Here we are together on Open Line Friday, Rush Limbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, Maha Rushi, executing assigned host duties flawlessly zero mistakes.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
And here's our telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIDNet.com.
And as you've heard today, we go to the phones.
The program is all yours.
You own it.
Talk about whatever you'd like.
Again, 800-282-2882.
I was watching Fox this morning.
They had live coverage of the trial of Mike Nyphuong in North Carolina.
And I have to tell you, this is a hearing with Nyfuong being disbarred.
It's over his life law license.
He's out there and say, yeah, I made some ethical mistakes.
He's trying to limit the damage here.
He's trying to prevent himself from being disbarred by making some admissions to things here.
And his cross-examination, I'm not sure if it started yet or not.
But as I say, he's admitted he's made a whole lot of ethical mistakes.
His comments that he made were improper and so forth.
But he's not the story today, as far as I'm concerned.
I watched Reed Seligman, who is one of the three lacrosse players who was falsely accused and harassed by students at Duke and the 88 professors and all kinds of malcontents in the courtroom when they had their court appearance.
And this testimony, when these guys had their press conference, I was blown away with their composure and their maturity.
Reed Seligman's testimony today was heart-wrenched.
He broke down.
He started crying when he started describing the phone call to his mother to tell her that he had been accused of rape, that he had been picked in a lineup.
And his mother had a camera on her, and she was crying.
It was terrible listening to this story.
But even before he broke down, started crying, it was just remarkably composed and mature and truthful.
So, yeah, we volunteered DNA first thing out of the box because we knew we didn't do this, and that's the fastest way to prove it.
And of course, the DNA results were held back, and nobody was informed about the DNA results until it leaked.
And they spent some time in this trial yesterday pointing out that, oh, there was no conspiracy here to do that.
That's one unfortunate mistake that happened.
There are no coincidences, folks.
But it's the second time I've seen public speaking from these lacrosse players.
And they are just profoundly.
They've obviously been raised very well.
And they're quality people.
They just exuded composure and class.
And of course, when you have the truth and passion on your side, you can be a pretty good public speaker when you know your subject and when you know what you're saying is the truth.
That gets rid of a lot of the nerves and tension that some people face when they get up to speak publicly.
But it was heartwarming.
And at the same time, and Nyphuong started his testimony, they had a camera cut to the families.
And I think one of the other lacrosse players, well, Seligman and Colin Finity.
And the looks on their faces and their mothers, their parents' faces could have killed when Naifuang was up speaking.
And I remember telling Snerdley yesterday, I said, you know what?
I knew this trial was going to start.
I said, I think so much time has gone by.
So much passion has dissolved here.
And legal communities tend to stick together.
I bet he gets some kind of slap on the face, but not much.
And I have totally changed my thinking on that now after what I saw today with him admitting impropriety and unethical behavior and mistakes, statements.
He knows he could have the entire book thrown at him over this and is trying to limit that.
I don't know how long this is going to go, but this was, I mean, if you have a chance to see some of this over the weekend or tonight, you should see Seligman's testimony.
Now, during the break at the top of the hour, I went back to Snerdley's office, as I always do, just to make sure keep his morale up and get his mind right open line.
Friday is tough for him.
And he had C-SPAN.
He's always got C-SPAN on there.
I haven't seen C-SPAN so long.
I didn't know Brian Lamb had lost his hair on top.
I said, who is that?
He said, it's Brian Lamb.
No, it's not Brian Lamb.
Yes, it is.
Well, he cut away to a Clinton speech.
And who's Clinton giving a speech to?
Yeah, the Women and Families Consortium, some such liberal group.
I'm looking at this, and I just can't help.
The sound's not up.
So I don't know what Clinton's saying, but I can guess he's talking to some liberal group that wants as much control over families and women and their quote-unquote issues as possible.
And I'm sure he's telling them what they want to hear about how we all have to work together.
People out there want to destroy you, but you're doing God's work.
You're doing the Lord's work and you're hanging it for people of disadvantage and so forth, the downtrodden, the hungry, and the thirsty.
And you're doing the right thing, and nobody talked out of it, blah, blah.
And I'm sitting there saying, there's no way this guy and Hillary would live their lives the way they are encouraging these people to tell us to live our lives.
And then I stumble across this story from the Associated Press.
Hoping to avoid any possible conflict of interest, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, the former president, liquidated a blind trust valued at $5 million to $25 million in April after learning that it included such investments as oil and drug companies and military contractors.
