All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
December 6, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What is that, Mr. Snerdley?
some congressional hearings today Christopher Shays is oh sh...
Christopher Shays, the moderate Republican from Connecticut, is conducting hearings today of Katrina's survivors, right?
Make sure it never happens again.
Yeah, we're going to make sure Congress makes sure these guys that could get to standby on the side like they had nothing to do with any of this.
Had nothing to do with writing any law, nothing to do with authorizing any response, nothing at all to do with any funding.
These same congressmen sit around as innocent bystanders and spectators, and they're going to make sure it doesn't happen again.
It's one of these things that constantly amazes me.
Here, these guys are right in the thick of every problem we've got, and somehow, when the problem gets intolerable, they stand back and say, well, we're going to investigate this, and we're going to find out what went wrong in there.
We're going to punish the people that played a big role in making sure it went wrong, blah, blah.
And everybody loves them, thinks they're getting the bottom of it, and they're the cause.
Or at least they're participants.
Hi, folks, welcome back.
Rushlin Baugh and the EIB network, 800-282-2882.
So right before the top of the hour, we're watching a little of this.
I've got it on.
I don't have the sound on, obviously, and I'm not bothering to read the closed captioning.
And Snerdley says in the IFB, you won't believe what's been said up there.
So I looked up, and they had a Katrina survivor testifying before Congress, claiming that in New Orleans there have to be mass graves.
There have to be a bunch of mass graves because a lot of victims are unaccounted for.
And she called the evacuation sites, the government-run evacuation sites, concentration camps.
And as soon as she started talking, it's just getting to the good stuff.
As soon as she starts talking about concentration, I mean, if the government's running concentration camps down there in New Orleans, we all need to know about it.
But damn it, CNN and MSNBC decided to leave the coverage at just that moment.
They bumped out of her testimony, went back to their anchors, and they said they're going to be checking in periodically in the afternoon for more from these Katrina survivors.
And it was just getting good.
We had actual testimony from a Katrina survivor speculating on mass graves and concentration camps.
This is the kind of media cover-up, folks, that we've come to expect in these kinds of stories about the absolute horrors of our government.
And the media is complicit in it by not letting this woman get the truth out about these concentration camps and mass graves in New Orleans.
Sunday in the Washington Post, there was a piece by Michael Gurion.
Michael Gurion is a family therapist, and he's founder of the Gurion Institute, an educational training organization.
His most recent book, written with Kathy Stevens, is The Minds of Boys, Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in Scruel and in Life.
So he's a good guy.
I mean, he's got a good mission here.
And his piece is called Disappearing Act.
Where have all the men gone?
No place good, he says.
And he begins the piece this way.
And I'm going to just give you some excerpts because some of this stuff in here makes sense.
And I think a lot of you will agree with it along with me.
See, in the 1990s, I taught for six years at a small liberal arts college in Spokane, Washington.
In my third year, I started noticing something that was happening right in front of me.
There were more young women in my classes than young men, and on average, they were getting better grades than the guys.
Many of the young men stared blankly at me as I lectured.
They didn't take notes as well as the young women.
They didn't seem to care as much about what I taught, which was literature, writing, and psychology.
They were bright kids, but many of their faces said, sitting here listening, staring at these words, this is not really who I am.
That was a decade ago.
But just last month, I spoke with an administrator at Howard University in the District of Columbia.
And he told me that what I observed a decade ago has become one of the biggest agenda items at Howard.
We're having trouble recruiting and retaining male students, he said.
We're at about a two-to-one ratio, women to men.
At this point, you know, what is it?
Why is anybody surprised at this?
What do you expect?
The universities are feminized.
They're politically correct.
They're filled with female-oriented propaganda.
I wonder if that could be part of the problem.
I mean, look at, let's say you're a guy.
When this news first came out yesterday, two-to-one ratio, Snurderly had the typical horn dog male response.
Ah, how do I get there?
