All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
January 16, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know the best argument to make to prove the president is right about Iraq?
Iran.
I'm going to get to Iran in a second.
The reason why the president is pursuing democracy in Iraq as an alternative to what had been in place, a tyrant, is because there's no other answer, particularly as the world goes nuclear, particularly as weapons of mass destruction, and you can start and have any in Iraq.
Well, you know what?
Whether they did or they didn't, some others do, and it won't be long before a lot will.
There is no other alternative to deal with this problem of truly hateful, despicable people and in some cases nations who have the ability to use nuclear blackmail or worse, actually pulling the trigger on the threat, than to try to get a reasonable government in place that has the support of its people, that is democratically elected, and therefore would be unwilling to do something like this.
If there is another option, I don't know what it is.
You know, back before uh Reagan won the Cold War, Phil Donahue used to have those people to people contacts with the Soviet Union.
If only we could go over there and meet with them and they could meet with us, we'd all realize that we're all people and we'd all just get along.
Fine.
It was nice to be naive then.
It's a different the stakes are higher now.
There are dangerous weapons all over the place.
And the animosity often created by an extreme view of one's own religion is worse now than it's ever been.
What do you do with Iran?
I'm not sure I know.
The problem for the president is that given how politicized the environment has gotten in our country, whatever it is that he does try to do will be opposed by people who simply don't like him.
It's why you will never ever hear a democratic strategy for Iran.
They don't even have one for Iraq.
They aren't even unified as to what we ought to be doing in Iraq.
They just know that they don't like whatever it was that Bush did.
As for Iran, they don't have a plan.
They're never going to come up with a plan, and I'm not sure the president even has a firm one yet.
It's more like a series of audibles in which we try to figure out what to do because it is very, very difficult.
You are talking about a country that has said it's going to develop the bomb.
Now they say it's going to be a peaceful bomb for our own domestic uses.
It's not going to be the kind of nuclear bomb that we want to shoot.
They've got the bomb.
They're moving in that direction.
This is a government that speaks in very, very frightening rhetoric.
I'm not sure what you should do.
I guess what I think ought to be done is have the UN try to do something about it.
After all, we were told before the Iraq war that we needed to give sanctions more time to work, allow the UN inspectors to go in, let's trust the UN.
This is a problem for the United Nations.
That's what France and Germany lectured us.
It's what a lot of people in our own country said ought to be done the UN.
Well, this is a perfect thing for the UN.
If Iran is not yet at the point where it needs to have its government replaced, and politically here in this country, I don't think that you can get enough support to go in and fight a war with Iran when we're still divided over the war with Iraq.
So if we've not reached the point where we're going to change the government in Iran to try to get something more reasonable there, the only other option out there is for the UN to do its thing, whatever it is.
And for everybody who believes that the UN has this tremendous capability to bring the power of the United World, after all they call themselves the United Nations, okay, fine, Kofi, here's your chance.
Do something good, earn that peace prize, go and try to figure this thing out with Iran.
Whether it's sanctions or whatever, you try to figure this out because there is no answer right now.
In the meantime, Iran says it doesn't want the UN sticking its beak in.
It says it does not want the United Nations Security Council to offer up any sanctions or punishment against it.
It says, and I'm quoting here from Reuters, in fact, I'll read you the lead paragraph.
Iran said Sunday that only diplomacy, not threats to refer the country to the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, could defuse a standoff over its nuclear work and ward, that any Western push for sanctions could force up world oil prices.
Now you gotta love this.
Iran is calling for diplomacy.
Iran.
This is the country that only a few weeks ago said that Israel ought to be relocated to Europe.
Now they want diplomacy.
Their idea of diplomacy is to is to threaten to wipe a nation off the map.
How do you engage in diplomacy with them?
Where do you start the negotiations?
All right, Iran, you've got to start thinking about getting rid of your nukes.
All right, then you have to get rid of Israel.
Where do you go with that?
What's the diplomatic answer to that?
