All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
February 24, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I got the ghost signal right in the middle of a yawn.
Anyway, we're back as promised.
Greetings, my friends, the award-winning thrill-packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular Rush Limbaugh program back on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
Oh, yes, goody, goody, gumdrop, nip, nip, nip, yip, yahoo, and all that.
Can't wait to talk to you people on the phone, 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, remember the rules here.
Monday through Thursday, we talk about what interests me and nothing else.
On Friday, when we go to the phones, you can bring up things I don't care about.
We will take your call, even if I don't care about it.
As long as you can make it good.
So, 800-282-2882.
All right, cut the music.
I'm ready to go.
We had Hillary Clinton yesterday interviewed by an unidentified male reporter after the Armed Services Committee hearing into the port deal.
And I began to notice some hedging from Mrs. Clinton's original xenophobic position on this, her panic position of immediate legislation on Monday, immediate legislation to block the sale of any of our ports and any of our terminals to foreign interests at all.
And then yesterday, she said, We're going to look at this now.
We're going to delay here 45 days, and we're going to look into this.
I think we can maybe.
So she's clearly allowing for the possibility that it'll go through.
This afternoon, just dangerously close to us here, she's down in Miami.
And she made a speech.
Audio here has a little bit of a buzz in it, but this is what she had to say.
And this is, I'm playing this for you for a specific reason.
I've had a continuing disagreement with the administration about what it will take to protect our ports, to protect cargo on our airplanes, to protect our infrastructure, our mass transit, our bridges, our tunnels, to prepare Americans in the event of a chemical, biological, or radiological attack on our shores.
And that's why I was so amazed by the announcement of that contract.
And yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, I think we successfully demonstrated that the administration had not done the job it was expected to do.
That under the statute, as written, they had a higher duty than the one they fulfilled.
All right.
Well, we can deal with that later.
I don't happen to agree with her on that, but that's beside the point.
First thing I noticed, sounds sleep.
No screeching, no energy.
I think this notion that she sounds and looks angry, that Ken Melbourne's, I think she's reacting to it.
And she's trying to find some middle ground.
And this one, she just sounds boring.
But the political importance of this, she says, I've had a continuing disagreement with the administration about what it'll take to protect our ports, to protect our cargo.
The ports.
The reason the Democrats love this is because the ports is the one area of security they have tried to make an issue.
Remember Kerry's campaign?
He was all upset that we only inspect 5% of the cargo coming into the country.
So the Democrats think, along with what Bush is doing here and the administration is doing, that this focus on ports can launch them back to a position of superiority on the national security issue.
Now, I have the latest Rasmussen report poll out, and it's not good, ladies and gentlemen.
It is not good.
Just 17% of Americans believe that Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports.
A Rasmussen report survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sales should not be allowed.
Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm.
15% believe the operating rights are U.S.-owned, and 46% don't know.
From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue.
For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the president on national security issues.
43% say that they trust the Democrats more on this issue today, while 41% prefer the president.
The preference for the opposition party is small, but the fact that Democrats are even competitive on the national security front is startling.
In election 2002, the president guided his party to regain control, blah, But it goes through the history of things.
So 17% of you believe the UAE should be allowed to purchase operating rights.
64% of you disagree.
Only 39% of you know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm.
15% believe the operating rights are U.S.-owned, and 46% aren't sure.
So that's a grand total of 61% who have no clue.
61% have no clue what this is about.
And they have rendered their opinion a poll granting this is what I meant by an you had a perfect panic ginned up on Monday.
Media helping everybody that put their foot in the water on this had no idea what they were talking about, created this perfect panic.
I don't worry about the poll.
Bush is not on the ballot anywhere.
And the Republicans, whether by accident or by design, got themselves on the right side of this poll anyway early on this week by reacting in their own version of panic as well.
So the tide will turn on it at some point.
But for now, you people, well, not you, but the majority of Americans, it's not a majority, but the plurality of Americans believe the Democrats are better equipped to protect the country than the president.
Okay, Scott, oh, one other thing about Dubai Ports World, United Arab Emirates.
And this for those of you in New Orleans, I learned a stunning fact today.
I did not know this.
Something like $126 million of foreign aid actually came in for Katrina relief.
$100 million of those dollars came from the United Arab Emirates.
