All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
April 19, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back on a cutting edge of societal evolution Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis basis.
Great to have you with us, folks, and if you want to uh join us on the phone, numbers 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, this uh this alleged rape, the rape case at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
One of the uh witnesses, or one of the defendants, uh the man named Reed Seeligman uh is attempting to establish that he has a a full-fledged uh alibi, and he's he's letting uh uh ABC in on the information his lawyers are.
On Monday, he and his buddy Colin Finity were indicted for allegedly raping and kidnapping a twenty-seven-year-old woman at an off-campus party.
On Tuesday, they turned themselves in, they were released from custody after posting a four hundred thousand dollar bond.
Over the last few days, sources close to defense, uh the defense have given ABC News an exclusive look at the evidence behind one player's alibi, alleged alibi, evidence that includes electronic records, photographs, and witness statements.
If that material is authentic, it could prove that it was practically impossible for him to rape, kidnap, or assault this alleged victim.
His argument is simple.
He's innocent and he has an alibi.
He attended the party that night, but documents, photos, and witness testimony show that he wasn't there long enough or at the right time to attack the victim.
The alleged victim.
Around midnight, on the night of March 13th, Seeligman was already at the party when two women hired from a local escort agency arrived to dance for the boys, 400 bucks each for a two-hour performance.
A series of timestamp photographs viewed by ABC News show the girls arriving and dancing at midnight.
And uh at 1202 A.M. and the alleged victim had plenty of bruises and a cut on her knee.
She obviously had some something happened to her before she got there.
By 1224 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seeligman's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank.
In a written statement to the defense, also reviewed by ABC, a cab driver confirms picking up Seligman and a friend and a block and a half from the party, driving them to the bank by 1225 a.m. he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.
What did Sieligman do after leaving the bank?
The taxi driver remembers taking him to a drive-through fast food restaurant and then dropping him off at his dorm.
Duke University records show that Seeligman's card was used to gain entry at 1246.
In addition to bolstering Seeligman's alibi, the taxi driver's written testimony provided a rare glimpse of color in an otherwise darkened night.
I remember those two guys starting uh enjoying their food inside the car, but I'm glad I ended up with a nice tip and a fare of twenty-five dollars.
ABC News traced the steps of Seligman's story, timing how long it took to get from place to place in repeated trials.
The drive between the Wachovia branch and the corner where the cab picked him up took approximately five minutes.
This suggests that Seeligman must have left the house by twelve nineteen a.m.
Soligman's uh alibi suggests that he and the alleged victim were in the house together for less than twenty minutes.
According to the defense sources, based on the alleged victim's affidavit, all of the following would have transpired within that time period.
She and her dance partner performed for several minutes.
They left after feeling threatened by the boy's growing excited and aggressive nature, uh, returned after being persuaded by team members to dance some more, and then she was forced into a bathroom, beaten and raped.
Within those same minutes, phone bill records reviewed by ABC showed that uh the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.
Seligman and his co-defendant were presumably among the players identified by the alleged victim last Thursday.
According to defense attorneys, the prosecution and the woman picked out two of her alleged attackers with 100% certainty and another attacker with 90% certainty while examining pictures.
But did Seeligman have the time, much less the will to commit a violent sexual crime?
Though he was indicted, Seeligman is presumed innocent until a jury says otherwise.
Nobody knows what evidence the D.A. Mike Knifewong will bring as he looks to convict Seligman Infinity.
If the conviction occurs, the two young men face mandatory jail time.
Whether the evidence above will clear their names in either a court of law or in the court of public opinion will become clear in the weeks and months to come.
Now, today on the uh Today Show, they they had their legal guy, Dan Abrams, and he rattled off all these alibis for Seeligman.
And then, and he had to say, if you believe this, and if you believe that.
Well, let's say that I only believe one or two or three or four of these items in the alibi.
I mean, who doesn't throw up their hands and say, what more can they want other than the time date photos, the girlfriend call, the cab call, the cab pickup, the ATM withdrawal, the food pickup.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff that happened here during the alleged time the woman was raped.
