All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
March 24, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, so what's going to happen in this hour?
Because I will guarantee you that everything happened last hour except for the ports deal stuff was totally unexpected.
And the reason for that is it's Friday.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And the first hour, if any indication, is shaping up to be a deucey.
Open Line Friday.
It's up to you.
Whatever we talk about on the phone is what interests you.
You do not have to play off of me.
React to me.
You can bring up things as happened in a previous hour that none of us had the slightest idea were coming.
And I personally like that.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, some things in the news.
Plus, we've got some audio soundbites here of the media just tell you, they have been knocked for a loop, and they're out there trying to circle their wagons.
This has been a bad week for them because they've been called on their one-sided reporting from Iraq and how their reporting is enabling propaganda.
And it's, you know, I made the point yesterday, and I guess it came up on Chris Matthews' show yesterday.
I made the point yesterday that they never do stories on the valor of the American military in Iraq or Afghanistan.
They don't do any stories on heroes.
They haven't done a story on anybody in Iraq who has performed above and beyond.
They haven't gone out and talked to Iraqi citizens or Iraqi volunteers in the Iraqi military to try to get a multi-sided aspect of the story.
And they know it, and they've been called on it.
And now they're trying to turn it around and blame the administration for blaming them.
The new mantra as of yesterday, last night, is blame the messenger.
But before we get to that, orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods rose in February by the largest amount in three months, propelled by soaring demand for civilian aircraft.
The Commerce Department reported that durable goods orders increased by 2.6% last month, double the gain that experts had been expecting.
The experts don't know diddly squat.
They've been shocked on existing home sales.
They have been shocked on employment numbers.
And now they are shocked on the orders to factories for big-ticket manufactured goods.
Economists believe that manufacturing, the hardest hit sector in the 2001 recession, will post solid growth this year in spite of the blows delivered by rising energy prices.
Orders for motor vehicles, that would be cars, for those of you in Rio Linda trucks too.
The things that are on the concrete blocks out there in your front yard.
Orders for cars dropped by 3.3% in February after a 3.2% decline in January.
American automakers have been struggling with increased foreign competition and sagging demand for SUVs in the face of rising gasoline prices.
So, of course, automobile sales have been struggling.
I don't think anybody was aware of this.
They've kept that out of the news for so many recent months.
Of course, everybody knows it.
Make the point.
See, they always got to go out in a story where the news is good, got to find a negative.
That's called balance.
That's called presenting both sides.
That's why you always got to go talk to some critic that nobody's ever heard of, some expert from some low-rent think tank that nobody's ever heard of to contradict the good news.
That's called fairness in modern American journalism.
But the fact of the matter is that in the best of times, there are certain sectors that aren't doing as well as the nation at large.
And verse visa, when we're in a recession, when we're in an economic slowdown, there are some sectors that don't know it.
And they're doing quite well.
It's normal.
The fascinating thing about this to me is it's manufacturing.
And I don't know how many of you people out there, and I'm sure it's a lot of you, think that we don't do manufacturing anymore.
That we've lost all of our manufacturing jobs.
They're gone.
America's giving itself away.
And yet, we get these reports periodically of manufactured goods and big-ticket items, orders going sky high, which is the case here.
Where's the AP story?
About 130, the headline here, a global temperature could rise eight degrees by 2100.
About 130,000 years ago, an ice age ended, and there was a period a few centuries before the next one began.
During this lull, Earth's temperature warmed, glaciers retreated, and ice sheets melted.
Sea levels rose by up to 20 feet.
Scientists warned that this could happen again, and soon.
But while the last great thaw was the result of a natural tilt in the Earth's axis toward the sun, the next one will be caused by humans, some scientists argue.
The fact that the last warming of the Earth was caused by a natural tilt in the Earth's axis towards the sun is largely lost in this piece of garbage article.
It's noted, I'll give them credit for noting it, but here's what the political article does not, and this is not an economic, this is not an, it's not a climate article.
The point is, this is a political article.
It's purely politics.
Anytime somebody is going to put in add in that this time, the warming is not due to anything to do.
Anything other than man.
Nothing other than human beings are responsible.
Well, that takes this out of the realm of science and puts it purely in the realm of politics.
And that's all global warming is, is a political issue.
It is a vehicle for its proponents to advance their big government regime, their anti-American regime.
And they do it by trying to make you and everybody else feel guilty about the damage that just by being alive, you are causing this magnificent planet.
You know what the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is?
