All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:11
March 29, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yet now you see what a little bit of whining will get you.
A great introduction like that.
Just play the persecution complex a little bit.
Go out and do a little bit of protesting.
It does work.
Why do you think we had these huge Latino demonstrations all over the United States?
They work.
Crying and complaining in this country does, it shouldn't, but it does work.
The more I complain about something, the likelier I am to get it from the staff, correct?
I think that that's just generally true.
I was commenting to Russia's staff that I could do the topic I've been talking about on the program today, illegal immigration for 11 hours and probably not find one caller who agrees with me.
You know why?
Anyone who talks about the issue isn't going to find anyone who agrees with them.
There are so many different facets of this from border protection to what the legal process for immigration should be to what to do with the employers who hire illegal immigrants, to what to do with the twelve million people who are here,
including send them back, allow them to stay but never be on a citizenship path, give them benefits, deny them benefits, allow them to gradually move toward legality.
Then what do you do with new ones?
Five or six more different sides to this.
The problem with this issue is there are 19 different positions out there.
If I was a political consultant advising the Republicans, I would tell them to just drop it.
There's no win in this for them.
None whatsoever.
I cited earlier poll numbers that showed that most Americans support a crackdown.
Yet, politically, if they do that, they're going to further injure themselves with the largest, with the fastest growing block of voters in America, Hispanic voters.
After the 1994 initiative in California that denied state benefits to illegal immigrants was passed by voters, it was Proposition 187.
the segment of the Hispanic vote drawn by Republicans in that state has plummeted from 31% down to 23%.
The Republicans are finding, according to their own internal polling, In fact, I've got a quote here from Leslie Sanchez, who is quoted today in the uh Washington Post.
She said, It's real easy for a lot of my fellow Republican pollsters to say this is red meat for conservatives, let's go out and pound the issue.
But the deeper ramifications are that it turns off women and other ethnic minorities and turns on Hispanics who are now mobilized against us.
So there's no real upside in dealing with it politically at all.
There's only one reason to deal with it, and that is that this is a problem.
And if you're in government, you're supposed to try to solve the problems that we have.
But politically, it's very, very difficult to do.
My focus is control the border.
Stop the problem from getting worse.
Any problem that you have, before you deal with the after effects of it, you have to stop the problem.
You have to address what the problem is, and then you go out and try to solve the consequences of the fact that the problem was there for as long as it was.
As for the illegal immigrants who are here in the United States.
You can't lump them all together and claim that all 12 million are the same.
First of all, they're not even all from Mexico.
majority are, many have come here to work.
They want a better life.
They want to have a future.
They're here and they're working and they're working very, very hard.
They're doing a lot of jobs that many Americans will not do.
Don't believe me?
Open up a restaurant and try to get a jaw and try to hire a dishwasher.
Well, yeah, well, what do you expect?
They're paying them less than minimum wage.
No, they're not.
In most cases, they're not paying them less than minimum wage.
They're usually paying them a lot more than that.
And they're usually taking out Social Security taxes without regard to whether or not the Social Security number is phony or not.
They're hiring them because they can't find anyone else to do these jobs.
And what a surprise that is.
For twenty years now, the American left has been denigrating all sorts of jobs in the American sector.
Well, these, yeah, it's true we've created these jobs, but they're all crap jobs.
They're all in the service sector, they're all at McDonald's.
They even came up with a term for them, mick jobs, denigrating jobs that are at the lower end of the skill spectrum.
Well, guess what?
There are millions of people in other countries who don't think those jobs are all that terrible, and they're willing to do them.
And they've come into the United States and they are doing them.
I don't think that's a bad thing.
And I have a real, real hard time with some of these proposals to say $25,000 per employee fines we're going to propose on individu on employers who hire people to do these jobs that Americans will not do.
But before you think that I'm too soft on this issue, let us deal now with people on the other side.
Many of these protests that have been held over the last few days in our country have been disgusting.
They are showing tremendous animosity toward America.
Those that are politically unilaterally condemning the Republican Party are ignoring the fact that half the Republicans in government right now want to loosen our immigration policies.
Many are strutting around carrying Mexican flags and saying they are proud of their Mexican nationalism, and that these attacks are somehow racist.
Well, if your loyalty is to Mexico, and if Mexico is the nation whose banner you want to carry, why are you insisting upon the right to be here in the United States?