I'd give it back.
Obviously tainted.
This money should have, starting Monday, that money should have been transferred back to the donors faster than Abramoff's money went back to him.
It has to be tainted money.
Who knows how it's been contaminated?
I know it's probably an electronic transfer, but there's going to be cash at some point.
You know how powerful these people are.
And I know what some people have a real concern.
You know, what's going to happen is this.
If this deal goes through, one day a giant cargo ship is going to arrive from the port of Dubai, which we trust.
And it's going to go into one of the ports in this country.
Don't know where.
Don't know who's going to operate this port.
And on this cargo ship will be these giant cargo containers.
And a longshoreman will stroll over in a couple of weeks after the ship arrives.
Don't want to hurry too much, to open the cargo containers.
And when they do, fully fueled and loaded F-16s sold to the United Arab Emirates by us will jump out of those cargo containers and start flying around attacking targets in the United States.
You heard it.
You heard it here first.
You have been warned.
We'll be back.
Continue after this.
Stay with us.
Talent.
So much talent on loan from God.
All right, to the phones we go.
And I'm sorry, I decided to get some stuff out of the way here first before we went to the phones.
And now we'll do that.
It's Open Line Friday.
We'll go to Scott in Monterey, California, one of the absolute most beautiful spots in the world, and maybe the most beautiful to play golf.
Yes, Scott, welcome to the program.
Great honor to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I need help convincing my new bride, very beautiful and very intelligent.
I need help convincing or persuading her that volcanoes are spewing more contaminants into the air than cars or anything else man-made.
And she's listening at home, by the way.
Can I say hi?
Yeah, you better after this.
I love you, Amy.
Let's pay attention.
How long have you been married out there, Scott?
I'm a newlywed.
Got married New Year's Eve.
New Year's Eve.
Oh, well.
Good, good, good.
Tell me, how long were you engaged before you got married?
Oh, roughly about six months.
Six months.
So when you were down to the last 75 or 60 days planning the wedding, did you say to yourself, ah, could we just get this wedding over with?
I hate sending out the cards.
I hate sending out this event.
Did you go through any of that?
Do you have frustrated?
Just get it over with.
Actually, she was on the same page as me as not wanting any of that stuff.
We went up to Yosemite.
It was just me, her, and a judge.
Oh, well, good.
So nothing's really changed then since you got married from the recent days prior to your wedding.
No, not much.
Just love her more every day.
Oh, great.
You're playing your cards right here.
Now, let me ask you this.
How long have you known that she disagrees with you on a fundamental issue here on the environment?
From day one, shortly after dating, we realized that we were opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I'm far to the right.
She's far to the left.
And does, well, obviously then those core values do not cause confrontations to occur.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have lasted long enough and engaged with to get married.
No.
Okay, now I just like take these little survey question type opportunities.
That's great.
We agree to disagree all the time, and it doesn't affect anything else.
Well, I hope it lasts.
Now, the question about the volcanoes and so forth, where can you go to establish this?
I am an authority on this.
I have reported this.
Amy, if I say it, it's true.
You have to learn to accept this.
I'll give you one volcano in, for example, Mount Pinatubo.
Mount Pinatubo, I guess this is in the early 90s, erupted and spewed pollutants and ash and all the stuff that comes from a volcano, and it spread around the world.
And the amount that came out was far in excess of all of the so-called automobile pollution since the invention of the machine.
But the larger issue here, Scott, is not specifics like that, because some people are going to remain closed to the truth on things like this.
Because I was talking to a liberal the other day, which I do frequently, and this liberal said, well, you know, you always sound happy and optimistic.
How can that be?
I said, because it's the way I am.
And you can't be that way because as a liberal, you just can't do it.
You can't go through the day without feeling miserable.
It's required.
You see nothing but environmental destruction.
You see suffering.
You see hunger.
You see thirst.
You see inequality.
You see social injustice.
You see all these things.
And you think that there's a lack of equality spread across the world, culturally, societally, economically, and so forth.
And so you're not able to be happy about things.
So you have a worldview.
And the worldview is that life is unfair and that there are some people in charge of making it unfair.
And those are the people who are happy.
And those are the people who are wealthy.
And those are the people who have succeeded in life.
So the worldview can't be tampered with because then the whole equation that equals liberalism would fall apart.
