All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
February 1, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
Here we are on the one and only Excellence and Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbo, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
The telephone number 800 282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, there's the uh the latest on global warming today from Delaware Online.
Uh Delaware global warming skeptic stands Pat, state climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case.
Delaware state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change.
One case, directly contradicting the state's own policy.
David Legates, University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a friend of the court brief that opposed Delaware's position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case.
To cut to the chase here, Le Gates, who is a PhD climatologist who that means he's a scientist, who received the title of state climatologist in 2005 from Daniel Leathers, now the head of the uh University of Delaware's geography department has joined a group of scientists late last year in urging the court to reject the claims of the state of Delaware.
It's simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare, the brief said.
The uh institute has sued the government in the past to block some fuel economy standards for automobiles and so forth.
But the uh the appearance of Delaware's climatologist on the other side of the court case left some State Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control officials frustrated.
He's taken a position that the climate is changing, but we don't uh have any danger signs, and Ollie Mirzakali, air quality management chief for DNR in what the point of this is here.
You have a scientist who's willing to stick his neck out.
So, wait a minute, there's no conclusive evidence that even if it is happening that we're causing it, or B that it's gonna be bad.
And that's heresy.
Audio soundbite time now.
Last night, Larry King Alive topic was global warming.
Could it really kill us all?
That was the topic on Larry King Alive.
Global warming, could it really kill us all?
Barbara Boxer, one of the guests.
Larry King's question, Senator Barbara Boxer.
Are we in a panic situation?
There's really a climate of hope, not fear.
Because we are listening to the scientists, and yes, there are always a few who are the naysayers just like there were people who said the earth is flat.
But eventually there's a consensus.
We know there's a consensus that has built, and I'm not going to debate anymore whether this is happening.
I know it's happening.
What we're going to do is not be afraid of it.
We're going to wrap our arms around it, and we're going to do the things it takes to meet the challenge, which are energy efficiency, a whole list of things we're going to clean up, power plants, uh, we're going to make sure we have green buildings.
Eventually, there is a consensus, and there's the word that disqualifies any of this as being science.
Consensus is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition.
Uh you can't have consensus in science.
And the libs, whether they know it or not, uh uh, they probably do know it, but they think consensus is the way to sell it because, oh, but all of these wonderful people agree.
All of these wonderful people agree.
Uh, also a guest last night on Larry King Alive, Heidi Cullen, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the uh climate expert, quote unquote, for the weather channel, who was the woman, as you know, who suggested that any TV meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, who did not believe in man-made global warming theory, be decertified.
So naturally, she gets a big platform on Larry King Alive.
He says, Heidi Cullen, are the TV meteorologists taken seriously in this matter?
TV meteorologists have such a huge opportunity.
They've got access to people's living rooms on a daily basis.
The heat wave that we saw last summer, was that global warming?
The incredibly warm January, early part of January, Was that global warming?
These are all opportunities to discuss the science.
And I feel like for a lot of meteorologists, they feel like it's a political question, and the politics has really obscured the science.
The science is really solid, and global warming is absolutely happening.
And I think we need to talk about it, and I think TV meteorologists should talk about it as well.
And if they don't say the right things, she wants them decertified.
She's got it just backwards.
She says the politics has obscured the science.
Uh in a way, that's actually she doesn't have it backwards.
She's just she's the politics of the pro-global warming crowd is ignoring science and making it up and saying that they have a consensus about it.
But I I went into this a little bit yesterday.
Look at if if if if uh in 1979 when the newsweek cover came out and everybody was talking about global cooling, the ice storm in the Southeast today would be evidence of it.
The frozen fruit and vegetables in California.
The destroyed citrus crop would be proof of it.
The below freezing temperatures in central Florida earlier this week would have been proof of global cooling.
Uh and and uh the the blizzards and the all the snow in Colorado would be proof of global cooling.
So it's just it's it's it's not science whatsoever.
Now here's another piece that I found at the AmericanThinker.com.
By J. R. Dunn.