I'm sorry, during the time the alleged during the time of the woman was allegedly raped.
Um it's plus, you know, something else.
I guess this leaves a 12-minute or so window for the crime to occur.
You've got three guys that are over six feet tall.
You've got you got one drunk dancer.
Uh I don't know how big the bathroom in this house is, but I'll bet it's just not big.
And you've well, okay, uh a dancer who had been drinking.
A dancer.
That the news is that she had she she arrived and she was right.
She she was she she she'd been enjoying her share of adult beverages uh before she got there.
Okay, well um I don't know.
I I I'm gonna see if they try to reenact this in court to show how this could be done inside of twelve minutes.
Why'd the kid call a cab?
Why did he call a cab?
Maybe it's because he'd been drinking.
And maybe it's because he was pretty responsible.
I don't know.
I would just have to wait and see.
But the defense is uh a bunch of pit bulls on this, and they're all to this day maintaining that this did not happen, and uh this I don't know.
I it's it's well it it is unusual, but uh I uh let me tell you why they're doing it.
I uh it it's if Mr. Snerdley observes, as the official program observer, that it is unusual uh for these people to show their hand uh the defense people show their hands so early on.
I'll tell you why.
It's because sources close to the investigation are gonna be leaking all kinds of things before this day is over, before this case is over.
Been there done that.
Sources close to the investigation.
Who knows what the prosecutor can leak?
Who knows what his office or his investigators can leak?
And we all know that when sources close to the investigation say anything, man, it just gets repeated as though it is gospel.
And I think these guys have uh these lawyers are astute enough, they've watched enough of these kinds of cases lately, and they're just trying to get out in front.
It's called being proactive rather than reactive.
They know that this is a case.
Look at you've got you've got 19, 20 what year old kids here.
And uh uh I don't know, they're they're their uh their lives are in in ruin right now.
Just over being charged.
Just from being charged.
I mean, it makes perfect sense if they think they have exculpatory evidence to put it out there in the court of public opinion.
This is this is you know, you're gonna have jury selection coming up, and I think that there's also there's there's no question of political component to this on the DA side of it.
On the investigation side, there's a political component.
The drive-by media has its racial template here, a clash of cultures, a clash of races.
That's propelling them.
You've got the DA fighting for his um re-election in a primary in less than a week or two now.
Uh, and so that you've got all kinds of politics involved in this, and it's clear uh that the the people who are the focus of this, both the alleged victim and the two that have been indicted, and maybe the third, uh, they're props.
Yeah, that's that's one of the things here that's sort of unsettling to me is that they're just props in everybody else's game.
They're props for the drive-by media, what they hope to accomplish here, they're props for the DA in what he hopes to accomplish.
Uh, And of course it's it's uh it ended up they're gonna end up being props for anybody else who claims to have a political interest in the case.
I gotta take quick time out, folks, so we will be right back and continue after this.
And we go back to the phones.
Uh Toledo, Ohio.
Hello, Ron and uh Ryan, I'm sorry, I'm glad you called and welcome to the program.
Thanks, Rush.
I just wanted to say about this whole Duke thing.
I uh with um the DNA evidence that they swapped all the kids, and with um if other stuff's true about this guy's alibi, I think there's probably some political situation that we don't know about with the DA that why he's charging them.
Uh well uh what would it be?
Well, d uh I uh I I couldn't tell you, Rush.
I I don't I I I'm not really sure, but there has to be something going on down there that we don't know about why you're gonna be able to do that.
Well, let me tell you no let me let me tell you what we got going on down there.
It really isn't complicated.
What we have is somebody walks in and says I was raped and savaged by these guys.
She's shown pictures and she can identify two of them.
She had the injuries to prove it.
There's no question something happened to her.
You've got a DA in a black community who's running for re-election.
His primary reelection is coming up oh, four or five weeks after he hears about this information.
He first hears about this on March 13th or March 14th.
Uh the DNA.
It's interesting information, but you know, DNA is relatively new.
The number of uh rape cases, uh sexual assault cases that uh have been tried and decided without DNA far outnumbers those that have been tried and decided with DNA.
