All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
May 10, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, my good friends.
Happy to have you with us, the Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Speaking truth to kooks from behind the golden EIB microphone.
Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I get so sick and tired of hearing about speak truth to power.
What is that?
It's just gibberish.
It's gobbledygook.
So what I do is speak truth to kooks.
Speaking of which, can I go back here to this story that we talked about in the last hour?
If you're just joining us, Martin Frost, a former Democratic congressman from Texas, has written a piece on the Fox News site today, Fox News website about Democrats' message missing the middle class.
They basically talk about a middle class as optimistic and all this class warfare, hatred against the rich is not good because most middle class people aspire to a better life and increasing incomes and so forth.
And they give the statistics about how Kerry and Gore all lost the middle class vote, predominantly the white middle class, but other areas too, the black middle class, the Hispanic middle class, Martian middle class, whatever middle class we have here, they are not getting it.
And it's a trend.
It's not just an aberration.
And it just illustrates their problem.
This group, the Third Way, is a center progressive think tank.
Now, that's not even.
They're Democrats who have seen the light.
They're liberals, but they apparently have seen the light.
I love these liberals calling themselves progressives now.
They can't even be proud and honest of the name and the label liberal.
But it illustrates the problem.
You keep waiting for their agenda, keep waiting for their contract with America.
They keep promising us.
And no wonder it is so late because look at what they're trying to unify.
You have the kook fringe.
I mean, as represented by the blogosphere, I mean, the residents of Kooksville.
And they don't want to hear what the third way has to say.
They don't want to hear that the Democrats are missing the message of the middle class.
They don't want to hear that the Republicans are saying the right thing.
That's not going to bring them over.
Then you have the triangulators of the Democratic Party, which are the Hillary Clintons and that crowd, which go out, I'll move to the right on abortion tomorrow, and I'll move back on Tuesday to the left, and I'll move right on the military and a war on terror, and then I'll move back next week.
And then you have this third way bunch, and then you have the move-on crowd.
Now, they're a little bit different than the kooks.
They're another strain of kooks, but they're not one solid group of kooks.
The blogosphere is one group, the move-on guy.
They're the deeniacs.
And then you have there have to be some left over out there, the Reagan Democrats, who are still voting Republican.
None of these groups, the fringe kook blogosphere base, the Hillary Triangulators, the Third Way crowd that we've been talking about today, the Move-On Deniacs, and the Reagan Democrats.
How are you going to unify that crowd?
How are you going to unify these groups?
You simply can't.
None of the above groups agree with any of the other groups in the Democratic Party.
this talk about democrat unity and uh speaker to be pelosi it's nothing but a bunch of dreaming because i don't know how they're gonna this this report if it if it if it gets beyond the fox news website i'm sure martin frost will be on fox news talking about it If it gets beyond that, and it will in the blogosphere, this guy Frosted, he don't know what he's in for.
Just like Richard Cohen got creamed for ripping this guy from Comedy Central, who, by the way, I'm told I mispronounced his name yesterday, is Colbert instead of Colbert.
You have to understand, folks, I don't listen.
I have never seen that show anyway.
Only not never.
In fact, there's something really odd going on out there in the media.
If you look at the heroes in the left media, now the people that are really being promoted and plugged and so forth, nobody's watching them.
Poor old Anderson Cooper, his ratings at CNN are lower than the dryball he replaced, Aaron Brown.
And he got rid of Brown because he was a dryball.
They brought Anderson Cooper because he's supposed to attract the Ute viewers.
And now he's got this big cover on Vanity Fair.
He says, he's been signed onto 60 Minutes.
Failure works on the left.
It's what I always tell you.
You fail and your stature rises.
The other, this Colbert guy, he's on the comedy set of a million people.
It's more than Anderson Cooper has, but still, in the universe, it's not much.
Anyway, and he's all kinds of press.
Conan O'Brien, a relatively small audience, still being plugged big time.
It's kooky.
And I guarantee you, none of this is the result of any significant achievement on the part of these people.
It's other reasons.
A lot of hope and good intentions are invested.