Water vapor.
Water vapor makes up about 98% of all greenhouse gases.
Water vapor is responsible for 70% of the absorption of sunlight.
When the sun's energy output increases, more water evaporates from the oceans and thus more greenhouse gases are created.
And it's a good thing, too, because the more water vapor there is, the more clouds are created, the more sunlight is reflected into space.
If it weren't for this, it'd be cold as hell here.
Climactic models, climatic models, never deal with any precision on cloud formation and impact because no one understands it well enough to make even rough predictions.
I have friends who are meteorologists, and they have these 10-day forecasts, month-long forecasts, so forth and so on.
And I've had events where I was hoping for a lot of sunshine.
I call them, but can you tell me what cloud cover tomorrow is going to be?
Nope.
Clouds, impossible.
I can't predict clouds.
I can tell you if you've got a cold front coming in and it's going to be overcast, but it's just you're talking about a partly cloudy day or a mostly sunny day or da-da-da-da.
I can't tell you.
Nobody can.
Cloud formation is impossible to predict.
So this is the idea that the sun ended in angled, well, the earth changes its tilt of the axis, which changes the angle of the sun rays hitting the earth.
The fact that that happened long ago in nature and maybe happening, see, no, it's got to be human beings are causing it this time.
The very fact that about 130,000 years ago, an ice age ended and there was a period of a few centuries before the next one began, there wasn't any human activity then that could be blamed for this.
But now all of a sudden there is.
And it's just sorry, folks, I'm not buying it.
I haven't bought it since the first time I heard of it because I heard and knew the people who were trying to make the case.
And it's just a bunch of libs.
Everything's a political issue to the libs.
Everything is a, well, some, they do.
We had a great caller yesterday.
They do take moral issues and turn them into political issues, i.e. abortion.
And then they'll take a political issue, i.e. immigration, and turn it into a moral issue, contradicting themselves left and right, not realizing that they're doing it.
Because they think they're appealing to people's hearts and they won't notice, but we do.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls continue on the EIB network.
Stay with us.
By the way, I sometimes am an employment unemployment expert.
I'm an expert in many things.
That's why we don't have guests on this program because I am the expert.
And I want to make a prediction to you about the future unemployment rate.
I fear, ladies and gentlemen, well, if I fear or not, but I predict to you that unemployment is headed up.
More and more people are going to be losing their jobs.
This is thanks to the Drive-By Media, which keep firing more and more of its own employees.
Upper-level management people are not being let go, but the people who go out and do the hard work of reporting are being laid off and downsized and a number of other things.
Remember all those stories?
I mean, throughout the last 20 years, periodically, all these stories about how top executives earn so much money while their workforce is being downsized.
Isn't it interesting?
We never get such stories about the likes of little Pinch Schultzberger or the people that run Time Warner, people that run CNN, laying people off left and right in both organizations.
McClatchy is going to lay people off, but none of the execs are taking a hit.
We never get stories on that aspect of the media business.
But I do think that the unemployment rate will go up significantly because of all the layoffs and downsizing taking place in American journalism.
I want you to hear a soundbite.
This is Jamie McIntyre of CNN attempting to become the David Gregory of the Pentagon Press Corps.
He says to Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday at a briefing, I'm just curious, do you feel at all embattled at this point in your tenure?
No.
Aside from the retired two-star general calling you incompetent and asking you to step down in an op-ed over the weekend, we also had a column from Maureen Dowd in which he quoted an unnamed administration official saying that you don't hold the same sway in meetings and that you're treated as, quote, an eccentric old uncle who's ignored.
You like to repeat all that stuff, don't you?
On camera, did you get that?
Let's make sure you got it.
He loves that stuff.
It's a sure way to get on camera.
He'll be on the evening news.
The answer is no.
Do you hold the same sway in meetings?
Oh, come on.
I'm not going to get into that.
If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life.
All right.
You know, what do you notice about this?
What I notice about this is, you know, most of the press starts asking questions of whoever these officials based on what others in the media have said.
Based on what else has been in the media.
Well, it was in the New York Times today that you said, blah, blah, blah.
Maureen Doug's calling today that you don't hold the sway in the media.
It's all about them.
And especially now since they have been fingered as the culprits in the one-sided reporting coming out of Iraq.
Katie in Detroit, you're up, and I really appreciate your patience.
Thanks for holding on.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
Good.
Well, I really need your help, and I am not the type of person to mess around, so I decided just to call you the expert.