It is clear the DA doesn't care about the DNA in this case.
Uh he's he says he's gonna try this the old-fashioned way.
He's gonna have witnesses, he's gonna have testimony, cross-examination, and uh and and all of these things.
If there's politics here, uh, and a lot of people think there is, it's the racial component.
You've got white uh uh brutes who attacked a black woman uh in a black community, uh even though Duke is a by the way, you know, Duke is it it i people gotta understand about Duke University.
Duke University, it yeah, it's in it's in Durham, North Carolina, the Raleigh Durham area, but it is not a good old boy Southern school.
These two guys are from New Jersey and New York.
Uh most of the people at Duke are from the um I mean it's the Ivy Lee they fashion themselves as the Ivy League school of the South.
This is not this is not full of NASCAR types, if you get my uh drift in terms of the way the left thinks about the South.
They're all a bunch of hay seed hicks, but that's not who's at this school.
That's not who's at Duke.
Let me ask you this question, too.
Let me pose this one to you, folks.
Let's say this was the basketball team that this happened to, and not the lacrosse team.
And let's say it's just, you know, two or three games, four or five games into the basketball season, and the exact same thing happens.
A woman comes forward, alleges that uh a bunch of members of the team hired her to dance at a party, and at the party she was sexually assaulted, raped, and kidnapped.
Now, in the case of the lacrosse team, the president of the university, Mr. Broadhead, I mean, they went out of their way.
They fired the coach, they canceled the lacrosse season.
They allowed the cops into the dorms to search the uh rooms of the uh lacrosse team members.
They just bent over backwards and forwards to accommodate the investigation.
Now, it's purely a hypothetical question, and I I don't profess to know the answer, but it's it I did it did cross my mind.
If this were the basketball team, it's you know, national championship team many, many times over, very popular coach, Coach Kay, uh big moneymaker for the school, huge, huge contributor to the overall great reputation of the school.
I wonder, I wonder if the behavior on all sides would have been the same.
We don't know.
We don't know, but we have a model, and that's the University of Colorado.
The University of Colorado did everything it could to suppress allegations made by a former female member of the team, a kicker that she was uh sexually assaulted and made fun of and laughed at, had footballs thrown at her and so forth.
Uh I I don't pretend to know what happened here.
Uh all all I all I can tell you is is that that you can't take several of the obvious political ingredients out of the mix.
You uh you just can't.
And for the people that say, what about the DNA?
Well, there's an answer to all of it.
Well, there's condoms.
Well, uh DNA is not totally con well, there's any number of ways.
I mean the I knew the D the DA was not going to throw the case out just because the DNA test came back.
Now here here's here's the uh the interesting thing to me.
I want to see where the case goes after the election.
I want I just want to see where it goes after the election.
I and I want to see if it if it eventually the uh the uh the alleged victim here says, you know, I don't want to go through all this.
I just don't want to subject myself to this and uh blah blah blah.
And I end up going into a civil action to sue these guys and have a civil trial rather than a criminal trial over there.
I mean, folks, everything's on the table at this point.
And I don't prefer I have I have no inside information as to what's going on down there, and it's it it really is uh it's it's dangerous to speculate, but boy, there's some there's some red flags here that you just can't help uh but factor and uh ignore.
Ruth and Rye New York, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Um I've been listening since 1993.
Thank you.
Um learned so much from you, and really you were my first my first radio host um that I've listened to and really expanded my mind the way I think.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate that.
Well, I appreciate you so much, and I pray for you.
Um but um I called earlier about taxes.
I had to call my cellular um provider today and found out I I've been paying the bill, but my daughter signed us up, and I find out I'm paying twenty-three dollars in taxes per month.
On your cell phone bill?
On my cell phone.
Can you believe that?
That's a higher percentage than gasoline.
And I thought, you know, this is outrageous.
They just keep it no matter what you do in life, they just keep taking a piece of it.
And you know, I raised my two kids after divorce by myself.
And there were times when I had to get a second, sometimes a third job.