Furthermore, if there is some sort of deal that's cut diplomatically with Iran, it's going to be North Korea all over again.
That was the Jimmy Carter deal of the nineties when Bill Clinton sent him over there.
Let's cut a deal with the North Koreans, they'll give up their nuclear program.
Right.
Laugh, laugh, ha ha.
Iran's playing that one.
Okay, we'll promise to give it up by ourselves a few years, and you get right back to the point that you were with you were at with Saddam.
Eventually Iran agrees to allow inspectors in, then throws them out.
We go back and forth on this thing forever.
The difference is that while there was doubt about how far along Saddam was or whether or not he had anything, you're dealing here with a country, unlike Iraq, that says they're working on it and will get it.
Remember, Saddam's position was always denial denial denial.
Iran's in a different situation.
They're bragging up what they've got and they're using it as a threat.
And now they're throwing in the lever of we'll cut off our oil if you try to mess around with us.
They're threatening to allow an increase in the price of oil.
So I don't know what the answer is here.
But I do think for all of you who believe that the United Nations serves some purpose in the world, other than occupying great prime real estate in Manhattan, let's see what they can do.
This situation, though, is sad to say, very scary.
Because there is not an easy answer.
Every answer I can think of is one that I believe either will not work or has tremendous negatives associated with it.
Ideally, the dream scenario is this.
The Iranians, seeing the freedoms that their neighbor has, demand reforms within their own nation.
Iran gradually modernizes, starts to move away from radical Islamist thinking, abandons this notion of threatening the rest of the world with its nukes, and becomes a more reasonable nation.
That's the dream scenario.
It's kind of naive to think it's going to work out that way.
This is a problem that doesn't have a good solution.
But in the interim, while we look for one, for all of you who said the answer to Iraq was to allow the UN to go in and fix things, let's see how well the UN does with Iran.
I'm not suggesting that I think they're going to get anywhere, but if this isn't a perfect situation for the United Nations, then what reason do we have the United Nations?
To the telephones we go, 1-800-282-2882 is the number, Redlands, California, and Matt.
Matt, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark.
Um it's clear to most people, myself included, who have been following this growing crisis with Iran, that no matter what economic sanctions are placed on Iran, even if we're able to get sanctions, which will be kind of tough considering that Iran, uh, like Iraq has the Chinese and the Russians bribed with oil deals.
But even if we're able to get sanctions, Iran's never gonna give up their nuclear program.
So it's no longer a question of will the U.S. attack Iran's nuclear program, but rather when will the U.S. attack Iran's nuclear program and which of our allies will help us in the upcoming attack?
Well, I think we're not at that point yet, but I do agree with you it's probably going to get to that point.
That's why you say it's not if it's when I do think that in the interim we ought to try to call the bluff and see whether or not the United Nations is going to be able to do any good if the United Nations is going to support sanctions, if the United Nations is going to get tough with Iran.
One of the reasons I raise this is to sh is because this situation is almost identical to what we were facing in Iraq, only it's scarier.
And we all know that the United Nations isn't really the answer.
It's probably worth a try until we get to the point of having to deal with the real answer, just as the United Nations wasn't the answer with Iraq.
But it is a very, very scary situation, particularly when you see this sort of belligerence in which they, you know, if they're talking about moving Israel, and they're also in the process of developing nukes, it's not a huge stretch, particularly when you see how radical the leaders of that country are to think they might launch a nuke at Israel.
It's not just that's not just a pipe dream, and that's not just neocons once again spoiling for a war, which the left likes to accuse us of.
It's reality.
Yes, and the their leaders, their leaders are absolutely crazy.
They have even said their president has even said we can win a nuclear war with Israel because Israel is so small and the uh Iran is so big and the Arab world so much larger, we can win a nuclear war.
That's how crazy their leaders are.
But we're listening and we hear.
But remember, we're not gonna send American troops in, we're just gonna have selected strikes of Iranian nuclear sites.
