Rush Limbaugh Program - January 8, 2007, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 8, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:24

January 8, 2007, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hiya, folks.
	I am America's anchor man.
	America's truth detector and America's Doctor of Democracy.
	All combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
	Serving humanity on the EIB network.
	Second hour of today's excursion into broadcast excellence officially now underway.
	Telephone number 800 28282 in the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
	Here's the other Schwarzenegger story, in addition to the fact that he he wants to provide health care health care insurance for every chow in California, even the children of illegal immigrants.
	He wants a new welfare program that is being opposed out there as an end to bipartisanship.
	He wants to cut almost $500 million in welfare programs next year and impose new rules aimed at pushing recipients off public assistance and into the workforce.
	So a state version of welfare reform.
	He's going to propose an estate budget to eliminate a cost of living increase for welfare grants next year and wants to win the practice of providing welfare grants to children whose parents are chronically unemployed.
	So we're going to give them health care insurance, but we're not going to give them welfare benefits, recognizing that you can't do everything for everybody.
	Well, this still doesn't sit well with the Democrats out there who are calling this an end to bipartisanship.
	Democrat leaders said they would not support the welfare plan.
	John Laird, Democrat Santa Cruz said the governor trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, which is a tired, worn-out, liberal cliche.
	Anytime any change is proposed in any social program, it is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
	John Laird from Santa Cruz, Democrat chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee said, I think we'll want to negotiate more of a post-partisan solution that reflects more of our values.
	Now the third story in this trilogy, if you will, is this.
	California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once taunted Democrats as girlie men, on Friday called for an end to partisan bickering and a focus on innovative centrist policies.
	In an elaborately staged inaugural that included singers breaking into choruses of hallelujah right after he took the oath of office.
	Arnold said that California could serve as a model to the rest of the country and larger world.
	At one time, the greatest public policy innovations came from liberals, such as during the New Deal.
	Then the most innovative ideas came from conservatives, such as Ronald Reagan.
	Yes, and one of the reasons that they had to happen is because somebody had to reverse the direction of the New Deal.
	Reagan wasn't compromising with anything FDR did.
	He was trying to obliterate it.
	But Arnold doesn't see it that way.
	He said it is time that we combined the best of both ideologies into a new creative center.
	This is a dynamic center that is not held captive by either the left or the right or the past.
	Combine them.
	Schwarzenegger cited a pioneering California law last year aimed at curtailing greenhouse gas emissions as a model of what he called postpartisanship.
	All right, so get a new term, we got a new idea.
	Look at it, it's just this simple.
	If you compromise with liberals, you get liberalism and his greenhouse gases emission idea is this is it is a classic example.
	I'll give you another truism.
	Any organization that is not conservative will by definition end up being liberal.
	It takes conservatism to fight liberalism.
	It takes conservatism to oppose it.
	Liberalism.
	It takes conservatism to quote unquote balance or negate as much of liberalism as possible, because if there's no conservatism around, liberalism will run amok.
	It's been proven.
	College campaign, wherever you go, where there is no conservatism, liberalism Will rule a roost.
	So you this is just nonsensical.
	Start compromising, come up with a new centrist ideology, takes the best of it.
	It sounds wonderful.
	And I know to the pacifists that live in America these days, the people that don't like confrontation.
	Come on, Nithel Limbo.
	It sounds like a wonderful idea.
	At least we said try it.
	We've tried everything else that will end a partisan bickering.
	It will not, because the libs will not stop bickering unless they get all of what they want.
	Folks, you know it.
	I have illustrated it.
	If you look at history, no matter what liberals ask for, if they get it, it's still not enough.
	You think they're going to take a little conservatism along the By the way, where is the conservatism in the greenhouse gas emissions compromise?
	I want to know where the conservatism is.
	It ain't there.
	Moving on to other items, Washington Times today, immigration debate gets religious.
	I've got, let's say, three stories.
	Well, I've already done two of them, are one of them.
	A number of leading Christian conservative groups have formed a coalition on immigration and illegal aliens that will push religiously grounded positions that both sides of the current immigration debate will both love and hate.
	In letters sent today and obtained by the Washington Times, families first on immigration, urges President Bush and leaders of the new Democrat Congress to adopt a grand compromise on the divisive issues that include stronger border security and amnesty for illegal aliens already here, who are relatives of citizens and an end birthright citizenship.
	That's a compromise on this.
	Former Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer, Deal Hudson of the Morley Institute for Church and Culture, and David Keene of the American Conservative Union are among those who have joined forces to chart a new path on immigration reform, an issue that conservative Christians have generally avoided.