If it's the United States that you want to be, and the United States is the place that you see a future, and the United States the place that there is a job, and the United States where you can get a quality education and decent health care and other benefits, carry our flag then.
It is true that we are a nation that has been built on immigration.
But those immigrants historically have been people who came here because they wanted to be citizens of the United States.
They wanted to be Americans in terms of nationalism, not just geography.
And they were proud of their American identity.
So these attacks that are running around out there, these attacks that are coming from people running around out there are very, very unfair.
Now let's deal with the racism card that's been thrown.
Well, the people who are opposed to this are just racist.
They're not racist.
They're idealistic.
They believe our laws should be enforced.
They believe illegal means illegal.
There's nothing racist about that.
They're object, well, they didn't have this attitude toward immigrants from other countries.
They don't have it toward legal immigrants from Mexico now.
Their problem is the illegality of it.
Because I think our country is being very, very hypocritical if it's going to say to millions of people who are here, hey, you know, we let you in and gave you all sorts of benefits.
We were just kidding, we've changed our minds now.
Plus, it's not workable.
We can't throw 12 million people out of this country.
It would take forever.
Can you imagine how many rights would be asserted in every one of these deportation hearings?
Look at how much trouble we are having for heaven's sakes dealing with terrorists.
You've got the ACLU and the Democratic Party and Russ Feingold saying it's terrible.
It's just absolutely awful that we are giving this awful treatment to terrorists.
If they're being accorded all these rights, can you imagine how many rights would be asserted on behalf of 12 million people who we're trying to deport?
So let's just get off that kick.
It ain't going to happen.
Accept the fact they are here, but try to make them legitimate residents of The United States who pay legitimate taxes and have real futures here, that doesn't mean that they're always looking over their shoulder, worrying that there's going to be some sort of deportation process.
But once you do it, that's the end of it.
Make immigration legally easier, illegally more difficult, and accept the reality that we have twelve million people here, many of whom are contributing greatly to the United States.
Now, as I said, there's 19 different proposals out there, that's mine.
The problem with anything like what I've just suggested happening, and essentially that would be merging the bill in the House with the bill in the Senate, is that politically, if you did it, you just have both sides angry.
If you built the fence and you tried to make enforcement stronger as I advocate, the protesters are going to be out there.
They're going to be ranting and raving, claiming that we're racist.
But if you also include my provision that we treat the twelve million people who are here and try to make them legitimate residents of the United States, you'll get all the people who say that we're too soft on you.
And you've made no one happy.
Well, what a surprise it is then that many politicians would rather just punt than deal with it.
The problem with saying that we're not going to deal with it, though, is if you think we're having a hard time assimilating twelve million people, wait till it's twenty and twenty-five and thirty and thirty-five.
We need to grow up and address this problem now, but do it realistically, even if that means some of our idealism might have to be sacrificed in the name of doing something that will work.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling is sitting in for Rush.
In the next segment, I'll analyze the democratic plan and illegal immigration.
Oops, that's right.
They don't have one.
New York, Jim, Jim, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
The reason these people are coming to this country is they're looking for work.
There's 12 million people in this country looking for jobs.
The house plans got a penalty against employers.
Once you remove the incentive to hire these people, you're not going to have an immigration problem.
I don't agree with that.
Well, there's an assumption of stasis.
You think that because twelve million people are in this country, if we remove the incentive to hire them and they l no longer can get work, that they're simply going to stay.
They're not.
They're smart enough to come here to get work.
Once they know that they can't get work because every one of them represents a ten thousand dollar fine, they're going to leave.
You won't have to deport them.
They'll report in to be put back in their own country.
I don't agree with that.
The pr the reason I don't agree with it is you assume that the job is the only incentive to come here.
It is.
Well, I don't know that you're right about that.
What about the school system?
What about the health care system?
Do you know how poor the quality of health care is for indigent people in Mexico?
It's terrible.
I mean, I mean it's hang on a minute.
It's terrible.
But here in the United States, if you're sick and you show up at an American emergency room, you may have to wait forever, but we treat you.
We the kids who are here get to go into school.
All sorts of other benefits are available as well.
My problem is with people who come into the United States illegally to tap into all of those services without contributing anything back.
Those who are working are contributing.
And as for going after the employers, this is where I'm really going to park company with a lot of people who are listening to the program.
