isn't a Reagan out there.
But in the sense that there's not the personality and the dynamism, but there are conservatives.
Now, I'm going to get in trouble if I start listening because I'm going to leave some out simply because I'm not going to remember them all.
But I'm going to tell you right now, every time I see him or hear him, I cheer, and that's George Allen.
Really?
Yes.
From Virginia.
When I hear or see George Allen speak, I am made to feel confident and I feel excited.
And I know that Senator Allen is toying with the idea.
There are also probably some names that people that are interested that we don't know.
And you never know how they're going to appeal.
While you can't automatically assign to my theory the 2005 version of Ronald Reagan, there is one thing that you can do and to establish the consistency.
And that is that when the conservative movement gets unified, when it gets going, when it finally decides, okay, we've played nice guy and we've tolerated less than conservative candidates for a while and we've put an article of faith or trust in them.
When they start, okay, demanding, we've done it your way for long enough.
It's time now to go pedal of the metal, so to speak.
That movement's unbeatable.
That movement is unbeatable with the American people.
What you have, you call them rhinos.
They're Republicans in name only.
What you have with rhinos or moderates is Republicans who are afraid to be conservative.
And yet when they campaign, those that do on a conservative agenda in a platform, look at their victory margins.
It wins.
The left needs to be cowering in the corners over this, as I have said.
The reason it may not appear so to you is look where you live.
Look at the culture in which you live.
Like you just made the comment, I don't see too many conservative magazines here.
I'm in Washington.
Precisely.
You don't hear too much conservative, conventional wisdom in the dominant media culture in that town.
So you're not going to get, it's no different to living in New York or Connecticut or Massachusetts.
You're not going to get a sense for what is actually happening out there.
This immigration issue is huge and it's just waiting for somebody to come along and make it theirs.
But there are a whole lot of other things that go along with it, not just immigration, but it is a big rallying point.
I don't even want to get into other conservative names because if I start the list, I'm invariably going to leave some out.
Better that I mention one and leave all the rest out, not on purpose, just for the sake of brevity here.
I think that the impetus behind the movement is going to be the conservative grassroots machine.
And it's huge out there.
And it will get motivated and it will get inspired by the right candidate.
And that candidate is going to determine his fate in the primaries.
I can tell you right now that Senator McCain thinks he can win without the conservative base.
He's got a strategy and a game plan to launch himself despite it.
I don't know if it's going to include running against it per se, as he did in South Carolina in 2000, but I know that he thinks, and there are a lot of people that think that the great middle out there, the so-called moderates, is where the success story in American elections is.
And they're just wrong about it.
But he's going to try that.
I think there's another thing McCain is grossly, I said this yesterday or the day before, that something McCain is grossly misunderestimating.
And it's this.
The Republican Party base, be it conservative and all the other elements of the Republican Party, detest the mainstream media.
Whatever the media is for and whoever the media is for, it's an automatic indication to not be for them.
And if the mainstream press comes out and starts salivating over McCain like they did in 2000, it's going to hurt him with the Republicans.
It is not going to help him.
He would be best not to court them, but he won't do that.
He loves it.
Everybody loves being approved by the big click.
And that's how these people look at the mainstream media, the big click.
But when it comes down, let's say Hillary gets a nomination, when it comes down to Hillary versus McCain, he better know where the mainstream press is going to be, and it's not going to be on his bus.
It's not going to be on the Straight Talk Express.
It's going to be on the Rose law firm Billing Records G5.
And they're going to be flying all over the country, and Hillary is going to be it.
Now, Dick Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, have a new book out, Condi versus Hillary, Hillary Condry.
I'm not sure which name comes first.
But he believes that neither Giuliani nor McCain, he thinks they could both beat Hillary, slam dunk, but they can't get the Republican nomination.
It's what he thinks.
He thinks that Condoleezza Rice could, and that really Condoleezza Rice is the only legitimate choice to beat Hillary.
This is a theory in his book.