I'm in a communism class here in Michigan, and wait a second.
Now, I'm very wrong.
Katie, what's the class really called?
It's called communism.
Political Science 377.
Okay, all right.
I knew it was.
She's right, but I knew they didn't have the guts to call it what it is.
No liberal ever does.
All right, so you're taking poly side.
What's going on in there?
Well, you know, being the conservative I am, of course I had some reservations about this class, but I thought, you know what?
I'm going to be open-minded and just, you know, go into this class to learn about different, you know, views than my own.
So the class has been very interesting, but we have to do this term paper where we create our own communism society and all this stuff.
So he said, though, my professor said that, well, if you absolutely don't want to do that, you can defend capitalism.
So I need help in defending capitalism because there's no way I'm writing a paper on how to make a communist society because I know it will not work.
No, but you know, you could do that.
Okay.
It's very simple.
It wouldn't take much work.
It would be accurate.
Really?
Okay.
Yeah, you could do it on one page.
How do you create a communist society?
The first thing you do is you build a wall around wherever the people live, either the country or the county or the city.
Then you put security checkpoints on top of the wall at various places.
If anybody tries to get out, you kill them.
Okay.
You take away every bit of freedom that they have.
Everybody that works will work for the state.
They will make the same amount of money.
It won't be much.
There will be no achievement allowed, no excellence allowed.
The only people who will make out will be those who lead this community, its president, its Politburo, I got to use the right terms, or what have you.
It's misery.
It is forced misery and death if you try to escape it.
It's prisons.
It is mind control.
It is denial of free media and truth.
It is suppression of any statement that opposes the government.
Do that, and the guy ought to give you an A and probably think you have a good future.
Well, that wouldn't really match with Marx's views on communism on his original ideas of what a Marxist society is.
Well, I'm sure it doesn't because the communists, that's what they end up having to do after their system fails.
The Marxists.
I don't have a problem with it.
And my teacher, like, no one in the class, all these people that are going to sit there and be brainwashed by liberals, the liberal professors we have, are not, I mean, but they don't see that.
They don't see that it's not going to work.
They just say, oh, well, we hate capitalism.
We hate Republicans.
I don't know.
Look, forget the other students.
You'll soon be rid of them when you get out of school.
They are who they are.
You can't bring them all along with you.
Take care of yourself here.
Fend for yourself.
They're a bunch of malcontent idiots, and they're not worth your time.
I mean, you can be concerned and worried about their future, but it's really not your problem.
You've got your own set of standards and your own objectives and your own goals using this class as you must in order to achieve them.
So let's work on you.
Let's help you out.
You could do that paper.
That paper would be what I just told you would be more than accurate.
It would be more honest than anything than Marxist.
I think I would fail.
I understand that.
We're going to explore the other alternative here for you.
All right.
But still, the point is, even though that is precisely what world history has taught us about communism, it will still be denied by every liberal in this country and every Marxist in every college campus because they still hold this dream that it still hasn't been done right.
They look at capitalism as inherently unfair.
When liberals see haves and have-nots, they attempt to equalize the imbalance.
And they do this by punishing the achievers.
They do this by punishing the people at the top in order to bring them down on a more level field with the have-nots.
They never attempt to educate or inspire the have-nots to do better and move up or prosper because they have contempt for people.
They look at people with condescension.
They don't see people who have smarts enough to handle life's challenges on their own.
And they need help from government, need help from liberals who are the smart people.
The liberals' faith in the individual is dwarfed by their faith and love of government as the great equalizer with themselves in charge of it, of course.
And they look at this situation of inequality as something that is not the result of normal actions in a free market, i.e., capitalism.
They look at it as the powerful choosing who will succeed and who will fail and determining life's winners, the winners of life's lottery and otherwise.
Capitalism, very simply, Katie, is what happens when people are free to engage in commerce amongst themselves.
Socialism, communism are attempts to control that because you don't like the outcomes.
You think they're unfair.
It's the attempt to equalize things, but that's not possible.
They do it on the basis of compassion, but capitalism is simply the natural result of freedom.
It's all it is.
Now, we can get into detailed economic definitions of various things, but that's really all it is.
Hang on.
I know you want to ask me some more questions because it's rare people get the chance you have.
So hang on.
And we're back on Open Line Friday, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Returning now to our college co-ed, Katie, in Detroit, Michigan.
What institution of higher learning are you stuck in?
I attend Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan.
Oakland University of Rochester.
