All Episodes
Previous Next
July 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
July 31, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I knew it.
I knew it.
And I told you all earlier in the program what would be the reaction.
From the Reed and Pelosi camp to the New York Times op-ed yesterday, greetings.
Welcome back.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Here we are at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address Rush at EIBnet.com, a top Democrat lawmaker today dismissed the findings of two longtime Iraq war critics who cited a dramatic improvement in the situation.
This is the New York Times op-ed from yesterday.
John Murtha, former Marine Congressional Heavyweight on Military Matters, said, I dismiss it as rhetoric.
I don't know where they were staying.
I don't know what they saw, but I know this, that it's not getting better.
Murtha was on CNN saying this.
It's over-optimist.
It's an illusion.
There you have it.
The Democrats got to stick to their talking points.
They can't back away.
They've gone over the cliff.
They're in the car.
They're over the cliff.
They can't jump out and get back to the top of the cliff.
They can't revise this.
They can't revise what they've been thinking about this.
And Murtha has been the leading critic.
He has been the leading demoralizer of U.S. military forces.
It's pathetic.
But this is your modern-day Democrat Party.
What kind of politicians, I ask again, would force their armies, their own country's armies from the battlefield against an enemy that has killed 3,000 of these politicians, fellow citizens, and promises to kill millions more when the Army is winning, when the armies are having great success.
What kind of politicians are these?
What kind of politician is Jack Murthy?
What kind of man is Jack Murthy?
I dismiss it.
I don't know where they went.
I don't know what they saw.
It's just rhetoric.
I know this.
It's not getting better.
He can't afford for it to get better.
By the way, the military compiled sufficient evidence to show that all but a few of the 516 terrorism suspects held at Club Gitmo in 2004-2005 were a threat to the U.S. According to a new government report.
The Combating Terrorism Center West Point said in a 39-page report that only six captives posed no risk based on an analysis of the military's publicly available profiles of each detainee.
You know, the Bush administration under pressure from human rights groups to close Club Gitmo and bring the detainees into the U.S. judicial system and give them U.S. constitutional rights for the express purpose of destroying another one of the great fabrics that has made this country great.
If that happens, the Pentagon says if they close Gitmo and bring these people to the U.S. court system, they would have to release most detainees because the military lacks the more stringent evidence needed to win convictions in U.S. courts.
And by the way, detainees are released from there and they are found to go back and find safe havens in terrorist camps.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon asked the terrorism center to judge each suspect's threat to the U.S. and issue a public report.
The center found that an overwhelming majority, 73%, showed a demonstrated threat.
That is, they were committed to violent jihad or had been involved in planning attacks.
Most of the rest had been in al-Qaeda or Taliban safe houses or training centers.
Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert McGinnis, who's toured Club Gitmo twice, it's a good report.
Shows that the people we have at Gitmo need to be kept under lock and key.
They don't need to be brought in here to the United States and allowed access to the U.S. court system.
Besides, I've got a thriving merchandise business down there.
We can't close the place.
Club Gitmo t-shirts and soap on a rope, okay.
Great stuff for the guests vacationing there.
This is serious, folks, this next story.
And I know that it's going to distress many of you, but it has to be told, it has to be reported.
Birds are beginning to act like liberals.
This is from livescience.com.
Well, it says here, birds abandon eggs for swingers' lifestyle.
Some avian parents hit the road when it comes to child rear.
People are real and they're going to have no clue.
They're going to think I'm talking about water.
Some bird parents hit the road when it comes to child rearing.
Both bird parents flee the nest in search of new sexual conquests.
Male and females of the penduline tit, the remis pendulinus, can mate with up to seven different partners in one breeding season.
So child care can be...
Please spare me.
Child care?
We're talking about child care in the bird world?
Child care?
Yes, child care can be a time drain, keeping the birds from scoring more mates.
A new study of these small perching songbirds in southern Hungary reveals that both parents are willing to abandon the nest to boost individual reproductive success.
What happens to the babies?
Is there a bird government that takes care of them?
These conflicting interests likely generated tug of war over time and generations.
Both males and females have co-evolved to outwit the other.
Our findings reveal an intensive conflict between males and females in a bird world over care that has affected the behavioral evolution of this species.
The only thing that I'm surprised at when I read this story is that global warming is not blamed.
Wonder how long this has been going on.
Birds acting like liberals and smoking one marijuana joint is as harmful to a person's lungs as having up to five cigarettes, according to research published today.
Not good news for the dope-smoking hippie and liberal crowd out there.