This according to her presidential campaign.
As a presidential candidate, Senator Clinton was required to make her assets public.
As a result, she had to dissolve her blind trusts at Howard Wolfson.
Upon its dissolution, she and the president chose to go above and beyond what was required of them and liquidate their assets in order to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest.
Would you like to hear what the investments were, ladies and gentlemen?
Well, here we go.
Several pharmaceutical companies, big drug, including Abbott Labs, Amgen, or maybe Amgen, not sure they pronounce it, Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, and Wyeth, with assets in each company ranging from $100,001 to $250,000.
The New York Times reported in Friday editions that other assets included BP Amoco, Big Oil, Chevron Corp, Big Oil, ExxonMobil Corp, Big Oil, Raytheon, Big Defense Contracts, and Walmart stores.
Every industry and company that they demonize, they are invested in.
Or they were, they have liquidated.
And I don't believe this notion that it was in the blind trust and therefore, well, they had to know what they were invested in.
Blind trust just means you don't know how it's doing.
But they knew that this disclosure was coming up and they were going to have to do this.
And I don't believe for a minute that the dissolution of the investments in these companies was for any highbrow reason of openness and sunshine and all that.
It was to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
I mean, here they are demonizing every one of these industries.
In fact, during the healthcare attempt back in the early 90s, Mrs. Clinton was doing everything she could to trash these.
I wondered back then if she was investing in pharmaceutical stocks and then selling short after driving the prices down.
And I don't know.
I mean, who knows what's been going on here with any of that?
According to these disclosure forms, their net worth is now approximately $50 million.
They came to Washington with nothing.
How does this happen?
Clinton as president made $400,000.
Hillary as senator makes $1, what is it?
I don't even know, $60,000, $80,000.
I know Clinton's been out there doing speeches and they've written books and so forth.
But we also know they've got ties with some really strange people like this Gupta guy.
And they get ties with Dubai.
In fact, Clinton was even helping Dubai lobby for the ports deal back when it happened.
But I mean, this is just typical.
These people, I'm telling you, everything they tell you is going to be wrong or is going to end up being in one degree or another falsehood if you just sit around and wait.
Walmart, of all, she was acting embarrassed that she was on the Walmart board.
She was having a cover for that lately.
Well, there's Arkansas.
That's a long time ago.
I had to do that.
I was in business down there.
Walmart was a big concern.
But I left that board when I discovered that some practices that company was involved in were things I didn't approve.
Now they're investing in Walmart stocks with some of their hard-earned cash that they have earned since the Clintons left the White House in January of 2001.
The only industry they have not invested in, and that's because they don't have to invest in it.
They open it or own it, and that's big hypocrite.
I'll tell you what, this is one of these headlines that really conflicts me.
It was like this story, and that was on an open line Friday about, I don't know, two months ago, was the story on the divorce rate declining.
You know, that was a conflict for me.
So's this headline.
And it is from Canada from Peterborough, Ontario.
A judge has ruled that a 24-year-old Canadian man is not allowed to have a girlfriend for the next three years.
A ruling came after Stephen Cranley pleaded guilty on Tuesday to several charges stemming from an assault on a former girlfriend.
Cranley, who has been diagnosed with a dependent personality disorder, attacked his girlfriend in an argument after their breakup, tried to keep her from phoning the cops by cutting her phone cord.
He punched her and he kicked her.
He finally stabbed himself with a butcher knife when the cops did arrive.
He punctured his aorta.
He has difficulty coping with rejection, you think?
Runs a high risk to reoffend if he becomes involved in another intimate relationship.
So the judge, Reese Morgan, said Cranley, quote, cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person for three years.
No, can't casually date.
They can't, well, yeah, I guess he could casually date, cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature.
We know what intimate's a code word for a female person.
He could go gay because it specifies female person here.
Okay, Chris in Indianapolis, you're next in the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Ditto's Rush from the Racing Capital of the World.
Thank you, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
Yeah, I wanted to take exception with the story about the fathers and the monkeys.
And I mean, I resent the comparison.
I've been a father basically for the past 31 years.
I've got a 31-year-old is my oldest, and my youngest is nine.
It's a good thing that you said your son's 31 years when you said you'd been a father for 31 years, because if there'd been a difference in the numbers.
Yeah, yeah, I'm pretty good at math.
But when I got divorced back around 1980, and I got custody of my four kids.
Well, we all know what that means.