It may well turn out that George W. Bush's greatest service to the country won't involve terrorism or Iraq at all, but his steadfast refusal to be buffaloed into joining the panicky consensus on global warming.
A rumor had it that Bush intended to embrace the warming thesis in the State of the Union address.
Instead, Greens nationwide went into depressed tail spins as he called for an attack on the problem by means of technical advances, a curveball, very much in the old Bush mode of a type that we've seen too little of recently.
Bush is acting in defiance of much of the civilized world, led by a former vice president and including the drive-by media, the entertainment community, the Democrats, most of the policy elite, that peculiar and never before encountered group known as mainstream scientists, and now even corporations eager to clamor aboard the Kyoto wagon while there's still room.
One curious element involves certain facts that on first consideration would appear to be crucial but never seem to come up in debate.
I have spent several years trying to track down the actual values of two numbers.
The annual amount of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities, and the amount of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere.
There are as many answers as there are sources, the first ranging from three billion to twenty eight billion tons, the second from seven hundred and fifty billion tons to an even greater number.
A number so large that there's no common English word for it.
Variations of this size, up to three orders of magnitude, suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge of the amount of carbon dioxide already there versus how much is being added by human beings.
The fact that it never comes up suggests that scientists are well aware of this.
Moving on.
Mr. Dunn here attempts to highlight some things by going back to look at history.
Despite the insistence of Algore and his friends, this is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period.
In fact, one occurred relatively recently, the medieval warm period, more commonly known as the Little Climatic Optimum, the LCO, a period stretching roughly from the 10th to 13th centuries, in which the average temperature was anything from one to three degrees centigrade higher than it is today.
Several years ago I covered the LCO in an article detailing the climatic history of the last millennium.
But it's worthwhile to cover the highlights once more to help put the contemporary panic into perspective.
How warm was it during the little climatic optimum, the 10th to 13th centuries?
Areas in the Midlands in Scotland that cannot grow crops today were regularly farmed.
England was known for its wine exports.
The average height of Britons around A.D. 1000, close to six feet, thanks to good nutrition.
The small nature and stature of the British lower classes and the Irish later in the millennium is an artifact of lower temperatures.
People of the 20th century were the first Europeans In centuries to grow to their true stature, and most had to grow up in the USA to do it.
In fact, famine and its partner plague appears to have taken a hike for several centuries.
We have records of only a handful of famines during the LCO and a few mass outbreaks of disease.
The bubonic plague itself appears to have retreated to its heartland of Central Asia.
Anyway, it goes on and on and on describing even the Vikings.
Listen, that the LCO was the first age of transatlantic exploration when not slaughtering their neighbors, the Vikings, who now live in Minnesota, were charting new lands across the North Atlantic.
One of the stormiest seas on Earth.
If you tried the same thing today as the Vikings did, traveling their roots in the boats of the size they used, you would drown.
They discovered Iceland and Greenland and a new world even beyond where they found grapevines, the same as in England.
The agricultural revolution is not widely known except among historians.
Mild temperatures eased land clearing and lengthened growing seasons.
More certain harvests encouraged experimentation among farmers involving field rotation, novel implements, and new crops such as legumes.
For those of you in Rio Linda forget it.
Goes on to apply some common sense.
What's so bad if it is warming?
Where is most of the world's population concentrated now?
Near the equator.
Where it's hot as hell.
Year round.
And the evidence here suggests that because of these fluctuating cycles of warming and cooling, that all kinds of processes change, agricultural ocean, any any number of things, and it's evidence that these things happen cyclically and naturally.
And it's the height of vanity for a bunch of human scientists acting upon consensus, who are nothing more than in just utter panic mode.
Plus, you can't take their politics out of it.
They're just purebred socialists who believe in big government.
And remember, folks, the whole point of all this is to pound you with this enough and enough and enough to make you feel guilty enough for causing this that you will accept draconian alterations in your lifestyle and higher taxes to fix it.
Otherwise, we're doomed.
Otherwise, there won't be an earth, not one that we can survive.