Those who smoke marijuana damaged both the lungs' small, fine airways used for transporting oxygen and the large airways, which blocked airflow.
It meant that marijuana smokers complained of wheezing, coughing, and chest tightness.
I did this research in New Zealand.
Over 339 people tested those who smoked only marijuana, those who smoked tobacco, those who smoked both, and non-smokers.
Bad, bad news.
And growing numbers of vegans.
Is that how you pronounce it?
Vegans?
Vegans.
Growing numbers of vegans are shunning sex with meat eaters because they see them as a graveyard for animals.
These vegans not only refuse to eat meat or animal products, they refuse to have sexual contact with meat eaters because their bodies are made up of dead animals.
Annie Potts, the co-director of the New Zealand Center of Human and Animal Studies at some university there, said that she's coined a term called vegan sexuals.
She discovered that vegan sexuals while interviewing 157 vegetarians and ethical consumers for a study.
Yeah, it's a whole new thing.
I've not come across this before.
One vegan said that while she found non-vegans attractive, she wouldn't want to be physically close to them.
I do not want to be intimate with somebody whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance.
I thought this actually is news to me, too.
You know, I know vegans don't eat meat.
They like the little during sex, though.
All right.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm going to go to the phones here in just a second.
So if you're on hole, please be patient.
We also have a couple of interesting sound bites here on the drive-by's sniffing scandal in the seizure experienced by the Chief Justice John Roberts.
But first, these next two, listen closely.
First, here is an editorial in today's Washington Times.
Actually, it was from yesterday's Washington Times.
Unsatisfied with thwarting a Republican effort to authorize $3 billion for a border fence, congressional Democrats are trying to enhance the incentive for illegal aliens to enter the United States by removing the citizenship requirement from the popular state children's health insurance program.
Now, we've talked about their attempts to update and revise this program.
It comes up for renewal.
This is the program that uses existing tobacco taxes to pay for health care for kids, health insurance for kids, 9 million of them or something.
They want to expand the number of people who are eligible.
And one of the things they've done here, this is the cigar tax at $10 a stick.
This is also where they categorize a child as anybody 25 years of age or under.
So a 24-year-old father with a 22-year-old mother and maybe two babies or one can be four children qualifying for health care.
So this is the sneaky way that the left is attempting to get universal health care without taking it in one big bite.
They do it in a stealth fashion, and they put it under, it's for the widowed children.
We cannot deny the children health care.
There's too many of them insurance.
So it's a sneaky little thing.
And now, to expand it even further, remember, this is about the redistribution of wealth.
This is about controlling people.
This is about eliminating or putting as many obstacles in the way to acquiring wealth, by the way, on the part of wage earners as possible.
Now, a little history here.
In 1996, the Republican Congress passed legislation blocking people who were in the country illegally from claiming benefits from the federal government.
And when the state children's health insurance program was created in 1997, comes up for renewal this year, states were required to verify citizenship.
But Democrats want to take that requirement from Medicaid and ship and leave it to the discretion of each state.
This reflects the Democrats' eagerness to offer free services to illegals at taxpayer expense.
And this is going to act as a magnet for more illegals to come.
So you've got two things going on here in one bill.
You have the stealth mass expansion of a children's health care program, and you have the Democrats trying to get as many illegals in here as possible and get them on a taxpayer plan, your dollars, that would pay their health insurance, even though it's against the law now.
And the Democrats are livid that the Republicans succeeded in this $3 billion authorization for a border fence, and this is how they're asking for reciprocity.
Now, from the Portland, Oregonian, taking health care to migrants in the field, they straggle in sweaty and tired from a day of picking blueberries.
Their workday is ending, but for a group of college students, the day is just beginning.
It's late afternoon.
The sun is still hot when seasonal workers, i.e. illegal immigrants, converge at Camp Blanco, a migrant camp in Washington County.
The students take part in a project to better know and serve the health needs of migrant workers from Mexico.
Five students from Portland State University's Graduate School of Social Work, the Graduate Screw of Social Work, and five from a university in Puebla, Mexico are participating in the Health Worker Outreach Project organized by Ted Donlon, an assistant Portland State University prof and project co-director.
Here's basically what happens.
Portland State University, which is supported through tax dollars, taking part in a little study.
Students from the Graduate School of Social Work are participating in the Health Worker Outreach Project.
The goal of the project is to find out about migrant workers, also known as illegal aliens.
Find out about their health habits.
So after the illegals finish picking the blueberries, these skulls full of mush from the Graduate School of Social Work flock to their migrant camp to interview them.