My son at the time was five, round five.
I had twin daughters that were about a year old.
And when we went to court, I told the judge I did not want child support.
You know, I do this on my own.
I had a job.
I've been in the same job about 30 years.
I've got legal guardianship with one of my grandsons since he's about three months old, and he's 10 now.
So, you know, I've gone out of my way to try to be a good father.
My father, you know, he was around my entire life until he passed away about five years ago.
And I think, you know, to be a father, you have to put yourself secondary to your kids' needs.
And I think some men have a problem with that.
And that's, you know, that's what's wrong with certain families.
I'm not, you know, I know, I know.
There's no question.
There's no question that we can get into anecdotal stories and get examples of all kinds.
Good fathers, half decent fathers, rotten fathers, and, of course, fathers that abandon their families and so forth.
The point of this story, though, was generalized.
And it was to present the picture that when your premise is that Father's Day may not be justified anymore because not enough fathers around to earn it or deserve it, you can tell there's an agenda behind this.
And of course, the story mentions nothing about mothers that screw up.
Right, and there's plenty of those, too.
Well, yeah.
I mean, we're all every, yes, human beings are what they are.
We all have our flaws.
And a lot of people have kids that really have no business doing it.
They just do it for any number of reasons.
Worst reason being, it's the next phase of the relationship, think we should, blah, Then don't stop and think about what they're getting into.
People plan it, make sure that they understand, okay, once you start having a family, you have to, especially, you know, once you get to 10 or 12, I think that's, well, I shouldn't even say this because I've not been one.
I'm just an uncle.
But I know this.
I know enough to know that the reason I've not done it is because I, be honest, I was not willing to make myself second.
I was too focused on what I wanted to accomplish and achieve professionally.
And I came of age in the era of feminism where that was considered uncool.
Fathers and so forth were defined as good fathers by they stay home, help raise the kids during weekdays, they change the diapers at 3 o'clock in the morning.
I'm sorry that just I've I think the kids I didn't have are the luckiest non-kids ever well I've got six kids and I've got eight grandkids And, you know, I love them all, and I do what I can for them.
And, you know, I don't hold them 90% of the time during the daylight hours.
But, you know, when you have a job, you can't do that.
Well, see, now that's a great point.
What he's talking about is, let me read the passage here in this story about that.
Anthropologists are trying to figure out why fathers don't spend nearly enough time with their kids.
Humans produce the most slowly maturing young of all mammals.
Among foraging humans, children need 19 years.
What is this, foraging humans?
And I'll get to that later.
Children need 19 years and consume 13 million calories before producing more food for their community than they take from.
What?
More food for their community?
Anyway, this according to research by an anthropologist.
Now, you'd think fathers would be hardwired to provide for such needy offspring who can't go out and provide for themselves until they're 19.
And I know many of you have 19-year-olds who wish they'd start thinking about that pretty soon.
But there's more variation in fathering styles across human cultures than among all other species of primates combined.
Many of our primate kin are far better fathers.
Now, get this.
Many of our primate kin are far better fathers than we are.
Investigators at the California Primate Center discovered that baby TT monkeys, T-I-T-I monkeys, are in the arms of their fathers for as much as 90% of daylight hours.
Many are far worse, but all they're at least consistent within their species.
Why does paternal care in our species vary so much?
Because we're not primates.
And that TD monkey father has no clue.
It's not an active decision that he's making.
This is whatever you want to call it.
It's instinct, whatever you want to attach to animals.
But he and the wife didn't get together and discuss this, and he agreed to hold the baby for 90% of the daylight hours.
It just...
That generalizes that, too, because there's as many various parenting styles among primates, the different types of primates, as there are humans.
Right.
The gorilla, you think the male gorilla is going to sit around and hold baby cocoa for 90% of the daylight hours?
They're going to happen.
So they find the one example where this idiot monkey goes out and holds his baby for 90%, and we get compared to that, and of course we're going to fail.
What man who's worth his salt has that kind of time?
Right.
I know I'm too busy.
I mean, I coach the Little League for my kids, and I get involved with their family.
Oh, I'm not even talking about that.
It's called work.
It's called producing for the family.
It's called generating an income.
It's called providing for the kid.
This is a derelict father, if you ask me.
He's leaving it up to the woman to go out there and provide the food or whatever these TD monkey families eat.
To be called worse than a monkey, folks, by Time magazine.
That's.
All right.
I couldn't take this any longer.
