All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
February 2, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You are listening to Nobel Peace Prize nominee Rush Limbaugh here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's Friday.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Email address rush at EIBnet.com serving humanity.
Talent on lawn from God.
All right, let me now get to J.R. Dunn, the American thinker, with his piece on global warming today.
He's got some really, really valuable things in it.
It starts with a quote that pretty much buttresses and sums up the points that I made in the previous hour.
It's by G.K. Chesterton.
A man who ceases to believe in God does not believe in nothing, believes in anything.
The apocalyptic vision of global warming serves a deep need of the environmentalist credo, the dominant pseudo-religious tendency of our age in the prominent and prosperous West.
For good or ill, human beings are constructed to believe, and faith has its demands, along with the concrete elements that demand belief, that fire burns and that it's not wise to walk on cliffs.
For example, there exists an apparent necessity for a belief in the rock higher than I, a belief in a superior entity that can inspire awe and gratitude, that can be turned into hard times, that can act as witness to injustice and dispenser of mercy.
Religious belief is hardwired into human beings by what means and for what purpose, we don't yet understand.
That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying.
Like all such, it possesses every element of contemporary legitimate belief.
It has a deity, in this case, the goddess Gaia, or the earth, the personification of the living earth, which, by the way, was first envisioned by James Lovelock, who we can slot in as high priest of the religion.
It has its holy books, most changing with the seasons, and most, as is true of the Bible and with many convinced Christians, utterly unread.
It has its saints, it has its prophets, commandments, religious rituals, be sure to recycle a bottle, a large gallery of sins, mortal and otherwise, and an even larger horde of devils.
And one of those devils would be me and anybody else who doesn't believe in their religion of global warming.
Another item that is a pseudo-religion must, an apocalypse.
And that's what global warming is all about.
In fact, the apocalyptic is the major fulcrum of environmentalism, the axis around which everything else turns.
It's environmentalism's major element of concern, its chief attraction, and the center of discussion and speculation in much the same way that some Protestant variants of Christianity are obsessed above all with sin.
So crucial is the apocalypse to environmentalism that there has been a whole string of them, one after the other, covering every last aspect of the natural world.
If one don't get you, the next one will.
Environmental emphasis is on the apocalyptic appeared early, accompanying the introduction of mass environmental awareness itself.
Silent Spring, the book published in 1962 by Rachel Carson, represents the first environmental scripture, nothing other than a modern book of Revelations.
Rachel Carson was dying of cancer while writing the book.
Silent Spring became an outlet for her rage and grief.
Carson predicted the imminent coming of a stricken world, a world poisoned by the synthetic products of the chemical industry, in which no birds sang and human children would not be immune.
The early 60s were marked by the fears of the consequences of atmospheric nuclear tests and the suggestion that chemicals were just as deadly found a willing audience.
Pollution, a word that itself bears many religious connotations, became a byword of the era.
That fact that the phenomenon encompassed virtually every aspect of technical civilization, including car exhausts, household plastics, and power generation, guaranteed pollution a long run in their religion.
Truly grotesque stories, ranging from dioxins eating sneakers from children's feet to hushed-up epidemics of cancer, made the rounds.
None were anything more than grist for Snopes.com, and the promised chemical doomsday never arrived.
But Carson's work set the pattern for all the environmental apocalypses to come.
The next example was overpopulation.
Its prophet, the notorious Paul Ehrlich.
His set of Moses-like tablets was titled a population bomb, and if anything, it was even more popular than Silent Spring.
Ehrlich's thesis was that relentlessly burgeoning population would overstress the Earth's carrying capacity, use up all the available resources, and lead to the collapse of civilization before the 20th century was out.
The argument seemed irrefutable to those not familiar with the uncertainties surrounding demography.
In fact, Thomas Malthus had made similar series of predictions early in the 19th century, and this is the story I love to tell.
Julian Simon, the great scientist, now late great scientist, made a bet with Ehrlich that at the end of the period of time, Ehrlich thought we would all be destroyed, that there would be more resources and that their prices would be cheaper.
And they made a bet on various minerals and elements, and Simon won every one of them.
Ehrlich could not have been more wrong.
Didn't matter.
He has never been discredited and still remains a disciple, a prophet, a god in the church of environmentalism.
Countless offshoots of his book appeared.