And it's all hocus pocus.
It's one giant lie.
Even if it is warming, the idea that there will not be any improvement anywhere on the planet as a result is just silly.
And when you look at the fact that it the 10th and 13th centuries, it was three degrees centigrade warmer then than today, when there clearly couldn't have been as much carbon dioxide output by humanity.
The whole argument that these people are making should be obviated by simple history.
Simple history, but it's not.
Quick timeout, don't go away, and much more straight ahead.
And one of the RSS little things I have there, anything with my name in it on the internet pops up.
I can't...
It's just...
I will do this in just a second.
I just want to give you one more thought here on this whole global warming mess.
I want to ask you what is the common denominator between embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What do these four things have in common?
Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What is one thing in common?
What's the common denominator?
You have three fantasies or four fantasies here from the left.
Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary.
You have four magic answers to all of our problems, four untested and unproved at best, programs to make life peachy keen.
And they are all a lifetime away from delivering their promise.
And you got to throw Hillary Clinton in that list.
Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels global warming, Hillary Broadham Clinton.
All liberal Democrat fantasies.
Pure and simple.
Now here's what I found in my RSS reader.
It's a PR Newswire.
Landmark Legal Foundation.
I can't believe this.
Landmark Legal Foundation today nominated Nash.
Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Limbaugh, whose daily radio show is heard by more than 20 million people on more than 600 radio stations in the United States and around the world, was nominated for the prestigious award for his nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality, and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum, or national origin.
These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world, said landmark president Mark Levin.
You know, the um I I know it's a solemn occasion.
I I I just today I just, you know, Gore got nominated today.
It's all over you get numbed for his stupid movie for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I don't know.
I just I just a solemn occasion, yes.
Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today, explained Levin.
Every day he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity, and the just equal application of the rule of law, and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations.
The Nobel Peace Prize, given by a committee of the Norwegian Storting, which is the Norwegian Parliament, was created by inventor Alfred Nobel in his will in 1896 to be given to the individual or organization who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding of peace congresses.
The first Nobel Peace Prize awarded in 1901 to Henry Dunant and Frederick Passy.
Should Limbaugh become the 2007 Nobel Laureate for Peace, he will receive the Nobel Peace Prize Medal in a cash award of 10 million Norwegian kroner, which is about 1.6 million dollars.
The prize would be presented at a ceremony in the Oslo City Hall, presided over by King Harold V and Queen Sonia of Norway on December 10th, 2007, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death.
As the 2007 Nobel Laureate for Peace, Limbaugh would deliver the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize lecture at that ceremony.
So it's true.
I have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, I don't know if they have to accept this.
I don't...
I have no clue how this works.
But there's also a letter uh uh to the um uh head honcho of the uh Norwegian Nobel Institute uh explaining the nomination.
I guess they don't have to accept the nominate.
Now I read this, scan this.
Uh but nevertheless.
Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
I, your host, your doctor of democracy, your guiding light, have been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize by the Landmark Legal Foundation.
Mary in West Bloomfield, Michigan, thank you for calling and welcome to the program.
Dematologist diddos rush.
Thank you.
I um want to go back to the first caller.
He is living in a real fantasy land.
If he thinks he's gonna have somebody come in and clean his house, and he's gonna say how much he's gonna pay.
Well, that's you're he's talking about the the the guy that called me a name and and uh about the minimum wage, and he was gonna go out and hire a maid for seven dollars and fifteen cents an hour.
Right.
I walk in, I've been cleaning houses after having been a school teacher in work corporate America for several years, for the past 20 plus years I have cleaned other people's houses.
I go to their house, I look at their house, I tell them what it's gonna cost them to have me come in.
And I bet it's not $7.15 an hour.
Oh no.
I am very good at what I do, and I charge for it.
You know, the the the real point about this.
You know what I should have said to this guy?
His name was Mike, and he was from Troy, New York.
Said, Mike, you're a good liberal here.
If you have $7.15 an hour to hire a maid, it can only mean one thing, and that is you're not paying enough taxes to the government.
