And we're back in a cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Great to have you with us, folks.
And if you want to join us on the phones, numbers 800-282-2882, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, this alleged rape, the rape case.
At Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, one of the witnesses or one of the defendants, the man named Reed Seligman, is attempting to establish that he has a full-fledged alibi, and he's letting ABC in on the information his lawyers are.
On Monday, he and his buddy, Colin Finnery, were indicted for allegedly raping and kidnapping a 27-year-old woman at an off-campus party.
On Tuesday, they turned themselves in.
They were released from custody after posting a $400,000 bond.
Over the last few days, sources close to 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, Seligman was already at the party when two women hired from a local escort agency arrived to dance for the boys, $400 each for a two-hour performance.
A series of timestamp photographs viewed by ABC News show the girls arriving and dancing at midnight and at 12.02 a.m.
And the alleged victim had plenty of bruises and a cut on her knee.
She obviously had something happened to her before she got there.
By 12.24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligman'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 12.25 a.m., he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.
What did Seligman 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 Seligman's card was used to gain entry at 1246.
In addition to bolstering Seligman'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 enjoying their food inside the car, but I'm glad I ended up with a nice tip and a fare of $25.
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 Seligman must have left the house by 1219 a.m.
So Seligman's alibi suggests that he and the alleged victim were in the house together for less than 20 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, 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 show that 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 Seligman have the time, much less the will, to commit a violent sexual crime?
Though he was indicted, Seligman is presumed innocent until a jury says otherwise.
Nobody knows what evidence the DA, Mike Niflong, 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 Today Show, they had their legal guy, Dan Abrams, and he rattled off all these alibis for Seligman.
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 woman was allegedly raped.
I mean, 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 one drunk dancer.
I don't know how big the bathroom in this house is, but I'll bet it's just not big.
And you've, okay, a dancer who had been drinking.
A dancer.
The news is that she arrived and she was right?
She'd been enjoying her share of adult beverages before she got there.
Okay, well, I don't know.
I'm going to see if they try to reenact this in court to show how this could be done inside of 12 minutes.
And why'd the kid call a cab?
Why did he call a cab?
Maybe it's because he's been drinking.
And maybe it's because he was pretty responsible.
I don't know.
We just have to wait and see.
But the defense is a bunch of pit bulls on this.
And they're all to this day maintaining that this did not happen.
And this, I don't know.
Well, it is unusual, but let me tell you why they're doing it.
Mr. Snirdley observes as the official program observer that it is unusual for these people to show their hand, the defense people show their hands so early on.
I'll tell you why.
It's because sources close to the investigation are going to 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, 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, you've got 19, 21-year-old kids here.
And I don't know.
Their lives are 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, you know, you're going to have jury selection coming up.
And I think that there's also, there's no question, there's a 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 re-election in a primary in less than a week or two now.
And so you've got all kinds of politics involved in this.
And it's clear that the people who are the focus of this, both the alleged victim and the two that have been indicted and maybe the third, they're props.
And 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.
And of course, they're going to end up being props for anybody else who claims to have a political interest in the case.
I got to take quick time out, folks.
We will be right back and continue after this.
Here we go back to the phones.
Toledo, Ohio.
Hello, Ron.
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.
With the DNA evidence that they swapped all the kids, and with if all this 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, why he's charging them.
Well, what would it be?
Well, I couldn't tell you, Rush.
I'm not really sure, but there has to be something going on down there that we don't know about.
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 reelection.
His primary reelection is coming up four or five weeks after he hears about this information.
He first hears about this on March 13th or March 14th.
The DNA.
It's interesting information, but DNA is relatively new.
The number of rape cases, sexual assault cases that 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.
He says he's going to try this the old-fashioned way.
He's going to have witnesses.
He's going to have testimony, cross-examination, and all of these things.
If there's politics here, and a lot of people think there is, it's the racial component.
You've got white brutes who attacked a black woman in a black community, even though Duke is a...
By the way, you know, Duke is...
People got to understand about Duke University.
Duke University, 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.
Most of the people at Duke are from the, I mean, it's the Ivy League.
They fashion themselves as the Ivy League School of the South.
This is not full of NASCAR types, if you get my drift, in terms of the way the left thinks about the South.
They're all a bunch of Hayseed 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, 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 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 rooms of the lacrosse team members.
They just bent over backwards and forwards to accommodate the investigation.
Now, it's purely a hypothetical question, and I don't profess to know the answer, but it did cross my mind.
If this were the basketball team, it's a national championship team many, many times over, very popular coach, Coach Kay, big moneymaker for the school, huge, huge contributor to the overall great reputation of the school.
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 sexually assaulted and made fun of and laughed at, had footballs thrown at her and so forth.
I don't pretend to know what happened here.
All I can tell you is that you can't take several of the obvious political ingredients out of the mix.
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, DNA is not totally controlled.
Well, there's any number of ways.
I mean, I knew the DA was not going to throw the case out just because the DNA test came back.
Now, here's the interesting thing to me.
I want to see where the case goes after the election.
I just want to see where it goes after the election.
And I want to see if it eventually 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 blah, blah, blah.
And they end up going into a civil action to sue these guys and have a civil trial rather than a criminal trial.
I mean, folks, everything's on the table at this point.
And I don't profess, I have no inside information as to what's going on down there.
And it really is dangerous to speculate.
But boy, there's some red flags here that you just can't help but factor and ignore.
Ruth and Rye, New York, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Be still my beating heart.
I can't believe I'm talking to you.
I've been listening since 1993.
Thank you.
Learned so much from you.
And really, you were my first, my first radio host 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.