I don't believe we ought to go after them.
You try to run a small business these days that has a lot of grunt work, jobs that aren't glamorous, and fill those jobs right now without paying the kinds of salaries that would put you out of business.
How are you going to compete against Walmart if the guy that you have to do your yard to take care of the yard is someone who's got to be paid fifteen dollars an hour?
It's hard to get people who are willing to do those jobs without tapping into the pool of people who are coming here because there are jobs.
And from a philosophical standpoint, it's real hard for me to begrudge someone who wants to come to the United States to work since we have so many Americans who don't appreciate the fact that we have work here.
No, the the argument on labor is uh is facile.
You cannot say this because if you have, let's say twenty restaurants in a town and they all hire illegals to wash their dishes, and we suddenly create a situation where these people can no longer work.
Do you really think that all twenty restaurants in a town are simply going to close?
And if they do, what happens to the demand for their services?
This is a capitalistic society.
What happens is they will pay whatever price they have to have to get help, and prices will go up accordingly.
You may end up with ten restaurants.
Is that a good thing?
We cannot keep it.
We have twelve million criminals in this country right now.
No, they're not the law to employ.
They're not criminals.
If yes, they are.
They vote the law to get into the criminal.
Well, that doesn't mean that they're criminals.
Yes, it is.
No, it doesn't.
When you break the law, you're a criminal.
No, that's not true.
Not every not every law that is not that every law that is broken is a crime.
That's why Congress That's why Congressman Sensenbrenner's proposal to criminalize this is so controversial.
He wants to make it a felony.
That's what's in the House bill, but he's you know, he's facing a lot of heat over it.
There are all sorts of things that are against the law that are not crimes, like driving too fast on the freeway.
But without regard to that, without regard to that.
By saying Don't you believe that our country don't you believe that our country looks a little stupid if we come out and say something that we've allowed you to do for twenty-five years, we suddenly are going to take great umbrage at?
I don't think the immigration and naturalization service would take too kindly to saying that we've let them do that.
They've gone to a lot of effort to end illegal immigration.
When you say something is illegal, Mark, by that statement alone, you're saying it's a crime.
No, you're not.
That's the nature of the illegal means against the law.
It doesn't mean violate a law.
I mean, we've gone back, we've gone back and forth on that.
Something that is against the law in many instances is not a crime.
Sexual harassment, for example, is against the law, but it's normally not a crime.
There are all sorts of things that are violations of laws that are not criminal.
But I don't want to quibble on that semantics, that semantics problem.
As for your statement that the INS would take great umbrage at that, for all I can tell, we don't have an INS.
If we were actually serious about rounding up and deporting individuals, why wasn't the INS at some of these rallies, like the one in Los Angeles a couple of days ago, and simply asking people for their paperwork.
We haven't been doing that.
It just hasn't been happening, and it suggests that we're now going to start ignores the problem.
And my problem with your position, Jim, is that you don't want to spend any time on the part of the problem that might actually work, which is to make it harder to come in.
I think we've got to start with enforcement and do everything else later.
And until we want to address that and talk about enforcement, we're not going to get anywhere on this problem.
Furthermore, we can talk all we want about sending people back.
It is not going to happen.
It is unfeasible for it to occur.
As for going after the employers, part of this is my free market orientation, I guess.
But I have a hard time getting upset with an employer trying to stay afloat, hiring people who are doing a good job who want to work.
Secondly, do you know how hard it is for an employer to determine whether or not somebody is here legally or not?
Most people who are illegal and working have a social security number.
It may be one they've invented, but they have it.
The ability of the employer to do background checks is very, very hard.
They're accused of racism.
Imagine if every employer, for every Hispanic employee that came in the door, suddenly said, I'm going to do a background check to make sure that you're a citizen.
You're going to have sixteen different federal agencies down there harassing him, accusing him of discrimination.
He's going to be called a racist.
These employers are just trying to stay afloat.
I'm not focusing here so much on the large giant corporations that may be hiring illegals.
They shouldn't be doing that.
But for small businesses that are looking for people who are willing to work and they come in and they do work, to say that we're going to start find them when it has been our own public policy all these years to allow them to come in seems silly.
Secondly, we're going to say the employer is wrong for giving a job to someone who is illegal.
But every public school system that is giving a free education to children who are illegal, they're not wrong.
You have states that want to grant in state tuition to illegal immigrants, they're not wrong.