Overpopulation became one of the standard ideas of the late 60s, embraced by the counterculture, policymakers, academics, and even the drive-by media.
Even today, an era in which deflating national populations are the problem, deflating national populations are the problem.
It's by no means unusual to come across people still living in Ehrlich's nightmare world, such as the much the same as the Amish or the Mennonites have preserved their far more pleasant way of life into modern times.
Ehrlich became quite wealthy, and the master of his own foundation devoted to the study of the overpopulation threat.
To this day, he contends that his thesis is correct.
The whole episode is begging for a detailed historical study.
A variant combining aspects of both theories had a brief run in the early to mid-70s, the doctrine of universal famine.
Pollution would poison croplands and stunt agricultural production.
Overpopulation would do the rest.
The problem here was the fact that proponents insisted that doom was imminent, with famine appearing as early as 75 or 80 at the latest.
The experience taught the Greens to be a little bit more vague with dates.
Now, global warming, of course, is 50 years away.
It's 100 years away, or it's, well, 10 years away, depending on who you read day to day.
But it isn't science, folks.
It's religion.
And who can forget acid rain?
Remember how that was going to kill us?
The early 90s saw a reprise of earlier fears of nuclear destruction.
The nuclear freeze campaign, largely engineered by the KGB, took up much of the public attention devoted to environmental crises.
But even this effort was given an environmental gloss when scientific impresario Carl Sagan put together a roadshow of mainstream scientists to promote the concept of a nuclear winter.
Remember that disaster.
That never happened.
The firestorm, generated by a nuclear strike, would generate smoke so thick as to block out the sun across much of the northern hemisphere, causing a collapse of the terrestrial ecology.
Nuclear winter never quite caught on outside of certain elite circles, in part due to flaws in the theory.
Sagan's specialty was exobiology, the study of possible extraterrestrial life forms.
And it developed that the climate model he'd used was based on the atmosphere of Mars, a planet locked in an ice age for the past billion years.
Nuclear winter faded with the nuclear freeze movement.
All the same, just before his death, Sagan made it known that he'd willingly accept a Nobel for his role in preventing World War III.
Ozone depletion was next.
A little too esoteric to generate the uncritical devotion accorded to pollution and overpopulation.
Ozone pollution, however, did serve a useful green purpose in drawing public attention to the atmosphere and confusing people as to exactly what the problem was all about.
In fact, global warming has actually adapted elements of all these previous environmental crazes that never happened.
It holds that carbon dioxide is a form of pollution, the same as Carson's detested synthetic criminals.
Chemicals, I'm sorry, like that involving overpopulation, the threatened catastrophe is universal and implicated in everyday practices and institutions.
As with universal famine, the effects are concrete and horrifying, though the dates have been left vague in the coming century rather than in a year or two.
The lessons of previous environmental panics have been carefully applied to global warming.
No other environmentalist program has been prepared with such detail, such purpose, and such conviction.
A skilled cadre of scientists, activists, and publicists exist who have devoted entire careers to nothing else.
A vast literature has appeared in analyzing not climate as a whole, but the interactions, or not the interactions of the entire system, but solely and uniquely global warming.
In many ways, warming has become both more and less than an ideology.
It's become an industry, one that, with such financial elements as carbon offsets, can readily support itself.
The piece goes on and on and on, but let's never forget this.
The banning of DTT in 1971, thank you, Rachel Carson, resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people in the developing world, most of them children from insect-borne diseases such as malaria.
Yet no environmental group has ever made note of the fact, and all oppose reintroduction of DDT for any purpose.
The DDT ban places Rachel Carson in an exclusive circle shared only by Karl Marx as a writer whose work alone caused vast amounts of human misery.
Adolf Hitler was, of course, more man of action than writers.
Doubtful that Mein Kampf in and of itself could have triggered the same upheavals as Hitler's actions.
I mean, it's the way you have to look at it if you really want to understand this.
If you want to go beyond just the surface reporting and the emotional grabs that they're making at your heartstrings in the drive-by media, then you've got to look at it this way.
Strident rhetoric of the kind being heard from public figures like Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel Babe, and even Prince Charles may well result in a vicious circle in which public frustration leads to violent action leading to more frustration and onto the inevitable climax.
Up to this point, environmentalist violence has been held in check by force of law and only by force of law.
How long this will remain the case depends on how much power the Greens are allowed to accrue.
