All Episodes
Previous Next
April 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
April 10, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha, how are you?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back here tuned to the most listened to Radio Talk Show in America, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations every day.
Still awaiting the new opinion audit report from a Sullivan group in Sacramento, still working on the number almost always right, 98.5% of the time documented.
Phone number if you'd like to join us is 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
I tell you what.
There are many things, ladies and gentlemen, on which I have been at the forefront, on the cutting edge, ahead of the curve, however you wish to describe it.
I know there's so many, it's hard to remember, but there are a couple of them stand out.
And one of them is I I called attention to the problems in this country faced by the ugly way back in 1980, when I was working in a Kansas City radio station.
And I have expanded my work in this area on several occasions since then.
Well, I just got this news report.
This is uh from Canada.com.
And it's from the uh uh I forget I don't know what the actual newspaper is, but the the uh authorette of the story, a Jody Cinnema.
And next time you see a child wandering lost and alone in a grocery store in the mall, sneak a peek at the parents.
New research from the University of Alberta suggests there's a good chance that parents are ugly.
Andrew Harrell, social scientist who took a fair bit of heat last year when he presented uh evidence suggesting parents pay more attention to attractive children than their ugly kids, said this.
He said, Unattractive parents are less likely than attractive parents to supervise their children closely.
The unattractive parents may be ugly because they have had economic difficulties, health problems, diabetes, poor eyesight, psychological and physical hardships that distract them, or maybe their parents were ugly.
They have their own personal concerns and they have less time to be attentive to their children.
They're in such physical and psychological misery that they're just not there.
Now, Harrell is director of the university's population research lab.
He began studying parents in grocery stores.
Now I suggested bowling alleys when I first brought this up, or shopping malls, but grocery stores, I guess, would work too since he did it there.
His team went to 14 stores in Edmonton to observe 861 single parents with one child, roughly between the ages of one and seven in tow.
Now his observers found that 16% of ugly parents lost sight of their children at least once compared to 10% of attractive parents, which uh corresponds roughly to 89 inattentive ugly parents and 30 inattentive attractive ones.
He says it may not seem big, but people for the most part don't lose sight of kids.
This is pretty earth-shattering, is if the if the ugly parents had ugly children, then the neglect was even worse.
With the pffse with 36% of parents letting their children out of sight.
So when the parents are ugly and the kids are ugly, it's it's a crisis.
Out there in the uh in the grocery stores.
Well, every you know, everybody, frankly, I would frankly debate that the the uh in some of these cases, I'm sure it's true, the ugly parents are are so focused on their own misery and unhappiness that uh they lose track of their kids.
But in some cases, you'd have to think these kids are trying to escape.
You know, every kid's embarrassed of her parents anyway, or his parents, and when they're ugly, you know it's got to be even worse.
There are few will few who will say this, folks, but if the news is out there, we have to uh we have to deal with it uh with it head on.
Uh I I just what was your comment, Mr. Sterley?
What did you?
Oh, yeah.
Well, it is every time these ugly stories come up.
When I when I did the first groundbreaking commentary on banning the ugly from the streets in daytime to preserve an economic recovery, that was my purpose.
And more ugly people in the grocery store, the fewer other people want to go in.
Bowling alley, you name it, mall shopping.
So every time you bring this up, invariably, and I know it'll happen in the email.
Okay, well, who says who's ugly?
Well, I dealt with that.
I uh in in banning the ugly from, say, grocery stores or shopping malls or one of the first thing we as a compassionate society do is make it voluntary.
Because the ugly know who they are, that's the point of the story.
But maybe, I'll tell you what, with all this news coming out about the ugly, Snerdley thinks it's time for warning labels on the ugly.
Uh so that there can be no doubt.
The problem is somebody's got to sit there and be the judge of who's ugly and who isn't.
You're gonna need an ugly commission.
Remember now, since this is entered into the area of lost kids, this is going to become a serious thing.
