All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
March 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, everybody's out there asking, can we win in a rock rush?
Do you think we can win in Iraq?
It's the silliest question in history.
We could flatten the country in a week if we wanted to.
We could bomb them back to the Stone Age if we wanted to.
Stupid question.
The better question is, can we win in the media?
That, my friends, is the question.
I'm so glad you've joined us.
Broadcast Excellence, all yours.
Another excursion starting now from the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
A lot of silly news out there today.
This is from live science.com.
Most plants do their growing during the rainy season and stall out when it's dry.
But in much of the Amazon rainforest, dry spells bring on growth spurts.
The finding announced today surprised scientists.
So scientists, so-called experts, are shocked.
How can they be experts if they're surprised?
They've learned that plants grow when it's dry in the Amazon rainforest.
I wonder why that would be.
Wonder what nature's reason.
Maybe you think it's a hedge against dry weather.
Most of the vegetation around the world follows a general pattern in which plants get green and lush during the rainy season.
And then during the dry season, leaves fall because there's not enough water in the soil to support plant growth.
What we found, that's Alfredo Huete of the University of Arizona.
What we found for a large section of the Amazon is just the opposite.
As soon as the rains stop and you start to enter a dry period, the Amazon becomes alive.
New leaves spring out.
There's a flush of green growth and greening continues as the dry season progresses.
The discovery holds true only for undisturbed parts of the rainforest.
They had to throw in a caveat.
The main point is, I'm just, how can they be experts if they're constantly surprised?
The economists are constantly surprised at the good economic news.
The experts, constantly surprised.
How can they be experts if they're surprised?
And you want, try this.
This is from the Christian Science Monitor.
If the nation's real estate boom collapses, its first victims may well be low-income minorities and immigrants.
Now, it used to be that it was women and minorities who would be hardest hit by any disaster.
Now it's minorities and immigrants.
Women are apparently not at the bottom of the pain list, or at the top, if you will, of the pain list as it used to be.
But why is this even news?
Of course, if the nation's real estate boom collapse, and of course, if, if, if, this is not a news story.
This is simply a way to get in a class envy attack on the rich by coming up with a story of the future that they hope happens.
If the nation's real estate...
In a genuine news story, somebody standing on a corner and telling those of us who weren't at the corner what happened there should if ever appear in a news story.
When you got right now, should if, if this, if that, if, well, we're not worried about if.
We want to know what was.
And there is no housing boom collapse.
Yet we have a story here on if there is one, the first victims may well be low-income minorities.
Well, of course it's, it always is that way.
It's economics.
It's not politics.
It's economics.
This picture emerging is foreclosures rise and housing prices falter.
The trend is especially worrisome.
analysis shows because these vulnerable homeowners, low-income minorities and immigrants, tend to be minorities and immigrants who experts say often hold the riskiest mortgage loans.
The threat has implications not only for Boston, but for U.S. as well, the U.S.
A real estate slump could erode America's rate of homeownership, which has reached record levels in the past decade.
Well, there we go again.
A real estate slump could.
We have no clue, but it could.
And since we are the drive-by media, we're going to show up and we're going to lob bullets into you by predicting doom and gloom and creating all kinds of havoc.
And we're going to jump back in a convertible.
We're going to head back down the highway and do it somewhere else down the road.
In another news story, Andrew Summ, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, said, getting homeownership up is a good thing.
Many minorities and foreign-born residents became homeowners during this real estate boom, but boosting homeownership is not worth it for those at risk of losing financial control.
That's exactly what it says.
It means don't take risks.
Don't go out and take risks.
If you go out and take risks and then something happens for you, you are in big, big trouble.
It's not different than any other time in history.
Neither is what happens when an economic slump in any segment of the economy.
There's nothing new in this story whatsoever.
Zilch Zeronada.
It's pathetic.
It's nothing more than an attempt to create panic and discrimination.
Because these, well, yeah, because we get screwed in our mortgages because we are low income and we are the poor and we are immigrants and we are discriminated against.
And so we have unfavorable mortgages that are paying sky-high interest rates.
This is designed to create all this angst and polarization among society.
Try this.
This is from the New Orleans Times Piki Young today.
Let me just summarize this.
It's a story by James Varney, and it's a very long story.
Let me just summarize this for you.
And it's another story that we are not going to see or hear in the national drive-by media.
We won't hear about it.
We won't see it.
It's a local New Orleans story.