	Manuel Moranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, who has corralled more than 30 leading conservatives to enter the debate, said, our position really is consistent with Christian teachings and with the rule of law.
	At the heart of their proposal is a compromise that could give both sides of the immigration debate their holy grail, as he puts it, while also making a major one-time concession that would eliminate one of the biggest magnets for illegals.
	Out of concern for keeping families together, the religious leaders propose granting citizenship to any illegal aliens in the country who are related to U.S. citizens.
	In return, the federal government would end birthright citizenship, which automatically grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of his parents' legal status.
	Miranda said, hey, this is a real compromise.
	On the one hand, there is legalization of a large number of people, but conservatives get the settlement of the thorniest issue for them in the immigration debate.
	So this just a proposal, uh, but it does seem that compromise is the uh order of the day.
	We've just got to stop this bickering, folks.
	And what this means uh is that um uh conservatives no longer have the stomach for it.
	Because Democrats love it.
	They love confrontation, they love the partisan bickering.
	It's who they are.
	They uh they have defined it.
	In fact, you know what what really it is that defines partisan bickering is conservatives fighting back.
	Conservatives fighting back leads us, oh, we've got to get rid of the partisanship, which means conservatives just shut up.
	Just shut up.
	And if the conservatives would just shut up, why then we wouldn't have any partisan bickering?
	That's how this works.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you not to shut up.
	And then there's this.
	Starting today, patrons of the Dallas-based pizza patron chain, which caters heavily to Latinos, will be able to purchase American pizzas with Mexican pesos.
	Uh restaurant experts and economists said they knew of no other food chain, but a location is so far from the Mexican border, offering such a service.
	We're trying to reach out to our core customers, said Antonio Swad, president of Pizza Patron Inc.
	We know they come back from Mexico.
	They have pesos left over.
	We want to be a convenient place for them to spend their pesos.
	Ron Paul, the president of Technomic Inc., Chicago-based restaurant market research firm said it's a very interesting idea.
	They are catering to that audience.
	All right, you know this stuff doesn't go away.
	And it's not it it's like gay marriage, it's like uh illegal immigration, it's like anything.
	It gets proposed, and here are cut pesos for pizzas in Dallas.
	At this one firm.
	It'll grow.
	It will expand.
	Just like I don't know there where it happened first, but there was a first place where you went in to get your driver's license or something, and the signs, the instructions are posted in Spanish.
	There had to be a first now, it's everywhere.
	Look for this.
	I don't know if it'll be everywhere, uh at least soon, but it's not going to be confined to one pizza place because the market spawns competition.
	And of course, Mexicans coming in from Mexico with pesos buy things other than pizzas.
	And uh they buy other things.
	Wherever these other things are sold, there will have to be now a movement to make pesos available as currency, so these people can buy these things.
	Wait, won't be more.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll be back in just a second.
	Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic premium cigar smoke, I am Rush Limbaugh behind this, the golden EIB microphone here at the appropriately titled and named Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	All right.
	Democratic leaders who had hoped to emphasize their domestic agenda in the opening weeks of Congress have concluded that Iraq will share top billing and they plan on aggressively confronting administration officials this week in a series of hearings.
	Um.
	What this means is that Bush, with his speech Wednesday on plans for Iraq and the so-called surge, is intruding on Nancy Pelosi's first hundred hours.
	In fact, Joe Lockhart says that the challenge for the Democrats is this...
	Iraq's the central issue.
	It's an enormous problem for the president and the Republicans, but it has the suffocating effect of taking attention away from the Democrats' domestic legislative priorities.
	And I think they understand that.
	So basically what's happening here is that uh uh Lockhart's basically saying a Democrats are being suffocated.
	Bush, it's unfair, unfeeling, insensitive president, knows full well that this is Pelosi's day to shine.
	It's her time.
	The first hundred hours, domestic issue after domestic issue, and what's Bush doing?
	He's gumming up the works by suffocating the Democrats.
	And so the Democrats, in order to not be suffocated, are going to come out with their positions on Iraq, which is remember Dingy Harry said he would see would uh support uh temporary troop surge off the table now.
	Uh, ladies and gentlemen, not uh not going to uh happen.
	Uh you know, the and then even by the weekend, uh Rahm Emanuel had uh had acknowledged that Democrats' strategic shift here from their first hundred hours on domestic issues to Iraq was a necessity.
