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.
You're 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 EIBnet.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 called attention to the problems in this country faced by the ugly way back in 1980 when I was working at a Kansas City radio station.
And I've expanded my work in this area on several occasions since then.
Well, I just got this news report.
This is from Canada.com.
And it's from the, I forget, I don't know what the actual newspaper is, but the authorette of the story, Jody Senema.
And next time you see a child wandering lost and alone in a grocery store or 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 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.
His observers found that 16% of ugly parents lost sight of their children at least once compared to 10% of attractive parents, which 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.
If the ugly parents had ugly children, then the neglect was even worse with even worse with 36% of parents letting their children out of sight.
So when the parents are ugly and the kids are ugly, it's a crisis.
Out there in the grocery stores.
Well, everybody, frankly, I would frankly debate that the in some of these cases, I'm sure it's true, the ugly parents are so focused on their own misery and unhappiness that 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 their parents anyway, or his parents.
And when they're ugly, you know it's got to be even worse.
There are few who will say this, folks, but if the news is out there, we have to deal with it head on.
I just what was your comment, Mr. Snerley?
What did you?
Oh, yeah.
Well, it is every time these ugly stories come up.
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 the 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 in banning the ugly from, say, grocery stores or shopping malls, or one of the first things 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 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 going to need an ugly commission.
Remember now, since this has 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 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 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, not auto emissions.
So that's one story.
And they use the Soviet 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 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 average temperature, as these things are measured, this is very tough to do anyway, but these are actual measurements and not models.
The actual temperature has declined.
It's so little that it's statistical zero.
But the sun, the earth rudder, 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, his L.A. Times, his pieces are in many cases, not all, but in many instances, Ron Brownstein writes pieces to warn Democrats of upcoming trouble and to advise them on ways out of it.
For example, Brownstein, last example of this, he wrote a piece saying that their security plan was baseless and it didn't have anything substantive in it and it contained big problems.
And he was joined 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 potends, portends potential problems for the 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 of 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.
Look, 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 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 CIO, which strongly opposes the measure's provisions for a guest worker program.
So there are backlashes that are taking place.
There's fear in certain quarters.
The Democrats are out advocating for what you're seeing.
They're 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, for whatever percentage of these people are out there actually demanding something to be done, 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 Harry Reid, who refused to allow any amendments to the bill, the Democrats are seen here as really not caring much about it.
And this is true, and I have been sounding the warning claxing on this.
In fact, 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 immigrant advocates can see this and they don't appreciate being kicked around all over the place and being used.
It's going to be an interesting year.
Quick timeout, folks.
Stick with us.
We'll come back.
Is George Bush going to nuke the Iranians?
All right, we're going to get to Bush nuking Iran here in just a second, but just came across some interesting news from the Pew Hispanic Center.
They've gone out and they've, 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 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 6.3 million unauthorized workers were employed as of March 2004, comprising 4.3% of the civilian labor force.
Now, that was two years ago, March of 2004.
Now, I don't know why they don't have figures for more recently than 2004, and I don't know how they got these.
If Pew can find them, why can't?
Ah, never mind.
Seriously, if the Pew research people can go out and find these people and do an in-depth, exhaustive survey, how come nobody else can find them?
But here's my question.
What are the numbers?
12 million to 20 million illegals in the country.
Two years ago, the report found that 6.3 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.
Get this.
While 3% of unauthorized workers are employed in agriculture, 33% 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?
Who knows?
Whatever.
And 17% of them are in production, installation, and repair.
Only 3% of unauthorized workers were employed in agriculture.
That just, you have to ask, how do they know?
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.
The report builds on a previous report released in March that estimated the unauthorized population at 10.3 million as of March 2004.
Okay, so there we have it.
Estimated.
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, what you do.
Please report to the Pew Center at XNX Location.
We just read this stuff.
Accept it as gospel.
All right, now, is George Bush going to nuke Iran?