Instead of the sensible response, wait a minute, there's a two-to-one ratio.
It means some smart guys aren't showing up because otherwise they'd go.
But the lure of meeting women is still not strong enough to overcome what they encounter when they get there.
Now, what could that be?
Well, what kind of courses in the last 10 years, 15 years, have female college students been treated to?
Well, we've had courses like those taught by Catherine McKinnon at the University of Michigan, which was all sex is rape, including the sex of marriage.
We've had major institutions of higher learning creating all of this animosity in women for men.
They go to school and they're told that their future is bleak and dismal and they're going to have to overcome all these obstacles because men are a bunch of predators.
They can't be counted on as fathers.
You've got to keep them away from the kids because they'll abuse them.
Get to know the social workers in your town because soon your kids are going to be being cared for by them.
Because you can't count on this worthless guy that you're going to marry out there.
He's going to run out on you.
He's going to have affairs with his secretary, all that sort of stuff.
And then you look at the course and you got to go out, the courses that men have to take, women's studies and so forth and so on.
I mean, these universities have been turned into citadels of feminism, citadels of liberalism, citadels of political correctness.
And that's not who a guy naturally is.
Now, you can take a guy and you can feminize him, Michael Kensley and Alan Alder prove it.
Most of the liberal guys in Washington have been feminized.
They're case history examples for how this has been done.
But normal guys who don't want to end up like Alan Alder or Michael Kinsley or any of the other feminized liberal lion guys in Washington, D.C., say, what good do I need to put up with this for?
Plus, why am I going to pay all this money to go there and listen and get preached to about what a rotten SOB I am just because of my gender?
Well, let's continue with the piece.
Harvard is not alone.
Colleges and universities across the country are grappling with the case of the mysterious vanishing male, where men once dominated, they now make up no more than 43% of students at American institutions of higher learning, according to 2003 statistics.
And this downward trend shows every sign of continuing unabated.
If we don't reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity and thus the productivity and the mission of the next generation of young men and all the ones that follow.
I've got a story here in the stack, by the way.
Some state has just said that college experience, college, not a degree, but college experience.
Here it is.
Indiana, the Indiana State Police, dropping a long-term requirement that would-be troopers have some college education.
A requirement that's been in place for more than a decade says state police candidates must have either 60 credit hours of college or previous police or military experience.
Starting as early as next year, trooper applicants will need only a high school diploma or to pass the general education development test to apply for the agency.
Superintendent says the goal is to increase the number of candidates, especially minorities who want to work.
Oh, don't let Jesse Jackson here.
Oh, geez.
What Jesse Jackson is going to take out of this is that we need to lower the education demands, otherwise, we're not going to get a black candidate.
That's not what the guy is saying, but if the Reverend Doc gets hold of this, I can tell you exactly why this is.
They don't have enough candidates because there aren't enough men going to college at all, much less getting degrees.
So their field of candidates for the state trooper position in Indiana has been deleted or depleted.
So they've got to throw that out to expand the universe of applicants.
It fits hand in glove with this story.
The trend of females overtaking males in college was initially measured in 1978.
I would rewrite this: the trend of females overtaking college was initially measured in 1978.
Yet, despite the well-documented disappearance of ever more young men from the college campaign, we have yet to fully react to what's become a significant crisis.
Largely, that's because of cultural perceptions about males and their societal role.
Many times a week, a reporter or other media person will ask me, why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?
Yeah, well, where the hell does that kind of asline thinking come from?
That comes from the class envy orientation that people get.
Well, men are just powerful brutes.
They run everything.
Women serve at their pleasure.
Why should we give anything to them?
Why should we care what's happening to them?
They still run the show.
It's a fair and logical question, says Michael Urian.
But what it really reflects is that our culture is still caught up in an old industrial image.
We still see thousands of men who succeed quite well in the professional world and in industry.
Men who get elected president, who own software companies, who make six-figure selling cars.