And if you want to read the book and see what his theory is fully expounded, you should read the book.
But his point is that he thinks that Condoleezza Rice could win the Republican primaries and then on the ballot attract at least 50% of the African-American vote in this country as the first black candidate for president, especially female.
I'm not all that certain that she would attract 50%.
When I see the Congressional Black caucus aligning itself with Calypso Louie's million man march and the main theory being the New Orleans levees were blown up, folks, I don't hold out much hope that the African-American voting population or significant majority of it will go mainstream thought anytime soon.
I mean, if the Congressional Black caucus is going to find common ground with Calypso Louie, they're still way, way, way, way out there.
And the Congressional Black Caucus, I mean, they're elected by their constituents.
And I was watching CNN this morning, had a little interview.
They're exploring the notion.
And I was reading this on close captions, so I'm not sure that I've got the whole purpose of the story because it came in in the middle of it.
But they were interviewing people about the theory, the conspiracy theories involving what happened in New Orleans.
Now, I'm assuming, because Calypso Louis' million, million, whatever it is, March is coming up this weekend, that they were asking some people down there what they thought of the possibility there was sabotage on the levees that they were blown up and person after person after person.
Oh, yeah.
One person thought that Al-Qaeda did it, our enemies.
And a reporter said, Al-Qaeda, well, I don't know his name.
Another one said, yeah, we have leaders in this country capable of this.
Well, now, I'm sorry, if that makes up a large percentage of the African-American voting bloc, I don't know that Condoleezza Rice is going to be enough to peel 50% of them off.
But Morris is a pollster, so he may have some polling data that gets it.
Giuliani and McCain probably could beat Hillary.
I do not think that Hillary is invincible.
I'm one of the few, I guess, that is not intimidated nor afraid.
But the problem with, you know, if McCain or Giuliani to get the nomination are going to have to talk about being conservative and the trick, not Rudy so much as McCain, although Rudy does have the gay rights, gay marriage, and the pro-abort problem with the social conservatives.
But both of them, if they're able to attract enough Republican conservative voters in the primaries, and they just say what they have to say during the primaries to get the voters, then they go back to who they are as president, it's what my theory is going to be washed.
But my theory basically is that the base isn't going to accept anything but the real deal now, that this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
It's going to be the real deal or it isn't going to be anything at all.
And they're rerunning it on CNBC.
It's Gary Tuchman's piece on CNN, Katrina Conspiracy.
So I assume they're talking about the levees and whatever other conspiracies they are, that this was caused by the government or what have you.
Anyway, a quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll continue in mere moments.
Stay with us.
I want to talk about hurricanes and earthquakes here for just a second.
Primarily, earthquakes.
George Will has a fascinating column today, his latest entry into the syndicated column field.
And speaking of these earthquakes, what the death toll now in Pakistan is over 30,000, right?
Is FEMA there yet?
FEMA hasn't gotten there yet.
The FEMA's not there as typical.
But I also, in addition to that, I wonder what aid and rescue work is being offered by Al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah or the Taliban.
How many suicide bombers are they sending to help out in the rescue efforts in Pakistan?
And by the way, I don't know why this strikes me this way, but the media seems obsessed with whether or not this is going to help or hinder our efforts to find bin Laden.
You've got 30,000 people dead, and the media cannot help but still focus on George Bush and try to remind everybody we haven't found bin Laden.
Now we may never find bin Laden because of the earthquake.
And what if bin Laden's dead?
Well, we'll not.
It's never-ending puzzlement and amazement.
The point about this George Will column is I want you to listen to some of the details.
A lot of you people that think that we're in the last days, a lot of people think that, oh my God, this is unprecedented.
Remember what I always say, our historical perspective begins with the day of our birth.
Most people in any generation think the worst of times and the best of times occur during their lifetimes.
It can't get any worse than this one, boy.
I'm telling you, we're going to hell in a handbasket.