So this volcano business is really nothing other than I don't want to speak specifically because I don't have not talked to Amy, but liberals who don't believe facts like the power of the environment, that we can't control it.
We didn't cause global warming, so we can't stop it.
You know, if the earth warms itself, we know this.
There were ice ages before there were automobiles, and yet we're alive today and not living in a glacier.
Common sense here does not enter into the equation because the worldview will be tampered with and then crisis will set.
And once the worldview, once this little cocoon that people have built to surround themselves by has chinks in it, then they'd rather not deal with that.
The illusion that they have created to describe the world and all that they see it as gives them a sense of security.
It makes them think that they're better than other people because they notice these things and they have more compassion.
But the answer to this is not just the specifics of a volcano, but is to ask her to seriously sit down and you went to Yosemite.
How in the world anybody can go into Yosemite or any other part of nature and think that we have anything to do with it other than properly maintaining it and our stewardship and so forth.
But in terms of the complexity of it all is beyond our ability to comprehend.
The power in a thunderstorm we cannot create.
Maybe with a nuclear detonation we could, but the power, just the amount of electricity in a single bolt of lightning, is so complex that we can't recreate it and we cannot comprehend it.
We think that we can change the direction of hurricanes.
We think that we have people that tell us that George Bush purposely steered the hurricane and they believe this.
There are people that actually believe this kind of thing.
We can't predict the weather five days from now, but we're convinced 50 years from now the sea level is going to rise because the glaciers are going to melt.
That may happen, but it's not because we're doing anything to cause it.
It happened long before we were here, certainly as an industrialized species.
The evidence here that the power of creation and the power of nature so exceeds our meager abilities to tame it.
We can't tame it.
We try and we make fools of ourselves.
The best we can do is understand it and protect ourselves if we're going to take risks in living certain places where certain environmental things happen.
You know, hurricanes are quite natural and they've happened as long as there's been a planet and they always will.
And there have been bad ones and there have been really bad ones and there's some that aren't so bad, but they're as natural as anything else.
What's unnatural is people building homes right in the path, which we do.
And then when a big hurricane comes in and destroys everything, we think the earth is changing.
It's not the earth changing.
It's our inability to understand that we don't have any control over it.
It's an academic argument.
You can go find, if you just Google Mount Pinatubo, Google volcanoes, you'll find it.
You'll be able to find a story.
It may even be in my essential stack of stuff on my website.
It's not arguable.
The problem is that a person will have trouble believing it because, well, it can't be pollution.
It's a volcano.
It's nature.
Pollution is man-made.
Automobile exhaust and that sort of thing.
No, what comes out of a volcano is ash, lava, dirt, all kinds of boiling mass and gunk.
And when there is an eruption, there's this giant cloud over the volcano where it happens, and the wind comes along and takes it over other parts of the country.
And people, oh my, what do we do to cause the volcano?
When you go to the Grand Canyon, when you go to the mountains of Arizona and you have somebody explain to you how they happened, how they were formed, and somebody tells you, you know, way back when this was all underwater and the different layers on the side of the rock is how we know.
You're looking at peaks of 8,000 feet that were once underwater.
Now, what did humanity do back then to cause those floods?
And then what did humanity do to cause those mountains to suddenly rise up out of the water or the water to evaporate?
What happened?
Nothing.
The Earth is a complex organism.
It is brilliantly conceived.
It flawlessly executes its assigned duties by God each and every day.
We live with the vanity.
We human beings are amazing.
On one hand, we think that we're inconsequential.
We're no different than rats and dogs, cats, and so forth.
And on the other hand, we have the ability to destroy this.
Even if we nuked the planet, the planet would survive and the cockroaches would survive.
Life would go on.
Maybe not human life, but life would go on.
We can destroy our world.
We can destroy ourselves.
We can destroy our civilization.
But the idea that human beings using the gifts on this planet created by God can destroy it by enhancing our lives, increasing our life expectancy, increasing our prosperity and our economic opportunity, making ourselves smarter, making ourselves healthier, living longer.
Those are the things that the environmentalist wackos say are destroying the planet.
It is absurd.
The most technologically and free societies are the ones that do the best job of cleaning up the mess that they make and helping to prevent as much pollution and trash and garbage.