But I called earlier about taxes.
I had to call my cellular provider today and found out, I've been paying the bill, but my daughter signed us up.
And I find out I'm paying $23 in taxes per month.
On your cell phone bill?
On my cell phone.
Can you believe that?
It's a higher percentage than gasoline.
And I thought, you know, this is outrageous.
They just keep, no matter what you do in life, they just keep taking a piece of it.
And, you know, I raised my two kids after a 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 pursue what I love to do and make a good living.
Right, and you want to be left alone.
Exactly.
And I came up to, I was living in the Midwest for 20 years.
My husband was a lieutenant in the Army, and 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.
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, there 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.
Number one, how they spend it.
You are so right.
You have learned so well.
Haven't I?
Do you?
Let me tell you, Ruth, have you ever noticed that when in the post-Katrina era, when the gasoline price was skyrocketing, some northern state governor, I forget, it might have been Minnesota, I forget which.
He wanted it, legislation, windfall profits tax.
They were gouging.
And yet these guys are always the ones that love it when these prices go up because they think it's going to affect behavior.
It's going to reduce pollution.
It's going to 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 cell phone tax bill, I would love to, I've got two cell phones I don't even use.
And the bill every month is $175.
And I don't even use them.
Well, why don't you cancel them?
Well, because I want them there in case, you know, but I never use them.
Moving right along with talent on loan from God.
There was a story recently.
This was 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.
Gerberding's comments on bird flu contrast earlier statements from the federal government that tended to emphasize worst-case scenarios.
She did not say what had changed the thinking of healthcare 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 going to be a pandemic.
That's got to be real hard for this to transmit itself from the avian community, i.e. birds, to human beings.
All this confusing data.
What are we supposed to do now?
Just go through life like it is not going to happen?
Are we supposed to hunker down and get ready for it?
Look at all these things we're supposed to be afraid of, folks.
They're going to wipe us out.
Global warming, they're going to wipe us out.
Al Gore's got a movie coming out.
Al Gore, 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 across sand.
If that was the case, they'd be dead because those emperor penguins can't handle temperatures above 20 degrees, I don't think.
Really, that's just, they're made for it down there.
At any rate, I mean, it's just, it's this, there's a never, ever-ending cycle of catastrophe and crisis every day when we wake up.
It's going to doom us.
It's going to kill us.
We're just, we're hopeless.
We may as well just end it all now and end the suffering that'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.
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 a 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 you look around, smoking is at an all-time high internationally and nationally.
The price of tobacco.
Wait, Hold it a minute.
I didn't know that.
I didn't know that smoking was at an all-time high domestically.
Internationally, yeah, I know that that's where big tobacco is making its money by killing our enemies.
But it's going to take 45 years or 45 years.
Generally, how long you have to smoke 45 or 50 years before it gets you?
Well, I don't know.
It sounds like a pretty safe activity.
It's safer than going scuba diving.
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 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 where's the image for government and where's the need for them to change their minds because they're still making money off of it.
Well, look, I'm not quite sure I get the analogy because nobody is saying we've 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 start driving around on bicycles and stuff.
But nobody, nobody reasonable is suggesting that we stop using oil or gasoline.
Maybe use it less, but nobody's suggesting we ban it or get rid of it.
Now, in the case of tobacco, nobody's got the guts to say we should ban it, but they are actively trying to get people to stop it.
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 going to kill them.
That would be the equivalent.
And again, 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 when you look around, the technology is there with alternate fuels, corn-based hydrogen, 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, 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 going to drive cars that run on grass.
The president is trying to lead an alternative energy effort.
Why?
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 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 going to go to it.
I've got it.
We did the story the other day 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 either to buy or to operate as the image and as the as the as the propaganda behind them indicates.
So there's nothing.
There isn't anything out there to replace oil right now.
In the case of tobacco, you got Nicorette.
I'm not quite sure I get the analogy here.
And, you know, I know you're saying that the government is not encouraging these 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.
Same thing with tobacco.
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 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 various states 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 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.
They're going to take them down, and they're going to do it for you.
And they're going to make sure you don't get screwed anymore.
They're going to become your angel and your evangel.
And they're going to 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 true in some of these guys' cases.
It's no different than politicians.
Chuck Schumer today, I'm going to bring this Exxon guy in.
This is outrageous.
He gets $400 million in retirement pay.
Why?
I'm going to make them open their books.
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 going to make sure somebody pays.
What Schumer's going to end up doing is not going to put money in your pocket, and it's not going to make the price of oil or gasoline any cheaper.
But he's going to punish Lee Raymond.
He's going to make sure the CEO of Exxon suffers.
He's going to 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're the Dubai Ports deal.
Dubai Ports, classic, classic example.
They knew you were PO'd.
They knew you were angry.
And so all they got to do is come out and echo sentiments they think you're feeling.
And in election year, especially, you're going to 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, in 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.
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.
One's from the Washington Post, one's from ABC.
First, Washington Post says 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 4 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 is not a medical problem, it's a pollution problem.
Kid you're 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 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.
See what they're doing here?
They're trying to equate obesity 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.
Stop telling you this is, folks, these are liberals.
I don't know who this is going to see who this guy is.
The writer is a cardiologist and chief executive of a firm working on systems to diagnose certain sleep disorders.
His name is John Sotos.
Now, here's the nexus from, this is from today.
New research suggests that what you eat is 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 got to 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're methane expelling gas.
That's causing greenhouse gases.
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.
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 they're recycled.
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 or what we need to do.
They're just a bunch of nutcases.
Back.
That's right, folks.
So the 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.