We see the Bill Gates and the Robert, Robert John Roberts's and George Bushes.
And so we're not concerned as we ought to be about the millions of young men who are floundering or lost.
Well, Gates didn't go to college.
He didn't get a degree.
Steve Jobs dropped out of college.
You're finding more and more really successful entrepreneurs who didn't waste the time there.
And one of the reasons they're not going, folks, is because for the truly bright, it's a totally waste of time with the curriculum and with the feminization of these places.
Who wants to put up with it?
Especially told what a rotten creature you are on a daily basis.
But anyway, these guys are there.
The young men who are working at the lowest level and most dangerous jobs instead of going to college, or sitting in prison instead of going to college.
Yeah, well, committing crime and going to jail will keep you out of college.
I mean, we have to acknowledge that.
Men who are staying out of the long-term marriage pool because they have little to offer young women on that one, folks.
I'm going to take a break.
We will continue after the break with more of this because there is a lot more to, and it's not just this story.
We got a great environmental wacko update today.
It's just, it's an El Rush Bo C, I told You So, made to order, all coming up right after this.
Kato Byrne happened to write at National View Online today a response to Michael Gurion's piece about where have all the guys gone.
Kate's got a book coming out next January called Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Scruels, Our Families, Our Military, and Sports.
I wrote a blurb for this book because I so passionately agree with the concept, women who make the world worse.
And how their radical feminist assault is a very great treatise on feminism and where it's all gone wrong.
By the way, folk, you know what today is?
I almost forgot to mention this to you.
You know what today is?
Today is the day that the DVD of season four of the TV show 24 is released.
I, of course, already have multiple copies for the purpose of giving away for Christmas, but to the rest of you in the real world, the retail version out and available today.
What?
You don't like the title, Dawn?
Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining.
It's not about all women.
It's not women make the world worse.
It's women who make the world worse.
They're like a who's who of women who've screwed us up.
And do you know?
No, Kate doesn't know you, so you can't be in the book, so you needn't worry about it.
So anyway, Kate says in his welcome Washington Post Outlook piece, Disappearing Act, Where Have the Men Gone?
No Place Good, Michael Gurion reports that colleges and universities across the country are grappling with the case of the mysteriously vanishing male.
But he doesn't explain who is to blame for boys' alienation from our current schooling regime.
So she writes, so I will.
It's radical feminist academics, theorists, and activists.
Gurion explains that boys dominate the failure statistics in our schools, beginning in elementary school, continuing through Haskrule.
Boys lag behind girls in reading ability by one and a half years, a disparity that persists into college.
This diminished educational achievement consigns young men to the lowest level jobs, lands plenty of them in prison, and takes many out of the long-term marriage pool.
He counsels that we abandon the boys are privileged, but the girls are short-changed emphasis of the last 20 years.
Well, no kidding.
The emphasis that has so disadvantaged our boys is the fundamental tenet of feminist educational policy that is subsidized by tens of millions of public dollars in the name of phony educational equity.
Take reading achievement as one example of what feminism has wrought.
With the federal government's clout and cash, feminists have dictated the rewriting of textbooks to conform to their notions of gender equality.
At its 1973 convention, the NAGs resolved to take dramatic action to see that dangerous sex role stereotypes were erased from textbooks, and within a year, they had the Women's Educational Equity Act to advance their campaign with funding for alternative curricula.
The editors, publishers, administrators, bureaucrats, and teachers' unions that make up the feminized education establishment have eagerly adopted the feminist destructive gender agenda.
The result is what New York University psychology professor Paul Witts calls Wonder Woman and the Wimp stories that little boys understandably have little interest in reading.
Sandra Stotsky, reading specialist, research scholar, Northeastern University, explains, gone are the inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs.
No military valor, no high adventure.
On the other hand, stories about adventurous and brave women abound.
Peggy Orenstein, one of the feminist theorists who welcomes the gender-fair regime that has turned our classrooms into re-education camps for our sons.