And the Libs are out there, they're all in a panic.
Seymour Hirsch, lunatic writer for the New Yorkers out there, once again, we've got soundbites here for just a second.
And it was all over the Sunday shows.
Is Bush going to nuke Iran and Bush going to nuke Iran?
The liberals are – it's amazing.
This is a – 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 going to nuke Iran.
They're not worried at all what nuclear capability Iran might be seeking and might acquire.
So yesterday on Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN, Wolf asked Cy 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 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 06 elections, congressional elections.
I think he really thinks he has a chance, and this is going to be his mission.
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 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 their 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.
So this morning at Washington, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, I watched some of this.
And the students there stood up.
Some of the most puerile, infantile, banal, asinine questions.
Mr. President, thank you for coming today.
My name is Rochelle, and I'm studying conflict resolution in international studies.
And I'm about choked.
Here's this advanced school supposedly to teach conflict.
And her question was: I wish I could remember it.
I don't think that was the one about the well, there was one about the polls.
It wasn't the polls.
It was.
Yes, it was.
It was the one about the polls.
Mr. President, the polls say there was another one about nuke.
Well, I don't think it was the poll question on the nuke thing with Iran.
But anyway, the questions were all banal.
And here was one question was, Mr. President, you mentioned by the way, I may not have, how long is this answer, Mike?
I don't have it on a cue 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 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'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, 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 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.
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 worried about Bush a story that says Bush is planning to nuke Iran than they're worried about what Iran is up to.
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 Joel's got some ties to Bush and is going to get it, if Joel's going to 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 of the nuclear strategy, tell you how odd this is.
This is, we have a stated nuclear strategy.
And I don't have to paraphrase it, but preemption with nukes is not part of our policy.
It hasn't ever been.
Nuclear option is meant to be a last-use situation to save the country, to save American lives in tremendous numbers.
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 Asia.
Actually, it's a long piece, and it's a 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 nuke specifically, just says bombed.
One factoid encapsulates Bush's opportunity.
In a February 14th of this year, CNN Gallup poll, 80% of respondents said they believe that Iran, if it had nuclear weapons, would hand them over to terrorists.
59% 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 were the rest of us rent them?
Actually, now that I think about it, 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.
Can this Iranian guy, Amanijad, abandon 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 1979 now are middle-aged men who now at last have a chance to lead.
Ahmad Dinejad 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 U.S. president thought only in terms of political consequences, he never would have 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 is in Iran.
I'm somewhat surprised to find myself quoted so generously in a publication.
I'm moving forward with another excerpt here, and I'm not referencing what he's talking about now because 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 conflict with Iran is indeed unavoidable, the Bush administration can re-emerge as a war government rather than as a Wilsonian nationbuilder 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 Iran would resemble the Bill Clinton administration's aerial attack on Serbia rather than the Iraq wars, where 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 Asia Times online.
The date of this story is recent.
It's the weekend or today.
And the author is simply named Spenger.
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, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Thank you.
I was born in Mexico, and I know a little bit as far as what attitudes the Mexican people are.
I've been living here in the USA since, what, 76, and I've been citizens for about 15 years.
And just wanted to mention that 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 are 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 in their mind, they will be satisfied to make a living in Mexico, knowing that if they were to attempt to cross the border, it would be impossible.
Whether it would be enforced fully, I mean, as far as the border, it needs to be known to the people in Mexico, whoever comes, tries to come in, that they're not able to come in.
Well, wonderful, but that's, I'm sorry to say that that's not on any political party's drawing board.
I mean, they're out there providing lip service to it.
Yeah, we've got to stem the flow, immigration, the southern border, work hard on that.
We need more border patrol agents, a virtual wall, whatever, but they're not really serious about it.
So that's that's that this isn't going to happen.
Well, I take I mean, at some point the tipping point will be reached, and it will happen.