I never went on public assistance.
I never looked to my government to do a whole lot for me.
I just really want to live and and and pursue what I love to do and and and make a good living.
Right, and you want to be left alone.
Exactly.
And and I came up to I was living in uh in the Midwest for twenty years.
My husband was a lieutenant in the Army, and uh we traveled a lot.
I was living in the Midwest, and then was actually born in the East, came back here, and I mean I'm just shocked at the taxes.
They took half my paycheck first week.
I you know, you just about pass out when you see that.
And then every time you turn around, like the cell phone, the gas, I think.
I think the issue isn't the oil company.
I think that's a smokescreen that these libs put up so you won't look at the real issue.
The real issue is every time they apply a tax, this should be a limit put on how long that tax can last.
Number two, everything they tax should be labeled as a tax.
When you go to buy gas, you should know what you're paying in state taxes and federal taxes.
They did that with food.
They need to do that with taxes.
Because these guys have been able to slap taxes on everything, and nobody ever calls them to an account.
It's number one how they spend it.
You are so right.
You have learned so well.
Have an idea Do you I mean Ruth, have you ever noticed that when when uh when when uh in the post-Catrina era uh when the gasoline price was skyrocketing, uh some northern state governor, I forget it might have been Minnesota, uh the f I forget which.
He wanted it he he was he wanted it in legislation, uh windfall profits tax.
They were gouging.
And yet these are these guys are always the ones that love it when these prices go up because they think it's gonna affect behavior, it's gonna reduce pollution, it's gonna it's gonna reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Yet when the prices go up, man.
You know why?
Have you ever noticed nobody in government ever gets upset, not once, not ever.
They never get outraged when government benefits from the gouging.
When the money from gouging or taxes or whatever goes to Government, nobody complains when it goes to the private sector, that's when government officials step in and say this is outrageous, this is gouging, the consumer is being manhandled, but you are exactly right.
And your your cell phone tax bill, uh uh the I would love to tell I have I have I've got two cell phones I don't even use.
And the bill every month is 175 bucks.
And I don't even use them.
Well, why don't you cancel it?
Well, because I want them there in case, you know, but I never used them.
Moving right along with talent uh on loan from uh God.
There was a uh story recently, this was uh back on April 15th, four days ago.
Federal health officials at a meeting in Tacoma last Friday downplayed the risk of bird flu and the threat that it poses to humans, contrasting earlier warnings from the federal government.
There is no evidence that it'll be the next pandemic, said Dr. Julie Gerberting, head of the centers for disease control and prevention in Atlanta.
There is no evidence it's evolving in a direction that is becoming more transmissible to people.
Gerbading's comments on bird flu contrast earlier statements from the federal government that uh tended to emphasize worst case scenarios.
She did not say what had changed the thinking of health care officials about bird flu, but she said at this point there is no reason to think that it will or that it ever will pass easily between people.
Well, now what are we supposed to do?
Because we've got a full-fledged well, we don't have a full-fledged yet, but we've got a tsunami of hysteria building on this, and it's been building out there for quite a while.
And everybody's getting all revved up.
What are we going to do about bird flu?
And the government says, it could be bad.
It could be a pandemic.
Now all of a sudden CDC says, nope, nope, nope, nope, not gonna be a pandemic.
It's gotta be real hard for this to um transmit itself from uh from the avian community, uh i.e.
birds, to uh to human beings.
All this confusing data.
What are we supposed to do now?
Just go through life like it is not gonna happen?
Are we supposed to hunker down and get ready for it?
We look at all these things we're supposed to be afraid of, folks, they're gonna wipe us out.
Global warming gonna wipe us out.
Al Gore's got a movie coming out.
Al Gore, have you seen have you seen the movie poster for his movie?
It's the March of the Penguins, so they're marching in a desert.
They're marching, they're marching across sand.
If that was the case, they'd be dead because those emperor penguins can't handle temperatures above twenty degrees, I don't think.
Really, that's it's that's just they're they're made for it down there.
Um at any rate, I mean it's just it's this there's a there's a never ever ending cycle of catastrophe and crisis every day when we wake up.
