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 a Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
Oh, yes, goodie goody gum rock, yip dip, yep, yep, yahoo, and all that.
Can't wait to talk to you people on the phone.
800-282-2882.
Uh 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.
So 800-282-2882.
All right, cut the music.
I'm ready to go.
We had Hillary Clinton yesterday interviewed by an unidentified maidal 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 Mondays, you know, immediate legislation to block the sale of any of our ports in any of our terminals to foreign interest at all.
And then yesterday she said, we're gonna look at this now.
We're gonna delay here 45 days, and we're gonna look into this and think we can make so 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 uh 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 uh 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.
Finish it.
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 but that's beside the point.
You first thing I notice it sounds sleep.
No screeching, no energy.
I think this notion that she sounds and looks angry that Ken Melbourne's, I think 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 Carrie's campaign?
He was all upset that we only uh 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.
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 in 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.
Fifteen percent 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.
Forty-three percent say that they trust the Democrats more on this issue today, while 41% prefer the president.
The preference uh 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, blah, blah, 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.
Fifteen percent believe the operating rights are U.S. owned, so aren't sure, so that's a grand total of 61% who have no clue.
Sixty-one percent have no clue what this is about, and they have rendered their opinion in a poll granting this is what I meant by an you 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 for I Bush is not on the ballot anywhere, and and the Republicans, uh, whether by accident or by design, got themselves on the right side of this poll anyway, uh early on this week by reacting in their own version of panic as well.
Uh so uh the title turn on it at some point, but for now, you people, well, not you, uh because I 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, um uh Scott, and oh, one other thing about about uh Dubai Port's World, United Arab Emirates.
And this for those of you in uh New Orleans.
I I learned a stunning fact today, did not know this.
Something like a hundred and twenty-six million dollars of foreign aid actually came in for Katrina relief.
One hundred 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 Abramov'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 gonna 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 what's gonna 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 gonna go into one of the ports in this country.
Don't know where, don't know who is 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-16 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 just said I'd get some stuff out of the way here first before we went to the phones, and uh now we'll do that.
Uh 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, Rosh.
Thank you, sir.
Uh, 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 uh cars or anything else man-made.
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, uh, how long were you engaged before you got married?
Oh, roughly about six months.
Six months.
So when you were down to the last seventy-five or sixty days planning the wedding, did you say to yourself, uh, can we just get this wedding over with?
I hate sending out the cards, I hate sending out this if it's did you go through any of that to get frustrated?
Just get it over with.
Actually, she was on the same page as me is not wanting any of that stuff.
We went up to Yosemite, it was just me, her, and a judge.
Oh, well, oh, good.
So so nothing's really changed then since you got married from the uh recent days prior to your wedding.
No, not much.
Just love her more every day.
Okay.
Playing your cards right here.
Um let me let me ask you this.
How long have you known that she disagrees with you on a like a fundamental issue here on the environment?
Oh, from day one, uh shortly after dating, uh, we realized that we were opposite end for the political spectrum.
I'm far to the right, she's far to the left.
And uh does well obviously then those those core values do not cause uh confrontations to occur.
Uh otherwise you wouldn't have lasted long enough in engagement to get married.
No, it's not a certain funny.
Okay, not I just I just like take these little survey question type uh opportunities.
We agree to disagree all the all the time and it doesn't affect anything else.
Well, I hope it lasts.
Now uh the the uh question about uh the volcanoes and so forth, uh where can you go to establish this?
I am an authority on this.
I have reported this.
Uh Amy, if I say it, it's true.
You have to learn to accept this.
I'll give you one volcano in in, for example, Mount Pinatubo.
Mount Penatubo, I guess this is in the early nineties erupted and spewed pollutants and ash and all the stuff that comes from uh a volcano, and it spread around the world.
And the amount that that came out was in gr 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 uh some people are going to remain closed to the truth on things like this because I was I was talking to a liberal the other day, and uh uh which I do frequently, and this this liberal said, well, you know, uh you you just 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'll see thirst, you see inequality, you see social injustice, you see all these things, and you think that the that there's a lack of equality spread across the world culturally, societally, economically, and so forth, and so you're you're not you're not able to be happy about things.
So you have a world view, and the world view 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 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 but liberals who don't believe facts like the power of the environment that we can't control it.
We can't we didn't cause global warming, so we can't stop it.
Um, if if if there the 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.
There just common sense here does not enter into the equation because the world view will be tampered with and then crisis will say and and once the worldview, once this little cocoon that people have built to to surround themselves by has chinks in it, um 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 uh 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 spec 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 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 could you can go find if you just Google Mount Pinatubo, uh, 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 had trouble believing it because, well, it can't be pollution, it's a volcano.
It's it's 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 when you go to the Grand Canyon, when you when you go to the mountains of Arizona, and you you have somebody explain to you how they happened, how they 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 giving the 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 wacko 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 Penatubo put out more pollution than all the automobiles in history.
Because that's not even arguable.
Nice talking to you, Annie.
Bye.
That's what we do.
We make the complex understandable on this program.
Okay, Scott and 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 1991, 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 it will the picture might help put things in perspective, but here are some facts.
In June at 1991, after more than four hundred years of slumber, volcano Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted so violently the more than five 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 laid dead, 184 injured, 23 missing, more than one million people displaced, hundreds of millions of dollars in private property and infrastructure was in ruins, would require tens of billions of pesos in 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 we 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, Megadiddos.
I am a uh board certified anesthesiologist.
Hey, what's the difference?
Greg, what's the difference in an anesthesiologist and an anesthetist?
An anaesthetist is a nurse who uh does 18 months of uh post-nursing training.
Oh, and uh that time is spent, you know, learning how to monitor patients under anesthesia.
Okay, okay.
Anologist is a physician who does uh four years of training uh post-med school.