But I mean, it's straight.
Anyway, my point is that I don't watch.
Well, when I watch television, I watch closed captioning.
I don't listen because it's irritating to me.
Unless I'm in a perfectly acousticized room, if you will, that has plenty of fabric on the wall that absorbs noise rather than having echo all over the place because it makes it hard for me to understand.
It just sounds like a bunch of racket.
And closed captioning doesn't tell you how to pronounce people.
So if you hear me mispronouncing somebody's name, it's because I just haven't heard it pronounced.
It's my mistake.
I should ask somebody.
But when I see the name Colbert, I don't think, by the way, how do you pronounce that?
I think I know how to pronounce it.
Then I get scathing emails.
It's Colbert, Mr. Excellence in Broadcasting.
And they have a point.
But that's why I always pronounce names I can't figure out two or three different ways to make sure I get it right because I'm just not sure.
All right.
Back to this, the problem in unifying all these Democrat groups.
Like, there's the we support the troops crowd.
There's the, no, we don't.
We hate the troops and we hate the military.
And then there's, well, some of us support the troops sometimes.
And then another group of the Democrats, well, we'll agree to say we do, but we really don't.
That's just a small illustration of the problem they're going to have in unifying.
Now, I mentioned this Ben Steinpace, American Spectator today, really, really good.
I love this kind of stuff because it dovetails with things I've already been discussing on the program.
Talks about his psychiatrist, Paul Hyman.
On Tuesday, he went to visit his genius shrink.
And in the course of a lengthy conversation, Stein asked him what he would say to college graduates about what they have to know to succeed in life today.
And he says the shrink looked dubious, so I refined the question.
I mean, Stein said, what do you need to know now that's different from what you, let's say, needed to know when you graduated in the 60s?
And then the shrink majestically lit up.
He gave me a list.
And Ben Stein paraphrases the list.
First, the psychiatrist said, materialism has become more powerful than it has ever been in his life.
The worship of money and the things money can buy is more acute, more unchallenged than it has ever been.
This is a trap because almost no one can ever have enough.
There'll always be somebody with more.
And most of all, the occupations that lead to serious wealth are not well suited to most temperaments.
Trying to jam yourself into that round hole will do you more harm than good if you are a square dowel.
Now, Bob Samuelson has an interesting piece, too.
He's a Washington Post columnist that we cite here on a frequent basis.
And he's also taking off on the book that John Kenneth Galbreth wrote that really defines modern day liberalism, the affluent society.
And one of the central premises of Galbreth's book was that runaway affluence and consumerism and materialism was destructive to society.
And it was leading to people buying products that they didn't need because people were being able to advertise them with the advent of television.
So people started going buying things they didn't need, became consumers, materialistic.
Galberth argued for more money to be spent by the government because that would be better for society than people spending their own money on whatever they wanted and being manipulated by advertisers to buy what they don't need.
Galberth's book has been totally discredited, except it remains a Bible in the left.
But in his column discussing this today, Samuelson points out that one of the reasons that despite this roaring economy, that people may not in polls reflect by virtue of their attitudes, just how strong the economy is, these is because with this rampant affluence and materialism that people want more than they have, even though they've got more than ever dreamed they would have.
But they still don't have enough.
They still want more.
And they want it now.
And when you go back and compare our grandparents and parents, they didn't have that kind of impatience.
That's why there's a bit of a divide.
I also think it's why these slothful people still live at home at age 35.
I do.
I think it's part of the reason.
It's a fast route to not having any financial pain or challenge in your life.
It's continue to live off mom and dad.
Mom and dad, of course, think it's cool to be the best friend of their worthless, slothful offspring.
So it works out for some people.
Second thing the shrink said, and this is key, almost no one today knows anything about history, and so no one has context.
But life without historical context is shallow and unsatisfactory.
If you don't know how mankind suffered in World War II, if you don't know how your fellow Jews or Slavs suffered in the Holocaust, if you don't know what communism did to 50 million good people, you can't possibly know how blessed your life in the United States of America is in 2006.