When it's all about the children, folks, it changes the dynamic of any story out there.
And so for the purposes of saving our kids, and then you couple this with militant feminism who would love to take as many kids away from predator fathers as they could.
It won't be long before the feminists get involved, and if anybody knows ugly, it's the feminists, in determining who else is ugly.
So keep a sharp eye on this.
I know this sounds I this sounds horrible to some of you.
You hear this, you can't, but there's actual scientific university research being done on this, and now it is uh it is beginning to affect the kids.
Let's go to the one more immigration story for my stack here before we get to Bush nuking Iran.
Here's what's coming about.
Bush wants to nuke Iran, according to this lunatic Cy Hirsch.
And Bush was asked about it today at Johns Hopkins when he went out there to make a speech.
The global warming crowd cannot win.
They can't buy a break.
Over the weekend, there was a story on a BBC news website.
Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.
The fact that we are cleaning up the air means that the sun's brighter and hotter.
We want global dimming.
Pollution reduces global warming.
We're cleaning up the air, that's causing more water vapor.
Water vapor is number one greenhouse gas, uh, not auto emissions.
So that's that's one story.
Uh and and they use the Soviet Union as a union as an example.
1998, February 13th, the story from the BBC.
Scientists blame Sun for global warming.
Sun more active than it's ever been in the last 300 years, 1998.
Now, also interesting is this.
This story is from the uh UK telegraph.
There is a problem with global warming.
It stopped in 1998.
Measurements of global temperatures by satellites and all the modern technology we have to take the temperature of the Earth.
The Earth stopped warming in 1998.
In fact, the the average temperature as these things are measured, this is very tough to do anyway, but uh these are actual measurements and not models.
The actual temperature has has declined.
It's so little that it's statistical zero.
But the sun, the earth rhetoric, has stopped warming since 1998.
I have details on these and other things coming up, but Ronald Brownstein in the LA Times today has an interesting take.
And Brownstein, he his his his the LA Times, his pieces are in many cases, not all, but in many instances, what Ron Brownstein writes pieces to warn Democrats of upcoming trouble and to advise them on ways out of it.
For example, Brownstein, uh, last example of this, uh, he wrote a piece saying that their security plan was was baseless and and it didn't have anything substantive in it, and it contained big problems.
And he was joined uh in an echo chamber by a couple of other mainstream drive-by media people.
Now he says in his news analysis that the immigrant bill uh potends portends uh potential problems for the uh Democrat because immigrant advocates worry that Democrats are using them for election purposes only, and that the Democrats don't really have a desire for a solution.
That's his point.
This week's Senate stalemate on immigration sent a sobering message.
Distrust between Republicans and Democrats has reached a level that can derail agreements even when leaders in both parties publicly endorse the same policies.
The divisions in the Republican Party are pronounced.
But there are questions for the Democratic Party as well about its position, said Frank Shari, executive director of the National Immigration Forum and Immigrant Advocacy Group.
Do they want a bill or do they want an issue?
We don't want to be a football.
We want the leaders of both parties to step up and provide a way that this can be addressed.
Notice you don't see the word illegal in front of immigration in this story either.
But this guy is in trouble or is warning of trouble for the Democrats because look at we are not going to be kicked around here as a football with no solution.
You think you're going to get our votes here because you're saying in doing the right things, but if you don't do anything about this, then this could come back to haunt you.
Some Democrats may be cooling on the bill, by the way, because of growing criticism of it from the AFFL's CIO, which strongly opposes the measures provisions for a guest worker program.
So there are backlashes that are that are that are taking place.
There's fear in certain quarters.
The Democrats are out advocating for what you're seeing there behind it.
They're recruiting and doing everything they can, and they're making it clear that they look at these people as voters.
But when it comes, I mean, f for whatever percentage of these people are out there actually demanding something to be done, and we don't know what that percentage is.
But whatever it is, however many people are actually demanding that something be done so they get let into this country as legal and not be illegal and just be done with it.