Good.
Okay, good.
All right, now, let me go on to this capitalism business again because I know you've given the assignment to write a paper defending it.
Yeah, yeah.
And actually, if I were you, and I'm being serious, if I were you, I would start this paper by saying that I object to the premise: capitalism needs no defense.
It is people who, you know, people who propose alternatives that need to defend their failures.
Capitalism has brought more prosperity to more people in the history of the world than any other system.
Every other system has brought misery, disappointment, and failure.
But capitalism, this country, the richest country in the world, we feed the world, we feed ourselves.
We defend the world, we defend ourselves.
Our population has the largest life expectancy.
Well, it's close to the largest.
We do have problems.
It's not perfect, but we do things as a country, as a younger nation, than any other civilization has accomplished in however long it lasted.
There is more wealth produced in this country.
There's more opportunity in this country.
There's more prosperity than the human race has ever known.
Go to any place else around the world where something else has been tried.
Look at the Soviet bloc when it existed.
Look at the Chikoms now.
You can tell your Marxist professor that the Chaikoms are actually reviving their economy with capitalism because we are infiltrating that country with capitalism, and they are playing that game with us.
Their economy is pretty much...
We had a story that there are yacht taxes.
There are luxury goods taxes in China now.
That's not because of communism.
It's because communism, it exists there.
It's their form of government, but their economy, they can't feed a billion people with communism.
They need capitalism to do it.
So I would challenge the premise, Katie.
Capitalism needs no defense, and it's the arrogance and condescension of these Marxist liberals that makes them feel that they are superior, that makes, tell you you have to defend the superior system.
There are a bunch of liberal authors that have written all kinds of books about how to deal with the inequities and the inherent unfairness of capitalism.
We're reading Alperovitz's book right now, America Beyond Capitalism, Gar Alperovitz.
And his whole premise is he wants to bridge the gap of wealth between the wealthiest in society and the poorest.
But that's fair.
Well, the guy's a socialist.
What he's trying to do, it's exactly what I told you.
They look at the inequities and they see built-in unfairness and they think that there's a powerful elite that controls all the wealth and that chooses who gets it and that the poor and the downtrodden are selected.
They're just as good as anybody else.
They're just as hardworking.
They're just as accomplished.
They're just getting screwed.
But it's absurd.
And it fails under any legitimate economic or intellectual analysis.
They are loath to accept the blame for the failure of their own policies, such as the war on poverty.
You could tell this professor, we've tried to equalize it.
We've done everything we can and still maintain our capitalist identity.
The war on poverty is a failure.
The great society is a failure.
The same percentage of poor are poor today.
We only recently started welfare reform and it is changing people's lives.
It is enriching people's lives whose lives were previously doomed to nothing because they were made totally dependent on government.
In all of human history, Katie, redistributionist policies have never succeeded in equalizing a society economically.
We have transferred over $6 trillion from the haves to the have-nots in the great society in a war on poverty.
And yet, it's never enough.
$6 trillion, Katie, from the producers to the non-producers.
We still have the same inequities percentage-wise, and yet they still claim the rich don't care, that they're just cold-hearted and greedy.
I would bet that your professor believes that capitalism, which is America's basic economic architecture, is probably to blame for all of this inequality.
Of course.
Because they think capitalism is designed to be unfair.
But if you just accept it, start out, Mr. Professor, whatever, Professor Marx, whatever your name is.
I refuse to accept your premise.
I'll be right.
I'm going to write the paper, but capitalism needs no defense.
Yeah.
Well, I think of the grade, Katie.
Don't be afraid.
I think my professor will probably have a heart attack if he found out I called you for help.
But I'd really like, if you ever come to the bank.
Okay, wait a second.
Now, I'm sure that's true, but why?
The key, the answer, the key there.
He's right.
Of course.
Well, but he doesn't think that.
He doesn't have the brains to even have a listen to this program, probably.
I know.
I do give him some credit.
I have him for two classes.
I do enjoy and his classes, but I'm just sick of hearing how the government needs to hand out all this money to everybody, and we need to have nationalized health care because it's not fair that the people get everything.
Katie, for everything he says, you have an example somewhere in the world where you can point to it as a failure.
Canada, Great Britain, everywhere there's nationalized health care, the people there hate it and don't want it anymore.
It doesn't work.
But he says that with health care, nationalized health care is better than no health care, which a lot of people refuse to get because it's too expensive.
Okay, we've got statistics on that.