	But Emmanuel said he's not worried that Bush might be scoring points, but he said the Democrats do have to respond.
	Well, I thought we're for a new bipartisanship, a new centrism here where we take the best of both.
	Only in today's Democrat Party would winning the war in Iraq be a provocative idea.
	Only to the Democrat Party today would winning the war be something confrontational, and something they have to fight back against.
	Something they have to respond to.
	Only in today's Democrat Party.
	Emmanuel said, this isn't a surge, it's an escalation.
	And we want to make sure the definition is correct.
	When the American people voted for change in November, this is not what they had in mind.
	So we're gonna have a we're gonna have a fight on semantics.
	Where did this word escalation come from?
	I wonder.
	Let's listen to Nancy Pelosi here.
	This is a montage.
	She's on Slay the Nation yesterday with Bob Schiefer.
	If the president chooses to escalate the war, If the president chooses to escalate the war, the president wants to escalate a war.
	Escalation of the war is opposed by the Democrats.
	Escalation.
	What is the justification for that?
	The generals on the ground have said that the escalation, the increased number of troops.
	All right.
	So we've got a new buzzword out there.
	Escalation, escalation, escalation.
	Where did we first hear this?
	Well, yes.
	But let's go back to I mean, the modern incarnation, I'm sorry, folks, but we got to give the credit to Cindy Sheehan.
	Cindy Sheehan at her press conference where they totally disrupted Rama Manuel trying to announce all their great things and shut Emmanuel down, and they had to send Emmanuel back to behind closed doors with his group of people to get anything done.
	This was last Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
	Every step of the average.
	Okay.
	We escalate, investigate Truths come now We escalate, investigate Truths come now We escalate We're going to keep going here.
	We're going to have a case.
	Thank you.
	We're going to come back right after our meeting, okay?
	It seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, Cindy Sheehan says jump.
	And Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, ask how high.
	Here's more from Nancy Pelosi with Bob Schieffer on Slay the Nation Sunday.
	His question...
	But you will not vote any more money to expand the size of the force there.
	Is that what you're telling us?
	I'm saying two things.
	We will always support the troops who are there.
	If the President wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have at the Congress of the United States.
	But that's not a carte blanche and a uh blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there.
	Really?
	That's not what Joe Biden says.
	Joe Biden said, we're the President, this is his response.
	In fact, Pelosi said it too.
	Pelosi last week said it's his responsibility to fix this Iraq mess.
	Biden went further and said there's not really much we can do about it, and they're not going to cut the funding, so he doesn't have to have a conversation with Congress.
	He does not saying he won't.
	Those are two different things, but he doesn't have to.
	He m he does not require he's the commander-in-chief.
	He didn't have to go consult with these people.
	Uh you go up there, you can negotiate with them, maybe wants increased funding and so forth and that sort of thing, but on policy, uh giving them a say-so in this, that's something he doesn't have to do.
	Uh went further.
	Schiefer said, so at this point, the Democrats in Congress are not prepared to pay for or to fund an additional number of troops in Iraq.
	We have to see what the president has to say.
	It's not an open-ended commitment anymore.
	But we will always be there to protect our troops and to support our troops.
	The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission.
	The president is going to have to engage with Congress in the justification for any additional uh troops he may wish.
	But escalation of the war is opposed by the Democrats.
	Again, Cindy Sheehan creates a new word.
	Uh the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, particularly, picks it right up.
	She says jump, Pelosi says, How high.
	Of course, bottom line is when you strip this all away, nothing's changed from before the election to today.
	The Democrats regard victory in Iraq as a problem.
	They regard victory in Iraq as being provoked.
	When you start talking victory in Iraq, you may as well be punching them in the eye.
	And they're not going to sit there and take it.
	They're going to fight back.
	They want to withdraw.
	Back to the John Murpha argument.
	We want to, what was it, redeploy?
	We want to redeploy.
	We just get them out of Iraq.
	We get out of Iraq, and it's going to be a cesspool, and if they're worried about body counts and death now, which I maintain to you they are not.
	If they are worried about it now, it they're not going to have enough calculators to count them all up after we pull out of there before this is completed.
	By the way, this um uh new general that's been uh appointed to deal with this is a really, really smart and tough guy.
	Uh his last name escapes me at the moment here.
	Petraeus.
	Exactly.
	This guy served tour, two tours over there.
	He is uh uh I think is exactly what this mission calls for at this time.