If you got that kind of money laying around to pay a maid $7.15 an hour, you need to increase your tax payments.
You aren't paying enough.
No, no, no, no.
You you you don't have to think about it.
We do that for you here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Have you heard this story?
Oils, uh oils may cause uh breast growth in uh in boys.
It's true, lavender and tea tree oils, T E A tea tree oils found in some shampoos, some soaps, particularly soap and a rope, and lotions can temporarily leave boys with enlarged breasts in rare cases, apparently by disrupting their hormonal balance, according to a preliminary study and its suggestion.
While advising parents to consider the possible risks, several hormone experts emphasize that the problem appears to happen infrequently and clears up when the oils are no longer used.
None of those interviewed called for a ban on sales, even though the study reported on the condition, gynecomastia in three boys ages four, seven, and ten.
They all went back to normal when they stopped using skin lotions, hair gel, shampoo, or soap with the natural oils.
It's uh unclear how often this problem might cripe up, uh, crop up in uh other young children.
Uh, these uh plant oils, sometimes called essential oils, are added to many health care products, usually because of their scent.
They are sometimes found in other household products or sold in purer forms, tree oil, tea tree oil, sometime used in shampoos for head lice.
The suspected effect in this study is blamed on some chemical within the oils that the body processes like estrogen.
Uh, you know, this story is gonna have the exact opposite effect.
This story is trying to warn people not to buy these products with these oils in it, but you watch.
There are gonna be runs on these products in San Francisco, New York, and Atlanta.
It just they will sell out.
Those of you retailers who stock this stuff in those three cities, get ready.
You haven't the slightest idea the traffic you are about to uh find.
Speaking of San Francisco, you know, I didn't know this.
But there are apparently heterosexual married people who live there.
Uh and and the why this is I it came to my attention by virtue of an affair uh that came to light involving the mayor, Gavin Newsom.
San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager resigned yesterday after confronting the mayor about an affair that Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office.
Alex Turk, 39, served as the mayor's deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the the uh mayor.
Excuse me, confronted the mayor after his wife Ruby Rippy Turk told him of the affair as part of a rehab program she had been undergoing for substance abuse.
According to the sources who had direct knowledge of Wednesday's meeting, Rippy Turk, that would be Ruby Rippy Turk, uh 34, was the mayor's appointment secretary from the start of his administration in 2004 till last spring.
Alex uh Turk confronted the mayor on the issue yesterday afternoon, expressed his feeling about the situation in an honest and pointed way, and resigned.
Uh, Turk's resignation announced in a statement that Newsom's campaign released yesterday.
I need to take a drink here.
I've got to dry through it.
The statement quoted Newsom 39 is saying he had accepted the re resignation with great sadness.
He's up for re-election this fall sometime at uh probably a resume enhancement.
But again, um heterosexual married people in San Francisco, who knew.
The French already enjoy a 35-hour work week and a generous vacation.
Now the health minister wants to look into whether workers should be allowed to sleep on the job.
Uh the French have launched plans this week to spend nine million dollars to improve public awareness about sleeping troubles.
About one in three French people suffer from them.
We're on the cutting edge here.
We've already got our nap room.
This is this is nothing new.
The French think they're cutting edge on this, but it's not uh Jacques Chirac did a Joe Biden.
Jacques Chirac, president of France, said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it wouldn't pose a big danger.
And if the Iranians were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.
The remarks were made in an interview on Monday with the New York Times, a couple other newspapers too, and a weekly magazine, uh vastly different from stated French policy, and what Mr. Chirac has often said.
So on Tuesday, Chirac summoned the same journalist back to his office to retract many of his uh remarks.
So, see, uh nuclear run, well, that's that's not a big deal.
If they launch, why we'll just wipe out Tehran.
They know that, and as such, they won't launch.
Dick in uh in Park Rapids, Minnesota, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush, what a thrill.
Thank you, sir.
Uh Russia to piggyback on Barbara Boxer, uh, pardon the pun.