I might add, ladies and gentlemen, we do have terrorists in this country.
In addition to the Al-Qaeda cells and whoever else they are, what is the most frequent, the most common form of terrorism in the United States?
Ecoterrorism.
From groups like Earth First to the Animal Liberation Front to PETA or what have you.
Burning down whole automobile dealerships, trying to stop the logging industry over the spotted owl, all of these things.
I apologize for those of you not interested in this, but so many people have asked me to explain why I am constantly making fun of the global warming crowd.
Decided to take it seriously and go in depth today to give you my full range of explanations and understanding.
And remember, I still haven't touched on the fact that there is a great lesson here for any of you still undecided about liberalism and conservatism.
And so there's a great lesson here because the global warming crowd, the environmentalists, are pure unadulterated leftists, an assortment of communists and socialists who are also godless in the traditional sense.
Like Chesterton said, if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything.
You'll make your own God, and that's what they've done.
There's no science in it, folks.
Zilch Zero Nada.
Back in a second.
Oh, yeah, the Eisley Brothers.
One of my all-time favorites in the EIB network's bumper rotation.
All right.
You know, it is my theory, and this is the cover story on the latest issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
We are become a nation of softies, a bunch of wusses.
Here's a story from Leeds, Maine.
A has-scruel basketball coach was fired.
Pardon the sniffles.
I'm not sick.
I don't have a cold and I'm sneezing and I don't know what's going on.
A high-screw basketball coach was fired after telling his players at halftime to reach into their pants to check their manhood.
So what?
So what?
Do these people not understand what goes on in a men's locker room?
Levitt area has-scruel principal Patrick Hartnett said that coach Mike Remillard told the varsity boys January 23rd that tonight's game was about who had the biggest in town.
He then required the players to all stand up, put their hands down their pants, and check their manhood.
Said the principal in a statement read to the scruple board Thursday by the superintendent, Thomas J. Hansen.
Pardon me, again, a day after the coach was dismissed.
All but one player followed the coach instructions.
The team won the game.
Remillard, who was in his fourth season as varsity coach, called the Pep Talk normal locker room banter from Fort Kent, Maine to San Diego, California, but he said he still shouldn't have done it.
Was the tactic appropriate?
No, and I'm paying the price for it.
Oh my gosh.
You know, there are all kinds of these insults.
You go out on the golf course.
One of your buddies, opponents, whatever, hits a drive out of bounds, duffs a shop, chunks a shot, hits it a little Oprah.
I mean, a little fat.
That's what we call it.
Say, hey, nice.
Does your husband play golf too?
Leave a putt short.
Nice putt, Alice.
Bill Parcells referring to wide receiver Terry Glenn when the New England Patriots asked by the media how Glenn was doing.
She's going to get better.
Vince Lombardi, Green Bay Packers, trailing big time in a game, halftime.
Lombardi didn't say anything.
Players kept waiting for the ranting and the raving.
The chalkboard and the X's and O's.
Didn't say anything until it was time to go back out.
At which time Lombardi said, all right, let's go, girls.
The number of occasions in this culture and society in which men are said, you better check your manhood.
And don't check your manhood at the door or this kind of thing.
This is just the feminization of the culture.
You know what?
I should have given the countdown warning.
I know some of you might have been driving by with little kids driving along, and now your little kids are asking mom what this all means, and you've got to make something up.
Next time I promise, I will, what?
I will give it.
Oh, come on.
I refuse.
Snerdley thinks that most moms.
When you check your manhood, does not you think most women don't know what that means?
Don't make me say what's on my mind now.
I refuse to believe that.
Okay, if you got kids with you, turn off the radio.
Just 30 seconds.
Five, four, three.
You've done it, Snerdley.
Two, one.
Not only do I not believe that women don't know what check your manhood means, I firmly believe they are the ones doing it to find out if it exists.
Okay, turn the radio back up.
Fox News channel, a little poll here, latest Fox News poll finds that most Americans believe the situation in Iraq makes a difference to their security here in the United States.
A sentiment often repeated by President Bush, even so a majority continues to oppose the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq.
Let's see.
38% approve, 54% disapprove.
Fully 77%, I get this.
Fully 77% of Americans believe that what happens in Iraq matters to their security here in the U.S., including majorities of Democrats, 66%, Independents, 79%, and Republicans, 90%.