I don't know when, but the business of whether the Mexicans would come or not because of a wall and they would happily stay in Mexico.
I frankly, I don't want to sound cold-hearted, cruel, and callous here, but my general understanding is their unhappiness in Mexico, combined with the overall opportunity presented here, are the primary motivators for their trek north.
Now, let's say we built the wall, and a wall ensured they're not getting over it.
Well, okay, then they don't get in, and you say they won't try.
Whether they'll end up being happy in Mexico or not, we don't know, and I don't know that that's our concern.
The United States of America's job is not to spread happiness around the world.
We have enough trouble doing that constitutionally in this country by setting up a climate where we all can pursue life, except the aborted liberty and a few others, and the pursuit of happiness.
But whether or not we have to extend that to the people of Mexico and other countries or be concerned about it in terms that it would be a factor on our policy, is that's a that's a that's a disconnect.
But there's 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, Michael.
All right, 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 unionfacts.com, and it is a press release: union dues spent on golf, Cadillac, resorts, and even Walmart.
New union LM-2 financial information available and searchable on unionfacts.com.
Dateline, 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 filed their LM2 financial disclosure forms with the government, and jaw-dropping expenditures are already easy to find.
Using the search function, www.unionfacts.com, making sense of the mountains of union financial data is simple.
A preliminary look revealed the following: Nearly $1.5 million in union members' dues money was spent on golf.
The Iron Workers AFL-CIO Local Union 40 spent $52,879 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 trashing Walmart and the union leaders are out there buying Christmas presents.
Walmart, between six AFL-CIO locals, over $50,000 of employee dues money was spent on a single Washington steakhouse.
50,000, that had to mean between six locals, they're taking people out to eat or themselves out to eat.
$50,000 to just at one steakhouse.
The AFL-CIO alone spent over $49 million 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 more than it's spent on representation activities.
So they're spending more on Democratic politics than they are on their own members in terms of representation 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 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.
Because they're certainly not going to have anti-movement speakers show up at these rallies.
You think Ted Kelly is going to go up there and make a speech and John Sweeney's going to 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, when I was in the Air Force back in the 70s, I was stationed outside of Chicago, and they used to have this show on out of Chicago that they would broadcast.
It had to do with ugly people.
I'm sorry, it wasn't a show.
It was a show that was involved with laws that 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 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?
It was 30 years ago.
30 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, since it's not gone, I was thinking now this university might be resurrecting something that I thought they closed the door on.
Does this mean we're...
Well, that's what I was going to 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 30 years ago was an ancient history.
But at the same time, are we supposed to figure out now that we go into ⁇ 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's like, where do you draw the line?
I mean, where do you consider it like not invasional?
I mean, this is crazy.
Jim, I have to ask you a question.
Yes.
You sound pretty passionate about this.
Like, you almost have a personal stake in it.
Are you ugly?
No, I'm not.
That's the thing.
I mean, my wife and I are both pretty good-looking people, and so is my daughter.
But the thing is, is that there's no way that I'm going to look at it like somebody that might have a couple of defects are going to be better than I am.
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, better people than I was.
Speaking of that, I have not seen the headline, Ugly Law Repealed in Chicago.
I don't know that you'd think if it had been repealed, we'd have seen it.
It would have been a big story.
But he's calling about a survey we reported on earlier this hour.
These ugly researchers at Calgary University are back again, and they've found folks that ugly parents tend to lose their kids in grocery stores and other public places far more often than 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 brought, he's responding.
Now that you bring kids into this ugly equation, 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, but it starts to affect kids, and that's what he's talking about here.
So it's a Canadian story right now, but these things tend to spread.
We're keeping an eye on it, as we have been for the last 26 years.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Okay, folks, two hours down.
One exciting excursion into Broadcast Excellence hour remaining, and we'll get right to it.
We'll talk about this guy, Malahan in West Virginia.
Unbelievable if you haven't heard the story.
▲
Export Selection