The whole argument of environmental destruction is so much more important than whether somebody believes that Mount Pinatubo put out more pollution than all the automobiles in history, because that's not even arguable.
Nice talking to you, Amy.
Bye.
That's what we do.
We make the complex understandable on this program.
Okay, Scott in Monterey and the lovely and gracious Amy.
I know you're still listening out there because you're not arguing because you're not together.
The argument will come later, but I googled Mount Pinatubo.
Exactly what I told you you could do.
I googled it.
And I just want to read you some facts about the 1990, and there is a picture.
And Amy, if you go to just Google Mount Pinatubo and go to the link, Pinatubo Volcano, the sleeping giant awakens, you will see the cloud that I'm talking about.
And the picture might help put things in perspective, but here are some facts.
In June 1991, after more than 400 years of slumber, volcano Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted so violently that more than 5 billion cubic meters, Imagine a square cubic yard, Amy.
Five billion of those ash, pyroclastic debris were ejected from its fiery bowels, producing eruptions, columns 18 kilometers wide at the base and reaching up to 30 kilometers above the volcano's vent.
In its wake, 847 people lay dead, 184 injured, 23 missing, more than 1 million people displaced, hundreds of millions of dollars in private property, and infrastructure was in ruins, would require tens of billions of pesos and several years to rebuild.
For months, the ejected volcanic materials remained suspended in the atmosphere where the winds disperse them to envelop the earth, reaching as far as Russia and North America.
This phenomenon caused the world's temperature to fall by an average of one degree Celsius.
Clearly, Pinatubo's eruption signals the world's most violent and destructive volcanic event of the 20th century.
One volcano, Amy, reduced the temperature of the world one degree Celsius for that year.
The global warming people say it'll take 50 years for us living our lives the way we do to maybe raise the temperature a half a degree.
Here's Earth with a bunch of absolute junk being piled into the air, restricting sunlight, raising the temperature one or cooling the temperature one degree Celsius.
A volcanic eruption.
No matter what we do, Amy, we don't know how to cause this short of a nuclear bomb, but going about our lives as we normally live our lives, we don't do this.
We can't do this.
Here's Greg in Clearwater, Florida.
Greg, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush, Megadittos.
I am a board-certified anesthesiologist.
Hey, what's the difference?
Greg, what's the difference in an anesthesiologist and an anesthetist?
An anesthetist is a nurse who does 18 months of post-nursing training.
Oh.
And that time is spent learning how to monitor patients under anesthesia.
Okay, okay.
Analogist is a physician who does four years of training post-med school.
Yeah, it's serious business.
Yes, and these arguments being made to stay this execution in California, they are foolish on all levels.
First, the argument that the patient might wake up or have some consciousness during the procedure, the dose that California gives of pentothal, which is a barbiturate, they give five grams.
The maximum dose that I would give in the operating room would be one half of a gram.
So 500 milligrams would be the maximum.
And that would be to a person that weighed about 300 pounds.
So the idea that they would wake up after five grams of pentothol or have any sort of consciousness is beyond anything reasonable.
Well, what I, if my memory on this story is correct, the fear was, I guess it's a three-drug cocktail that they use at San Quentin.
Is pentothal one of the three?
Yes.
All right.
And it's administered first?
Yes.
All right.
Then the well, the way I read it was that two of the three drugs can cause severe pain in some patients.
Yeah, that's totally false also.
Because the second drug that they give is a muscle relaxant.
Well, then, okay, what's the third?
What's the drug that ices the perp?
Well, any of the three, that much pentothal will kill somebody just from cardiac arrest, no blood pressure.
And that was one of the suggestions the judge made if you're worried about, they're worried about the potassium burning on injection.
Right.
Which is foolish because we give potassium to patients who are wide awake all the time.
And yes, it burns.
You know, they'll complain.
They'll say, yeah, my IV is tingling.
But to consider that to be cruel or unusual is laughable.
Oh, now remember, we're dealing with the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals here.
We're not dealing, the prison officials are not saying this is a Ninth Circus.
They've got a built-in bias against capital punishment anyway.
And they're showing it because the judge said you can either give the first drug or you can have somebody observing to make sure the patient is asleep.
And so these ologists come in under the pretense that they're going to observe and make sure that the patient is asleep.
So why won't they do it?