It's gonna doom us, it's gonna kill us.
We're just we're hopeless.
We may as well just end it all now and end the suffering.
That's all uh it's all ahead of us.
Tom and Richmond, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I'm deep in tobacco country, so I want you to use that as a reference.
I have a question for you.
Yeah.
What what is the motivation for both the government and the oil industry to change their ideas and change our technology?
Because if our taxes are percentage, then every rate hike and prices, they make more money.
So now if you look at tobacco industry, they were forced several years ago to promote non-smoking lifestyles and promote all this other stuff.
But if if you look around, smoking is at an all-time high internationally and nationally.
The prices.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, hold it a minute.
I didn't know that.
I didn't know that smoking was at an all-time high domestically.
I know I internationally, yeah.
I know that that's where big tobacco is making its money by killing our enemies.
But uh it's gonna take 45 years or 45 years.
So generally how long you have to smoke 45 or 50 years before it gets you.
Well, I don't know if it's a good thing.
Well, it sounds like a pretty safe activity.
It's safer than going scuba diving.
Uh I don't know where the polls come from, but I know if you look at any high school or even middle school, they're recruiting people massively because it's smoking is still there, and it's not going away no matter how much the big business tries to promote it because the government told them to.
So I want to know what where's the where's the Uh where's the image for government and where's the the need for them to change their minds because they're still making money off of it.
Well, look uh I'm not quite sure I get the analogy because nobody is saying we got to quit driving.
Nobody is saying we well, I mean nobody reason.
I know you've got the wacko environmentalists out there saying we've got to you know start driving around on bicycles and stuff, but nobody nobody reasonable is suggesting that we stop using oil or gasoline and we said maybe use it less, but nobody's suggesting we ban it or get rid of it.
Uh now, in the case tobacco, nobody's got the guts to say we should ban it, but they are actively trying to get people to stop it.
Uh if you wanted to have a correct analogy to smoking, where you can no longer smoke in public, well, you can't drive in public.
Anywhere there's more than a crowd of five people, you can't drive by them because you're gonna kill them.
That would be the equivalent.
And nobody nobody's suggesting that.
Now I get your point that the government is interested in prices going up because taxes rise at the same time.
I guess my concern is is when you look around the technology is there with alternate fuels, corn-based hydrogen uh, you know, soybean-based fuels.
That is there, but nobody is getting the money to experiment with it and to research it.
And when is the government why would the government want to make an oil company research that when they're going to make more money off of the oil than they would off of soybeans or alternate fuels.
Once again, uh, the president, the last two State of the Union addresses.
First, we were going to go have to drive hydrogen cars, and next we're gonna drive cars that run on grass.
Uh the president is trying to lead an alternative energy effort.
Uh why not okay, I know nobody believes it, but he's still I'm just responding here to what old Tom is saying.
There are people that are that are that are trying to get this movement going.
The reason it's not going to get going is because there isn't one yet that makes sense.
Until we come up with an alternative fuel that's better than oil, nobody's gonna go to it.
I've got it.
We did the story the other day that that Honda is going to start making fewer and fewer hybrids because nobody's buying them.
Now the press is that they're going out of the showroom floors left and right, but people are discovering they're not as cheap uh either to buy or to operate as the uh as the image that is the as the as the propaganda behind them indicates.
So that there's there's not there isn't anything out there to replace oil right now.
Uh in the case of uh of tobacco, you got nicerette.
I mean I I'm not quite sure I get the analogy here.
And uh, you know, I know you're saying that the government is is is not encouraging these uh new technologies and so forth, and what your point is they want oil to continue to be used.
They want gasoline products because they've got a high stake tax in it.
Um same thing with tobacco.
Uh it's it is uh it it's amazing to me you listen to all these people over the years talk about how dreaded, destructive, deadly, sickening, dirty, polluting tobacco is, and then you listen to all the death statistics, and then we hear about how rotten and dangerous secondhand smoke is, and it's wiping everybody out.
And big tobacco was forced to run campaigns dirt uh urging everybody not to buy their products.