If you don't know how much your grandparents had to work to get you where you are, you cannot know how precious that car your parents gave you is, or how lucky it is that you can study without having to work at a part-time job.
If you don't know how your fellow African Americans were treated in the 1920s in rural Mississippi, you cannot know how lucky you are to live in an America that has the opportunities this nation now affords men and women of every race.
And I would add, if you don't know of the historical data of World War II, you will fall prey to all of the rotten news coming out of Iraq and how we're losing and casualties are intolerable and so forth.
Sterling reminds me of our call yesterday from the political science professor or student at the University of Louisville, the young Jared, who has no historical concept.
He demonstrated he doesn't because I don't have any historical context because when I told him that THICOMs are communists, oh, he started poo-pooing it immediately.
He has no clue what communism did to people.
And so here he is, whatever age he is, 19 or 20, thinking he's got a brand new answer to the world's problems that nobody's ever thought of before.
Simply because he probably doesn't have a proper historical context to place.
And this is so true.
And when you, I mean, I've had people tell me that they have 14 and 15 year olds in school today, and there are page after page after page in the history textbooks of Bill Clinton and paragraphical references to Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and so forth, but page after page after page of Bill Clinton done on purpose.
The other thing the Shrink said in what he would advise graduates today and how it's different today than it was graduating in the 60s, treating people with kindness and respect is almost an antiquity.
You hardly ever encounter kindness and respect any longer, but it yields great results in terms of what it does for you.
And it's not a sign of weakness to be kind.
It's a sign of strength.
Plus, it is its own reward.
Fourth, be an individual.
Because all your classmates want to go into investment banking doesn't mean you have to.
Because your classmates want to get high doesn't mean you have to.
Because your roommates believe it's great to be ignorant.
You don't have to.
There was a sort of Ursat's individualism in the 60s where all young people wanted to be different from their parents and became very much the same as all other young people.
That there were some real individuals who really stood out and they stood up.
There was Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Bob Dylan come to mind.
So in his own way, did Richard Nixon, who dared to open up China and bring an end to the Cold War.
Won't hurt you to be an individual.
Try it.
You might like it.
And there's more, but I got to take a quick time out here.
Otherwise, they're going to start whispering in my IFB that I'm about to miss another break.
That will never happen again.
All right, we're back.
Great to have you.
El Rushball, the EIB Network.
The fifth thing that Ben Stein psychiatrist told him in defining the differences for graduates today versus years ago in the 60s.
Compassion is always useful, mostly to yourself.
It builds your character and makes you into a bigger, better person.
Also benefits the person to whom you're showing compassion.
Sixth, go with who you are.
As my pal Ona Murdoch likes to say, and I'm paraphrasing here, just ordinary.
Don't mess yourself up.
Not be ordinary, just ordinary.
Don't mess yourself up.
Just be yourself.
Hard to do in today's world and similar to being an individual, but slightly different and very important.
Here's a great illustration, too, of this, what would you call it, this malady that we might find ourselves in, why we've got this great roaring economy, and some people profess to not understand it, realize it, sense it, feel it, experience it.
In hard times, if you're able to get up and go to work and put three square meals on the table today, you are a success.
In good times, you have a 42-inch plasma, four iPods, and a big computer, but your neighbor has a 60-inch plasma and you're miserable, thinking you're getting screwed somehow.
Well, I mean, that's about the way it works.
And there's also, let me find it here because this dovetails here.
Walter Williams, it's in my stack here.
Be patient, ladies and gentlemen.
Have you heard, by the way, this business that, and it's not confirmed, but have you heard this business that the Border Patrol's tipping off the Mexican authorities as to the locale of the Minutemen when they're out there patrolling the border looking for illegals coming across?
Not confirmed yet.
I mean, they're denying it.
The Border Patrol is denying it, but they're not denying it.
It's kind of confusing.
All right.
Caring versus uncaring.
This I love.
Walter Williams, because this, you've heard this uttered in different words by me on this program from behind this, the golden EIB microphone.
What human motivation leads to the most wonderful things getting done?
What human motivation leads to the most wonderful things getting done?