The vast majority of people in this country without health care are illegal immigrants, and they get it anyway.
When you go to the emergency room for an emergency, the federal law requires that you be treated.
There are a lot of people that choose not to go get health insurance because they're young and don't want to spend the money right now.
Some people self-insure.
It's a myth.
This is the greatest health care system in the world.
When people genuinely get sick and need to be treated for the advanced catastrophic diseases, they find their way to the United States of America.
And also the question is: why do people keep complaining about it?
They're still living there.
If I could explain a liberal to you, Katie, I would be even wealthier than I am.
I couldn't be, I can't, I don't understand them.
They hate it.
It's as though they hate the country.
It's as though they've got a big problem.
And I think in large part there's guilt.
I think they look at the prosperity and they believe this notion that we're only rich.
Remember, nothing happens unless some elite control it.
So they look at our prosperity and they look at Africa and they say, we must have stolen all the resources from Africa.
We're stealing all the oil.
We're stealing all the diamonds.
We're stealing all of this.
We're stealing all of that.
And now we're polluting the planet and we're destroying the end of the planet with global warming.
We are horrible people.
And that's how I think they look at themselves.
They're a bunch of egalitarians.
And it's basically, I think, they're self-loathing.
I think the bottom line is, Katie, they don't even like themselves and they don't want to like you.
And they want everybody to be like them.
And so they spread this stuff around.
Not that they don't seriously believe it.
They do, but I think self-loathing is the root to understanding a liberal.
Perhaps, yeah, you probably are right about that.
Well, are you taking notes on all this?
I've tried to, but I'm trying to listen to.
Okay, here's, Katie, I'm going to tell you what, tell what we're going to do.
Are you a subscriber to my website?
No, not.
I've been thinking about it, but I'm a poor college student.
But do you have a computer?
Do you have the ability to go online?
Yes.
Okay.
When we finish the call here, I'm going to put you on hold.
I'm going to make you a complimentary one-year subscriber.
And it's very young.
You will be able, after about 5.30 tonight Eastern Time, every day that this is the case, you'll be able to log on to rushlimbaugh.com.
This segment today that we are having will be highlighted.
It'll be easy to find.
There'll be a transcript of it.
And you'll be able to listen to it audio-wise.
You'll get a podcast of the program each day if you want.
And that way, you don't have to take notes.
I am a professor that records myself.
I am proud for the class to hear what I have to say.
Nobody has to sneak recorders in on me because I do it myself.
Actually, I had to buy a tape recorder for this class, so you've saved me some money.
But I think it would be good if you would come to Michigan and debate my professor yourself because that would just make my day.
And all the conservatives that are too afraid to speak on OU's campus because of the liberal yelling that we hear every day.
I think that would be a good idea.
You know what, Katie?
It's not fear.
It's a waste of time.
The deck's going to be stacked.
They're going to get protested, shouted at, and screamed at by a bunch of yin-yang little kids that don't know what they're talking about, but think they know everything because they're in college.
You have to deal with the professors and so forth.
If you do these things off campus, that could be fine.
But, you know, there's some people that still brave the elements and get out there.
It's not a waste of my time.
I've got 20 million people or more a week here.
And if the professors want to debate me, they can call.
And I'm sure some of them would like to date me.
I'd be a guest on my radio show.
Okay.
Well, now, look, I've got to run.
I want to put you on hold.
Thank you very much.
You bet.
What year are you in college, Katie?
I'm a junior.
You're a junior.
Okay.
So a nice, nice man will come along, get all the information, and we need to make you a complimentary subscriber.
We're going to throw in a subscription to the Limbaugh letter as well.
Oh, good.
My widely read, the most widely read political newsletter in the country.
And actually, I'm going to make sure that you get a Club Gitmo t-shirt as well.
Oh, good.
So just hang on, and then everything that you have learned today and in the future will be available to you at rushlimbaugh.com, okay?
Great.
Thank you.
And I'll let you know how the paper turns out if I get a good grade on it.
I'd like to see a copy of it.
Send me a copy before you get the grade.
Before you get the grade, you will be a member, and there's a special email address for members of the website to send email to me.
So I'll see it.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Hang on, Katie.
You bet.
Great to talk to you.
It's a pleasure.
Be right back, folks.
Don't go away.
Katie, Katie, in Michigan, I know you're still out there.
One thing you could do, you're worried about the other students.
I kind of blew the other students off.
I ought not to have done that.
You're never going to change the mind of your professor.