They're so bad, they're so deadly, they're so sickly, they are so perverted, they are so scummy that they had to make sure that the people they were trying to sell them to didn't buy them.
What kind of common sense is this?
In the meantime, the moral leaders of America, Hollywood, you can't go to a movie these days without half the characters smoking in seductive, sexy ways designed to promote the use of the product.
My question is this.
If it's that bad, why not just ban it?
If it's killing this many people, if it's taking this many parents away from their children, and this many children away from their parents, and if it's polluting everything, and if it's stinking everything up, why not just ban the product?
Well, it's an interesting question.
The reason they don't ban the product is because they couldn't do without the tax revenue, and they couldn't do without the periodic lawsuits of big tobacco, in which the attorneys general of uh various state get together and line up and accuse them of all these horrible things they've done and they've lied before Congress, and they have these multiple billion dollar settlements that the states supposedly are going to use the money for anti-smoking education and so forth, and they don't.
They end up using the money for other projects, and they still are bankrupt, and they still need to raise taxes elsewhere.
It's all a game, folks.
It's nothing more.
It's like these demagogues on radio and TV I was telling you about earlier, that stick their fingers up in the wind.
And they they sense that you're upset about consumer prices in some commodity, so they become the leaders in trying to take on the producers of that commodity, the manufacturers of that commodity, and they're gonna take them down, and they're gonna do it for you.
They're gonna make sure you don't get screwed anymore.
They're gonna become your angel and your evangel, and they're gonna make sure that you don't get the chef, but he's eagle, evil, mean, rotten to the core CEOs, and all of it's a joke.
They're just playing on your pain, trying to make you think that they're on your side.
All they're trying to do is attract an audience.
You might say they're just trying to get ratings, but and some of them may be megalomaniacal enough to think that they can actually affect policy.
I don't doubt that that's uh that's true in some of these guys' cases.
It's no different than politicians, Chuck Schumer to, oh, I'm gonna bring this Exxon guy in.
This is outrageous.
He gets 400 million dollars in retirement pay.
Why I'm gonna make them open their books.
He does.
He doesn't really care.
He's a liberal, he would love to punish the guy, but all he's trying to do is make you saps out there think he's on your side.
And he is gonna make sure somebody pays.
Now, what Schumer's gonna end up doing is not gonna put money in your pocket, and it's not gonna make the price of oil or gasoline any cheaper.
But he's gonna punish Lee Raymond.
He's gonna make sure the CEO of Exxon suffers.
He's gonna make sure he's humiliated.
Also you can be made happy by said humiliation.
But does it end up benefiting you in an economic way?
Hell's bells, there's no way.
All this is just a game, and they're just playing on your what they it's the Dubai Ports deal.
Dubai ports deal.
Classic, classic example.
They knew you were PO'd.
They knew you were angry, and so all they gotta do is come out and echo sediments they think you're feeling, and ammo, in an election year especially.
You're gonna think they're on the right side.
Then, of course, here comes illegal immigration, and they ignore you.
And you're probably telling them more about that than you were about the Dubai ports deal.
But they're ignoring you.
Well, the bottom line, they don't really care what you think, but if they can get on the same side as you now and then to make you think that they care, then they think they're establishing a bond with you.
Oh So all this is smoke saying this smoking, all this stuff, and it's pathetic, and it's pathetic to me because it insults everybody's intelligence, and it's a one thing.
Arrogance and condescension and insulting my intelligence is the one thing I don't have much patience for.
Okay, now get these next two stories.
Uh once in the Washington Post, once from ABC.
First, the Washington Post this on Friday, April the 7th.
A modest and slimming proposal.
America's fat and getting fatter.
Today, 140 million American adults are overweight or obese.
Their bodies carry four billion pounds of excess fat, the result of eating 14 trillion excess calories.
Numbers of this size belong in the domain of economists, not physicians, and therein lies the solution.
Medical and public health attempts to control obesity should continue, but it's time to add marketplace approaches.
The first step is realizing that nationally weight gain's not a medical problem, it's a pollution problem.