She's noted approvingly that perhaps for the first time, the boys are the ones looking through the window when classrooms are adorned with women's pictures and bookcases are crammed with women's biographies.
We parents of boys have meekly allowed gender warriors like Peggy Orenstein to treat our sons like unindicted co-conspirators in history's gender crimes, while parents of girls permit their daughters to be patronized as helpless victims of a phantom crippling sex bias in America's schools.
Michael Gurion notes the casualties without identifying who created the battlefield for their campaign of intimidation and indoctrination.
Much more can be said about this as well, but don't want to devote the whole hour to this.
But you remember the joke that I've told you?
The old newspaper headline joke, God calls a reporter at the New York Times and says, you know, I was watching Oprah the other day and it's over.
I've concluded a human race as a fatal experiment.
I'm ending the world tomorrow.
A New York Times reporter says, can I have an exclusive on that?
Doesn't even try to talk out of it.
Just can I have an exclusive?
God says, no, you know, I'm calling other papers.
Times guy grouses.
God hangs up.
God calls USA Today because Wall Street Journal calls the Washington Post.
The next day, the headline in the New York Times is found on page A16.
God says world to end tomorrow.
USA Today, front page headline, God says world to end tomorrow.
We're doomed.
Wall Street Journal, God says world to end tomorrow, markets to close early.
Washington Post, God says world to end tomorrow, women and minorities hardest hit.
Well, guess what?
The debate over climate change evolved into a battle of the sexes yesterday at the 11th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal.
The spokesman for feminist-based environmental groups accused men of being the biggest contributors to human-caused global warming and lamented that women are bearing the brunt of the negative climate consequences created by men.
Women and men are differently affected by climate change and they contribute differently to climate change, said Ulrique Rohr, director of the German-based group called, I can't pronounce it, who cares, it's the last two words are environment sustainability.
She's demanding climate gender justice, left no doubt as to which gender she believes was the chief culprit in emitting greenhouse gases.
She said, to give you an example from Germany, it is mostly men who are going by car.
Women are going by public transport mostly.
She was standing in front of her booth, which featured a banner calling for creative gender strategies from rural households to global scientific bodies.
So the joke's true.
Here they're talking about global climate change is going to ruin everybody, going to destroy us.
Men are the culprits, women hardest hit.
Well, this is a classic example of what Cato Byrne's talking about.
This kind of radical feminism shows up in institutions and guys that go to school hear about how they are more responsible for all the world's ills, including whatever women are unhappy about, than anybody else.
So why do they want to put up with it?
They've heard about it for all these years.
Why mess with it?
And why pay whatever tuition costs to subject yourself to this?
We'll take a brief time out and be back in a mere moment.
I have to apologize to you people.
I have been meaning to perform a public service for quite a while.
It just slipped my mind, but our public service announcement there on bird brain flu reminded me, because this is the greatest anecdote or antidote, this program to bird brain flu that you can find.
But bird flu is a different thing.
And the other day, I guess last week, I saw that the Centers for Disease Control, because this is this bird flu business is getting, you can't escape the news every day.
There are people really trying to hype this as though it's going to wipe us out.
We don't know yet what man is responsible for it other than Bush.
And we don't know exactly when it's going to arrive in its devastating numbers in this country.
But a lot of people are concerned: well, how do I know if I have it?
I mean, the flu is the flu.
What's different about bird flu?
So the CDC put out some little guidelines for symptoms.
And if you experience these, then maybe you should go to the doctor.
And I don't have them in front of me, but I remember most of them.
If you start having a runny nose, throat tickle, if you start getting the slightest bit feverish, and if just something about a little bit, if it's above like 100 and 100.5, then you should be worried about fever.
Sore throat was in there.
You know, sore throat, runny nose and runny eyes, all those sorts of things.
Jake, aches in your joints.
And if all these are present and then you have the urge to go out and use your car windshield as the bathroom, you may have bird flu.