But once again, it makes this Democrat mayor in New Orleans, Ray Schoolbus Nagan, look like to be a total idiot.
There is a company in Texas that'll come and crush cars, dilapidated, destroyed, ruined cars.
And a Texas company that does this offered to remove all of the abandoned and flooded vehicles from New Orleans and dispose of them.
They said we could do this in 15 weeks.
They made this offer last October.
This Texas company also offered to pay New Orleans $100 for every one of these cars that they crushed and haul off.
About 50,000 cars need to be removed.
So at $100 per car, that adds up to a payment to the city of New Orleans of $5 million to get rid of some junk.
Nagan did not take the offer.
Instead of taking it, he is pursuing a car removal plan that will take six months to complete, not 15 weeks, and is going to cost the city of New Orleans $23 million.
Now, if you take the $5 million New Orleans could have had from the crushers in Texas, you add it to the $23 million the city will spend to get rid of its own cars, and you have a total toss to the taxpayers of $28 million, and it is still months from being done.
I mean, this is just unbelievable.
And where do you think that $23 million is going?
This is exactly what got New Orleans in the trouble it's in in the first place.
This is asinine.
Somebody is being paid $23 million to do a job in six months.
Well, you figure it out.
No, I'm not against people getting wealthy.
We're talking about a city bureaucracy here, and they're all complaining: we don't have enough money.
We don't have enough money to do the job.
Please send us more money.
Senator Landrew's out there still saying we don't have enough money.
The federal aid's gone soft.
Where is it all?
So here's a company coming to offer.
Let me ask you, folks, does your garbage company pay you to take your garbage away?
And if they did, would you hire them?
I would.
Well, that's what's happened here.
But instead, School Bus Nagan is going to have the taxpayers in New Orleans pay $23 million to whoever is going to do this and get it done in a lot longer period of time than this Texas car-crushing company would do.
But there's another aspect of this I just love.
Here we are in America, and we actually have a company.
Some guy, somewhere, sometime wanted to start a business designed to crush cars and remove them as junk.
Now, there had to be a need for this.
But I just think it's, I wonder what this guy wanted to be when he was growing up.
This just fascinates me.
It's like I've often told you about the president of No Circ, the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers.
They're trying to stamp out circumcision here in San Francisco.
And they've got a guy that heads up the organization and they got videotapes on it.
Can you imagine when this guy was eight or nine and his parents say, so what do you want to be, Johnny, when you grow up?
Well, I want to stamp out circumcision, mom.
So this guy that crushes cars in Texas when he was eight years old.
What do you want to do, Claude?
I want to grow up and I want to crush cars and take them away as junk and pay people to do it.
It's just amazing.
In the rest of the world, people crash their cars themselves into other cars and they just end up staying on the street.
But we in America, we clean them up.
We got a guy that does it and pays people for it.
Back after this.
Stay with it.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Bad news for Hillary Clinton in New Jersey.
From the New York Post today, Deborah Oren has a story.
Garden State spells big trouble for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who gets clobbered in 2008 New Jersey test runs by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
Giuliani slams Clinton in New Jersey 53 to 39.
McCain wallops her 54 to 39 in the Quinnipiac University poll.
The poll found that it could fuel Democratic doubts about Hillary because Democrats have been winning in New Jersey.
In his losing 2004 bid, Kerry comfortably beat Bush by 53 to 46 percent.
But Hillary gets clobbered despite the fact that Bush is now very unpopular in New Jersey, 65% of garden staters turning thumbs down on the president.
And I, you know, folks, I'm cheerful and optimistic and upbeat on this program.
I hate to bring the following news to you.
It's from the Associated Press.
Actually, it's the Energy Information Administration of the United States government.
The average retail price of gasoline soared by almost 14 cents last week, rising above $2.50 a gallon for the first time since late October.
The Energy Information Administration said yesterday that U.S. motorists paid about 2.504 cents a gallon on average for regular grade last week.
That's a rise of 13.8 cents from the previous week.
Prump price, pardon me, pump prices are still 39.5 cents higher than one year ago.
So I'm not trying to cause panic or inspire rage out there, but I must report to you what's in the news.
My adopted hometown, Sacramento Dean.
I'm sorry, Sean, welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
I'm thrilled to be on Mega Super Manly Dittos.
Thank you, sir.
As I puff on my Mac andudo here, I realized that here recently, manliness is equivalent to chauvinism has become the talking point for the Liberal Party.