To the extent that the Democrats are the ones that put the roadblocks up to the bill by it was Harry Reid who refused to allow any amendments to the bill.
Uh the Democrats are seen here as really not caring much about it.
And I've th this is true, and I have been sounding the warning claxon on this.
In fact, I think I've mentioned this three or four times.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is not an immigration bill this year at all.
Because I don't think either party really cares that there is a bill.
They just want to be able to campaign on saying they tried and blame the other guys for its failure.
Mark my words, but apparently these uh these uh immigrant advocates uh can see this and they don't appreciate being kicked around all over the place and being used.
It's gonna be an interesting year.
Quick timeout, folks, stick with us.
We'll come back.
Is George Bush gonna nuke the Iranian?
All right, we're gonna get to Bush nuking Iran here in just a second, but uh just came across some interesting news from the from the Pew Hispanic Center.
They've gone out and they've they've um I don't know how they've done it since we don't know how many illegal aliens are here, but they claim to have done a study of them and uh and can tell us how many of them do what and have what and don't have what and want what, whatever it is.
Get this.
The report finds that at least uh six point three million unauthorized workers were employed as of March 2004, comprising four point three percent of the civilian labor force.
Now that was that's two years ago, in March of 2004.
Now I uh don't know why they don't have figures for more recently than 2004, and I don't know how they got these.
If if Pew can find them, why can't never mind?
Seriously, if the Pew research people can go out and find these people and the in-depth exhaustive survey, how come nobody else can find them?
But here's my question.
We we the what are the numbers?
Twelve million to twenty million illegals in the country.
Two years ago the report found that six point three million were employed.
Well, that means a lot aren't, doesn't it?
It have to mean that.
So keep that in mind.
We're not talking about the whole universe of illegal immigrants.
We're only talking about two years ago, 6.3 million of them.
You get this.
While three percent of unauthorized workers are employed in agriculture.
Thirty-three percent have jobs in service industries, and substantial shares of them can be found in construction and extractive occupations.
What is an extractive occupation?
Like they remove gallbladders, uh who knows, whatever.
Uh and and uh 17% of them are in production, installation, or repair.
Only three percent of unauthorized workers were employed in agriculture.
That just you have to ask how do they know?
Uh the new report was developed as a briefing paper for the independent task force on immigration and America's future, co chaired by former Senator Spence Abraham and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
Uh The report builds on a previous report released in March that estimated the unauthorized population at ten point three million as of March 2004.
Okay, so there we have estimated to all this has to be estimated then.
I mean, what did Pew do?
Say, hey, we're taking a survey of all undocumented illegal workers to find out where you are and what you do.
Please report to the Pew Center at X and X location.
We just read this stuff.
Well, accept it as gospel.
All right, now, is George Bush gonna nuke Iran?
And the Libs are out there, they're all in a panic.
Seymour Hirsch, lunatic writer for the uh for the New Yorkers out there once again, we've got sound bites here in just a second.
And it was all over the Sunday shows as Bush gonna nuke Iran and Bush going to nuke Iran.
The Liberals are it's amazing.
This is uh this is an odd crazy day.
The liberals, my friends, are more concerned about Bush taking out the Iranian nukes than they are concerned that the Iranians get and use nukes.
It's nothing's changed with these people.
The big problem when it comes to U.S. national security, as far as the Libs are concerned, is George W. Bush.
You're gonna nuke Iran.
They're not worried at all what what what nuclear capability Iran might be seeking and might acquire.
So yesterday on uh Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN, Wolf asked Sy Hirsch, you believe, based on the reporting you did for this article, the President is now aggressively plotting military action, a preemptive strike against Iran.
The word I hear is messianic.
He absolutely thinks, as as as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it.
He's politically free.
I don't think he's overwhelmingly concerned about the O six elections, congressional elections.
I think he really thinks he has a chance, and this is going to be his mission.
Uh blitzer then says, Well, now this is an explosive charge, an explosive revelation, if true, that the U.S. is seriously considering using a tactical nuke to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.