If we had the ability to do it, I think we should do it now.
The problem is I'm not sure we have that ability, and once again you're not going to have the support of anyone else in the world.
Well, this is the time for the rest of the world to step up and remember that the United Nations Security Council includes Russia.
China can have real influence here if it wants to join the civilized world.
For all the people who argue that the UN is the way to solve these kind of international crises, okay.
Let's give them a job and see how well they do.
Just don't hold your breath for any successes.
Thank you for the call, Matt.
I appreciate it.
My name is Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
You can say what you want about conservatives, but at least we are mature enough to try to deal with problems like this.
Were this a liberal talk show, you know what the discussion on Iran would be.
Well, Bush just wants to go over there and get all the oil, more deals for Halliburton.
It's Bush the Empire Builder.
Okay, fine.
They throw around the slogans.
What is the answer?
And how do you address this?
Now during the break, HR suggested to me that you've got this problem that of the moderates that are in Iran.
And it's true, because the Iranian economy is so strong, because they do have so much oil, and because the country itself was relatively moderate in the days of the Shah, you still have a very educated class of individuals in Iran.
They don't control the country, but they're making a lot of money.
They control the businesses.
There's a very rather strong economy in Iran.
There is a real middle class in that country, that if you come in and you launch a military strike against Iran, you simply make the Mulahs who run the country even more powerful, and you disenfranchise some of those who may be more moderate and might have the ability to exert some influence within the country.
That's true, and I grant you that, and I do think every day that Iraq goes stronger, those more moderate Iranians who'd like to have a little bit of freedom in addition to their money, might demand that their country become more reasonable.
But how much time do you give it?
In the meantime, they're working like crazy on their nukes, and the people who run that nation don't appear to just be pure bluster.
It isn't like they say, well, Europe ought to be rather Israel ought to be relocated to Europe and we can wipe Israel out with one nuclear strike.
I don't think they're saying those things just to say them.
They're playing to an audience that has been told for years and years and years that Israel is the great Satan.
Then you've got the whole terror movement out there.
If Iran gets nukes, think how close the relationship between the terror world, be it Hezbollah or El Qaeda with Iran becomes, then they've got nukes.
We can run away from this problem, and I don't think that there is anything for us to do immediately.
But it's out there, and it's a real crisis.
And the only thing that we can do at this point is to see if we can manage it diplomatically, knowing that probably won't work.
Am I the master of doom and gloom on this topic?
I may be.
I just don't have anything more positive to offer on it.
Valparaiso, Indiana, Scott on a cell phone.
Scott, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Thanks for taking my call.
Um what would what would Congress and UN I mean you the UN is not going to do anything.
Well, I know that you I know the UN isn't going to do anything.
The reason I raise it is everybody who always says we ought to go through the UN, since we aren't ready to act, let's go through the UN and let's see what the UN can do, proving once and for all that they can't do anything.
Kofi Anand has no more ability to strike a deal there than I do of going in for Indianapolis and making that kick that Vanderjack missed yesterday.
It isn't going to happen.
Now I have tremendous respect for Condoleezza Rice.
And it does seem as though at this point, Iran has only talked and they haven't done anything.
But do I have confidence that that's going to be the case permanently?
No.
I think our policy should be as it was during the Cuban missile crisis.
If Iran wants a seat at the nuclear table, then the UN and all this hand wringing by the Europeans is not going to do any good.
You want to have a bomb, that's fine.
If you use it, you will be retaliated against in kind.
Bottom line.
Well, I don't think that does any good.
You're suggesting this is after they use it.
Well, the thing is, sure.
What if what if you see response?
Well, what if use means giving it to Al Qaeda?
What if use means actually wiping Israel off the map?
And okay, we'll respond in kind.
You're now talking about nuclear war.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't ever come to that.
It draws attention to my point, though, that there are no good answers because yours is nuclear war.
Furthermore, I don't know that this government is one that necessarily is going to be deterred by this.