Well, you might say the charity and selflessness that we've seen from people like Mother Teresa or the ceaseless and laudable work of organizations like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army.
What about the charitable donations of rich Americans, to use the silly phrase, who've given something back?
I'm sure you've heard Walter's philosophy and theory on giving something back.
The only people who need to be giving something back are the thieves.
People have been stealing from everybody else.
But successful people don't have a duty to give anything back.
That's just a PR thing.
So is it charitable and selflessness?
Is that the human motivation that has led to the most wonderful things getting done?
The answer should be obvious.
The most wonderful things getting done were not accomplished by people's concern for others, but rather by people's concern for themselves.
In other words, it's people seeking more for themselves that has produced a better life for all Americans.
Take a minor example.
I think it's wonderful that Idaho potato farmers get up early in the morning, toil in the fields, which results in Walter Williams in Pennsylvania enjoying potatoes.
Does anybody think they make that sacrifice because they care about me, Walter Williams?
They don't even know me.
They might even hate me.
But they make sure I enjoy potatoes because they care about and want more things for themselves.
One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting or plundering or enslaving, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing your fellow men.
Unfortunately, demagoguery has led to profits becoming a dirty word, nonprofits seen as more righteous, particularly when people pompously stand before us and declare, we are a nonprofit organization.
Now, I can imagine some of you are going, Rush, are you losing your mind?
You really do need to go home and get some sleep.
No, folks, I firmly believe this, because you know where you're getting caught up?
If you're out there shrieking and yelling over what I just shared with you from Mr. Williams, I can tell you why you're confused because you think I have just described selfishness.
I haven't.
I have described self-interest.
And there is nothing sinful or wrong about pursuing one's own self-interest because in the process of doing so, great achievement happens, wonderful things happen, and countless millions benefit, including your family, when you perceive self-interest.
Selfishness, that's become a dirty word because it's, if used in the wrong way, but don't confuse this with selfishness because that's not what Walter Williams or I are discussing at all.
But most people feel guilty of putting themselves first, and you're only hurting yourself doing that.
America's anchor man, amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic, first and secondhand premium cigar smoke.
And back to the phones now at 800-282-2882.
This is Tina in Greensboro, North Carolina.
It's nice to have you with us today.
Thank you, Rush.
Great to be here.
I've never called you or gone through anyway the millions of times I've agreed with you, but the one time I'm calling to challenge you, I get through.
And I'm calling today about the cable companies.
And it seems to me the technicality of blocking programs and controlling programs has been worked out with the cable companies.
But it seems to me the paradigm is wrong.
The paradigm is that I'm going to throw this entire internet and cable smut channel out in your house, and it's up to you, parents, to buy the equipment or to lease the equipment and to block the programming.
Why isn't the paradigm reversed where we're going to put out safe programming?
And if we want adult programming, we have to buy the equipment to let that into our house.
All right.
Okay.
All right.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm an idiot.
And we'll just, you're right.
And I'm sorry.
Oh.
You've got to be.
You just wait.
You get your a la carte business and you just wait to see what happens to your cables.
It's going to be the worst thing you ever did.
You're going to end up thinking it's the worst thing you ever did.
It's going to be a bigger mess than when I busted up the phone companies.
Why do you think?
Why do you think you go to the grocery store?
Do you buy everything in the store?
No.
Okay.
You probably don't buy 99% of the stuff that's in the grocery store, do you?
You probably go by your meat, eggs, potato, whatever else, but you probably don't go to the whatever.
I'm sure there's stuff in there you don't buy.
Why don't you tell a grocery store, take that out of there?
I don't want to see it when I'm in here.
It's too tempting.
I have a weight problem.
I don't want to see the Oreos.
Take them out of here, so I'm not tempted.
It's not up to me to have the discipline not to buy them.
It's up to you to have the discipline not to tempt me with it.
And that way, you're going to have a smaller store.
You'd pay less rent.
You'd have less expenses in heating and cooling.
And everything else in here would be cheaper.
Why don't you do the same in a grocery store?