In addition, the poll finds that people believe the military should use more force against the insurgents.
I knew it.
You know what?
The Republicans had better pay attention to this in the House and the Senate, particularly in the Senate.
If these guys keep marching toward this resolution, that's a compromise with the Democrats here on this non-binding thing of disapproving the surge troops.
They are going to pay a price way beyond campaign contributions being weighed down.
Back in a sec.
And we're back, El Rushbo, cutting-edge societal evolution and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, firmly ensconced here behind the golden EIB microphones.
Somebody sent me an email.
You haven't even talked about Brett Favre announcing that he's going to continue playing in the NFL next season.
I did do that, but it was near the end of last hour.
You might not have heard it.
So I think it's great that Favre's coming back.
It's going to be a little frustrating because now we're guaranteed of another full season of nothing but stories on is this Brett Favre's last season?
And he'll be asked that this whole season.
And every Sunday on the ESPN two-hour pregame show, we will get a feature on it, one way or the other.
And then we'll get a feature on it on the Fox pregame show because they carry most of the Packers' games.
It's never going to end until they read, is this Favre's last season?
We've got a full year of that to look forward to.
Aside from that, since I don't watch those shows, I don't care.
I'm glad that Favre is back.
Tracy in Chicago, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Ditto's Rush from Chicago and Go Bears.
Thank you.
Rush, in the EIB store, you sell these signs for cars that say Rush Baby on board.
Yes.
Okay, well, how about making one that says Rush Babe on board?
Because I'm a conservative and I'm proud of it, and I'm a hottie, and I'm proud of it.
Oh, wow, you're a hottie here.
Yes, I am.
And I think, you know, a lot of your audience is women.
And Rush, you'll sell tons of them because I'll tell you what, not all beautiful people are Hollywood liberals.
Amen.
Thank you.
Thank God.
What do you think?
Rush Babe on board?
We'll do it.
Oh, great.
We'll do it.
In fact, we're going to have to rev up the entire merchandise line.
Now that I'm a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, we're going to have to have a whole Rush for Peace merchandise line with T-shirts and caps and so forth.
We're going to put logos of me on the Nobel Peace Prize coin on the t-shirt.
We're going to put my picture underneath the phrase, give peace a chance.
Oh, that's awesome.
I'll buy a couple of those too.
I see.
Rush Limbaugh, Oslo, November 2007.
So as long as we're going to do that, and by the way, it's not up there yet.
In fact, my marketing people are just now hearing about this.
I have essentially just given the executive order here live on my real radio announcer show.
So it's going to be wild for this stuff to rev up, but it will happen.
So we'll throw in the Rush Babe on board as well.
But, you know, I'm intrigued by something.
Yes.
You willingly admit that you're a hottie.
Absolutely.
Do you realize how few women will do that?
I'll admit it.
And that's all right.
My husband knows it.
I know it.
I appreciate the confidence.
Most women just don't do that.
I am a student of yours, Rush.
Of course I have confidence.
Well, that's good.
And so you want a Rush Babe on board, son.
Your husband won't care.
Oh, he won't care.
He'll think it's great.
Good.
Well, he's a little bit.
You'll sell a ton of them, Rush.
On your word, I will depend.
Absolutely.
All right.
Thanks, Tracy.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Tim in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Good, good.
Yeah, I was just talking to your guy there about a special I saw a few weeks ago.
It was either History Channel, TLC, one of those, about what they referred to as the mini Ice Age.
And it seems to me it was between the 1400s, 1500s is when it started, which, by the way, they attributed to intense volcanic activity and then the ash being spewed into the atmosphere and then cooling it down.
It was actually the 10th century through the 13th century, and it's an acronym as the LOC, local optimum something or other.
But I know what you're talking about.
Well, these guys, they actually went as far as noting in the United States, the summer with, or the year with no summers, what they called it, where in Virginia it actually snowed in June.
And so just as a follow-up, I talked to my kids and I said, look, why did the Pilgrims, Jamestown, why did all those colonies seem to fail?
And it was because of the very intense, very tough winters.
And so then I said, look, I said, you know, do we think of Virginia as being just a brutal, wintry climate, as was discussed in those days?
And of course, the answer to that is no.
So it seems that the warming trend has been since early 1800s.