The only one that's wrong is the private employer, and that's the person we're going to give these large fines to.
I don't think that makes any sense either.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush.
If you're not already a subscriber to Russia's newsletter, the Limbaugh Letter, this is a very good time to become one.
The next issue is going to feature an interview between Rush and David Horowitz, who has written a book called Professors, the 100 Most Dangerous Academics in America.
If you have a college bound kid in your home, this is a must read.
You can get the limbaugh letter, Russia's website, www.rushlimbaugh.com.
All right, enough about illegal immigration.
I will now wash my hands of the issue just as politicians have for years.
Let's take a look at the rest of the world.
Joshua Bolton, the incoming White House chief of staff.
How many Americans outside of political junkies could have been able to tell you who the chief of staff has been the last five years.
Nobody knew who Andy Card was.
Whether or not they should or they shouldn't, I'm not sure.
Should the chief of staff be a headline grabber who's out front?
I don't know.
I do think, though, that in that particular position, chief of staff to the president of the United States, you need someone who is at least somewhat visible and rather strong themselves, if for no other reason than to deflect some of the heat that the president is getting.
The Democrats are now saying the president is just rearranging the deck chairs in the Titanic.
That isn't true.
In fact, CAR lasted longer than any other chief of staff.
In about 50 years, I believe Adams in the Eisenhower administration was the last one who lasted this long, so he's not rearranging deck chairs.
I do think, though, the president is looking to invigorate his staff, and I think that's a good thing to do.
Those jobs are incredibly difficult.
If you work on senior staff in the White House, you're in there seven days a week.
You're under constant pressure, there are very few rewards, you're being beaten up by the political opposition all the time.
You're dealing with issues upon which literally the future of the world is resting, and I do think a shakeup every now and then is probably a good thing.
It shouldn't stop, though, with a shakeup.
The president also needs to shake himself up.
And I think he started to do that.
The news conference he held, was it last week on Iraq?
Was the best he's been on that issue in a long time.
He's giving a presentation today at Freedom House, talking about Iraq, delivering it with great confidence, not being on the defensive as he's appeared to have been on that issue.
I think he needs to go back on the offensive on any number of other things.
We've got a number of federal appeals court judges once again twisting in the wind in the United States Senate.
Partly because Democrats are putting holds on them, partly because the Senate Republican leadership isn't all that happy with the president right now, and they're not moving all that fast on some of these nominees.
The president needs to go out and make the case again.
We still do have that deal, don't we?
That deal with the Democrats, they're only going to filibuster those who have extraordinary circumstances.
The president needs to get out and say it's time to start rolling on my federal judges again.
If you go out and you're in favor of things and you take on your opposition, I think you've got a very, very good chance of regaining some momentum.
The alternative is for the president to allow his final three years to simply be a wash, in which he's the longest lame duck in American history.
Now to the subject of ethanol.
Very good editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.
Last year, Congress passed legislation mandating that about seven and a half percent of the United States gasoline supply include ethanol, which is a fuel that is derived from corn.
More important than that, Many parts of the country are under orders to use reformulated gas, so-called cleaner burning gasoline.
Ethanol is one of the additives that can be added to gasoline to fit the federal requirement.
The other prime additive has been a product called MTBE.
MTBE is a carcinogen.
And there's been tremendous pressure on the oil companies to stop using MTBE.
Congress, in fact, is pushing them in that direction, as have a number of state legislatures.
The result of this is that in the areas that are under mandates to use so-called cleaner burning gasoline, they're having to move toward ethanol.
There isn't enough ethanol to meet the demand.
Prior to the mandate taking effect, which was January 1st of this year, the price of ethanol was under $2 a gallon.
It's now around $2.50 a gallon, and analysts say it's going to continue to go up because there isn't enough product out there to meet the demand.
So what you're going to have this summer is higher gasoline prices in the United States, not just because of the rising price of oil, but because the government has ordered oil companies in many parts of the country to use one particular product that is not in sufficient supply and put that in their gasoline.
Why ethanol?
The reason why ethanol is because ethanol is the ultimate American pork.
It's the greatest special interest we have.
Ethanol comes primarily from corn, so all the farmers are for it.
Archer Daniels Midland is the largest ethanol processor in America, so they're for it.
Many investors all over the country are opening up ethanol processing plants, so they're for it.