Well, if I went to a grocery store that also sold pornography and also sold a lot of things that were offensive, I probably wouldn't be going there and I wouldn't be taking my children there.
So probably something pretty close to pornography at the checkout stand in some of these racy little tabloid magazines right there at the last place you show up in the store where they're more likely to part with more money at the cash register.
Good point.
Although I don't part with money on it.
I do have to look away.
You're right.
All right.
No, but answer the question economically.
Stop thinking about this economically.
Why do grocery stores put all of that stuff in there that you don't buy?
Somebody must be buying it.
Why do they do it?
Well, that's true, but I'm not bringing all that stuff into my home.
I'm just saying this is a special situation because it's coming into our living rooms.
And, you know, you talked about the Hollywood, excuse me, not the Hollywood, the Washington politicians having never run a cable company.
I wonder if any of those cable executives have ever run a family and tried to raise children around their product.
Look, now you're getting to the moral side of the equation, and that's why some people like the a la carte business.
I'm simply talking about the economics of it.
But who am I?
I don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm wrong.
You are Rush Limbaugh.
That's who you are.
Yeah.
Well, we'll just wait and see because I don't know where this is going.
I know that you know who's fighting it?
You know who some of the biggest opponents of a la carte are?
Who's that?
Religious broadcasters.
Really?
The Falwells and the Pat Robbery because they know nobody's going to buy them.
Huh?
They say what's enticing about our program?
We're out there saving souls.
Who's going to spend money to buy us?
I don't know.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know it's not good for families right now.
Well, but it may not also be good for families that like to watch the 700 Club or what Jerry Falwell does or some of these other preachers, but a lot of people think they ought to not be brought into their home.
Well, the V-CHIP.
So that's there you go again.
Every one of these bureaucratic solutions to the problem, it never ends up working, and it's always going to cost you more in the process.
And all I'm telling you is you better be prepared to pay more for this option of a la carte.
That was my primary point.
All this is being done.
Remember, this is being sold.
They're selling it two ways.
They're selling it to you the way you've heard it.
Good.
Keep the smut out of my house.
Keep the pornography out of my house.
They're also selling it on these cable companies are charging way too much.
People aren't watching these channels.
They're having to pay for them.
That's outrageous.
It's like being made to buy gasoline you're never going to use.
Well, we're going to make it a la carte so it's cheaper for people.
When government starts talking how they're going to make things cheaper for you, you better understand the language means just the opposite of what they're saying, despite their intentions.
Well, Rush, I mean, you're a bright guy.
And I hear what you're saying.
No, I don't know what I'm talking about.
Don't listen to me.
I'm wrong.
No, no, no.
No, you're.
We can agree to disagree on a couple of things, but it's hard out there as a parent with a small child.
And we are blessed financially, and we're able to afford it, but not everybody's able to afford to buy or to lease those things have to lease to block it.
I guess I just have a different way of solving problems.
I don't have kids, so I don't have the problem.
I don't worry.
I give myself as few problems as possible.
Well, why didn't I think of that?
Well, it's called hormones and biology in your case.
Well, you do a great job, Rush.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thanks.
You're a great sport, Tina, and I thank you for calling.
Yes, you know something.
That study is BS.
Snerdley just told me, I've got this in the stack that women, there's a new study that women can know when they look at a man's face whether he will be a good father.
And just looking at his face will turn on some signal in the female brain.
I got to get that guy because he's going to be a great father to my kids.
All right.
I personally can disprove this.
I can disprove it because virtually every woman that I've run into in the last number of years has wanted kids.
And who I don't.
You know, I don't, I don't know.
Don't give me that HR say, well, a lot of people have greatness forced upon them.
I know what you're saying.
You're saying the look on my face doesn't tell them I don't want, just tell them I would be a good father if I did.
But what kind of obviously they're getting the wrong signal from me.
Even when I say, even when I say, I don't want kids, they don't listen.
Keep trying to talk me into it.
No, no, you'd be a great father.
They're all telling me in the IFB You would, you would be, you wouldn't be.
Who's next?
Jim in Valley View, Ohio.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Yes, sir.