Now, they go into causality on the cold, but they didn't go into causality on why things were warming up, which I think is one of the big issues that we're having now with all the scientists because they want to draw a correlation between the coincidence of the use of fossil fuels and then the warming of the temperature, but they don't explore in scientific methods using linear regression analysis.
Well, of course, this is the first time.
I just got through spending 45 minutes explaining it is not science.
They cannot use science to disprove this because there is no science here.
The whole point is to try to convince as many people as possible that there is a direct relationship to the use of fossil fuels and everything else that leads to advanced lifestyles, technological improvements, and so forth, and link that to global warming.
In the religious context, that's the sin.
We are sinning.
We have to pay for the sin.
The payment for the sin will be our end, our doom.
It's the apocalypse.
There's no science in this.
Patience.
Okay.
If there were science, there would be no disagreement.
Go to any area of proved hypothesis using the scientific method.
You will not find any disagreement on anything proved.
The fact that there's disagreement on this alone in the scientific community means nothing's been proved.
So then you have to say, well, why do the pro side, the humanities destroying the planet, particularly advanced humanity destroying the planet?
Why do you have to stick with it?
What's the point?
And there we get into liberal versus conservative.
And the whole point, and this is a fundamental element in many, many religions, guilt.
The militant environmentalists, the leadership of this movement, is trying to make as many of you people feel as guilty as possible for destroying the ecosystem via global warming by virtue of your lifestyles.
The cars you drive, the selfish nature with which you buy gasoline and pollute the planet, the other ways in which you don't clean up after yourselves.
All of these things are designed to make you feel responsible for the coming apocalypse, the doom and gloom, the end of the world as we know it.
And after that guilt has been sufficiently implanted in your brain and in your soul, it is then the theory that you will readily agree to higher taxes and more government control over advanced lifestyles as a means of making reparations for the sin.
And that's the end game here.
The end game for the religion of these people is a bigger and bigger government with themselves in charge, less and less freedom for you, higher and higher taxes, far more restrictions on how you can live your life, where you can do this activity or not do that activity.
If you just look around you, this is already happening.
You can't do certain things like ride a snowmobile in certain national parks.
You can't smoke in a lot of places now.
You can't use your own property as you would like if there happens to be something called an endangered species or even protected species within sight of the horizon.
I mean, folks, it's all there to understand.
You just have to open your eyes and look at it and see it for what it is.
That's the liberal element of this, in addition to all of the religious contexts that I have laid out prior segments of this program today.
It's all about making you feel guilty, all about making you willing to bend over and grab the ankles and get spanked for all of this destruction and pollution your selfishness and greeds brought about.
And you can be redeemed, though.
You elect the right people to office and allow them to raise your taxes.
Like Mrs. Clinton, who said at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting today, she wants to take Exxon's profits.
They had the highest reported profit in American history yesterday.
He wants to take it.
Her words, I'll grab Soundbite 18, Mike.
I remember the number of it.
Let me know when it's slotted and ready to be heard.
And I would like you to hear it in her own words.
The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world.
I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies that will begin to ask.
Stop the tape.
It's not your money, Mrs. Clinton.
You didn't earn it.
All you're doing is getting in the way of it being earned.
You didn't earn it.
You don't know a thing about the oil business, but it doesn't matter.
She knows better than everybody else.
And by the way, look at the enemies list that the environmentalists have constructed.
Big oil, big pharma, big food, big trans fat, big donut.
I mean, Walmart, look at who they're trying to put out of business.
Look at who they want to take.
This is nothing more than a Hugo Chavez moment.
He's nationalizing every company he can down in Venezuela, turning the place into a dictatorship.
Folks, the global warming movement, if you'll open your eyes, allows you to see virtually every means, theory, and desire liberalism has for humanity.
Just open your eyes and look at it and forget science.
It's not about that.
Now, I don't know if this is true, folks.
We had a caller that was going to ask me about this, and I got an email from my buddy The Hutch out in Seattle asking me about it, but I don't know that it's true.
I can't imagine that the NFL has the authority.
Well, now, wait a minute.
Maybe they do.
Anyway, questions came at me from both The Hutch and the caller.
Rush, what about this business that the NFL says churches can only show the Super Bowl on 44-inch screens, or maybe it's 55-inch screens?
I hadn't heard that.
No, vaguely I have, and I don't remember where.
And my first thought was, how can they police that?