Uh wasn't there a congressional consensus a few years ago regarding the WMDs in Iraq.
Oh, yeah, it was a consensus in 1998.
There was a consensus in 2002.
Yes, there was a consensus in the U.S. Senate based on intelligence results and reports that there were weapons of mass destruction to be found out.
Furthermore, the Democrats led by some uh think Boxer was on board, but said because of this consensus, we had to go there and disarm the guy.
Well, so in that in that regard, consensus, consensus uh are not always a bad thing.
But when it comes to science, it is a bad thing.
Well, what it better illustrates is that in in one in one stretch here, you could say that a consensus was wrong.
Uh but in science there can't be consensus.
And I people people think that I am uh being a little foot loose and fancy-free with the language here, but uh i i i if you stop and think can science is not about the most people who will agree to a proposition.
That makes the proposition so.
If that were science, why we'd still have the earth being flat and the sun orbiting around the earth.
Uh consensus simply cannot have any place in science.
And if the um uh global warming crowd continues to pulverize and sell it on the basis that there's consensus, that ought to tell anybody who understands English language that there isn't any science in it, that it is all politics.
I got an email, and I knew this was going to happen, because I have empathy with the audience.
And knew this is gonna happen.
Rush, you talking about this so much.
I mean, you got feeling tired of global warming stuff.
If we can't change it, and I agree with you on that, why bother here?
We're to just let it go because this is all moods.
No, it's not.
The reason why I'm talking about it, and I'm glad for the question to be able to phrase it in this way, because many of you may be asking the same thing.
This global warming issue is the essence of liberalism versus conservatism, which is what this program is about.
Global warming, militant environmentalism, militant animal rights is nothing more.
Those things are nothing more than than opportunities for communist socialists, uh, people that uh support dictatorships to empower Elements of society they think are important, government, statism, and this sort of thing.
And every element of conservatism versus liberalism is to be found in the global warming debate.
The liberals assume that it is, remember their self-loathing and their guilt and their hatred for their own country and advanced civilizations and societies.
They believe that they have the power that human beings, despite the contempt and despite the condescension with which they look at human beings.
They think human beings are so imperfect and so selfish and so carefree that they have the ability to destroy the planet.
Remember, there is no God in liberalism other than liberalism itself.
Religion is the environment.
Religion is animal rights.
Religion is liberal causes.
That is what they are loyal to, and they are liberals before they are anything else.
It's amazing, in fact, the left out there decrying devout Christianity or Catholicism or anything of the sort.
They are as religious about what it is they believe as anybody else.
They are as intolerant of people who disagree.
They also have to rely on faith.
Faith is that which is not provable.
In order to accept belief in something, you must have faith if it can't be proved.
That sums up the left's association and uh uh uh attachment to global warming.
It represents an opportunity for liberals to do everything they want to do in terms of controlling and limiting freedom and liberty.
They blame the American people and civilized peoples all over the world for destroying the planet.
They infuse everybody with as much guilt for destroying the planet, and how is this guilt labled out?
It is labeled out on the basis that your lifestyle is too rich, that your lifestyle is based on greed, that your lifestyle is based on selfishness, and it's it's also based on the fact that you don't care about anybody else but yourself, that you are damaging the planet in the process.
They have to get hold of you to save the planet, their God.
They have to get hold of you to save their religion.
And in the process of making you feel guilty, you will support massive increases in the size of government and state in order to fix the problem that you have caused, and you will gladly fork over more and more taxes to do this while in the throes of your guilt.
Global warming is nothing more than a scheme, particularly the man-made characteristics of global, the the desire for them to make you believe, the attempt to make you believe that uh you're causing it.
Every argument fundamental and otherwise that we make in the discussion of liberalism versus conservatism can be found in that issue.
Since I, as a conservative, believe in liberty and freedom, since I have a much higher power and high authority than liberals or the planet, uh since I do not believe that socialism works because I know it doesn't work, and you don't need a consensus for that, you need a simple historical perspective and lesson or two.