So Congress and the President appease this special interest.
We're now going to get our fuel from home, and you end up with a product that we're mandating in the American supply chain that we don't make enough of.
And the price of the consumer is going to go up.
If there was no government mandate for ethanol, there wouldn't be any ethanol because consumers don't like to use ethanol because it is a substandard fuel that isn't particularly efficient, isn't very good for your engines, and costs more than gasoline.
All right.
The Democrats are now backing down on their pledge to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
See, they issued this statement yesterday.
Part of their national security plan is they intend to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
They now say they're not going to use that word eliminate.
I guess the uh specter of that word was a little bit too tough for some of the more leftist Democrats out there.
Nonetheless, let's take them at their word, yesterday's words.
They're going to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
Okay.
How are you going to do that?
That's a nice gesture, I admit.
I'm for eliminating Osama bin Laden.
I suspect President Bush is for eliminating Osama bin Laden.
We now have the Democratic Party, Harry Reid in particular, calling for the elimination of Osama bin Laden.
You talk about a political party that is trying to be on both sides of an issue.
This is the same party that has a number of senators who objected to the extension of the Patriot Act, and the same party that has United States senators calling for censuring the president for his domestic wiretapping program.
Okay, we want to eliminate Osama bin Laden, but we're not going to wiretap his phone.
Osama, we're going to eliminate you.
But if you call someone in the United States of America, we're not going to listen in unless a judge tells us it's okay.
So they can talk tough on all this stuff.
But in fact, when you get beyond their rhetoric, they have never been serious about dealing with the terror threat.
They're more concerned about civil liberties' niceties than actually dealing with terrorism.
So Reed comes out with this tough talk of eliminating Osama bin Laden because he is still out there, and it is something of an embarrassment that we haven't yet gotten him.
But in fact, their policy proposals have done everything but target terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
They don't seem to like the fact that we're fighting the war in Iraq.
They don't seem to like the fact that we are trying to monitor the activities of terrorists in the United States.
The Democratic position paper on all of this says, Chuck Schumer, New York, the Democrats are going to take back the security issue.
We're going to increase monitoring and intelligence.
The CIA is going to make a renewed focus on getting Osama bin Laden.
Okay, great.
Valerie Plaim's going after him.
Boy, that'll work.
That'll work.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I've got a story here.
This is from the New Orleans Times Pickyun.
By the way, what kind of a name is that for a newspaper?
Wouldn't by definition that paper be picky unish?
Anyway, I'm not the New Orleans Times Pickyun.
The New Orleans School District is trying to sell a school bus on eBay.
They're asking $9,000 for it.
Problem is the school bus doesn't run because it was ruined in Hurricane Katrina.
up.
The thing is completely waterlogged and moldy.
So why are they trying to sell it?
They believe there are people who will buy it because it's a piece of history.
So far, apparently no bidders.
They say they're going to give it a shot, however.
You know, if they're successful at this, think of the potential.
Every hurricane victim in Florida is going to bring out pieces of broken glass.
Everybody who's ever been a victim of a natural disaster, here are my muddy shoes when the levee broke.
Maybe if Ray Negan signs the bus.
Who's the uh who's the governor down there?
Uh Blanco, the the governor who cried.
Say that the water log came from her tears and not from the flood waters.
Maybe you can create some value there.
They actually have a couple hundred of these buses there, offering the first one up to see if there actually is a market for this in New Orleans.
Enough of all of this.
Enough of all of this.
It is time to talk about the true American sport.
NASCAR.
NASCAR.
Brett's all excited.
Well, you shouldn't be all that excited because you're exactly the problem.
For those of you who didn't watch it, on Sunday, NASCAR had its race in Bristol, Tennessee.
Bristol, Tennessee, maybe the hardest sporting event in America to get to.
It's nowhere.
It's not nearly near any large city in Tennessee.
It's somewhere near the Virginia border.
But it is a great, great place.
It's a half-mile track.
Now you've got 40 of these NASCAR cars racing around this thing, and it's only a half mile long, meaning they're always in traffic.
You're always battling with the guys that are near your own position and 22 other guys who are on different laps that you have to pass as you keep lapping them.
Because of this, they're always wrecking.
Now the race Sunday was 500 laps, and it lasted about 34 hours.
It just went on and on and on and on because they kept bringing out these yellow flags.