One sure way of getting it, as in a range of options is nuclear.
What happened in this case is they gave that option, the JCS, the Joint Chiefs.
And then, of course, nobody in the right mind would want to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East because it would be, my God, totally chaotic.
When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs and the planners wanted to walk back that option.
What happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the Vice President's office said, no, let's keep it in the plan.
That doesn't mean it's going to happen.
They refused to take it out.
And what I'm writing here is that if this isn't removed, and I say this very seriously, I've been around this town for 40 years.
Some senior officers are prepared to resign.
They're that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in.
Uh so this morning at uh in Washington John's Hopkins uh University School of Advanced International Studies, and uh I watched some of this.
And I and the students there stood up.
Some of the most puerile, infantile, banal asinine questions.
Mr. Penn, thank you for coming today.
My name is Rousselle, and I'm studying conflict resolution in international studies, and I'm about choked.
Here's this advanced school, supposedly teach conflict, and her question was I wish I could remember it.
Um that's well, I don't think that was the one about the polls.
Well, there was one about the polls.
It wasn't the polls, it was it was uh yes, it was.
It was the one about the poll.
Um Mr. President, the polls say uh the uh uh and then and and and and but there was there was another one about nuke.
You know Well, I I I I don't I don't think it was the poll question on the on the nuke thing with Iran, but but anyway, the the questions were all banal.
And here here was what one question was uh Mr. President, you mentioned uh by the way, I may not have how long is this answer, Mike?
I don't have it on a Q sheet.
Okay, we can squeeze it in.
I'm a first semester student.
You mentioned the confluence of terror and weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat to American security.
Will we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?
We do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon.
That's our stated goal.
Our objective Is to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.
And the good news is that uh many in the world have come to that conclusion.
And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend.
It was just wild speculation, by the way.
What you're reading is wild speculation, which, you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital.
Yeah, it'd say what is it's wild speculation.
They have no intention of nuking Iran.
But in the Asia Times today, this program knows no boundaries when it comes to show prep.
In the Asia Times, Bush's October Surprise.
It's a column by somebody named Spengler.
Bush's October surprise, it's coming.
I'll share the excerpts with you, but this person is convinced Bush is going to nuke Iran.
And that on the basis that the country rallies around a wartime president.
And he also, or she, whoever bases a conclusion on some polling data, a Gallup poll.
But I'll share all this with you right after this.
Timely timeout.
Stay with me.
So the question on the table is George W. Bush planning on nuking Iran.
So Seymour Hirsch comes out with his big story in the New Yorker and the libs go nuts, and they're all more they're more worried about Bush.
Uh a story that says Bush is planning to nuke Iran and they are worried about what Iran is up to.
Uh well, about the only person that benefits from nuking Iran is Joel Rosenberg, who wrote a novel called the Ezekiel Option in which it happens.
So if uh if if Joel's got some ties to Bush and is going to get it, if if if if Joel's gonna give Bush a take of his profits on the Ezekiel option, which is coming out paperback pretty soon, and that's the only thing.
You know the purpose the nuclear strategy, this tell you how odd this is.
This is we have a stated nuclear strategy.
And the I don't have to paraphrase it, but but preemption with nukes is not part of our policy.
It hasn't ever been.
Nuclear option is uh i it is it is meant to be a last use situation to save the country, to save American lives in tremendous numbers.
Uh it it's it's not in the policy manuals as a preemptive base.
But of course, none of that matters.
Now, here's this little piece in the Asian.
Actually, it's a long piece, and it's a it's a uh column.
Bush's October surprise, it's coming.
One hears not an encouraging word about U.S. President George W. Bush these days, even from Republicans.
Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any U.S. politician since Abe Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.
Two years ago, I wrote that Bush would win a second term as president, but live to regret it.
Iraq's internal collapse and the president's poll numbers bear my forecast out.