I'm going to oppose everything they try to try to make liberalism as mainstream in our society as possible.
So that's why I focus on this, and I focus on the details of global warming because there may be one way of convincing as many people as possible that the whole method by which they're going about proving it is bogus.
It's just not enough to say, hey, Fox liberalism is just a bunch of liberals running amok here with global warming.
You need more than that, I think.
You're trying to be genuinely persuasive, but it's it's hideous.
The whole global warming, and by the way, they've recruited a bunch of fellow travelers and idiots that have no clue what they're doing.
Like this Heidi Cullen, I'm sure she believes everything she's saying.
I don't think she's probably an activist.
She may have been formed into one by now.
Uh, but she probably just didn't miss America pageant contest.
She probably thinks that she's saving the world.
She probably buys into all of it because it makes her feel good to care and all this sort of thing.
Uh not saying that everybody out there believing in this stuff is a rock-ribbed activist liberal, but liberalism is seductive to people.
If they can make you feel guilty, they offer you a solution for the guilt, and so forth.
And then you can live blame free for all the destruction that is uh that is happening.
So, look, I could go on and on here for literal hours about the elements of liberalism and conservatism in that argument or in this issue, global warming.
That's why I'm not letting go of it.
Back in just a second.
Look, here is here's another great example, folks.
Headline U.S. family oriented job policies week.
The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies like maternity leave, paid sick days, and support for breastfeeding.
A new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says, the study officially being issued today says workplace policies for families in the U.S. are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle and low-income countries.
Notably, says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some sort of paid maternity leave.
The others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea.
More countries are providing the workshop protections that millions of Americans can only dream of, said the study's lead author, Jody Heyman, founder of the Harvard-based Breastfeed Project on Global Working Families and director of McGill's Institute for Health and Social Policy.
This goes on to say that the Family Medical Leave Act is not enough.
Now, what's the point of the story?
The point of the story is to say the U.S. government is not ordering this and making businesses do it or providing for it itself.
You are not responsible for anything that your own decisions cause to happen in your life.
You have a child?
Not your responsibility to make sure you have the means and the ability to take care of the child.
No, it's the government's job.
And once again, who's the arch enemy?
The United States.
The most powerful, the most generous, the most prosperous, the most free nation in the world.
The leftists target this country every day in an attempt to destroy the institutions and traditions which have made it great.
Global warming is no different than this story saying we don't do enough for mothers who need to breastfeed.
We don't do enough for people who need to take sick leave.
We don't do enough.
We just don't do enough.
Meaning our government is not socialistic enough.
Pure and simple.
Richard Northbend, Oregon.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, pleasure to talk to you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
You had a great um uh criteria by which to predict the outcome of the Super Bowl last year, and that was to find out who was bringing the most amount of cameras and who actually came to work.
Right.
Based on that criteria, what do you think of the Super Bowl this year?
Uh well, if using that criteria, who was the first team to arrive at the Super Bowl?
It was De Burz.
De Burr's got off the plane with their own personal camcorders.
I didn't hear any reports of the Colts getting off the plane because they got off the plane at night on Monday.
Right.
Uh so using that theory, you gotta go with uh the Bears.
If you just use that if you just use that as the criteria.
No, your your criteria, sir, was that the ones who came off with the camcorders were more interested in the frivolity and then the joy of being at the Super Bowl, as opposed to coming there to actually work and win the game.
Yeah.
So based on your criteria, you'd be saying that actually the culture is.
Well, what the theory is that uh the guys that got off, they are the show.
When's the last time you saw an actor filming himself doing his job?
The football teams are the show.
Other people take their pictures, not themselves.
That's the way I look.
I mean, I don't take pictures of myself here doing my job.
I am the show.
Others do that.
We'll be back in just a second.
All right, tomorrow's open line Friday, and I'm I'm gonna tell you right now, I expect some calls about the Super Bowl tomorrow.
If you don't, I'll call myself and talk about the Super Bowl.
See you then, ladies and gentlemen.
▲
Export Selection