The rhetoric that comes out of it is extremely radical.
This the rhetoric coming from this president of Iran right now, what is he saying?
He's practically advocating nuclear war at this point anyway.
Correct.
But I don't know that you can that you can wait until they do it.
I'm not sure that right now the U.S., well, certainly not the UN and certainly not the U Europeans are going to be preemptive to stop their processing from going on.
And it may be that we don't have to be yet because they're not quite there.
But at some point, this discussion's going to be on the front burner.
We're now in the middle of January.
By the middle of December of this year, which nation do you think is going to give us more grave concern?
Iraq or Iran.
I think Iran.
Oh, I th I think that this problem is coming, and it's helpful to start talking about it now.
There's also no harm in seeing whether or not the UN can't apply some muscle.
There's also no harm in telling the Russians, and especially the Chinese who do all this business with us, that it's about time for you guys to join the civilized world and try to help and solve a problem here yourselves, particularly since the Chinese have an extensive economic relationship with Iran, particularly with regard to oil.
Well, let's see if they can't do something.
Thank you for the call.
Thank you for the call.
Let's go to Virginia and stretch your on EIB.
Hey, man, I can't believe I'm calling the Rush Limbaugh program.
Yeah, well, he's not here, but I'm here.
I'll you're better than he is anyway.
No, no, don't don't.
I'm already being pushed by the staff to get into topical material that I shouldn't get into.
Now the word's going to get back to Rush that I said I was better than him.
I did not do that.
That was the caller.
What's on your mind, Stretch?
Stretch said so.
Hey, look, man, the reason that there's this uh issue where we're the reason we're hog tied right now with Iran and North Korea also, as a matter of fact, is that Bush and his his cabal of of warmongering cronies went to war in in Iraq for no good reason and and just proved how you know ineffectual our intelligence is.
I mean, who in their right mind is going to believe that you know Iran is doing anything illegal or or you know anything against uh you know their you know the UN mandates or whatever in the U.S. Well we have we have their word for it and they seem to be they they seem to be bragging about it.
Now you can take all those shots that you want at Bush, but the only answer that I see here is the hope that the minority in Iran, or at least the thriving economic class in Iran is going to take a look at what is happening in Iraq and say, we want some of that too.
You can knock it, and you can suggest that we operated off of phony intelligence in Iraq.
It doesn't change the reality of what we have in Iran, ideally, because of the progress in Iran, whether in Iraq Iran will solve itself, but that might be naive.
Mark Elling in for Rush.
Haven't done that name change story yet, either.
Trying to fight off the uh intense pressure that I'm facing to do it in an attempt to keep my career afloat.
As a little bit of a PS to our story on Iran, CNN is being banned from working in Iran.
The story's breaking today.
The Iranian government is mad that CNN provided a live translation of the Iranian president's news uh press conference on Saturday.
A mod or whatever his name is.
It's impossible to say his name.
That's another reason why we need regime change in Iran.
At least you could say Saddam's name.
You were seen the name of the guy from Iran, it goes on forever and ever and it's a modern jet, isn't it?
That's about as close as anybody's ever going to come.
Anyway, CNN quoted him as saying, quote, we believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons.
The West should not deprive, quote, should not quote, deprive us to have nuclear weapons.
Well, whether he said that or not, CNN said that he said that, and Iran is now going to ban CNN from Iran.
The Iranian government, the Iranian Cultural Ministry issuing a statement taking into account CNN's actions contrary to professional ethics in the past few years and the distortion of the president's comments during his press conference on Saturday, the activities of the CNN journalists in Tehran will end, and no journalists from CNN will be authorized to come to Iran.
They could have just done what they did in Iraq, which was to hush it up and so they could stay in the country, I suppose.
And that was that was CNN, right?
So Yeah, they wanted the Saddam treatment in Iraq.
Isn't this the old CNN?
You're not supposed to report these things.
So Iran is banned CNN.