But Bush's Republicans will triumph in next November's congressional elections for the same reason that Bush beat John Kerry in 2004, and that is Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.
Now, this doesn't say uh uh nuke.
Uh specifically, just says bombed.
One factoid encapsulates Bush's opportunity.
In a February 14th of this year, CNN Gallup poll, eighty percent of respondents said they believed that Iran, if it had nuclear weapons, would hand them over to terrorists.
Fifty-nine percent said that Iran might use nuclear weapons against the U.S. A slight majority of those polled, to be sure, did not wish to use military action against Iran, but that should be interpreted as not yet, because two-thirds said that they worried the U.S. would not do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Americans are a misunderstood peoples.
Only one in five owns a passport, and a tiny fraction what the rest of us rent them.
Actually, now that I think about it, uh Americans are a misunderstood people.
Only one in five owns a passport, a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language.
U.S. apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by U.S. bloodlust when attacked.
President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq about which Americans care little.
The Iranian president's the sort of villain that central casting once sourced for studio film productions in Hollywood.
No more than Napoleon could stay away from Russia.
Uh can this Iranian guy, Amanijad, uh abandoned Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He represents a generation that's bled for its country and its sect for a quarter century and now has come into its maturity and must demonstrate its mettle.
The revolutionary guards of nineteen seventy nine now are middle aged men who now at last have a chance to lead.
Ahmadinejad has salted the regime's middle ranks with thousands of men like himself.
If Iran stands down as a prospective nuclear power, it faces a rapidly graying population, declining capacity to export oil and the discontent among rural people and the urban poor.
And now we have Seymour Hirsch, an instantly celebrated report in New Yorker claiming that President Bush is preparing war against Iran, including the prospective use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Now to be very precise, I am not accusing the White House of manipulating the Iranian issue for political purposes.
On the contrary, if the US president thought only in terms of political consequences, he never would have uh uh risked so much on his quest for democracy in Iraq, but still, Bush has the opportunity to shift the subject away from the unpopular campaigns there to improve the politics of the Middle East and to back the extremely popular subject of killing terrorists.
The best way to do that says in Iran.
I'm somewhat surprised to find myself quoted so generously in a in a publication.
I I'm moving forward with another excerpt here and I'm not referencing what he's talking about now, uh 'cause it sets up what I want you to hear next.
I'm somewhat surprised to find myself quoted so generously in a publication whose views I have treated rather roughly the past three years, and the U.S. President's political fortunes were far from my mind when I wrote the demographic analysis of Iran's imperial design.
But no matter.
If clon conflict with Iran is indeed unavoidable, the Bush administration can reemerge as a war government rather than as a Wilsonian nation builder government with every expectation of popular support.
The Democrats already have begun to game their responses to a U.S. attack on Iran before the election.
Which is to say that Republicans have begun to game the Democratic response too.
Just as in the 2004 elections, the Democrats will have a losing hand if the White House orders force against Iran.
Americans rally behind a wartime leader.
The one exception was Vietnam.
America's engagement with uh Iran would resemble the Bill Clinton administration's aerial attack on Serbia rather than the Iraq wars, for there is no reason at all to employ ground troops.
God takes care of drunks, small children, and the United States of America.
Improbably, destiny has a surprise in store for George W. Bush.
Now this is uh Asia Times online.
Uh the date of this story is uh don't like that.
It's it's recent, it's the weekend or today.
And the author is simply named Spingler.
Don't know first names.
It's all I know.
Back to the phones, Moses in Rialto, California.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Thank you for taking my call.
Mexican diddles.
Thank you.
I was born in Mexico, and um I know a little bit as far as uh what uh attitudes and uh the Mexican people are.
I've been living here in the USA since uh what uh seventy-six, and I've been uh citizens for about fifteen years.
Uh and um just wanted to mention that uh as far as the border, everybody knows as far as in Mexico that if they have a chance to come in, they would try.
But if they knew that they were not able to come in, they won't even try and they would be happy living where they're at and making a living there in Mexico.