It's an intellectual challenge to try.
You're never going to do that.
But the service that you could do with this newfound knowledge and confidence is you can begin to work on some of your classmates and penetrate those skulls full of mush so that the professor does not turn them all into a bunch of mind-numbed little liberal robots.
So that is a service that you can perform.
Madeline Albright has a column in the Los Angeles Times today.
Bush's worldview fails to see that in the Middle East, power politics is the key.
Good versus evil is not a strategy, she says.
The Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran, not because the regime should not be changed, but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely.
In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism.
Explains the Democrats, too, Madam Albright.
But it's interesting.
She says good versus evil is not a strategy.
Can we go back to late edition with Wolf Blitzer, December, or October 21st?
It can't be 01.
They didn't have late edit.
Yeah, they did have late edition.
They did.
Okay, this is five years ago.
And Wolf Blitzer says, Dr. Albright, as you know, the inspections of Iraq ended during the Clinton administration when you were Secretary of State.
And since then, the U.S. and other members of the international community have not been able to find out what, if anything, Saddam Hussein is doing in these various aspects of weapons of mass destruction.
I wish that the first Bush administration had finished the job in the Gulf War, which is a lesson about what we're doing now is to make sure that we actually complete what we begin.
It was very hard, in fact, to hold a coalition together during the sanctions aspect of this and to keep the inspectors there.
But you also have to remember that the U.S. has been and was taking military action against Saddam Hussein during the Clinton administration in terms of making sure that we could continue to patrol the no-fly zones.
I have always believed that Saddam Hussein is part of a major evil aspect in the world.
That's Madeline Albright five years ago.
She has a column in the LA Times today.
Good versus evil isn't a strategy.
I also have a little nexus research here.
Remarks by Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright at Howard University, April 14th, 1998.
We very much don't want to be out there by ourselves as the organizer and as the only superpower.
People don't believe that.
They think we just want to be king of the hill, but we don't.
Our desire is to develop a whole host of regional and other alliances, other groupings, ad hoc groupings, partnerships that would allow us to have other countries that share in the same rules that we do and have shared goals.
This is the famous speech that she made in which she denounced the United States status as the lone superpower in the world.
Can't have that.
No, no, no, no.
Call Saddam Hussein evil.
Today writes a piece, Good versus Evil Isn't a Strategy.
I had to mention this to you before we got too much lost in other directions here because it was one of the things I had at the top of the stack.
Here's Paul Corning, New York.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
A long time.
Listen, our first-time caller.
You bet, sir.
Hoping to get your take on the craziness that's going on down in the great state of Texas.
You mean with the arrests in the bars?
Yes, sir.
Well, I read this story earlier this week.
There are some people down there worried that too many people leaving the bars drunk, tipsy, polluted, too many adult beverages.
And I guess they're upset that the cops are not arresting enough people.
So they want them actually arrested in the bar if they're drunk, right?
Yes, now you, you have a problem with this.
I do.
I think that certainly pulling people over who are too hammered to drive is an appropriate response and necessary these days.
But I just flabbergasted that they can't do that and tackle that exact issue rather than just snagging people in the bar who are there to have a beer.
Well, are they snagging people who aren't drunk?
Are they going in there snagging people who are just drinking?
Well, I don't know that there's any real exact benchmark to determine when you're out not driving what drunkenness means.
Number one, and number two, I know myself, like a lot of folks these days go into a bar and we arrange for a taxi or a DD in advance.
Yeah, that's a designated driver game, yes.
Well, it is, I think it is, I'm kind of short on time here, but it's a little tricky to go into a bar and have the assumption that somebody sitting there is drunk and arrest them on that basis.
They haven't done anything.
They're in a bar.
Because once you establish that, then you can pretty much say, we're going to arrest people for being smoking somewhere where it's permitted, but we don't like it.
And you can drink at a bar.
And now there are laws against public drunkenness.
I know that's the fine line here.
The cops are saying, what?
Yeah.
Okay, so the cops say we have the right because public drunkenness is against the law and a bar is a public place.
If you go in there and you get drunk, you're in public and you're drunk.
And so that I think this is an outgrowth of a couple things.
One of them is I think people are sick and tired of people driving drunk on the roads.
Some people are.
That's perfectly reasonable to be mad about that.
Back in just a second.
Stay with me.
Second hour of our three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence now wrapped up in the can back for our final hour in mere moments.
Sit tight, won't be long.
▲
Export Selection