And at that point, you need to contact the Centers for Disease Control.
And I meant to get this information out to you just, it was last week, and I forget, and I forgot, I'm terribly sorry, but better late than never.
And in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, thank you.
You bet.
I can't believe I'm on.
I've been listening since February of 1990.
And I guess I was just calling about need of education.
I really believe that women need the college advantage because they get passed over if they don't have that.
Where a man can start in the workroom or in the mail room and work his way up.
And they'll take a man more seriously than a woman.
And a woman needs that college education.
Otherwise, they get passed over.
I've seen it happen many times.
You know what I'm tempted to say?
Women can start on the couch and work their way up.
That's true.
But that happens.
I wouldn't do that.
But I know there are women out there that have.
Well, but I look, I understand.
Sorry.
I just, it's the first thing I thought of when you said that.
And I had to share it with you.
I understand the point that you're making.
And it dovetails with the notion that it's still a disadvantage to be a woman out there because men just naturally have a leg up when it comes to promotion and so forth.
But you know, I have a little different take on it now.
I'm not denying that what you say has been institutionally true, but I don't think it's as universally institutionally true as it is today.
I think women, in fact, and I'm being dead serious about this, have far many more options in corporate America than men will ever hope to have.
For example, a woman can come out of college, she can get the job.
A lot of companies today to keep the federal government and the EEOC and the Jesse Jacksons and the NAGs off your back hire women, whether they're as qualified or not, because they will fulfill a statistical quota requirement that makes the company look good.
And they will promote them on the same basis.
And at the same time, more qualified, maybe men are not being promoted and not being hired.
Then, let's say this woman at some future date, the biological clock starts ticking, and the woman says, you know what?
I want to have a baby.
And of course, we love that.
Oh, motherhood, apple pie, and the woman's allowed to take maternity leave, sometimes of a year, depending on the company.
Then you've added family and medical leave, so while she's caring for the baby, she can take the dog to the vet.
All the while her job is protected, and she can go to the management and say, I want to have a baby.
I'm pregnant.
I want my maternity leave.
You got it.
You got it.
And somebody gets transferred to cover her job until she comes back.
Then when she comes back, she comes back and assumes the job she had at that moment and the pay at that moment.
And whoever was doing her job while she was gone goes back to wherever they were or what have you.
Then a couple years later, she says, you know what?
Or maybe two months later, I don't really want to work.
I want to stay home and raise my child.
So, oh, great, because society loves motherhood at home.
So fine, go home.
If an average male employee tried one of those stunts, out the door, his career ruined.
Once that kind of stuff's on his resume, he's histoi.
Turn the tables.
Say a guy at age 30, his wife gets pregnant.
He goes to the ball.
You know what?
My wife is pregnant.
I want to stay home and help her raise the baby during her maternity leave.
You what?
You what?
And then he, so he can't do that.
Then he comes back after the maternity leave if he gets it.
He says, you know what?
I'm going to be the one that raised the kids.
I'm leaving.
I want to be the one.
His future is over.
Once he's made the decision to do that, once that's on his resume, he's not going to get hired.
Women have, and I'm not upset about it.
Just telling you, it's far more flexible for women in corporate America than it is for men.
But by the same token, a lot of management is very much aware of the new trend that women who come out of college all revved up and geared up for the career world, the statistics are increasing rapidly.
After the birth of their first child, more and more of them are deciding not to go back to work.
Well, I took time off when I had my first child, and it definitely had implications at work for me.
What kind?
Well, I didn't get a raise that year, or if I did, it was substantially less than what the other women in my work group got.
And there were other promotional opportunities, and I was, again, passed over.
So I think what you just described for men did happen to me when I took that extended time off from my first child.
I didn't do it for my two subsequent children.
So I did learn, but I have seen...
Wait a minute.
Wait, what?
What?
You didn't take maternity leave for your two subsequent children?
I did, but not the same length.
I took six months for the first one and only like 12 weeks, I think, for the second one.