Is there any way that America can do that?
Can we ban CNN too?
I mean, maybe the just because they're run by Moolahs doesn't mean they don't have any good ideas.
Let's go with that one.
From California, barring a last-minute court-ordered stay of execution, 76-year-old murderer Clarence Ray Allen will be executed by lethal injection early Tuesday morning, just after midnight, California time.
Alan is the guy that has been fighting his execution on grounds that he is too old.
First, while the anti-death penalty people were telling us you can't execute teenagers.
They're too young.
This guy says it's 76, he's too old.
He also says he's too enfeebled to be executed.
Now, why that would be a reason not to execute him, I'm not sure.
At some point, the arguments of the left all start coming into conflict with one another.
What would Jack Kavorkian, for example, say about that?
You're too old and you're too enfeebled to be executed.
This guy, uh Clarence Ray Allen, who, by the way, has not been embraced by the Hollywood leftist community the way Tookie uh, what was Tookie's last name?
Tookie Williams, he, you know, the uh the Hollywood left fell in love with Tookie Williams, convicted murderer who was executed.
Clarence Ray Allen doesn't appear to be getting any of that.
Uh he is white.
There are no racial issues to raise.
He is old, and he hasn't lectured against gang activities.
He was sentenced to death in 1982.
Key point 1982, for orchestrating a triple murder in Fresno in 1980.
He had arranged the killings while incarcerated at Folsom State Prison, serving a life sentence for another murder.
Okay, a class, this is a poster child for the death penalty.
The guy is already in prison for murder, and while in prison, he calls the shots to authorize a triple murder while he himself Is already in prison.
His argument, though, that he's now too old to be executed, does raise some interesting points.
Why is it that he's so old?
It's not because he was elderly when he committed the crimes.
He was sentenced to death in 1982.
In many states that have capital punishment, but particularly California, there are so many appeals, and the process moves so slowly that the vast majority of individuals sentenced to death are not executed but die of natural causes.
The reason this guy is so old is because it has taken so long for the process to finally play itself out.
People argue about the death penalty and ask if it's a deterrent.
It's not.
The death penalty doesn't deter anyone.
The biggest reason it doesn't deter anyone is no one thinks they're going to get it, and even if they do, it's often two decades later.
If capital punishment was swift and sure, virtually everyone convicted of murder got it, and it would happen within a reasonable period of time, perhaps there would be a deterrent.
You take a guy like this guy.
1982 he calls the shots on a triple murder from in prison.
We're finally getting around 24 years later to executing him, and he now tries to use the excuse that he is too old.
For your entertainment pleasure tonight, the Golden Globes are on TV.
Two uh two California stories in a row here.
The Golden Globes are on television tonight, I think on NBC.
For those of you who have an interest in it, I can save you the suspense.
Broke Back Mountain's gonna win.
And it's going to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
Broke Back Mountain is this, I think it was originally an independent film, has gotten tremendous reviews.
It's about two cowboys set in the 1970s, and they're gay, and they're struggling with their gayness and their affection for one another.
It is said to be a very touching story.
I have not seen Broke Back Mountain.
I doubt that I ever will see Broke Back Mountain.
I'll get to that in a moment.
My point on yet winning is there is absolutely no way the Hollywood community can resist voting for this.
It allows them to make such a statement, particularly as we debate gay marriage, and particularly as those on the right are considered to be hateful and intolerant for not fully embracing homosexuality in the American mainstream, they're gonna make a statement by giving this award to Brokeback Mountain.
And it will then win the Oscar.
In the meantime, Hollywood itself keeps wondering why box office receipts are down, and what can we do to get Americans to go back to the movies?
I'm gonna sound like the oldest GOAT in the world for saying this.
But the fact of the matter is that more Americans would rather go and see a film like The Sound of Music than Broke Back Mountain.
The great American movies of an earlier era that won all of these awards were movies that appealed to most people.
There is probably an audience for Broke Back Mountain, and indeed they're going there.