	I mean, I I told you a couple weeks ago, and you looked at me like I was some kind of you know a rival from Mars when I told you they were going to get rid of George Casey, and you looked at me, you hadn't seen it anywhere, and it and George Casey will soon be gone, and Petraeus uh will be taking over, and he's not taking over to lose.
	He is nobody this current crop is not taking over to lose, and just stop and think the Democrats find that's something to fight about.
	We'll be back.
	Don't go away.
	That's what we do here.
	We make the complex understandable.
	We do it happily and with great joy.
	We had a caller on hold who um who didn't make it.
	Uh cell phone signal died.
	His point was going to be, or his point was that I owe you in this audience an apology for having still Sylvester Stallone on this program back in December to uh discuss his new movie Rocky Balboa.
	Now, why do I owe an apology for this?
	Why what?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Oh, really?
	That's why I owe this audience an apology, because I have Stallone on.
	His movie does well, and then he goes somewhere and comes out against the fence.
	Is that what he did?
	Uh, came out against the uh the fence and uh creamed us on immigration.
	Basically said that he wants all these people uh be able to get into kind of the fences noise.
	Is that what he's this is my fault?
	I I need to apologize for.
	You know, if I had one-tenth the power that people listening to this program think I have, I would be sitting pretty.
	Look at folks.
	Uh Sylvester Stallone has a movie, and I think he did this.
	I saw where he did this.
	I think he did this very near the opening of the movie in Mexico.
	He's just it he's got a movie.
	He wants people to go see it.
	And uh, I can't be held responsible for what people say when they leave this show.
	I mean, I I really I can't be responsible for what they say when they're on this show.
	I can challenge what they say, but I saw this next story yesterday.
	And I asked myself, how long is it going to take for this to get a certain kind of treatment?
	It hasn't happened yet because there's so many other pressing issues.
	But it's an associated press story, and the headline, Mars Killers from Earth.
	Get this.
	Two NASA space probes that visited Mars 30 years ago, may have stumbled upon alien microbes, i.e., life, and inadvertently killed them.
	A scientist, a single scientist theorizes in a paper released yesterday.
	The problem was the Viking space probes of 1976 and 77 were looking for the wrong kind of life.
	They didn't recognize it, the researcher said in a paper presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle.
	This new report, based on a more expansive view of where life can take root, may have NASA looking for a different type of Martian life when its next Mars spacecraft is launched later this year.
	The Viking experiments of the 70s would not have noticed alien hydrogen peroxide-based life, and in fact would have killed it by drowning and overheating the microbes.
	Apparently, here the NASA probe Viking were looking for Earth-like life in which salt water is the internal liquid of living cells.
	But given the cold and dry conditions of Mars, that kind of life could have evolved on Mars with the key internal fluid consisting of a mix of water and hydrogen peroxide, said Dirk Schultz Makich, author of the New Research.
	He said that that's because a water hydrogen peroxide mix stays liquid at very low temperatures and doesn't destroy cells when it freezes, and it can suck scarce water vapor out of the air.
	One Viking spearment seeking life on Mars poured water on the soil.
	And that would have essentially drowned hydrogen peroxide-based life, Schultz Makich said.
	The problem was they didn't have any clue about the environment on Mars at the time.
	This the kind of adaptation makes sense from a biochemical viewpoint.
	Even Earth has something somewhat related.
	He points to an earth bug called a bombardier beetle.
	You ever heard of the bombardier beetle?
	Apparently it produces a boiling hot spray that is twenty-five percent hydrogen peroxide, uses it as a defense weapon.
	So here we go.
	Here we go.
	We're living the past.
	In the past, of course, white guys so arrogant and so unconcerned.
	We kill the Indians.
	We wiped out a beautiful pristine continent known as North America.
	We started chopping down trees, we brought horses, we brought syphilis racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and environmental destruction.
	And now we're doing the same thing to Mars.
	We are arrogantly condescending to these microbes, not even not even thinking for a moment that they could exist.
	No, we just show up with our spacecraft, we pour water on them, and they die.
	If humans are so arrogant about other about our status on Earth and therefore rampantly kill off other creatures, willy-nilly makes perfect sense that we're doing the same damage to other planets because we're just not sensitive enough to their alternate hydrogen peroxide-based life form.
	By the way, hydrogen peroxide's all over the place here, isn't it?
	In hair colors, dyes and that kind of thing.
	We're sensitive to hydrogen peroxide.
	Hell, there wouldn't be relationships without it.
	We know full well that there's hydrogen peroxide here.
	But we'll have a new organization spring up as a result of this people for the ethical treatment of hydrogen peroxide-based life forms.