Okay, now I have to ask you an honest question, Anne.
Six weeks of maternity leave, and you said that you didn't get a raise.
No, no, no.
I took six months.
Six months.
Okay, six months.
I'm sorry, that's what I meant to say.
And you didn't get a raise.
Right.
Now, I have to, because I deal with this all the time.
I have to ask you, on what basis did you earn one?
That's true.
And that's basically what my supervisor told me, that they had to review me on what I did while I was there, and I was only there for six months of the year.
So you felt penalized, though?
You felt penalized because you got pregnant?
Well, not really that, but, you know, I thought, well, why don't you just review me on the six months of my work that I was there?
But they didn't look at it that way.
Well, that's because they were paying you for work you weren't doing when you were at home.
That's true.
That's true.
But there are consequences if you do take the time off.
And I don't think it's just solely for men.
I think women do experience that too.
Well, I frankly don't know a guy.
I mean, I well, I'm sure there are.
I know journalists like Bob Woodward who take leaves of absence to write books and come back.
But I don't know that it happens with men with a frequency.
I don't know that men have the opportunity because of something that happens to them biologically, and they automatically qualify for six months of leave for anything to come back and have their jobs.
But that's okay because we understand, you know, we respect motherhood in this country.
We revere it and we cherish it.
And we want to do what we can to promote it.
That's why these policies exist.
But what's interesting is that even after acknowledging all this, there can be feelings of bitterness on the part of the person who has had these benefits offered and extended to them.
I appreciate the call.
And who's next on this on this?
Steve in Cleveland, you're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you, Rush.
I wanted to say that I think you're missing the good news for men in this report about women outnumbering men in college two to one.
I seldom miss good news, so tell me what it is.
The good news is because universities are that bastion of liberalism, affirmative action applies, and it will be easier for men to get into college than women as long as liberals are consistent.
Well, but you're missing the point.
Men are not going because they don't want to.
They're not going to college because they don't want to.
And I'm sure the reasons are varied, but largely it's because what their experience has been there and what they're going to find there.
You know, it really isn't all that complicated.
Back in the days where let's take this example in the story that in classrooms, you had pictures up there of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln and Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower.
That made the feminists mad.
It made them, well, it's unfair to women.
Where are the pictures of powerful women?
Okay, so they put some pictures of powerful women.
Eventually, the men pictures came down.
Now, every time I say this, it makes people mad, but you're going to put pictures of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison on the wall in your classroom.
You can't replace them with women.
There were no founding mothers in this country.
Snerdley tells me I'm wrong about there having been no founding mothers.
And I've heard this.
I've heard this before.
What about Betsy Ross?
American flag.
Oh, fine.
If you want a picture of a woman sewing on your classroom wall as a founding mother, then put it up there.
Time now for an update.
15 student members of the Boise State University Organization for Gender Equity and Education received national attention last week from Rush Limbaugh after they sent him a vagina-shaped chocolate.
The group sent Limbaugh a vagina-shaped chocolate sucker.
No, it's not a sucker.
It's a piece of hard candy.
And a card accompanied this thanking him for publicizing the chocolates on his show in August, which they said helped raise $845.
How could they call this a sucker?
What is in their minds?
Who wrote this?
This is from Arbiter Online.
Must be the Screwel newspaper.
The incident garnered local and national media coverage, and Boise State University officials call the act a mistake and entirely inappropriate, meaning the Organization for Gender Equality sending me this thing.
One group of students decided to use the publicized vagina-shaped chocolates for a good cause, said the gender equality and education group, President Whitney Johnson.
They sold the chocolates to raise money for the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
I guess that must have been something that was going on after Hurricane Katrina.
The Salmon River Chocolate Company donated their time and made the chocolates for us for free, said Whitney Johnson.
She said that the Organization for Gender Equality and Education didn't receive any money from any BSU organization for the fundraiser.