I hear that constantly, except from the old timers who've been around when it was worse.
He talks about a book that's been written, A Crack in the Edge of the World, America and the Great California Earthquake of 1906.
It is a book by Simon Winchester.
Before the study of plate tectonics revolutionized geology just geology just 40 years ago, that science, the science of plate tectonics, was concerned with rocks, fossils, faults, and minerals that were scattered around simply and solely on the surface of the Earth.
But the surface consists of between, depending how they're defined, six and 36 floating plates, which Winchester, the author, calls rafts of solid rock.
The plate's slow movements are powered by Earth's molten innards, the boiling and bubbling radioactive residue of the planet's formation 4.5 billion years ago.
These plates grind against and slide up on or plunge below one another, but not smoothly, which is the lethal problem.
When friction freezes them for a while, which in these terms could be 150 years or 30 years, stupendous energy builds up until suddenly plates unlock and the energy is released, sometimes in ways that seem to involve related spasms around the world.
Listen to this.
On the last J last day of January in 1906, that seismically dangerous year, an earthquake in Ecuador and Colombia, perhaps 8.8 magnitude, killed about 2,000 people.
This is 1906 now.
16 days after the earthquake in Ecuador, Colombia, there was a large Caribbean quake, followed five days later by one in the Caucasus.
And on March 17th of 1906, one that killed about 1,200 people on the island of Formosa.
On April 6th of 1906, a 10-day eruption of the volcano Vesuvius began with rocks blown 40,000 feet into the air over Naples.
Two days after Vesuvius subsided, San Francisco was knocked down.
2,600 acres of it were then devoured by three days of fires.
About 3,000 San Franciscans died then four months before a Chilean quake killed 20,000.
All of this in one year.
Rush, have you seen the rains and the floods?
Have you seen these earthquakes and these hurricanes?
Man, we're being slapped down, football, buddy.
I mean, we're being told we're living the wrong kind of life.
And even at that, San Francisco's earthquake was smaller than the series of earthquakes around New Madrid, Missouri, which is very close to where I grew up.
It looks like New Madrid, but they're Missourians.
They call it Madrid.
It happened over a few winter weeks in 1811 and 1812.
Those little quakes were strong enough to ring the bells in a Charleston, South Carolina church that was later destroyed by that city's 1886 earthquake.
Scores of millions of Americans now live on the unstable faults that shook Mid-America between 1811 and 1812.
For San Francisco, the bad news is that the quake that killed 63 in 1989, compared to 8.3 in 1906, was caused not by the San Andreas Fault, but by a neighboring one.
So the big menace, the San Andreas, has not recently lurched, as it surely will, because it is moving sporadically in grinding concert with the Pacific Plate.
Since 1906, there have been only five major earthquakes along the 750 miles of the San Andreas, none of them in Northern California.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 62%, a 62% probability of a quake in that area of at least 6.7 magnitude before 2032.
Pondering the prosperous town of Portola Valley south of San Francisco, exactly astride two of the most active strands of the San Andreas, Winchester, Simon Winchester, the author, is fascinated by humankind's instant folly in living places where they shouldn't.
Badly, there's really nowhere you can live where these things aren't going to happen.
Either going to get eaten by a python, you're going to have a flood, you're going to have snow, you're going to have rain and ice, you're going to have a losing football team.
I mean, you can't escape disaster no matter where you live.
You're going to have high taxes.
You're going to have liberals in the neighborhood.
The idea that you can escape disaster is just silly.
All of those are natural disasters, by the way.
After Earth's heavings or these earthquakes subside, they reverberate in people's minds.
And there was a Lisbon earthquake, 1755, killed 60,000 people.
They aren't new, folks.
This is nothing new, and we aren't causing them.
We're just innocent bystanders.
Back in just a second.
Okay, folks.
Sad but true.
That's it for the second of the three hours today.
Fastest three hours in media, fastest week in media.
El Rushbo here, serving humanity, exercising talent on loan from God.