Why can't they find any out there that'll do it?
Well, they change the rules on them.
And instead of just observing, they now want them to administer the lethal injection.
Oh, and that's where the hypocritic oath comes into play.
Well, both the AMA and the American Society of Anesthesiologists have come out and said that it's unethical.
Well, would you do it?
If my state medical board, you know, gave me some sort of written assurance that they wouldn't press ethics charges against me.
Yeah.
I think I would.
I don't.
I mean, I didn't sentence the man to death.
I mean, I'm just a technician.
Right.
I appreciate the information on this.
I appreciate the call.
Are you still there, Greg, by chance?
Yes.
I have to ask you one question.
I had a tooth pulled way back a long, long time ago.
They gave me sodium pentothal.
And I've had it one time.
And the dentist injected it and said, I want you to count to 10.
And I didn't even get to two.
And I woke up from it, and I really had no clue what had happened.
I said, when are you going to put me to sleep?
Now, how much, I've also heard this is a truth serum in our torture cells down at Club Gitmo and over at Abu Ghraib.
Now, if sodium pentothal knocks you out, how is it a truth syrup?
You have to give it just a little of it so that somebody doesn't knock out?
Yeah, it's all a matter of dosage.
And tinothol is a barbiturate.
It's like ethanol.
If you drink a little bit of ethanol, you become relaxed.
You're more likely to say something that you...
Don't say that because people will try it.
But, you know, just think of it in the same spectrum.
If you drink enough alcohol, you'll be totally unconscious.
And if you drink a little, you'll be disinhibited.
Yeah.
All right.
I appreciate that.
Thanks.
Thanks so much.
I was wondering how we were torturing these people down there and getting information from them if they were knocked out.
But that's why you go to the experts for these answers.
I've got one more environmental story.
Actually, I've got three more environmental stories very quickly.
Two of them from my memory.
In the last month, ladies and gentlemen, we have discovered on this planet two areas with species of animals and plant life never before discovered.
I forget where one of them is.
I think it's out in the South Pacific.
The other one's in the Caribbean.
And you have to go up to these mountaintops where these critters are with helicopters.
You can't get up there.
Nobody's ever seen these kind of animals or these trees or these bushes, these plants, these weeds.
And there was no official name for them.
Two places here just the last month.
Now, for my whole broadcast career, I've been hearing about how we're doing nothing but destroying species.
I've heard this inane, 100 species die every day, and one of them could contain the cure for eight.
We're destroying the Amazon rainforest.
We're destroying the planet.
We're destroying the world.
All these species.
It's absurd.
It's unhinged.
Now, how in the world, if we are destroying the planet, if we in the United States are polluting the planet so much, how in the world can these new species exist?
How in the world do we not know?
But if we're all knowing, if we are the true power on this planet, how in the hell is it that here in year 2006, we are discovering things in the planet we've never seen before when we are when we are trying to destroy, or when they say that we are destroying, one of them's in Indonesia.
Here's the third story: dozens of new, yeah, I know, dozens of new species, but not just animals, but plants, trees, weeds, all this stuff.
And one's in the Caribbean.
But here's this one that this is from the AP environmental writer Michael Casey.
A coral reef spanning several hundred acres, teeming with fish, has been discovered off the coast of Thailand and should be given protected status.
The World Wildlife Fund for Nature said on Wednesday, tipped off by local fishermen.
WWF divers in January found what they say is a healthy 667-acre reef in southern Thailand with over 30 genera of hard corals and at least 112 species of fish.
And the World Wildlife Fund for Nature said that it should be given protected status.
It seems to me it's been doing just fine while not only unprotected, but undiscovered.
This is a great example of our vanity.
Here we discover something that wasn't there.
It's obviously then been doing just fine on its own.
And our ego, self-absorbed environmentalist wackles, oh, we must save this.
We must protect this.
We must put this on some list.
I just sit, I just laugh at this stuff.
I know how seductive it is to people who love the planet and don't want to damage it and all that, but it's all just all lies.
It all is just nothing more than fundraising lies, fear-based fundraise.
Quick timeout, back after this.
I love this song, a black cat that can cross my path anytime.
Stevie Wonder and superstition.
All right, I just went to my own essential stack of stuff at rushlandbaugh.com, and lo and behold, we have the information I just shared with you on Mount Pinatubo there.