Am I not correct in that?
I think that's actually a very, very good way to describe it.
If you're just joining us, ladies and to thank, Sean, thanks very much.
That is an excellent way to describe it.
That's right.
Sean, don't go away yet.
Let me ask you something, Sean.
How old are you?
I'm 25, sir.
Are you married?
I'm actually divorced, and I'm raising two kids on my own.
No wonder you understand it.
Okay.
Sorry, folks.
Are you a subscriber to my website?
I am not due to financial reasons.
Well, do you have a computer?
You have online capability?
I do.
All right.
Well, I want to make you a complimentary subscriber to the website Full Boat and the Rush Limbaugh newsletter, the Limbaugh Letter.
If you'll hang on, a nice gentleman will get all the information we need, including the names of your two kids.
Just kidding, in order to facilitate this and make it happen because you, you have a foundational understanding and instinct that I appreciate.
I want to build on, and you can do that easily by becoming a member of the website.
And I can understand the financial pressures that you have out there, and we're more than happy to facilitate this for you because he's right on the money.
If you were not listening last hour, played from March 16th.
In fact, let's play it again.
Let's go grab soundbite.
I think it's, what is it, number nine?
It is.
Grab soundbite number nine.
This happened March 16th, five days ago.
This was me on this program.
You know, at least part of the reason that the left and the media want Bush to be driven by polls and do things their way?
It's very simple.
The left, members of the media, are not manly.
And they are uncomfortable with Bush's manliness because manly men lead.
They are confident in their own beliefs.
They take risks to assert those beliefs, like I did, sticking with my position on a pork deal.
Unmanly men wait for the safety of consensus, which is what a poll supposedly produces, gives you cover in case you screw up.
Unmanly men are afraid of screwing up.
Manly men aren't.
And that's what I said.
Five days ago, we have a column today in the Washington Post by Ruth Marcus called Man Overboard.
And she says, I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration, manliness.
Manliness is the unapologetic title of a new book by Harvey Mansfield, conservative professor of government at Harvard.
Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as confidence in the face of risk, is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.
And she goes on to describe her feelings of this as the big problem we've got in Washington with the Bush administration is manliness.
Her last paragraph.
Mansfield writes that he wants to convince skeptical readers, above all educated women, that irrational manliness deserves to be endorsed by reason.
Well, she replies to that, sorry, professor, you lose.
What this country could use is a little less manliness and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities, restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt, which is a great way to get us all killed when we are at war.
Ruth Marcus, a little background on her.
She used to be the beat reporter covering the Justice Department when Ed Meese was the attorney general.
She repeatedly reported leaks intended to smear Meese.
She's a hardcore lib.
Hardcore lib.
But get this list of what she thinks we need.
Restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, and maybe even a touch of self-doubt.
The characteristics of the new castrati.
And what Sean here so accurately points out and sums up is that manliness to the feminized men and women of the Washington, D.C. political culture is nothing more than chauvinism.
Nothing more than male chauvinist pigletism.
Nothing more than sexism.
That's what they think.
He's exactly right.
He's dead on exactly right.
Roy in Vancouver, glad to have you with us, sir.
Welcome.
Oh, it's great to be here, Rush.
Thank you very much.
Mega machosexual dittos from Vancouver, Washington.
Macho is another word they would hate.
Oh, my goodness.
Because it means chauvinist.
It's an epidemic.
And I'm out here in this outpost of conservative vision, and it's a frontier, Rush.
But gradually you're making inroads, and I'm proud to be on your show and representing.
Thank you very much, sir.
We're proud to have you.
I'm calling in particular to Jenny from Massachusetts, poor misguided Jenny.
God bless her.
Now, let's, for people just joining us, Jenny called for Massachusetts to agree with Ruth Marcus.
Jenny says she goes to the Kennedy Library at Harvard to meditate.
Yes, and when I heard her comment about the manliness that Kennedy showed during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I was incensed at first, but then I stepped back and I took a look at the way you work.
You are trying to end ignorance through education.
And that, to me, was a turning point in my life.
And I had to call in.
I felt moved to call in.
And I just have to say, though, I just have to get it off my chest.
Is she crazy?
Anybody who knows history, correct, knows what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
She's not crazy.
She just knows what she feels and what she feels is more important than what happened.
And what's sad is, is that the only dots that the liberals can seem to connect are the talking points and not historical reference points.
The reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred at all was the fact that the Bay of Pigs was such a fiasco and that Kennedy was not a man.
He didn't do what he promised.
He didn't stand up, send in air support when those rebels went in and tried to overthrow Castro's communist regime.
Yep, he just left them dangling out there in the water.
Die.
And a man does what he says, just like you said.
That's manliness.
Even though you stand up in the room, consensus doesn't always work.
You stand up and you make a point and you lead people there.
Roy, thanks for the call.
Excellent timing.
I got to take a break.
I'm glad you got through.
We'll be back.
We will roll right on right after this.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, serving humanity.
I can't let this Ruth Marcus thing go.
I'm glad this subject has come up.
This whole concept of manliness.
And of course, I brought it up six days ago.
Now, it's in a book now.
I didn't even know a book was out.
But we touched off a firestorm here.
And everything I said back on the 16th of March, five days ago, has been perfectly documented in today's Ruth Marcus column in the Washington Post.
The truth of the matter is that people like Ruth Marcus, these militant feminists out there who have spent most of their adult lives trying to feminize men and themselves try to become like men.
I mean, the problem is that the Ruth Marcus types also have a problem with womanliness.
Traditional femaleness, they've had a problem with.
That's what the whole point of the feminist movement was.
They don't want women to be women.
They want women to act like men.
And in the process, they've made their men try to act like women.
So they want to eliminate distinctions between the sexes.
You doubt me.
That's how Time magazine can run a cover on the fact that they just learned men and women are actually born different.
They at some point had to believe, ah, it's all the same.
We're just the same.
The things that matter, we're all just the same, men and women.
So when you get right down to it, militant feminists oppose manliness.
They oppose womanliness.
What they support is neuterliness.
And they have given us the new castrati.
And the new castrati is the guys that are the dream of these feminist women.
They have neutered them.
And they don't make decisions.
They're always, and when they don't make decisions, that's because they're smarter than everybody else.
They're not so narrow-minded and partisan that they get caught up in traditional arguments.
They stand above the fray.
They assess all sides of the argument.
And they make up their minds after engaging in plenty of nuance.
There's no black or white with the new castrati.
No, there's a lot of gray and nuance.
And we are better people.
And we are smarter people.
They won't make up their minds about anything until a consensus forms.
And then they'll find safe haven in the consensus.
And I'll go with that.
That's why so many of the new castrati and the Washington Press Corps is a bunch of conventional wisdom types.
Just go with the tsunami.
It's safe there.
Safety in numbers.
You think I'm making this up, or you think I'm wrong about it?
The militant feminists have spent 40 years arguing that women shouldn't be women.
This has been the main problem with the feminists.
There's a bunch of problems.
The main problem is, and if you can get an honest reformed feminist that got caught up in all this stuff back in the 60s and 70s, she'll tell you the big problem was that they told us we had to be like men.
We had to go get careers.
We had to rise in ranks like men do.
We had to be competitive like men are.
We had to go do all these other things.
We had to be like men.
And if we weren't, we were somehow letting down the ya-ya sisterhood.
So in the final analysis, men are supposed to be like women.
Women are supposed to be like men.
They think they're so damn clever.
And then guys like me who refuse to be cowed and become members of the new castrati, why we are racist, sexist, big, and homophobes.
We are manly.
We are intransigent.
We are rigid.
We are mean.
We are inflexible.
So forth.
Which, of course, is just fine with us.
Plenty of times.
Okay, back to the Bush presser today, folks.
It's a home run.
And we're playing excerpts from the press conference today.
Here's the president taking a swipe at the media, explaining to the American people how the enemy is using the media to spread their own propaganda.
Please don't take that as criticism.
But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect a debate.
And they know that.
They're capable of blowing up innocent lives, so it ends up on your TV show.
And therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to.
And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.
I fully understand the consequences of this war.
I understand people's lives are being lost.
But I also understand the consequences of not achieving our objective by leaving too early.
Iraq would become a place of instability, a place from which the enemy can plot, plan, and attack.
I believe that they want to hurt us again.
And therefore, I know we need to stay on the offense against this enemy.
They've declared Iraq to be the central front.
And therefore, we've got to make sure we win that.
And I believe we will.
See, that's just too manly.
It's too decisive.
He's not open to the disagreements of others.
He is too certain of himself.
He's too damn cocky.
He's too arrogant.
He's too egotistical.
He's too stupid to listen to smarter people.
He's just too manly.