But most Americans don't want to go to the movies to see a flick about a couple of gay cowboys.
It's not the kind of thing that's going to appeal to the vast majority of people in this country.
So why don't the studios recognize this?
Why are we getting the Broke Back Mountains of the world and not a contemporary version of the type of film that used to be honored?
Gone with the Wind was a great American film that most Americans who saw it loved.
The films that are being honored now and the films that the Hollywood community wants to produce are movies that most people don't have an interest in.
I think the problem is this.
I think the studio executives themselves realize this.
They all work for publicly traded corporations.
They're all judged on their own bottom lines.
They realize how important a hit is, not only to their company, but to their own futures.
The problem is the most talented people in Hollywood and the people who are in a position to present these movies aren't creating that stuff.
Instead, it's an endless dream of alternative visions like Broke Back Mountain.
But the American public isn't buying it.
There is only a very, very limited segment of this country that wants to see a movie about two got two gay guys struggling with their sexuality as they ride out on the wide open plains.
It's not something most people want to see.
I don't want to see it.
And I'm not even that much of a prude, and I don't think I'm that close-minded.
I just don't think I want to go see something like that.
But this is the best that they have to offer, and this is the stuff that they are going to give their awards to.
These awards, best picture, that's huge advertising.
Used to be that if you won the Oscar, if you won the Golden Globe, there'd be huge box office receipts the next day.
Even now, Brookback Mountain, which is doing reasonable business, it isn't playing on 97 screens in most cities in the country.
It's at an art house here or maybe one joint over there, and that's about it.
There aren't many places that you can go and taking Brookback Mountain to the American people.
I have some good news about this, though.
I have some good news.
We all know that the Hollywood community is extremely liberal.
All you have to do is turn on your TV and listen to them talk, and you realize that they're liberal.
In fact, there are so few conservative celebrities that we're all able to name every one of them without having to think very long.
We've got Tom Selleck, we had Charlton Heston, I think we've got Pat Sajak, there are a couple of others, but the the the we we have Patricia Heaton.
Was she the uh she's the woman from the Raymond Show, right?
Yeah, okay.
Well, what I used four.
If we think hard enough we can come up with five, six, or seven.
Everybody else is a liberal.
No, there is uh the biggest reason I think for this is celebrities are people who are desperate for approval.
And since everybody around them thinks a certain way, they think that way.
Since everybody that they see at their dinner parties and when they go and hang out at the club is bashing Bush, they bash Bush.
So it kind of feeds upon itself and it becomes this huge reinforcement situation where everybody who is lit, they're all liberal and they're all around other people who are liberal.
This has bothered a lot of conservatives for a long time.
They want our celebrities to be out there.
They want to be able to embrace our people.
They want to go see the movies done by the pro-Bush movie stars.
There aren't any, unfortunately.
There's good news, though, with regard to this.
There is an advantage for conservatives in all these celebrities being liberal.
Because they are celebrities, when they do speak out on things, they do get a lot of attention and publicity.
And since they're all stupid, the things they say are incredibly stupid.
The left is saddled with every dumb comment that Barbara Streisand makes.
Every time, who is the guy that played uh Woody Unchears, Woody Harrelson?
Every time he talks and says something dumb, this comes to represent the viewpoint of the American left, and they are stuck with that.
We're pretty lucky that we don't have all these airheads and bubbleheads speaking out on our behalf and saying dumb things that we then have to apologize and embrace.
For example, Harry Belifani, who believe it or not, is not yet dead, speaking at Duke University over the weekend, referring to President Bush, and our war on terror, said there is moral equivalence between the actions of the September 11th hijackers and the American launched war in Iraq.
Quote, when you have a president that has led us into a dishonorable war, who has killed tens of thousands, many of them are own sons and daughters.
What is the difference between those who would fly airplanes into buildings killing 3,000 innocent Americans?
What is the difference between that terror and other terrors?
This is what the left is saddled with.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
What's worse?