But I also discovered something else from December of 2004.
Scott and Amy in Monterey, I know you're still there.
Listen to this.
Amy, this for you.
The state of Washington has made it official.
It's the biggest or the biggest single source of air pollution in Washington is not a power plant.
It isn't a pulp mill or anything else created by man.
It is a volcano.
Since Mount St. Helens started erupting in early October, it's been pumping out between 50 and 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.
Those emissions are so high that if the volcano was a new factory, it probably could not get a permit to operate, said Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology.
All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas.
Mount St. Helens, more than twice that.
And I mean, these are just little feeler eruptions.
This is nothing.
This is, I mean, this is not even a big one.
That thing's just burping.
Here's Mike in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush.
Did those, I just want to get your take on this class action lawsuit against the NCAA about the them limiting the scholarship money for student athletes.
I want to know what you thought about that.
This is the case.
These three former college athletes are suing to lift the limit that's on financial aid because right now they have to have their own money to pay for things like laundry and health insurance and travel.
It's not related to their sport.
And they think the schools ought to be paying this because most of these student athletes don't come from means.
Their parents are not wealthy.
They themselves are not wealthy.
I think that kids are, well, the students, former students, Jason White of Stanford, Brian Polak or Polak of UCLA, and former University of San Francisco basketball player Jovan Harris.
Now, the complaint contends that the rules are an unlawful restraint of trade because major college football and basketball games constitute a big, lucrative, and profitable business that generates billions of dollars from television and radio contracts and licensing and other things.
And these three guys contend that the limits deny a legitimate share of the tremendous benefits of their enterprise to the student athletes who make the big business of big-time college sports possible.
I think this is one of these things that once it gets started like this, it's like the snowball going down the hill and it's going to get bigger.
I don't know that it'll become an avalanche, but the whole concept of student athletes, I think, is a.
And I don't want to offend anybody here.
I'm sure some of you NCAA students have actually seen a classroom now and then.
But the Brian's in there shaking his head.
I know that a lot of student athletes, you know, academic all-Americans, I know they're out there.
The fact of the matter is the deal for the athlete is if they get the scholarship, well, that's a lot of money.
It's your tuition, and we are facilitating your future life just like any other college student because you're getting an education.
You're learning what you have to do in your field to make it big, in your case, sports, football, or basketball.
And we're paying for that.
And we are housing you and we are feeding you and we're doing these kinds of things.
And they've always tried to maintain this aura of amateur status for the purity of the college game to make sure that it is not corrupted by outside influences.
And see, the problem here is once you open up the idea that people can give money, spending money, walking around money to student athletes, and you open up all kinds of possibilities for corruption, paying them a lot of money not to play well, paying them a lot of money to pretend they're hurt, who knows what.
Those are the kinds of fears.
So I don't, but I think the whole notion here that that is the system that we have now, that this is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, and that student athletes are the epitome of amateurs, just as the ancient gods of the first Olympics were the pure amateurs.
I think it's all hogwash now.
Their lawsuit is perfectly accurate in stating that they are the product.
Nobody would pay to watch the faculty of Ohio State play the faculty of Notre Dame.
Nobody would pay.
Nobody would put it on television.
They wouldn't pay to watch them teach.
And besides, the professors wouldn't let you anyway because the jig would be up.
So there is that fact, but the desire of the NCAA to maintain this amateur status for the purity of the game, that perception, and the desire to keep unsavory elements away from influencing these young, fresh, innocent children of athletics is what's going to be the immovable force.
It'll be hard to predict this, but since it's antitrust and since it's the U.S. court system, anything can happen.
We will be back.
Stay with us.
All right, folks, fastest three hours in media, two of the three today, now in the can.
Coming up in the next hour, I love stories like this.
They are predictable.
They have been happening throughout my entire Sterling broadcast career.
What happens when everyone's a winner?
Some ask whether feel-good trophies are actually good for children.
This is from the Boston Globe.
And I first came across these stories.
This high school football team or Pop Warner football team in Florida 14 years ago was beating all of their opponents 65 to nothing.
And so they were penalized 35 points down at the start of every game.
So the opponents didn't feel like they had no chance.
And it's just now I guess they're learning maybe that wasn't the way to go.
▲
Export Selection