He won't listen to anybody.
He won't listen to reason.
He's a blockhead.
But that's it.
And he laid down the gauntlet to him.
You guys, I'm not criticizing you.
You got to report the news, but they love to see it.
When you report the bad news, you're helping them spread the bad news.
You got to hear this one again.
This is, I sent it, well, I sent him a note of encouragement and suggestion at the White House after I heard this bite in the middle of press conference.
Carl Cameron, Fox News, asks this question.
There have now been three sponsors to a measure to censor you for the implementation of the spy program.
The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question.
And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation.
What, sir, do you think the impact of a discussion of impeachment and censure does to you in this office and to the nation during a time of war and in the context of the election?
I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program.
If that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it.
They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.
They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me.
I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.
That's what they ought to be doing.
That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
Yeah, go out and just tell the American people we don't think we need to have a program that will identify future terrorist acts.
We don't think we need to do this.
Go out and actually say that.
Now, this is an example of the president being ideological.
Not partisan.
He's being ideological.
Well, you might even say it's a little bit partisan.
But if it's true that you in the Republican base out there are sagging in your support for the president, this is the kind of thing that can revive.
I mean, people in the base, voters, followers want their leader to be ideological, especially when he's being assaulted by a bunch of pack rats who couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it about the program.
So I sent him a note of encouragement and said, you can revive some of this flagging support in the base out there with more of this.
One more bite from the press conference.
He gets a question here about the polls and has a great answer when he tells the press corps who he listens to.
Question from Jim VanDeHay of the Washington Post.
You've said throughout your presidency you don't pay that much attention to the polls.
There was a handful that have come back, and they all say the exact same thing, that a growing number of Americans are questioning their trustworthiness of you.
Does that concern you?
War creates trauma, particularly when you're fighting an enemy that doesn't fight, you know, soldier to soldier, and it creates a sense of concern amongst our people.
And that makes sense.
And I'm going to say it again.
If I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there.
I wouldn't put those kids there.
I meet with too many families who's lost a loved one to not be able to look them in the eye and say, we're doing the right thing, and we are doing the right thing.
The enemy has said that it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from a racket.
Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda.
I don't.
I take them really seriously.
And I think everybody in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly.
Damn, he's just too manly.
Doesn't he understand that we need more investigation and consensus, and we need to talk to the enemy, engage in dialogue.
Did you hear what he said?
He listens to the enemy.
He's not listening to the polls.
He's listening to the enemy.
Amen.
This is first-class A number one stuff.
And just to show you, grab cut one again.
Bob Schieffer, CBS, reviewing the president's press conference today said this.
I must say, this is about as close to the George Bush that one sees off camera as I have ever seen.
I mean, if we named presidents the way we do historical figures like Richard the Lionhearted or Ivan the Terrible, certainly today what you saw was George Bush the passionate.
This was George Bush sort of unleashed, more so, I think, than since those days after 9-11 when he spoke with such passion.
You may agree with him, you may disagree with him, but today the president made sure everyone understood that he feels very strongly about the course he's taken.
Damn it.
Schieffer didn't say that.
I just threw that in.
Mandy in Lubbock, Texas, you're next.
Glad you waited.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I'd just like to say that Hillary Clinton is actually a manly leader.
And I say that because she may say she agrees and wants consensus, but when it really boils down to it, she just does what she actually believes, and that's liberalism full-fledged.
You know, I have to disagree.
You're right.
She's a liberal, but she doesn't do that.
She's been trying to cover that up and mask it for the last 18 months so that she can appear to move to the center on crucial issues like abortion and other things.
Yeah, what she really does is liberalism, but she doesn't come out and say, I'm a liberal, I'm proud of it, and I'm going to stand up for these things.
She doesn't do that.
In that sense, she's not being manly.
She's being cowardly.
She had the guts to tell people what she really thinks and what she really wants.
And no liberal does because they know it would spell instant doom for them.
Back in a minute.
I don't know if your people caught this during a little soundbite we just played at Bob Schieffer.
You heard Bob Schieffer say, you may agree with President Bush.
You may disagree with President Bush.
Now, two thoughts about this.
The first is this is what liberals always say when talking about conservatives.
You never hear them talk about liberals this way.
After a Clinton press conference, you would have never heard Bob Schieffer or anybody else say, you may agree with President Clinton, you may disagree with President Clinton, because they assume everybody does agree with liberal Democrat presidents.