Toward the end of the race, the leader was my fellow Wisconsinite Matt Kenseth, who I happen to like.
Matt Kenseth is a great driver, and for those of you who don't appreciate NASCAR, yes, actually some of them are better drivers than others.
So Kenseth Kenseth is in the lead.
His problem was that his car wasn't anywhere near As fast as about seven guys who are behind him.
He was having handling problems and he wasn't moving as fast as everybody else.
But because he's a great driver, they couldn't get by him.
If the guy behind him went high, he went high.
The guy behind him went low, he went low.
In fact, the guy who was behind him was Kurt Bush.
And Kurt Bush could not get around Kenseth.
He's got a Kenseth has a slower car in front of him, a lap car, he can't get around him.
He's trying to block Kurt Bush, can't do that.
So Kurt Bush, getting frustrated, does what these NASCAR guys do on these short tracks.
He bangs MacKenseth in the butt.
Just enough to shove him out of line a little bit and go on past him.
This is one of those sports where you're not supposed to do that, but they allow you to do it.
It's kind of like the ill illegal immigration of sports.
What happens in NASCAR when you want to get by somebody?
So Kenseth gets bumped a little bit by Bush and backs up into third place.
Not only does Bush go by him, somebody else does also.
There's only like five or six laps left in the brace.
Kenseth is obviously frustrated because Kurt Bush bumped him in order to get by him.
So here he sits, frustrated.
And what happens?
Somebody else bumps him to get him out of the way in third place, which is Jeff Gordon.
So Kenseth now is behind Gordon and he's running fourth.
And you know what's going on with Kent with Kenseth.
Here he's been fighting the whole race to get this lead, only to be knocked back to fourth twice by guys who are bumping him because they couldn't actually drive around him.
So Kenseth does what any good old NASCAR hothead would do after he gets bumped the second time, this time by Jeff Gordon.
He goes up behind Gordon and bumps him.
Only he doesn't bump him a little bit.
He bumps him hard so that Gordon spins out, hits the wall, and the next thing Jeff Gordon knows he's in 21st place.
Now you've got to understand NASCAR.
The place that you finish in is very, very important because it determines these points that they have toward the next L Cup.
So Jeff Gordon, who's got one of the fastest cars in the race, instantly goes from third to 21st, and now the race is ending.
He's furious with Kenseth because in the NASCAR scheme of things, he, Gordon, thinks he followed the rules.
I'll bump you, but I won't bump you so hard that you spin out.
Kenseth is probably thinking these guys shouldn't have bumped me at all.
The second guy that bumped me, I'm going to take care of him, I'm going to spin him into the wall.
So at the end of the race, if everybody's out of their car, if you all this bumping is going on, Gordon approaches Kenseth and shoves him.
Kenseth had his arms out as if to sort of apologize to Gordon for what he did.
Gordon gives him a shove.
And NASCAR has responded by fining Jeff Gordon $10,000.
These guys are running around the track at 90 miles an hour, spinning around all over the place, banging each other around.
NASCAR's fine with that.
But after the race, one guy comes over to a guy who's wearing an astronaut space suit and a giant helmet and gives him a little shove, and that's a ten thousand dollar fine.
Duh.
I think we're missing the point here a little bit.
And dilettants like you who approve of this fine don't want to allow these guys to be guys, but out on the track they can do anything they want.
I think the fine to Jeff Gordon is outrageous.
I'm Mark Felling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling's sitting in for rush.
There's a kid at Drake University, which is in Des Moines, Skylar Bartles.
He came by, he's a writer, came up with an idea for an article, his professor said it was a great idea.
He decided he was going to hang out at Walmart all weekend.
So he goes into a Walmart in Des Moines and stays there for 41 hours.
He says he checked out the shoppers, read magazines, watch movies on the DVD display.
When he needed a nap, he'd go into a restroom stall or he'd go into a sit on a lawn chair in the garden department.
He's there for 41 hours and he wanted to write about the experiences.
His problem was there weren't any experiences.
He did this, he did that.
Said people looked at him a couple of times, nothing really happened.
The guy spent 41 consecutive hours at a Walmart and nobody noticed him.
If that doesn't tell you something about how ubiquitous Walmart has gotten to be, he couldn't get spotted to save his life.
Now, of course, Hollywood's contacting him, and they're probably going to make a movie out of it.
▲
Export Selection