Hey, Rush, I work in the industry, and I have the solution to this cable dilemma.
Yeah.
It's really quite simple.
The way that we're doing it now by picking and choosing channels to watch is going to become an option down the road.
But the new technology already exists.
You have one at home.
You have a device called a DVR, right?
Yeah, it's like a TiVo.
That's right.
And when you turn your TiVo unit on, it has a list of the programs that you pre-recorded, right?
And you go through the list, you pick what you want, and you hit the play button.
If I remember to record them, set up the season pass manager.
Yeah, yeah, that's correct.
That's exactly right.
Right.
So the future of the industry, which has already started with the downloading on the internet, will be you will purchase a device like a TiVo unit.
You will turn the unit on, and it will give you in alphabetical order by interest all of the programs, not the channels, the programs which will be downloaded by the producers of the program.
This is a good point.
By the time this, that's another thing.
You're absolutely right.
Because by the time our ding bats in Congress get around to monkeying with this, technology is going to have passed them by what they're trying to do.
Exactly.
Exactly, right.
If you want to have $100 a month cable bill, you'll order and download $100 worth of programs.
Well, but at what point is that going to, when we start paying per program rather than for service?
Right.
Well, there'll be competition out there for that as well.
But if it's like 50 cents a program and I can get all the episodes of 24, I'll just download and watch those.
And they might give you the option to pay more to have the commercials eliminated or pay less to have the commercials inserted.
Well, that'll that's that's I know, but that's not real soon.
That's been talked about for a long time.
But until that happens, there's going to have to be some major decision made by somebody about how to get off of the advertiser gravy.
Right now, all these programs are advertiser supported.
That's how their profit's being made at the studio and the network level.
Rush, it'll be determined by the free market.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And don't forget portability, too.
Once, you know, these iPods, these video screens now are just, they're not very big, but they're going to get bigger.
And when you can take the program with you and don't have to be in front of your TV set.
That's right.
That's going to change everything.
Right.
The technology exists.
We just haven't implemented it yet.
Well, now, Mr. Snerdley, who fashions himself as a high-tech geek, has just asked me a question.
And I'll ask, I can answer this, but I'll throw it out to you.
He says, well, in your example that you just gave, where we're going to be buying programs on like a TV or a DVR, what happens to surfing?
Well, that's the point.
You see, it won't eliminate cable programming the way it exists now.
Your cable programmer will give you the option, for instance, like CNN News, Fox News, those channels will still exist because they're 24-hour services.
There'll still be a set fee, but you'll just pay for those, like the weather channel.
You have to have that 24 hours a day, okay?
But the other, the 99%.
Who says?
What if I only want to watch the weather channel when a hurricane comes?
Well, now you're getting.
What if I turn into one of these cheap skates that's been calling me?
I don't want the weather channel year-round.
I don't care about it except during hurricane season.
I think what the future cable programmers will say is: look, if you go back to 15, 20, 25 years ago, it was on cable, what was considered basic, is still on basic cable today.
And you'll still have access to those channels if you still want to pay for them.
But the main bulk of the programming that's on the channels that exist now are all individual programs.
If I watch channel three in Cleveland here, NBC, I'm not watching every program that NBC carries.
I watch the selective ones that I want.
So what they'll basically do is they'll give you those selected programmings.
You'll choose them and you can eliminate everything else.
It'll be truly paid for view.
Let me ask you a question here from the artist standpoint.
Oh, yeah.
Let's use USA just as an example.
USA network.
Right.
Now, the USA network, they want on as many cable systems as possible because I'm assuming they have this kind of deal.
I know Fox does and a lot of the cable channels.
They get X number of pennies, dimes, quarters, whatever per subscriber, not viewer.
Right.
Per subscribe.
And that money from being on all these cable systems finances the production of programs that otherwise, without that money, would not be produced.
Little niche programs.
How do you get HBO is getting all the, well, that's Time Warner, but HBO is some of the most original programming that's out there, and they're being paid by subscriber.
Right.
Not by viewer.
Right.
And what your system Is, as you've described it, compensates people and producers and networks by what number of people actually buy what they're offering.