	And they'll jump all over Bush.
	This happened during the Bush administration.
	Bush wipes out Mars in addition to destroys Iraq.
	Here is James in Boston.
	James, I'm glad you waited.
	Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
	Hello.
	Yeah, Rush.
	All this talk uh about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats about for the children, for the grandchildren, all this stuff, and the media pushing this stuff up.
	Look, if it was really for the children and the grandchildren, the most important thing that the uh government can do is national defense and security.
	So I think the Republicans ought to say they're for the children and the uh grandchildren because they're for national defense and security.
	There's nothing more important.
	You, of course, but you're making a singularly large mistake.
	Yeah, what's that?
	Your mistake is you're looking at this patriotically and logically and intelligently, and you're not analyzing what the Democrats are really up to.
	Of course, it stands to reason that without freedom, none of the other rights and uh and behaviors that will exist in this country would exist.
	And one of the greatest threats to our freedom is from external forces, uh, some internal as well.
	But defending the country and the Constitution is first and foremost.
	We were attacked on 9-11, we were attacked before that.
	Of course, what you say makes total sense.
	But the Democrats live in an alternative universe because they know that the nation is comprised of a large number of pacifists who don't want to face those kinds of realities.
	They are comforted by the pictures of elected leaders in the company of children and babies.
	It makes look at the soccer mom phenomenon.
	You know what the soccer mom phenomenon was all about?
	Remember that back in the 90s?
	Soccer mom phenomena was all about saying, Look, Bill Clinton cares more about your kids than your lousy husbands do, ladies.
	Bill Clinton understands the trials and tribulations of your life.
	Elect him.
	This is all about electoral politics.
	It's all about imagery, it's all about spin.
	It's like the way we've lost the the uh the uh minimum wage debate.
	Every intellectual economic argument against the minimum wage is ultimately winnable.
	We've lost it because they simply go out and say, it's just not fair people don't have enough to live on.
	It just isn't and Americans who are doing quite well are made to feel guilty, and they don't understand how raising a minimum wage, whatever amount is going to affect them at all.
	They're afraid of being uh accused of uh cold heartedness and mean spiritedness if they oppose it.
	And that's where the Democrats are.
	That's not that thing.
	It was a photo op.
	And Charlie Gibson and arrested the guys on the drive-by media were carrying the water for it.
	Well, I just think the Republicans ought to capitalize on it and say, look, we're for we're really for this road.
	We want to protect them, protect our future, defend them.
	I know what you said, but uh I have been hosting this show for 18 years, listening to people say what the Republicans ought to do.
	And for most of those 18 years, the Republicans haven't done it.
	Will you tell me why they're going to start now?
	Oh, because I'm calling you and suggesting it.
	Yes.
	Now you know how frustrated I feel.
	You've suggested it once here.
	I've suggested it for a whole lifetime.
	Still doesn't happen.
	Well, maybe they'll listen to me.
	Maybe they'll respond to you.
	That's true.
	Well, if you could prove that you vote more than once, they might listen to you.
	Anyway, I appreciate the call, uh James, very much.
	Um I I don't think the Republicans want to get into a you know a war room type mentality where they're going to especially they're they're they'd have to respond with pictures.
	Uh look at this children thing is as old as as life itself.
	The the the Lyndon Johnson commercial against Barry Goldwater.
	Poor little six-year-old or kindergartner picking daisies in gold water blows up the world.
	I love you, I love you not.
	I love you.
	End of humanity.
	If Barry Goldwater is elected.
	Goldwater hated kids.
	That was the message of that uh of that commercial.
	Republicans would have to fight back.
	I they're gonna have to come up with different strategies because fighting back with the logic and intellect that you suggested here.
	Oh, yeah, we're for the children.
	The Democrats didn't actually say.
	Well, yes, they did.
	Take it back.
	Take it back.
	The Republicans did have a chance to reply to it, but they're not gonna rain on Pelosi's first day.
	They're they're they're more uh more polite than that.
	Quick time out here, folks.
	Your phone calls continue after this break.
	T Rex, bang your gong.
	This uh song from the early 1970s, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, where we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	This for the Los Angeles Times from yesterday.
	Um it's a list of the twelve most bizarre college courses in the United States.
	Um, I guess I can get away with because this the language here I I don't think I need to offer a warning.
	You you people are mature enough, and your kids, this is not I mean, this is this it's okay.
	The dirty dozen list of America's most bizarre and politically correct college courses is out, and Los Angeles area institutions of higher learning have walked away with one-fourth of the ranked honors.