They'll be happy living where they're at.
Yes, I mean they would be s uh uh in their mind they will be satisfied to make a living in Mexico.
Uh knowing that if they were they were to attempt to cross the border, they would be that it would be impossible.
Whether it would be enforced fully, I mean as far as the border, they need uh it needs to be uh no it needs to be known to the people in Mexico, and whoever comes tries to come in that they're not able to come in.
Well, uh that wonderful, but that's um I'm sorry uh to say that that's not on any political party's drawing board.
I mean, they're out there providing lip service to it.
You know, we gotta we gotta stem the flow of immigration, southern border, work hard on that.
We need more border patrol agents, virtual wall, or whatever, but they're not really uh serious about it.
Uh so that's that's that just isn't gonna happen.
Well, I take I mean uh i it it at some point the tipping point will be reached, uh, and it will happen.
I don't know when, but the the business of uh of whether the uh the Mexicans would come or not because of a wall, and they would happily stay in Mexico.
I I frankly uh I don't want to sound cold hearted, cruel and callous here, but but uh I understand I my my general understanding is their unhappiness in Mexico combined with the overall opportunity presented here are the primary motivators for their uh their trek north.
So let's say we built the wall, and a wall insured they're not getting over it.
Well, okay, then they they don't get in, and you say they won't try.
Whether they're end up being happy in Mexico or not, we don't know, and I don't know that that's our concern.
Uh the United States of America's job is not to spread happiness around the world.
We have enough trouble uh uh doing that constitutionally in this country by setting up a climate of uh where we all can pursue life, uh, except the aborted liberty uh and a few others and the pursuit of happiness.
Uh but whether or not that we have to extend that to the people of Mexico and other countries uh be concerned about it in terms that it would have a be a factor on our policy uh is that's uh that's a that's a disconnect.
But no question a wall would work.
And and so I think one of the reasons why there isn't one.
Uh we'll be back.
Stay with us, Mike.
All right, can I can I have the attention of all of you union workers out there?
I have some interesting statistics that I want to pass on to you.
It comes from a website called Union Facts.com, and it is a uh press release.
Union dues spent on golf, Cadillac resorts, and even Walmart.
New Union LM2 financial information available and searchable on UnionFacts.com.
State line, Washington.
Revised financial reporting requirements by the Department of Labor are exposing union leaders' spending habits with unprecedented clarity.
Last Friday, or March 31st, most major unions file their LM2 financial disclosure forms with the government, and draw dropping expenditures are already easy to find.
Using the search function, uh WWW.unionfacts.com, making sense of the mountains of union financial data is simple.
A preliminary look revealed the following.
Nearly 1.5 million dollars in union members' dues money was spent on golf.
The iron workers, AFL CIO Local Union 40, spent 52,879 dollars on a new Cadillac for a retiring president.
At least they bought American.
$7.9 million of employee dues money went to resort expenditures for trips taken by union bigwigs.
The Boilermakers AFL-CIO Local 374 spent $8,800 of employee dues money on Christmas gifts at Walmart, despite the labor movement's smear campaign against them.
So they're out there, they're out there trashing Walmart.
Walmart.
Between six AFL CIO locals, over fifty thousand dollars of employee dues money was spent on a single Washington steakhouse.
It had to mean between six locals, they're taking people out to eat or themselves out to eat.
50,000 just at one steakhouse.
The AFL CIO alone spent over 49 million dollars on political activities and lobbying, much of which is spent quietly on in kind political expenditures like pro carry brochures and websites.
That's almost 20 million dollars more than it's spent on representation activities.
So they're spending more on democratic politics than they are on their own uh members.
Terms of representation and and other things.
Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Union facts said the increased transparency of union spending will be especially meaningful to union members who are getting their first candid look at how their mandatory union dues are spent by labor officials.
The 40% of union members who voted for George W. Bush might be interested to know just how much of their dues money went to support John Kerry.