Kid you not.
Food calories are so pervasively and inexpensively available in our environment that they should be regarded as a pollutant.
Just as an asthmatic can't help but inhale pollutants in the air all around him.
We Americans cannot help but ingest the calories present in the environment all around us.
Our Stone Age biology is optimized to survive famine by triggering eating at the slightest provocation.
We Are not optimized to eat prudently in an environment of cheap and easy calories.
Public policies have succeeded in reducing air pollution.
They can teach us how to reduce calorie pollution.
I'm not making this up.
Guy named John G. Sotos, S-O-T-O-S, writing in the Washington Post.
Public policies uh uh lead to a program for tradable emission allowances that could target foods with a high caloric density, that is, foods with a high number of calories per ounce.
These foods are more likely to produce weight gain than foods with a low density of calories.
It's easier to eat 1,000 calories in dessert than it is in vegetables, because the calories in dessert are concentrated.
A food's caloric density generally depends on its water and fat content.
Dry fatty foods have the highest caloric density because water has weight, but no calories, and because fat has more calories per ounce than proteins and carbohydrates.
For example, butter, which is fatty and dry, has 195 calories per ounce.
Frozen spinach has seven calories per ounce.
A specific example illustrates how tradable emission allowances could work.
Suppose the calorie emission allowance is set to 100 calories for each ounce of food emitted into the environment, i.e.
sold.
A four-ounce food item having more than 400 calories could not therefore be sold unless calorie credits were purchased to cover the excess calories.
So a standard four-ounce stick of butter containing 780 calories could not enter the marketplace until the butter producer acquired 380 additional calorie credits from someone having credits to sell.
On the other hand, the producer of a four-ounce block of frozen spinach would emit only 28 calories into the environment.
And could you see what they're doing here?
They're trying to equate obesity with uh with pollution, and then there are pollution credits in the environment that are bought and sold by various companies that do pollute.
With such a program, high density foods would become more expensive and low density foods would become cheaper.
Unlike a tax, the program could be designed so the net cost change to consumers was zero.
We must hope our political leaders, many of whom are sedentary, overweight, would have the courage and good health to face the barrage and think of this seriously.
I'm telling you, this is folks, the the the this are liberals.
I don't know who this let me see who this guy is.
Uh the writer is a cardiologist and chief executive of a firm working on systems to diagnose certain sleep disorders.
His name is uh John Sotos.
Now here's the nexus from uh this is from today.
New research suggests that what you eat as important as what you drive when it comes to global warming.
Your personal impact on global warming may be influenced as much by what you eat as by what you drive.
That surprising conclusion comes from a couple of scientists, not surprising at all.
I've been saying this for 20 years.
We're just recycling it because it didn't sell the first time.
First time they tried it was you gotta stop buying beef at McDonald's because the cows that eat it first off are destroying the rainforest.
They're out there clear-cutting so they have grass to eat, whatever they eat, then they then they're then they're in their methane expelling gas that's causing greenhouse gas.
Oh, it was a disaster in the making.
It didn't sell, so now they're back.
The surprising conclusion comes from a couple of scientists who've taken an unusual look at the production of greenhouse gases from an angle that not many folks have even thought about.
Uh, Gidden Eschel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, have found that our consumption of red meat may be as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies.
In terms of energy required for harvesting and processing fish and red meat ended up in a virtual tie, but that's just in terms of energy consumed.
When you toss in all the other factors, such as blow vine flatulence and gas released by manure, red meat comes in dead last.
Eating red meat is like driving an SUV.
I kid you not, folks, this is how out there they're recycling.
This didn't sell the first time, they're bringing it back now, comparing it to the SUV, eating red meat.
And I can't believe you people get caught up in all of this.
And it's no different than these people getting caught up over gas price or tobacco.
What we need to do, they're just a bunch of nutcases.
Back.
That's right, folks.
So the uh modern equivalent here today is that red meat is the Joe Camel of 2006.
If these guys get their way, I would urge you just not to play.
Have a great day.
▲
Export Selection