I never heard of a TD monkey, so I went and looked him up.
And I now know why the father holds the baby 90% of the daylight hours.
In the first place, the TD monkeys live in South America, from Colombia to Brazil, Peru, and north to Paraguay.
They prefer dense forests near water.
They easily jump from branch to branch, earning their German name, the jumping monkey.
They sleep at night, but they also take a midday nap.
They live in family groups, consist of parents and their offspring, about three to seven animals.
They defend their territory by shouting and chasing off intruders.
Their grooming and communication is important for the cooperation of the group, typically be seen in pairs sitting or sleeping with tails entwined.
Well, you know what this means?
You have to hold on to the stupid little baby monkey or it'll fall out of the tree.
Time magazine presents this as a loving TD monkey dad holding the baby.
If you read the whole story, you'll see this because that's forming a bond and it's helping to ring.
Oh, it's a little baby.
It'll fall out of the tree otherwise.
Now, if you think I'm being harsh here, and you think I'm being anti-animal, you can't possibly think that.
I mean, I swoon.
I'm a cream puffer, animals.
And I'm like you.
I think it'd be cool to have one of these big cats as a pet.
I'm just not stupid enough to think it's possible.
And try it.
Let's talk about these giant emperor penguins, not the happy feet penguins, but the emperor penguins that live down in Antarctic.
Now, this was a little documentary called March of the Penguins.
And I watched March of the Penguins, and I frankly was amazed and I was stunned.
The crux of this story is that the breeding season for these penguins is basically their lives.
And the breeding results in the pairs of penguins going to this desolate part of Antarctica, cold as it can be, temperatures of 30 below.
The female lays the egg, and then the father is the one who incubates the egg.
And it's cold as hell when the egg is, what do you say, laid.
And so they have to transfer the egg from female to male very quickly or the embryo can freeze to death.
I mean, it's 30 below.
Then the fathers cover these eggs and they band together, get as tight as a group, millions of them, thousands of them, and huddle together.
And they each take turns moving from the outer edges of the group, the rim, to the inside, because you're in the outside.
You've got nobody breaking the wind, so you're colder.
So they do all of this, and this takes months.
Now, while this is happening, the mothers flee and they head off to feed.
And it's an arduous process.
It is a long trek.
Nobody with any sense would live this way.
And so then the mothers come back and the fathers have lost almost all their fat.
Now, the reason, and this is nature, folks, by nature, I mean these penguins are not choosing this.
Do you think if these penguins knew about, let's say, Antigua, that they wouldn't get the hell out of the Antarctic and move there except they die because it's too hot?
They're there for a reason.
They were created and put there for a reason.
Who knows what?
Don't care.
The whole earth is used by all living organisms.
And it's so cold down there that these things have to have the ability to survive it.
And they do.
But the fathers have more fat.
They're larger, so they can incubate the eggs longer than the mother could.
It's just that simple.
It's not an agreement.
It's not in the prenup.
You know, when mother and dad penguin get married, it's not something that one of them is ordering to do or offering to do.
It's nature.
They're programmed to do it.
I'm telling you that if those things could get, you think if they thought about it, if they had the ability to think about this, they wouldn't get the hell out of the Antarctic as fast as they could.
You think if they knew that there was things like a Motel 6, they would head there?
My point is, it's the same thing with the TD monkey.
Now, I'm making a big deal out of this because what Time magazine's done here is totally irresponsible.
And this is not just something casually unimportant.
This is a magazine.
It has an agenda and it's anti-male and they're trying to get, they're never going to get Father's Day canceled.
That's not what they're trying to do.
When your premise of your whole story is that Father's Day may not be deserved or have been earned by some of these people, some fathers, I mean, you realize what's going on here.
So a TD monkey, male TD monkey, holds its baby for 90% of the daylight hours every day after it's born.
And that in this story, that's good, that's great.
Why don't we do it that way?
Why aren't male fathers, human male fathers, that thoughtful?
Not thoughtful.
The TD monkey's not thoughtful.
It doesn't.
I mean, if you do you think that if it could find a way to not live in a tree, it would see, we put our own context to it.
We don't want to live in trees.
Well, we're not made to live in trees.
They are.
It's totally natural.
That's their world.
The koala bear.
Koala bear.
Well, they're never going to move because they get high all day.
They get drunk.
They eat those berries in the trees and they sit there and zone out.
They never have to go to rehab.
They're never cited for DUIs or any of this sort of stuff.
It's just who they are, just what they are.
My point is to compare us to all these other species who are flawless, they were told, and they do it perfectly.
It's just absurd and it's insulting.
And it goes back to what I was talking about at the top of the program.
Human beings intrude on nature.
Every element of nature is just, it's pristine, it's wonderful, it's beautiful, it's not destructive.
But we, we intrude on nature.
We are as much a part of nature as anything born and living on this planet.
All right, Joe in Chicago, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Russia Sonator to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Concerning Hillary, it looks like she's going to get the, probably going to get the Democratic nomination.
But I don't think it's actually her that they want.
I think she's only the vehicle that gets Bill back in the White House in a position to exert presidential power without being elected.
Well, there's no question as a truthful element.
I mean, I've heard a number of library.
Well, who was it?
I had the soundbite on the roster the other day and I didn't use it.
Peter Fenn, well-known Democrat strategist.
And he's always on hardball with Chris Matthews.
And he was, I forget exactly what he said, but he was, his comment made it clear that a lot of Democrats are excited about Bill Clinton getting back in the White House.
Exactly.
But let me ask you a question about this, Joel buddy.
Do you think Hillary's in on this game, that she's just the proxy?
Well, they both want the power, so I guess.
You're very careful in your answer.
Well, I mean, there's another school of thought that there's two other schools of thought.
One of them is that Clinton doesn't want her to win because he wants to be the only Clinton that was in the White House and will sometimes underwrit sabotage her by getting caught doing something you shouldn't do.
The second school of thought is that she really, really wants this and she doesn't want him around at all and is going to appoint him ambassador to the world and send him around the world where he's constantly gone.
But I would be stunned if Mrs. Clinton's in on this game that she's just a figurehead and that he's actually going to be calling the shots in there.
You know what?
I know too many people that I've talked to that are Democrats, living in Chicago and surrounded, that want Bill so bad.
They say he was the best president.
Things were wonderful under him, so on and so forth, that they were willing to vote for her just to get him.
So what exactly is in their mind?
That could be true.
They might think that just because he's in there, he's going to have policy input and all that.
You have to examine that desire on the part.
I mean, if you've got people out there for Chicago where you live who that's totally understandable.
Guy was loved and adored by the drive-by media, so it's understandable that they wouldn't want Bill Clinton back in there.
And that's why they vote for him, vote for her.
I mean, yeah, it might be, might be.
But look, I don't, I just, I don't buy the notion that she's a proxy for him.
All kinds of people, especially Democrats, come up with really funny conspiracy theories.
But if I had to put money on this, I would bet that if Hillary is elected, that's going to be the beginning of payback time.
And by sending him around the world and by keeping him out of pay.
Look at you have to.
She's candidate inevitably.
She has been working to protect him all of his career, the bimbo eruptions.
She'd been working.
She got her health care deal as a payback price.
But in her mind, it's time to put the stamp and the imprimatur of Hillary Clinton on Clinton Inc.
And I'm telling you, now they are a team, but I'm going to tell you something.
She is Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit.
She's, you read these books, read these two books that are out on her.
They don't just disagree with their enemies.
They try to destroy them.
And their political opponents, they hold nothing back.
This woman, she'd be serious.
I don't think she's that politically adept, frankly.
I think there's a lot of hype about her that she hasn't earned and doesn't deserve, but she is what she is in terms of power crazy and willing to use it, autocratic, and your typical woman.
Just, sorry, I'm just, I knew when that syllable's formed.
I shouldn't have said, I was joking.
And there's no element of truth in this joke, which is why it was a lousy joke.
I was just.
Check this email.
Dear Rush, my son just banned me from listening to you anymore.
Should I do as I'm told?
Barbara.
How could a son ban a mother?
See, that's what I don't understand.
I would never tell my mother not to.
Well, I might at this age of it.
Dana in Memphis, Tennessee.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mr. Limbaugh, thanks so much for having me.
I've listened for 15 years, and this is my first call.
Appreciate that.
And I value your opinion a great deal.
And something I've been confused about is I'm not a huge supporter of the war in Iraq, but I'm trying to make an educated decision.
And I hear a lot that we shouldn't get out.
We don't need to pull out.
Bad things are going to happen.
What I'd like to know from you is: if we pull out, let's say later this year, if we pull the troops out, can you paint a picture of what Iraq would be in 10 years, how it would affect America, how it would affect the Middle East?
Because I hear people saying it'd be bad, but I've never heard anyone say, here's why it would be bad.
Take a look at Gaza today, and you'll see Iraq within years or months after we pull out.
Now, if you're not concerned about what's going on with Gaza and what's happened there is Hamas proudly proclaiming an Islamist victory, an Islamist society, and they're going to continue to march against Israel and so forth, as they've been doing for years, which is an ally of ours.
If that doesn't concern you, then it wouldn't.
But the big thing about pulling out, besides what the eventual view of things would be, is that we have just told the world that we've quit.
We've just told the world that we'll accept defeat.
We've just told every ally that they can't really trust us the next time we ask them to get involved with us somewhere.
And so we'll just be more vulnerable.
This is the kind of weakness, the kind of thing that terrorists and people who want to attack the country see as weakness.
Bin Laden himself said it in a Black Hawk Down circumstance, Somalia in Mogadishu.
And he said it to an ABC news reporter.
We've got the audio and the videotape has been played as well.
When we cut and ran out of Mogadishu, after taking 24, 25 casualties, bin Laden said, well, America's gone soft.
They can't handle casualties.
They know how to play our media.
So we would be making ourselves much more vulnerable.
Look, all you got to do is, Harry Reid two years ago said this.
In March of 2005, he was in Iraq.
He came back and he said, I don't see how we can pull out of there now the terrorists would win.
Now he's done a 180 now since defeat of the U.S. he thinks will advance the fortunes of the Democrat Party.
Stop and think about that.
The actual on-the-ground results, look at Gaza and look at, that would represent what you don't want is for somebody like a terrorist state, a terrorist organization, to actually get a state, to actually have a country that they govern and run, like Afghanistan was and like Iraq would become and like Iran is.
And they all start cooperating with each other with that agenda of driving out infidels wherever they are in the world, non-believers and so forth.
The big problem is we'd just be waving a white flag.
We'd be giving up.
The United States doesn't surrender.
We don't give up.
And if we did, in this case, it's just going to come back to haunt us later on.
And we're going to have to face these guys somewhere down the road if we are to survive.
Time is now.
Andrew in Overland Park, Kansas, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Ditto's Resh.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Listen, I have a question that's the more and more I listen to you has crossed my mind.
Because I've listened to you since you began here in KC many years ago.
I would like you to ponder this and maybe elaborate someday on what you've done in the whole transition of what has happened in radio since you started and when in your career you realized it was bigger than you thought it ever was going to be.
I mean, now that you're running the nation.
Right.
He's right a lot comment.
It is amazing to me that you've enlightened a generation of people.
And it's got to have some consequence in your mind as to how it happened and what it's become.
Well, I'll tell you, in all candor, and I once asked George Will this question when I interviewed him back in 1985.
He said, you ever, family's gone to bed at night and you're still up, you ever sit down and ponder what you have meant to your readers, your audience?
And he sort of cocked his head at me, looked at me like he thought it was a stupid question.
And his answer was no, I've got tomorrow to worry about.
And I thought, I didn't know what to make of that.
How could he not ponder it?
How could he not consider it?
The honest answer here is, and I try to always give honest answers, is that I'm not that reflective on it.
I think about it because other people mention it to me.
I just, in fact, I got an email from a guy who once, he says, look, I compare you to the Steelers and the Yankees and all these great sports organizations, but even they have down years, even these teams that are considered perennial champions.
You haven't had a down year in 19.
How do you do it?
And there's a one-word answer for it that will require some explanation.
I'll try to get as much in before this is over, but it's humility.
I really, despite all the bombast and the joking and the braggado show, I don't think about it.
I think about it.
Part of your life in radio is that you're going to lose your job tomorrow.
Now, that can't happen to me in the way that it used to be able to happen, but I could clearly blow this if I start taking it for granted and assuming that after 19 years, the audience is going to be there, regardless how much time I put into it.
So I think what I'm most focused on is, I've had a saying, people, everybody works with me.
The show is the thing, meaning the audience is the thing.
And what I focus on is making sure that those who are going to give me their time every day get the best of me they can get, even after two hours' sleep.
And if I fail to do that in my own assessment one day, then I'm obsessed about it until the next day to fix it.
And that's as close as I ever get to it.
There are other things about the transition of radio I can talk about when I get back.
Oh, I forgot to tell them.
See, folks, I'm sorry about this.
I forgot to mention I got my annual Northeast golf trip next week with my golf buddies.