I have this interestingly in my immigration stack today, since Sweeney is appearing with Ted Kennedy at 4 30 today, the Washington Monument, to uh I know he did that's why I'm curious about that because Sweeney spoke out against this whole guest worker thing.
I'm wondering what's happened here.
Uh because they're certainly not going to have anti-movement speakers show up at these rallies.
You think Ted Kennedy's gonna go up there and make a speech and John Sweeney's gonna go up and condemn what he just said and leave unharmed.
Jim in Cleveland, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Hi, you know, Rush, uh, when I was in the Air Force back in the 70s, I was stationed outside of Chicago, and there was they used to have this show on out of Chicago that they would would broadcast.
It had to do with uh ugly people.
Uh it was a law, I'm sorry, it wasn't a show.
It was it was it was a show that was uh involved with uh laws that uh were on the books, but they shouldn't be on the books because they were there for so long, but nobody Yeah.
Well, there was one, it had to do with ugly people weren't allowed to appear on the streets of Chicago, and part of the trivia went back to when they said that uh it went back to when guys came back from the Civil War and they were amputees and they were ugly.
And women and children would go, ah, I don't want to look at that, and so they banned them from the streets of Chicago because they considered them ugly.
Well, that's pretty crude because those guys were in there for a reason.
But the other thing.
Wait, wait, wait, wait just a second.
You said when you were how many years ago were you listening to this show?
Oh, since thirty years ago.
Thirty years ago, and I was hoping they would change the law.
Now you're saying that we have I was hoping that that law was gone.
And now uh since it's not gone, I was hoping I was thinking now this university might be resurrecting something that I thought they closed the door on.
Does this mean we're that's what I was gonna ask you?
Are you sure that law is still on the books in Chicago?
You know what?
I'm not sure it still is, but it was still a weird law because thirty years ago was an ancient history.
But at the same time, are we supposed to figure out now that we go into the when we when we go when we go out the door of supermarkets and every other kind of store, we're scanned for anti-theft reasons.
But are we supposed to be scanned now when we come in because we look ugly in a supermarket?
I mean, it it's like where do you draw the line?
I mean, where where do you consider it like uh not invasional?
I mean, ca this this is crazy.
Jim, I have to ask you a question.
Yes.
You sound pretty passionate about this.
Like almost like you almost have a personal stake in it.
Are you ugly?
Uh no, I'm not.
That's the thing.
I mean, my wife and I are both pretty good looking people, and so are so are so is my daughter.
You know, but the thing is is that there's no way that I'm gonna look at it like, you know, somebody that that that might have um a couple of defects are gonna be better than I am.
I'm I never thought I was better than they were.
The thing is is that the guys that were the guys in civil war that were barred from Chicago in those streets.
They were better people than I was.
Spe speaking speaking of that, I have not seen the headline uh ugly law repealed in Chicago.
I don't know that the uh uh you'd think if it were had been repealed, we'd have seen it.
It would have been a big story.
Um but what he he's calling about a survey we reported on uh earlier this hour, uh the the the these ugly researchers at at the Calgary University are are back again, and they have they've found folks that uh ugly parents tend to lose their kids in grocery stores and other public places far more often than uh attractive people lose their kids.
And in fact, if the kids are ugly and the parents are ugly, then it's even worse.
And now that you've run he's he's responding to now that you you bring kids into this ugly equation.
When it when When the ugly, I mean, we feel sorry for them, we all do, but when they start losing their kids, I mean that legislation can't be far behind because it starts to affect kids, and that's what that's what he's talking about here.
Uh so it this is it's a Canadian story uh right now, but these things tend to spread.
But we're keeping an eye on it, as we have been for the last 26 years.
Back in just a second.
Stay okay, folks.
Two hours down, uh, one exciting excursion into broadcast excellence hour uh remaining, and we'll get right to it.
We'll talk about this guy, uh Malahan in West Virginia.
Unbelievable if you haven't heard the story.
▲
Export Selection