Yeah, serious business.
Yes.
Um and these arguments being made uh to stay this execution in California.
Yeah, they are uh they're foolish on all levels.
Um first, the argument that the patient might wake up or or have some consciousness during the procedure.
Uh the the dose that California gives of pentathal, which is a barbiturate, uh they give five grams.
The the maximum dose that I would give in the operating room would be one half of a gram.
So five hundred milligrams would be the maximum.
And that would be to a person that weighed about three hundred pounds.
Um so the idea that they would wake up after five grams of pentathal or have any sort of consciousness uh i is beyond anything reasonable.
Well, what what I if I my memory on this story is correct, the the fear was uh that it's I guess it's a three drug cocktail that they use at San Quentin.
Is pentathal one of the three?
Yes.
All right.
And it's administered first?
Yes.
All right.
Then the the the uh well, the way I read it was that two of the three drugs can cause severe pain in some patients.
Yeah, it it that's totally false also.
Because the second drug that they give is a muscle relaxant.
And well then okay, what's the third, what's the drug that ices the perp.
Well, any of the three, that much pentathol will kill somebody just from cardiac arrest, no blood pressure.
Um and that was one of the suggestions the judge made if you're worried about he 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.
Yeah.
Um, but uh to consider that to be cruel or unusual i is laughable.
Well, 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 and and they're showing it because the judge said you you know you can you can either give the first drug or you can have somebody observing to make sure the patient is asleep.
And so these these allologists come in under the pretense that they're going to observe and make sure that the patient is asleep and why won't they do it?
Why can't they find any out there that'll do it?
Well, they 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 that it's unethical.
So Well, would you do it?
If if my state medical board um, you know, gave me some sort of written assurance that they wouldn't press ethics charges against me.
Yeah.
Um I think I would.
I I don't I 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 uh the call.
I oh are you gr are you are you still there, Greg, by chance?
Yes.
I have to ask you one question.
I I've I had a tooth pulled way back a long, long time ago.
They gave me so sodium pentathol.
Uh huh.
And I've had it one time.
And uh the the dentist uh uh injected it and said, Okay, I want you to count to ten, and I I didn't even get to two.
And and uh and I woke up from it and I really had no clue what had happened.
I I said, when are you gonna put me to sleep?
Now, how much I've also heard this is a truth serum in our torture cells down at Club Git Mall and over at Abu Grab.
Now, if sodium pentathol knocks you out, how is it a truth serum?
You have to give it just a little of it so that somebody doesn't knock out?
Yeah, it's it's all a matter of dosage.
And um pentathol is a barbiturate, it it's like 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 the the the people will try it.
But you know, it it it 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.
Uh thank thanks so much.
I I was wondering how we were torturing these people down there and getting information from them if they were knocked out.
Uh but that's why you go to the experts for these answers.
I've got one more environmental 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 uh these critters are with uh 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's no there was no official name for them.
Two places here in 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 this inane a hundred 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 are it's it's just it's it's absurd.
It's a 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 the uh the true power on this planet, how in the hell is it that here in year two thousand six we are discovering things in the planet we've never seen before?
When we are when we are trying to destroy, or or when they say that we are destroyed, one of them's in Indonesia.
Yeah.
Here's the third story.
Does dozens of new, yeah, I know, dozens of new species.
But not just animals, but plants, trees, weeds, all this stuff.
And one's one's in the Caribbean.
But I here here's this one that um 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 six hundred and sixty-seven 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 it's all lies.
It all is just nothing more than fundraising lies, fear-based fundraise.
Quick timeout back after this.
A black cat that can cross my path any time.
Stevie Wonder.
And superstition.
All right, I just went to my own essential stack of stuff at Rushlinbaugh.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 and 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 it's I mean, it's just these are just little feeler eruptions.
This is this is nothing.
This is not, I mean, this is not even a big one.
That thing's just burping.
Here's uh here's Mike in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush.
Did those.
Thank you, sir.
I I just want to get your take on this class action loss so we can say NCAA about the uh the lip them limiting of scholarship money for student athletes.
I want to know what you thought about that.
Uh yeah, this is the case, these three um uh former college athletes are suing to lift the uh the limit that's on financial aid.
Uh 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 to their sport.
Uh and they they they think the schools ought to be paying this because most of these uh student athletes don't come from you know means their parents are not wealthy, they themselves uh are not wealthy.
Is that I think that kids are well, the students, former students, Jason White of Stanford, Brian Pollock of or Pollock of uh UCLA, and uh former University of San Francisco basketball player Jovan Harris.
Now the complaint contends that the rules are an on 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 gonna get bigger.
I don't know that it'll it'll become an avalanche.
But the whole concept of student athletes, I I think is a uh 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 a lot of student athletes, you know, academic all-Americans, I know they're out there, but the fact of the matter is uh it is it is that the the deal for the athlete is if they get the scholarship, well, that's a lot of money at 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 the they've always tried to maintain this aura of amateur status for the purity of the college game uh to make sure that it is not corrupted by outside influences.
See the problem here is once you open up the idea that uh the people can uh 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.
That's those are the kinds of fears.
Uh so I don't I I I but I think the whole notion here 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 uh just as the uh ancient gods of the first Olympics were the uh pure amateurs.
I think it's all hogwash now.
Uh uh it it's it their lawsuit is perfectly accurate in stating that they are the product.
Uh 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.
Uh they wouldn't pay to watch them teach, and besides the professors wouldn't let you anyway because they'd the jig would be up.
So I there is there is that that fact, but the the desire by 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.
I I'm I'm I'm um it's gonna 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.
Uh coming up in the next hour, I 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 uh Boston Globe.
And uh I first came across these stories as high school football team or Pop Warner football team in Florida fourteen 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 a way to go.
▲
Export Selection