	Occidental College, 1,800 students and a liberal arts scrub in Eagle Rock, is the only college on the list to collect not one but two citations for excellence at offering trendy theories of gender, skin color, white male oppression at the expense of actual academic content.
	Now the list comes from Young America's Foundation.
	It's a 40-year-old nonprofit funded by conservative individuals and foundations, the number one slot this year on a list of the twelve most bizarre college courses in America.
	Uh uh went to Occidental University for a course called the phallus.
	Here's the list.
	Number one, the phallus.
	Occidental College's seminar in critical theory and social justice.
	This class examines Sigmund Freud, philalogentrism uh gent philalogiccentrism, and the lesbian phallus.
	Now, you may be asking yourself, the lesbian phallus.
	How can we broke the news on this show back in the mid-90s?
	Male lesbians.
	There are male lesbians.
	This isn't I'm not making this up.
	This is an actual college course, the phallus, a seminar in critical theory and social justice.
	This class examines Sigmund Freud, phallologicism.
	I'm not pronouncing that right, then I phallologic.
	Whatever, and lesbian phallus.
	Number two, queer musicology at UCLA.
	This course welcomes students from all disciplines to study what it calls an untruly discourse, unruly discourse on the subject, understood through the works of Cole Porter, Pussy Tourette, and John Cage.
	Queer Musicology.
	Number three.
	Esther!
	She will not sh Esther, are you listening to this?
	You came in here again to watch a program and you're sitting in there and you just.
	Okay.
	Did she miss the discussion on the sh I'm not doing it again?
	It's already a risk to discuss the course called the phallus as it is.
	Accidental college.
	How many thousands of dollars a year are parents spending to send their students to these places?
	Number three, taking Marx seriously.
	Amherst College, that's in Massachusetts.
	This advanced seminar for 15 students examines whether Karl Marx still matters, despite the countless interpretations and applications of his ideas, or whether the world has entered a post Marxist era.
	Adultery novel at the University of Pennsylvania.
	Falling is in the newly named gender, culture, and society major.
	This course examines novels and films of adultery, such as Madame Bovary and the graduate through Marxist, Freudian, and feminist lenses.
	The point is you watch these movies, you can talk about them, which everybody does anyway, but now you get college course credit for listening to some feminist tell you how do you should have viewed the movie.
	There's no question what this is.
	Blackness.
	Occidental College.
	Critical race theory and the idea of post blackness are among the topics covered in this seminar course examining racial identity.
	A course on whiteness is a prerequisite.
	Post black, I don't have no idea what post blackness is, because there's still blackness out there.
	We cannot be in a post-blackness period unless there is no blackness.
	And there is blackness.
	Uh let's see.
	Border crossings, borderlands, transitional feminist perspectives on immigration.
	This at the University of Washington.
	This women's studies department offering takes a new look at recent immigration debates in the U.S., integrating questions of race and gender, while also looking at the role of the war on terror.
	Whiteness, the other side of racism.
	This is Mount Holyoke College.
	The educational studies department offers this first year writing intensive seminar asking whether whiteness is an identity, an ideology, a radicalized social system, and if so, how it relates to racism.
	You wonder why we're losing the country.
	You wonder why we're becoming a bunch of pacifists.
	One more of these.
	Native American Feminisms.
	University of Michigan.
	The Women's Studies and American Culture Departments offer this course on contemporary Native American feminism, including its development and its relation to struggles for land.
	And one more.
	Mail Order Brides Understanding the Philippines in Southeast Asian Context.
	Johns Hopkins University.
	This history course, cross-listed with anthropology, political science, and the studies of women, gender, and sexuality, is limited to 35 students and asks for an anthropology course as a prerequisite.
	Then there is cyber feminism at Cornell.
	Cornell's art history department offers this seminar looking at art produced under the influence of feminism, post-feminism, and the internet.
	What is post-feminism?
	I hear all these postmodernism, post this post, and most people run around and act, oh, yeah, they know what it's all about.
	They haven't slightest clue.
	Post-feminism, let me define it for you, folks.
	The reason this course even exists, all these courses on feminism is because I practically single handedly have destroyed them.
	Post feminism is that state of affairs which exists after I have nuked all of it.
	Well, this is an exciting headline.
	In obesity fights is the New York Times in obesity fight, many fear a note from school.
	As though kids don't think their parents know they're obese, they are worried that the school will send a note home to the parents warning the parents that the kids are obese.
	That's the story.

▲