But it's their product, and people that put these things on the sports bars do pay a royalty fee, and it's complicated formula in most cases, but they do.
But I got to thinking about it, why would they get upset about the size of the screen in the church?
Now, again, if this is true, I haven't seen anything on it, and it could be bogus, and it could be a Turner Broadcasting Company hoax.
But let's assume for the sake of the hypothesis here that it is true.
I can explain it easily for you.
You put a 44-inch screen in a church, and who the hell is going to be able to see it?
They don't want you watching a Super Bowl in church.
They want you in a sports bar.
They want you at home.
They want you somewhere.
And they certainly know that if you're going to watch the Super Bowl in the church, you're not going to be wagering on it.
Now, the NFL does not officially sanction gambling.
In fact, the new commissioner, Roger Goodell, condemned it again today.
Something we've got to be very careful.
We have a very hard line here between our game and gambling and so forth.
But everybody knows what the injury reports are all about.
And the point spreads and so forth.
So I don't know.
That would be my best guess as to why such an admonition from the NFL would have been forthcoming if it did.
By the way, Mrs. Clinton, when it comes to she wants to take big oils profits, didn't she turn $10,000, an investment of $10,000 in a cattle futures market into $100,000 in less than a year?
What if somebody would have come along and wanted to take her profit?
You know, and put it back into something like methane flatulation or doing away with it or what have you.
You know, when you know what would have happened to that person.
And Catherine Gene Lopez, who's the webmaster and the editor at National Review Online, sent me a little note this morning.
Hey, Rush, we got a little symposium going today, a national review online on the Super Bowl.
Could you give us 200 words or less by noon on these questions?
Does it irk you that non-football fans watch the Super Bowl?
And the second question was, what's the most interesting thing you think people should notice about this Super Bowl?
So this is what I sent her.
It was posted around 1:30 this afternoon.
This is what I sent her.
Football ignoramuses do not irk me unless they're watching the game with me, which they don't because I don't invite them.
If one sneaks in with another guest, I set them up with Oprah reruns in a far-off room so they can't bother the rest of us.
What does irk me is no-nothing human debris getting TV shows on PMS NBC?
As to the game itself, I like to think about this Super Bowl as a first ever.
People love talking about something that's the first, and this is a Super Bowl is a first, and it will never happen again.
We have the first black coach.
We have the first with two black coaches.
We have the first with both coaches being close friends.
We have the first Super Bowl with both coaches being strong, confessing Christians, both of whom are clean and articulate.
And as I wrote this clean and articulate, I guess I should now run for president, especially since this is also the first Super Bowl to occur when I have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
We have time to squeeze one more in.
Yes, Jewel in Eastern Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Russia.
I'm a big fan of yours, and you're my hero.
I'm 12 years old.
I have four brothers and sisters, and my mom homeschools all of us.
12 years old, four brothers and sisters, and your mom home.
Congratulations.
You've got a great future, Jewel.
Thank you.
I'm sure this program is part of your education.
Yeah, I've been listening to it since I remember.
Well, that probably when you were in the womb.
And by the way, congratulations for getting out of there.
What?
I've got one minute.
I don't mean to pressure you, but.
Is there anything else, Jewel?
Yeah, I was wanting to ask you, who do you think will be the better quarterback this weekend, Peyton Manning or Rex Grossman?
Well, I mean, this is not.
Poor old Grossman.
This guy can't.
You know, the names they're calling him this week, Rec Grossman.
This is his first full season.
There's no way he can be a Peyton Manning.
I mean, when you boil it down to statistics, comebacks, all sorts of things.
I mean, there's no question Peyton Manning gets the nod.
Like the Colts get the nod the same way on paper in terms of.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Who's going to win the game?
I mean, the Bears, if you pick the Bears, you're genuinely picking an upset.
You're not picking it on the basis of head-to-head analysis of anything.
Although, about Grossman, team did go, what, 15-3?
The team does win when he plays.
I think it's going to be a much better game than people think.
But I don't know how you pick against Colts.
I mean, just unless you just want to stand out and take a flyer and pick an upset and choose the Bears, which I do.
Back in a sec.
Yes, folks, I picked the Bears.
Makes no sense, I understand, but I like to be different.
And I just have a feeling about this.
But more than anything, I want it to be a great game.
So good luck to both teams.
▲
Export Selection