And that's still way down the road, I'm sure.
But nevertheless, it's going to really shift.
Now, you might say, okay, that's the free market at work.
If these niche programs don't attract enough of an audience to support their production, then bye-bye.
Right.
See, if I'm a producer of a program, if I'm the head of a studio that produces programming, whether it's on television, satellite, movie theaters, whatever, if I'm a producer, I will just simply contact the company that does the downloading for the direct pay-per-view and say, let's make a deal.
I can sell it directly to the market.
I can bypass the movie theater.
I can bypass the USA network.
The bottom line is these 300 cable channels that we have today, a lot of them will cease to exist down the road because people will choose to pick their programming directly as a single pay-per-view option.
So you see the day when people are only watching pay-per-view, that we're not going to have the 200 channels you can surf through.
So I want to record that.
Bam.
Well, look at the market for people that go out and rent DVDs and buy them.
And they sit in their house and they collect dust.
I mean, if they're willing to do that rush, I would think that they would be willing to punch a button on a TiVo unit and order all the episodes of 24 for the next season.
Yes.
I got you.
Okay.
Yeah, well, I'm one of those people that does that.
I know you are.
DVDs.
But you know what?
You know what?
I just got a new system.
I'm running long here.
This next segment's going to be short, but I got to tell you this very quickly.
I got to go.
But I just got because I've got like 350 DVDs, and it's a pain in the butt to go looking for them.
You decide you want to watch a movie, you catalog them.
So I bought this system.
They're all now on a hard drive.
And I just call up the menu on the televisions that shows every movie that I've got.
I just scrolled out of it and bam, starts right off, and it plays it right off a hard drive.
And so my DVDs go out there, collect all the dust in the world, and I never need to touch them or even know where they are anymore.
But you have to own them to be able to do this.
You can't legally do it with things that you don't.
You can only put programming that you own on these on the hard drive.
I've got to take a break here, folks.
Thanks much.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Okay, back to the phones of Marshall, Texas.
John, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk with you.
Thank you, sir.
You hit a hot button with me about this failing to teach history.
And, of course, the liberal left doesn't want us to remember history because they don't want us to remember how victorious this nation has been.
But they don't hesitate to dwell on a war that we lost to further their cause, particularly with Iraq.
I mean, they'll keep the Vietnam War in front of us.
And an eighth-century poet said, Ming Jiao said that if you forget the past, the will easily crumbles.
And that's one of their points that they use to further their agenda, I believe.
No question about it.
And that, by the way, that is tied up in an often expressed philosophy of mine that the left in this country loves military failures because they don't like the military.
And whenever they can show that it doesn't work and it's not the way to go, they'll highlight it.
And they'll do everything they can to make military efforts look ineffective, outdated, other than when Democrat presidents mount them, such as Clinton in Kosovo.
But you couple that with the fact, I've always said this, and there's no question that it's true.
Most people's historical perspective begins with the day they were born.
They don't think back any further than their earliest memories.
And everything that happens is placed in that context.
And when history education here is not being properly taught, we know it isn't, when you can't place in context, for example, the aftermath in Iraq with the aftermath of World War II in Germany.
That's why we've posted on my website the New York Times and Life magazine stories of how we were utter failures in post-war Germany.
The Germans hated us.
U.S. troops were stealing and looting and destroying the ZN, and we did horrible.
The Germans hated us.
They went out of there.
You can read the New York Times from back then and read the New York Times today about Iraq.
And virtually the premise is in all the stories are the same.
U.S. sucks.
We're going to lose.
We're mistreating these people.
They don't trust us.
We're conquerors, not liberators.
It's amazing.
And you can find that.
Life magazine pretty much have the same.
In fact, Coco posts that stuff tonight.
We'll bring it back out of the essential stack of stuff so you can see for yourself.
Be right back, folks.
Hang tough.
You know how people tend to believe things they see.
So I'm working on a map.
I want to put a map up there what the Middle East will soon look like if Old Mahmoud and Iran are not stopped.
Be back, my friends.
▲
Export Selection