We had one left over, so we sent it to Rush Limbaugh to say thanks for talking about it in August.
Now, the president was some guy named Stoker.
Somebody named Stoker.
Who is this Stoker guy?
I want to get this right.
Brandon Stoker.
One student voicing his disapproval of the incident.
Brandon Stoker emailed Boise State University officials and the arbiter Thursday calling the incident a scandal.
I'm completely embarrassed and outraged by this most recent incident perpetrated by the Women's Center.
This has undoubtedly tarnished the image of the university with more than 40 million Americans listening to the program.
Brandon, I know how you feel, but this is just the kind of thing that might cause more men to enroll out there.
You never know, especially if they hear that these things are suckers rather than pieces of hard candy.
Now, have you, folks, sticking with the same general theme here, a story from ABC News, that's actually it's an Associated Press story, but I got it from the ABC News website.
With 12 children, Mary Ann Wright had plenty of uses for her $236 monthly Social Security check.
All right, 12 kids, $236 a month in Social Security.
But one night in 1980, Mary Ann Wright said she was inspired to feed the hungry.
So I guess her kids starved because she took her check and purchased Thanksgiving dinner for 300 homeless people.
And for the next two years, continued to use her payments to feed the hungry.
Where can you buy, even in 1980, 300 homeless people Thanksgiving dinner for $236, unless she just pooled the money from a bunch of different months?
She was one of 12 people whose altruism earned them a place yesterday in the Hall of Fame for caring Americans.
Organizers cited her compassion after businesses followed Wright's lead and chipped in, giving her enough by 1984 to start her own foundation.
The Mary Ann Wright Foundation, based in Oakland, now has an annual budget of $137,000 and feeds 400 families a day.
Okay, I guess you could say it's her money, but social, yeah, okay, I don't even want to go there.
She said, I thank God for calling me, waking me, and telling me to feed the hungry, said Wright84.
It is the joy of my life to be able to help someone, if only a little bit.
The 12 winners, seven adults and five teenagers, also includes a nun who gave up her affluent life in Beverly Hills to live in a 10 by 10 foot cell to aid Mexico's prisoners and a 13-year-old Connecticut boy who provides computers to the poor by recycling outdated ones.
And I read this whole story about the Caring Institute.
Well, now that's a different name for it.
But there's a Hall of Fame for caring, is the point.
There's a caring Hall of Fame.
And I read the whole story and I don't know where it is.
The story does not say, you know, where are the plaques?
Where's the induction ceremony?
Where do you go if you want to visit the Hall of Fame of Caring?
And I can't find it in the story.
And I concluded they don't care enough to have one.
Well, they went back to that babe down in New Orleans testifying before Christopher Shea's committee, and she said she was being held hostage, or she saw people being held hostage.
She wonders where the concentration camps are and the mass graves because so many people are missing.
I hope we have audio of this for you tomorrow.
One final little story.
Brett, get some of these people's phone numbers tomorrow because we can call them back because I do want to hear what they have to say.
Los Angeles Times said yesterday, L.A. Times, in the midst of this growing, burgeoning economy, these newspapers are losing circulation, laying people off.
L.A. Times said Monday, it is consolidating production at three facilities in downtown Los Angeles.
Will close its Chatsworth California plant, resulting in 110 job cuts.
They're consolidating nothing.
They're reducing expenses.
The daily newspaper, L.A. Times, one of the Tribune company, I have a suggestion for you people at the L.A. Times.
Maybe if you started worrying more about what is in your paper every day, instead of worrying about what's in Iraqi newspapers and how it gets there, maybe people will want to read your paper and then maybe they will have it delivered to their homes and maybe they will pay for it.
And maybe you'll be able to hire people.
But it's not going to happen until you start worrying about what's in your paper instead of worrying how whatever gets in Iraqi newspapers.
And with that, my friends, we wish you a wonderful day, a wonderful night, and we will see you back and ready to go tomorrow at the same time.
▲
Export Selection