Having to watch the Golden Globes or having to watch Dancing with the Stars.
What would be the bigger night in hell?
I don't know.
Palmyra, Pennsylvania, Cliff.
Cliff, you're on Russia's show with Mark Belling.
Hey, good afternoon, Mark.
How are you doing?
I'm great, thanks.
Hey, uh, this is a this movie is a thumb to the eye for the people who uh went and saw The Passion of the Christ.
It's the exact opposite type of movie, and it goes against the type of family values that you're you're going for.
And there's other other TV shows that were on TV that had uh years of runs that were and they they did great jobs producing their shows, but Passion of the Christ is the best example of it.
I'm I'm not I I I agree with you, and I'm not suggesting that Broke Back Mountain shouldn't be made.
And if people got that impression from me, that's not what I'm saying.
And I'm also not saying that it might not even be a decent movie for people who are into that thing.
It's probably well written, it's probably well acted, and for those who don't aren't bothered by homosexual relationships, it's probably a fairly provocative film.
The point that I am making is they're gonna trot this thing out and give it all these awards because this is the kind of message they're trying to give to a lot of people like you who would prefer to see The Passion of the Christ.
It's their way of saying here and stick you in the eye.
Now, this is an industry that's supposed to be making films that you want to see, so you spend your money and go out and do it, and instead, many of these films are nothing more than a way of being antagonistic and offending people.
Broke back mountain is fine, go ahead and make it.
But where are films that embrace a more mainstream culture?
They're true, there are hits out there, but where are the really, really strong, inspiring films, very well made, very well written, that don't have this kind of a message.
They just aren't made anymore.
The it never mind gone with the wind, which was from the 1930s, you don't even have to go back to the 1970s.
Some of the great films of the 1990s, I'm not even sure would be made right now because they're so determined to come out with movies that have a political message to them, and those are movies that I think a lot of people simply don't have an interest in viewing.
Thank you for the call to Arizona and Sharon.
Sharon, you're on Russia's show.
Hi.
Hi.
Listen, I I just wanted to tell you, I went to see the movie a week ago, and I I have to tell you that um you really should go see it.
Um it is a little squishy for uh straits to see this kind of a movie, but there is so much emotion in it, and it's not a good thing.
Yeah, I'm sure it's probably I'm sure it's fine.
Is it the best movie that was made last year?
I think it was, and I've seen a lot of movies.
Well, if that's the case, if a movie about two gay guys struggling with their sexuality in the 1970s while they work as cowboys is the very best that Hollywood can produce, that makes my point about the dearth of really good films that are out there.
And I again I'm not suggesting this movie isn't good.
What I am saying is they're gonna give it all these awards because they're going to try to send a message to America that you must accept homosexuality.
You must accept gay marriage.
You must think all of these ways rather than provide films that a large segment of the country would like to see, but I'm not arguing with you.
I'm sure it's fine.
You're not gonna get me in to go and see it, though.
There might be a football game on that night.
Thanks, Sharon.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I haven't been talked off the cliff on this.
In fact, I'm being pushed over it, so I'm gonna do what Rush does.
This may offend you.
If you don't want to be offended, turn the radio off now.
He does the countdown, right?
Five, four, three, two, one.
I find this story in today's Chicago Sun Times.
I'm not making it up.
It's about a man who is a Chinese immigrant to the United States, and he went into the Illinois driver's licensing office to get a driver's license.
The clerk says, This is a dangerous name.
The guy's got a three-word name.
The last name is Quak, K W O K, no problem there.
The middle name is translated King K I N G. His first name is spelled F UK.
It is pronounced Fuck.
However, the clerk did point out that if you put these three words together, you may face problems that you don't really want to face.
The guy said, Yeah, the middle name's not much good, and the first name's a lot of trouble to me.
So he has legally changed his name.
His name is now Andy Quak.
So there's a happy ending to the story.
And with any luck, after telling it, I'll be able to be here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection