All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:49
December 1, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program are right.
Learn it, love it, live it.
It's Friday.
Let's rev up.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
Big day in the EIB busy broadcast week.
Open line Friday.
We go to the phones.
We try to go to the phones more often on Friday than uh other days.
And when we go to the phones, the program is yours.
Uh Monday through Thursday.
If I don't care about it, we don't talk about it.
But I cast that rule to the wind on Friday, and even if I couldn't care less, you can still bring it up.
Any question, you can ask any question.
You can make any point you want.
I mean, we still have general screener rules.
You have to be able to speak and things like that, but uh we have to be able to understand what you're saying.
As far as content restriction, not much.
Telephone number 800-28228.
If you want to complain, by the way, we love complaints here at the uh EIB network.
You haven't been rejecting complaints in there, have you?
But I look at your facial expression when I Well, I don't the nastier the better.
That's what Open Line Friday's about, Snurdly.
I mean, if you got some people want to complain, let them complain.
You know, I mean, that's that's the whole point, Open Life.
We don't want to have a, you know, a mutual adoration society here, and I'm I don't require constant adulation.
Uh Lord knows I've never gotten it.
So why should why should I expect it here?
Anyway, telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at eIBNet.com.
Uh ladies and gentlemen.
Two stories here that are just shocking.
Uh the first from all AP New Rules make firms track emails and instant messages.
U.S. companies will need to keep track of all the emails, instant messages, and other electronic documents generated by their employees thanks to new federal rules that go into effect today.
The rules approved by the Supreme Court in April, imagine that.
The Supreme Court approving rules, uh, require that companies and other entities involved in federal litigation to produce electronically stored information as part of the discovery process when evidence is shared by both sides before trial.
The change makes it more important for companies to know what electronic information they have and where.
Under the new rules, an information technology employee who routinely copies over a backup computer tape could be committing the equivalent of virtual shredding.
Said Alvin Lindsay, a partner at Hogan and Hardson, LLP, an expert on technology and litigation, James Wright, director of electronic discovery at Halliburton, said that large companies are likely to face higher costs from organizing their data to comply with these new rules.
In addition to email, companies will need to know about things more difficult to track, like digital photos of work sites on employee cell phones, and information on removable memory cards, he said.
Both federal and state courts have increasingly been requiring the production of relevant electronic documents during discovery, but the new rules codify the practice.
The rules also require that lawyers provide information about where their clients' electronic data is stored and how accessible it is much earlier in a lawsuit than was previously the case.
Now, there are hundreds of e-discovery vendors, and these businesses raked in approximately $1.6 billion dollars.
In 2006, and other expense will likely stem from the additional time that lawyers will have to spend reviewing electronic documents before turning them over to the other side.
Now, you might think, well, this doesn't apply to me.
I mean, I don't have to worry about if your company gets involved in a lawsuit, and let's face it, most companies are targeted for lawsuits every day, uh and and your area in the company uh is touched on by the lawsuit.
Anything you have written, email, instant message, photos, is subject to discovery, and your employer now has to keep all of that.
So any of you using an email address that is tied to your company for which you work, and if you're using that at work or at home, even I would I would bet you that if you're doing work on your own personal email account, that will be subject to.
Now everybody's out there getting all hot to trot over the NSA domestic spying program, which was not a domestic and is not a domestic spying program at all.
They're just monitoring phone calls that involve known terrorist suspects out of the country, into the country, or vice versa.
But you know what you're gonna have to do, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Every time you type an email, you are going to have to assume the worst.
Assume that everybody in the country will someday be able to read it.
And you're gonna have to compose that email or not write that email on that basis.
And further, if that doesn't scare you, then do this.
As you're composing your emails and your chats, and you're going back and forth with friends, even if it has nothing to do with business.
Just make sure that you never write anything that you wouldn't want read back to you while you sit on the stand in court in front of a jury.
This is unbelievable.
You know, I remember back this this past spring when this all came up, and I just promptly forgot this.
Uh and when I read this story today, it's from Al AP.
I was just I was just literally stunned.
You talk about an invasion of privacy.
Uh pictures on your cell phone.
Let's say you work for an architect, and you go out and you take pictures of the project under construction on your cell phone.
That the the your company is gonna have to find a way to keep that.
Uh anything is subject, anything you write or say as part of as an employee, uh as a business.
Now, I I gotta tell you something, we all know what this is going to lead to.
I I get folks, the number of emails I get in today is is almost incalculable.
In just in just the rush at EIB net.com.
I'm up at twelve thousand a day now.
That's just because you know the spam has increased it a lot.
But I get emails from people at their businesses who either they're full of adulation or they're saying some of the meanest rotten things you can do.
It runs the gamut.
Um, some of you people out there are going to have to shape up.
Uh some of you are you're gonna have to start paying attention to this.
And there's a party, maybe yesterday I was I was I was uh I wasn't whining, I was I was sort of lamenting that it's difficult uh for me to find people who can relate to certain aspects of my life, and one aspect of my life that very few people can relate to is that is is having uh a national curiosity about every private matter in my life.
Warts, good stuff, and all that.
Most people don't know what that's like.
They think they would love it, they would think that would love that kind of fame and attention, but it isn't what you think it is.
Uh now, all of you I will be able to relate to, because now every one of you out there writing emails as sitting at your computer in your company office will be subject to the same scrutiny that I am under.
So we will all be in this together.
You will now find out what it's like.
You'll have to sit there and everything you write, every phone call you make, you never know who's listening in.
You're gonna have to make sure that you never say anything that you wouldn't want published in a magazine or a newspaper, you wouldn't want read back to you as you're a witness on the stand in a trial.
And you are going to find out what it's like.
Uh, here's another story.
Without their knowledge, this is even better.
Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners.
CNN will not be able to use this story because they can't use the word foreigner.
Reuters will not be able to write the story because they can't use the word terrorists.
Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computer rating, uh, and they rate the risk that you, travelers, uh are terrorists or criminals.
The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.
The government calls the system critical to national security following the 9-11 attacks.
Some privacy advocates call it one of the most intrusive and risky schemes, yet mounted in the name of anti-terrorism efforts.
Virtually every person entering and leaving the U.S. by air, sea, or land, is scored by the Homeland Security Department's automated targeting system, or ATS.
The scores are based on ATS analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they're from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference, and what kind of meal they ordered while traveling.
The uh use of the program on travelers was quietly disclosed earlier this month when the department put a notice detailing the ATS system in the Federal Register that's a fine print compendium of federal rules.
The uh few civil liberties lawyers who had heard of ATS, and even some law enforcement officers said they thought it only was used to screen cargo.
Homeland Security Department called the program one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world and said that the Now uh what does this obviously this is not catching illegal?
Uh this is the thing.
It's it we we've got open borders.
How many of the people crossing our borders illegally are being tracked and are being uh analyzed and scored according to this system?
Obviously not.
Because if they were, they would all be identified and we would know exactly who they all are and we'd be able to do something about it.
This is absurd.
And it's scary that this has been going on and nobody knows about it.
Meanwhile, everybody's been all in a tizzy about the NSA's foreign surveillance program.
David Sobel, a lawyer.
He works at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a uh group devoted to civil liberties and cyberspace, said this is probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected.
My lord, my friends, we have more domestic civil rights intrusions.
We have people actually on lists being rated as to their probability of being a terrible terrorist or a criminal or just a rotten SOB.
Uh targeting system goes beyond traditional watch lists.
Border agents compare arrival names with watch lists separately from the ATS and analysis.
The department says that 87 million people a year enter the country by air.
309 million enter by land or sea, and they know who every one of them is.
But they can't track the illegals, huh?
Here we go, folks, a theme song for the new automated targeting system portrayed by Sting.
Little did uh old Sting here know when he uh recorded this song, that it would fit perfectly as a theme song from a government spy program on average citizens.
His leftists, they step in it every time.
He's a big environmentalist wacko with his wife out there.
And I'm sure there's something called Sting Enterprises, his email being monitored too, probably.
Okay, there you have it.
Uh the official theme song for the automated targeting system.
I love it.
I was I bet the guy never knew that uh that song he composed with the police would fit perfectly in a big brother spy program since Bayside New York out in Queens.
This is Al.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Yes, how are you doing, Rush?
Third time caller.
Thank you, Al.
Uh Rush, you made a statement a while back.
I'd like to challenge it.
Concerning the election results, you said things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
You disagree?
Yes, I well, not that I disagree.
I don't think things are going to get better.
If illegal aliens are going to be given citizenship and they're going to sponsor millions of their families over here.
And if these are all liberal democratic votes, how is it ever going to be possible for conservatives to recapture the Congress or the Presidency?
Uh well, now that's what a fatalistic attitude that is, Al.
I'm sorry, but I I'm I fear that this is the way it's going to happen.
Well, you're not right.
It's was you know, look at go back to 1972 and Watergate and the succeeding election was uh was uh 1974.
And we lost everything, Al.
Remember that?
Yes.
And it was only six years later that uh the Reagan years ushered in twenty years of uh of economic prosperity and growth, and the Republicans I mean, and then 1994 the Republicans won the House for the first time in forty years.
It's not it's not all that bleak.
And it you you're you cannot you cannot assume that the Democrats are going to do everything right.
This is one of the mistakes that many conservatives make.
You assume they're never going to screw up, and in everything they do is brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed, and it's not the case, believe me.
They've they're gonna be a fun bunch to watch here uh the uh the next two years.
They're not gonna be able to help themselves.
They're gonna they're gonna try to control their liberal tendencies, but they won't be able to.
Uh and it's it's it's gonna be uh uh an eye-opening thing for the American people.
It's gonna be tough to penetrate because the media is going to portray whatever they do as great and good and timely, like all these investigations and subpoenas flying around, but they're not gonna be able to mount mount any severe legislation here, uh Al, because they don't have the votes.
You need sixty votes in the Senate.
Uh the president has a veto.
The the most they're gonna be able to do is harass the administration.
But they're not going to be able to pass any significant legislation because uh they don't they don't have enough majorities, large enough majorities in either body uh for it to happen.
So don't give up on us out there.
All right, thank you.
I'm glad you said that.
You give me hope, Rush.
Thank you, so well, we all need hope.
I hope that my hearing is cured, for example.
Uh hearing loss uh is is cured.
Tim in Wichita, you're next on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Uh great to talk to you.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Hey, I had a question for you.
Wanted to know your take on um Senator Roberts leaving the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Uh uh has has a replacement been named.
Um they said possibly uh Kit Bond.
Possibly.
I like Kit Bond.
I um I don't think turnover is a bad thing, uh, circumstance like this.
I I uh I like Pat Roberts, and I've I've uh I've always thought that he's uh been incredibly responsible as a leader of that committee.
Uh my problem with any of these Republicans, I mean, they ran the joint for the last however number of years and would never know it by the way they acted.
Uh they they were they were afraid to be partisan, they were afraid to stand up for uh for for principles.
Roberts was a little bit better than that than others, but he did it primarily in uh in in the way he wrote uh as opposed to things that he said uh that he said publicly.
But look, I mean I I've always I've never met him, but my impression of him is that he's a decent and honorable guy.
Right.
What about you?
I mean, you you you're from Kansas, you're disappointed.
Well, I I think probably and no, he's uh pretty serious individual and uh no nonsense.
And uh two, I was probably disappointed somewhat with um uh but sometime you have to play play politics too, but um as far as the leaks, I know that disturbed him, but there's no question.
I mean it's look at you know, you when you when you have that kind of bunch of renegade democrats on the committee, it's like herding cats.
And when they're not interested in anything that's patriotic but rather political in their own gain, it has to be frustrating as hell to deal.
But there's a way of deeply dealing with it, and that's call them out in public, which we don't have the guts to do.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
All right, a couple stories uh on this.
Basically, it's the Columbia Journalism School, Columbia University Journalism School, uh, graduate students there uh have been caught cheating on an open book take-home exam in a pass fail course.
Uh and it is a course about ethics.
So a bunch of journalism grad students cheating on an Ethics course.
An open book test.
It's an open book take home exam, and they cheated on it.
Open book.
That means you can consult the textbook for those of you in Rio Linda who have not taken tests.
Well, then you wouldn't understand this at all.
Never mind.
You can take the book home.
You don't uh let's read the story together and find out how in the world do you cheat on an open book take home exam in a pass fail course?
Cheating on an ethics exam, it sounds like the setup for a joke, but a group of grad students at Columbia's J School are suspected of having done just that, according to a source at the institution.
Tomorrow, the entire uh I think this is uh when did this story hit?
I guess it's today.
They have to do this this I think the story came out uh.
Yes.
Well, whenever the entire student body required to attend a special session of critical issues in journalism is an ethics course taught by New York Times columnist Samuel Friedman.
In an email announcing the meeting last week, the vice dean stated only that there had been a serious problem with the final exam.
Failure to attend this session, the dean warned, would result in a failing grade for the course.
Neither the dean nor Friedman of the New York Times responded immediately to calls for comment, but students believe the purpose of the meeting is to exhort suspected cheaters to step forward.
It's an out yourself, or you'll all have to suffer situation.
Uh suffer situation, says the source.
Critical issues is an all-school seminar focuses on dilemmas facing journalists in the post Judith Miller and Jason Blair era.
The class includes topics such as why be ethical and tribal loyalty versus journalistic obligation.
The final exam consists of two essay questions to be completed in 90 minutes.
Since the test can be taken at any time during a 36 hour period, students are instructed not to discuss the exam questions with each other.
In this case, it seems like few of these aspiring Bernsteins and Woodwards were a little too adept at working their sources.
No word on how the school's administration got wind of the cheating.
Apparently the students hate this professor, or this New York Times columnist, Samuel Friedman, because you can go to various websites like rate my professors.com, and it it seems that they don't like what this guy's lectures are.
An example.
Maybe uh he could email his speeches to the students instead of making everybody suffer through the most wasted class in J school.
His ethical Fridays were a pompous exercise in self-agulation.
He seldom talks about the readings, and a typical speech always begins in fill in the year here.
What do you journalism students expect?
It is all about you.
He's doing his job.
Don't you understand?
You are the most important people in the world.
Without you, there is no freedom.
Without you, wars can't be stopped.
Without you, AIDS can't be cured.
Without you, diseases can't be cured.
Why journalism students and journalists, if we didn't have them, the world would stop rotating on its axis.
I can't believe you students at Columbia are so dense that you don't get what this brainy act for the New York Times is trying to teach you.
It is all about you.
You are more important than anybody else in any other field of endeavor.
And if you can't pick that up from this guy, I mean, journalism's not what it used to be anymore.
It is not journalism is all about you students making the world a better place and solving social problems and solving injustice and making sure that there is equality and fairness and kindness to all except for Republicans and conservatives, about whom you can still set about to destroy.
So if this guy was too self-focused, he was simply teaching you.
And then here's another story on this.
Cheating on an ethics test is topic A at Columbia.
Cheating is not unheard of on University Campai, but cheating on an open book, take home two questions.
Two essay questions and the cheating involved since a 36 hour period that you have to take the test, so some people are going to know the questions before others do, and that's where the cheating was.
What is it matter?
What the questions are if you have the book.
It's an You know what?
There are people, and this has always been the case.
There are people that work harder at cheating in school than they than they would have to if they just studied.
Just studied and just b pass the test and actually learn the course.
No, that's uh that's too tough.
They spend all this time trying to connive ways of uh cheating.
Nicholas Lehman, Dean of the J School, uh said the students had to sign on to a Columbia website to gain access to the exam, and that once they did, they had 90 minutes to write a couple of essays, but he was unwilling to detail how the cheating might have occurred.
Well.
It's called word of mouth, Dean.
Uh Mr. Lehman said that he was surprised that students might have been concerned about how they scored on the past fail exam, and the exams and grades at the school were rare.
None of this.
This makes any sense to me.
I can't relate to this kind of an education.
I would have never left school if it was this way.
Take the book home for the test, and then maybe not even get a grade.
And if it was a grade, it was either pass or fail.
We are not a very grave grade sensitive institution here at Columbia, said Mr. Lehman.
Our school is run on a pass-fail basis.
Our students are strivers.
But they are striving to get good clips.
It's not like law school where fine differences in points make all the difference in the world.
So essentially he's putting down the difficult work of journalism.
It doesn't matter.
We're not, you know, we're we're we're driven here, but we don't need grades and we don't really need tests here.
Uh you know, you might say, well, why is there a journalism grad school anyway?
I, for one, think that they ought to just get rid of journalism schools, because it's it's nothing more than an indoctrination center.
That's why they never will.
But just go out and you know, learn your basic four-year college course.
History, especially.
Well, depending on how it's taught, that could be damaging.
But obviously, they need a grad school in journalism because the first indoctrination in a real journalism school didn't take.
And so they need a couple more years in grad school to be fully indoctrinated into how to be good little liberal drive-by.
Sam in San Antonio, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
It's great to have you with us.
Oh, I just wanted to tell you you have a very gracious call screener.
Yeah, this happens every now and then when Mr. Snurdley screens.
We do get compliments on him.
Uh I'm sure I'm sure did he ask you to say that?
No, no.
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
Never happens with any of the other call screeners we have.
Wonder how that happens.
He was very, very gracious.
I'm sure he was.
Thank you.
I had I would love to ask you a political question, but I have a more pressing issue.
I need to ask you a cigar question.
Okay.
My husband um is currently on his third deployment in the Middle East right now.
God bless him.
I yeah.
I would like to send him some cigars.
Yes.
Because he recently started smoking cigars.
Yeah.
Um, I know absolutely nothing about cigars.
Do they not have them over there at the PX?
Do you know?
I don't know.
I have not heard from him in about a week and a half, so well, I'll be glad to give you some great cigars send over there.
Uh uh, I just I I just need suggestions, basically.
You yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Uh give you some.
When I said give you some cigars, I didn't mean send them to you.
I mean some some some cigar suggestions.
He's he just recently started, which probably needs means he needs a mild cigar, right?
I would say either mild or medium.
Mild or medium.
All right.
Now, I I know a lot of people cigar business.
I'm big in the cigar business.
These people love me, and when I start giving brands, I invariably forget some and I get emails.
You left me out, doofus.
Are you ready to write down some names here?
I have a pen.
Okay.
I'm just gonna give you, because I don't I don't want to get into sizes and you know you know what size he likes.
Uh uh because there's all kinds of different sizes of cigars.
So I'm just gonna give you brand names, okay?
Okay.
Macanudo, very, very mild.
Okay.
Ashton VSG, Virgin Sungrown.
Okay, say that again.
Ashton, A-S-H-T-O-N.
Okay.
Ashton VSG.
Any cigar by Arturo Fuente.
Okay.
Monte Cristo.
Okay.
Uh Partagus number 10 is a good cigar.
10, okay.
Padron, P-A-D-R-O-N are from Nicaragua, and they are they're they're just they're they're fabulous cigars, taste different than any other cigar I've ever had.
Um they're um some of these are gonna be pretty pricey.
Okay.
Uh but uh let's see what oh, and here's the strongest cigar I know, and if the cigar that I am now smoking, and I smoke a variety of cigars, but the cigar I'm now smoking is the La Flor Dominicana double lighter chisel.
Now it is the strongest cigar I have ever smoked.
You know how I use these?
When I play in member guest golf tournaments, I take these and I give these in a sign of friendship and sportsmanship to my opponents, and it loops them out.
They get dizzy, they play horribly for two or three holes, and sometimes that's all it takes to win the meeting.
He he's a doctor and he does surgery, so I don't know if that's exactly how.
No, no, no, I'm saying if there's somebody he wants to play a trick on, send him one of these.
Okay.
So it's it's you know, write this down.
La Flor Dominicana.
Okay, I got that part.
That's three words, double Liguero, L-I-G-E-R-O.
Okay.
Chisel.
And it's called a chisel because of the way it's rolled.
It looks like a chisel at the end that you clip.
Okay.
Uh it's made by Lido Gomez, he's a great guy in the Oh, and and there's another la uh uh La Gloria Cubana.
LaGloria?
La Gloria Cubana.
Okay.
Yeah.
And but between those brands, you will find quality that he will thoroughly enjoy.
And these are something I can just generally find at a cigar store.
Uh, generally, you won't find it at Saks Fifth Avenue.
Okay.
Um things like that.
You d uh let's see, you're in uh San Antonio?
Yes, sir.
Well, there have to be some fine tobacco shops, cigar source cigar stores there and malls or something, and and you go in with this list and and they'll be impressed.
Well, thank you very much.
I'm happy to help, Sam.
Merry Christmas and all the best to your husband from us, okay?
You're good.
Back in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
You know, I'm I'm just sitting here think I I must be slowing down later and I need to apologize for missing this.
But better late than never.
I mean, normally uh this would have been the first thought I had reading the Columbia Journalism School uh ethics test and the cheating that occurred there.
Actually, the dean at this university ought to be proud as hell, and the people that cheated should be given the first pass grades here.
Because after all, what happened?
The first students to take the test are the ones that got the questions.
The cheating occurred when others who didn't log on using their secret password also got the questions and were able to start studying for their essays before the 36-hour time frame for them began.
Well, what essentially happened here?
The first students to sign up to take the test leaked the questions to their fellow students.
This is a classic illustration of modern journalism.
You have the Dray School, the Columbia J School, with its two test questions, and they are secret, and they are private property, and they are not to be disseminated without the permission of the school.
Classified information, if you will.
Classified information owned and under the purview of the Columbia Graduate Journalism School.
And yet, some budding young journalists leaked this classified data, the two questions.
Now journalists win pulitzers for this.
How in the world can the Columbia Journalism School seek to punish the leakers by calling this meeting where everybody who took the test is supposed to show up and the leakers, I'm sorry, the cheaters are supposed to come out and out themselves, or else everybody's gonna fail the test.
Can you imagine if the federal government, if the Bush administration worked this way?
Things that have been leaked.
Can you imagine if the administration threatened to put every newspaper out of Business because it was it was it was publishing documents that were classified.
I think Dean Lehman at the graduate school of journalism at Columbia University is missing something right in front of his face.
He has just inadvertently presided over one of the finest teaching techniques in journalism today.
In fact, it is a technique that I'm sure these students thought that they might be rewarded for, watching the way the New York Times, the Washington Post deal with this.
Leaks are what make news today.
And here you had some budding young students got hold of the school's classified data, leaked it to other students, all for the purposes of passing a test and screwing the institution.
I.e.
administration.
I think all these people that cheated deserve an A. Not just a pass, but they need to get A's, and they need to get further scholarships to go because I mean they're showing the instincts to to just rise as high as possible in modern journalism.
Rich in Sierra Vista, Arizona.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey Rush, how are you doing today?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, Rush, we're uh heading over to Hawaii for Christmas.
Yeah, gonna spend a couple weeks there.
Do some island hopping and uh Yeah, I know.
Tough duties, some everybody's gotta be someplace.
Well, I know you were there this summer for a few for the weekend with some friends, and uh that's the reason why I'm calling.
I wanted to find out uh I don't know exactly which island you went to.
We're gonna do some island hopping, but I was wondering if uh if one of our islands matched up uh if you could possibly recommend someplace.
Some place what?
Some place new to eat, because we we have some regular places that we go, but uh I know your tastes and stuff are pretty pretty well up there, and I just wanted to check out some new places.
This is a toughie.
Um when I was in Hawaii in August, I was at Kona.
Uh-huh.
And uh never went out to eat.
I don't, you know, I uh back in this privacy business.
I don't I don't go out to we we I was a bunch of guys and and uh you know we'd play golf all day, come in, we all got massages at an hour and a half, there'd be four of us, so some of that we didn't eat till ten o'clock at night.
We just grilled some Allen Brothers steaks.
Yeah.
Um as far as boy, I I haven't I haven't been to a restaurant, and I look at I could find some, I'm sure.
I've got friends that live there, but I when I go over there, I just don't go out to eat.
Uh eat at home, or sometimes if I stay in a hotel order room service and bring all everybody up and uh throw a party.
Where which islands are you hopping?
Well, we're going to Kawai to start with, and then over to Maui and then uh spend the last few days uh for Christmas over on Oahua.
What hotel are you staying at in Maui?
Oh you know what?
I can't really tell you because my wife is the one who made the reservation, so no comment on that.
You don't even know where you're going.
Well I know Maui, and I wasn't looking forward to it, but you know Look you're you're gonna find so many great places over there.
Uh try try try the the main restaurant that'll been a while since I've been there.
Don't laugh at me if people in the the the main restaurant at the Hyatt over there, if it's still living in the Hyatt was fabulous, was an Italian joint when I was there.
I gotta run because I'm way over time.
Back in a moment, Steve.
Okay, I'm told that the waterfront restaurant in Maui is a fine and dandy place.
▲
Export Selection