But the second observation is this.
It's no wonder to me that CBS is looking to get rid of Schieffer and replace him with Katie Couric.
I don't know if he realizes this or not, but when he said, you may agree with the president, you may disagree with the president, what he did was he gave the CBS audience the option of agreeing with the president.
That's a slip.
That goes against the ingrained action line.
You never agree with the president.
Nobody agrees with the president.
Everybody hates the president.
And when you give your audience at CBS the option of agreeing, that will cause problems in executive row.
All right, here's next, Pat, in Fort Collins, Colorado.
You're next.
Great to have you with us.
Womanly dittos, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Thank you, School.
I just had to make the comment.
It is, thank God for manliness.
Because of manliness, we have men who are willing to go to war for women and children.
Women would not go to war and lay down their lives for anybody because they want to be protected.
But it is men.
It's their code of honor.
It's that thing, that manliness that says, no, I will go to war.
I will fight for my country.
I will fight to protect my wife and my child that gives us the country that we have.
What about the women who want to go into combat?
Women who want to go into war don't want to go into war to kill people and break things.
Women who want to go into war want to go into war to try to figure out how they can smooth over rough feathers and be diplomatic.
Well, there may be some of that.
And I appreciate what you're saying, and I understand.
I also know that what you said is probably like fingernails on a chalkboard to the new castrati and to feminists out there, because the whole notion of men as protectors, that's cavemen stuff.
We're supposed to have gotten rid of that since the 1960s.
And it just grates on them.
The women in combat thing was a feminist push, and it was predicated on the basis there's no difference in men and women.
They can do just as good a job, and it's discriminatory when you say women can't go into combat.
And it was a political thing.
It was also using the military as a social playground to do some experimentation.
Right, right.
No, I agree.
But I think it's, and I don't know.
I mean, I think a lot of women talk about not wanting to be protected, but I don't think society proves that out.
I think women do want to be protected.
I think it's in a woman's nature to want to be protected.
Ooh, I probably shouldn't say that either.
That's not very politically correct.
Yeah, because, see, when you say it's in a woman's nature, you're giving them no choice in the matter.
You're saying they're made that way.
There's nothing they can do about it.
And that is an insult not only to the new castrati, but is an insult to feminist babes out there.
Because you're making them sound robotic.
But just because it offends them does not make it false.
No, no.
That's true.
That's true.
Well, you have a very conventional view, and I'm glad that you called and shared that with us.
Okay.
Have a great day.
Bye.
Yeah, you do the same.
John in Detroit, you're next.
I appreciate your patience in waiting.
Hello.
Hey, Ditto's Rush, Semper Five from Reagan Era Jari Hit.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I haul steel for a living.
When we're talking about the car crushing thing, it popped into my head right now.
We're going about $1.17, $100 on scrap.
So each one of those cars, average 4,000 pounds, is worth about $300 or $400 on the market.
Scrapped out.
So after they're done crushing them, after Megan, school bus Megan's done paying $23 million to have them taken out of there, the company's going to double dip, crush them, and sell them for scrap.
I know.
That's why the Texas Crushing Company offered to pay $100 per car, because if you're right, scrap steel's going for $1.17 per 100 pounds.
Still make a profit per car once you sell the scrap.
And this guy was trying to do business the way it's done.
Hey, I'm going to come in here.
I will pay you $100 for each of these 50,000 cars.
I'll take them out.
I'll crush them and I'll get rid of your garbage.
And School Bus Megan says, no, I don't like that deal.
The city's going to pay another outfit $23 million to do it.
And then the company will score twice by going out and selling the scrap that's left.
Great point out there, John.
And if there's anybody in this country who would know about scrap metal, it's somebody from Detroit and from Michigan.
Back after this, stay with us.
Now, here's an interesting headline.
From the annals of internal medicine.
Smokers often die prematurely.
Study.
This is amazing.
Who knew this?
Cigarette smoking strongly increases the risk of dying in middle age for both men and women.
But kicking the habit, even at older ages, strongly decreases the risk of dying prematurely.
These are the findings of the largest and longest study to date on smoking habits and consequences.
Study is published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
50,000 rural residents of Norway were followed for 25 years.
Researchers found that 41% of men who continue to smoke heavily at least a pack a day died between 40 and 70 prematurely.
Between 40 and 70.
I wonder what the life expectancy is in Norway anyway.
It's about 76 or 77, I think, now in the United States.
▲
Export Selection