The students collect information about the illegal aliens' medical history, their pains, the last time they saw a doctor.
When finished collecting their data, they create a little report.
The information is intended to shape health programs tailored to the needs of seasonal workers.
Illegal immigrants is the proper term.
Okay, as you people know, I can read the stitches on a fastball.
This information is intended to pave the way for taking money from people in this country legally and then using it to provide social and medical services to illegal immigrants who violate our laws every day that they remain in this country.
Information gathered by our tax dollars.
So here you have two stories.
The Democrats trying to expand the SHIP program.
And basically under their plan, in addition to defining a child as anybody 25 years of age and under, you would qualify for the children's insurance health program even if you have a family of four income of $82,000 a year.
So we're going to get an expansion of this program.
We're going to include illegal aliens in it.
This is what the Democrats want to do.
And in Portland State, they're out there surveying illegal aliens after a tough day in the field, asking about their medical condition.
Of course, we know what they're going to say.
Well, I haven't seen a doctor in five years.
I've got pains here.
I'm terribly abused by my employer, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Going to write a report says these people need health care.
So two bills, one in Portland, one in the United States Congress, both designed to separate you and your money in order to pay health benefits to illegal immigrants and children up to the age of 25.
Here's Todd in Ketcha Can, Alaska.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you here, sir.
Thanks, Rush Hade Gittos from the great state of Alaska.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, my question to you is, what do you think about this debacle with us, our great Senator Stevens?
You mean the raid on his home by IRS and other agents?
Yes, sir.
I don't know what they found.
I know they're looking to see if he's accepted gratuities above and beyond what's legal and this sort of thing.
You know, Alaska.
I don't want to offend you here, Todd, but Alaska is the king of pork.
Every Alaska...
It is.
Every Alaskan citizen, I think last year, according to calculations, everybody thinks Robert Byrd runs this show, but I'll tell you that the Alaska delegation scores $1,000 per resident of the state in pork.
That's hefty.
My take on this is this.
I don't know if he's guilty or not.
It's premature.
But you get your house rated.
It doesn't look good.
The Republicans, contrary to what the Democrats say about the election in 2006, did not lose it because of a rock.
They lost it because of earmarks and corruption and an apparent arrogance and insulation from real people and the way they live.
They also lost it because they failed to govern as they promised they would when they were campaigning.
They became citizens of Washington rather than the representatives of their voters and their districts.
The Democrats right now are doing everything they can to water down their own ethics legislation.
They're doing everything they can to get these earmarks to survive.
this is true, it's an opportunity for the Republicans to take the lead in cleaning this stuff up.
It does present an opportunity.
The only thing I'm waiting for out there is when is the raid on Searchlight, Nevada?
You know, there's a prominent U.S. senator that lives there, and there have been countless stories in the Los Angeles Times about shady land deals with his sons who are lobbyists and so forth.
We're speaking here, of course, of the exalted Dingy Harry.
So while they're raiding Ted Stevens, where's the raid in Searchlight, Nevada?
Nevertheless, people are fed up with this kind of stuff.
They always have been, but it's been so blatant and so upfront, the earmarks and the pork bridge to nowhere in Alaska, that kind of thing.
There is an opportunity to gain the upper hand here if the Republicans have the metal.
Bill in Fort Hill, South Carolina.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next here on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, it's Fort Mill, South Carolina, transplant from New England and Ditto's from the Republican Bachelor of South Carolina.
Thank you.
Sorry for the mispronunciation.
That's okay.
It's an old Windows computer monitor.
We really need to upgrade this thing.
I mean, it's, you know how computers used to read data out back in the late 80s?
You had a black thing with the little green dots.
Well, ours is in color, but it's still...
Actually, I think the program is that old.
It's probably not the mic.
It's the cheap Windows program.
Okay.
Anyway, I thought it said Fort Hill there.
I have that problem quite often, but it's a nice bedroom community just south of Charlotte, North Carolina.
A million things I'd like to say, but I'll stick to the point.
When that woman called, that former feminazy called who lived in the Middle East, she said something I thought was very interesting that we seemed like we slipped right past a little bit.
I think that her point was that the majority of the people in the Middle East, not the fanatics, the fanatics are going to be the fanatics amount of war.
Oops, hang on a sec.
Hang on just a second.
All right, we're back.
I'm sorry about that, Bill.
I lost track of time here because I was checking an email while talking to you.
We multitasked.
Bill is in Fort Jin, North Carolina.
You wanted to talk about the woman Frida from Los Angeles.
Yes.
The former feminazi.
Yes, I do want to talk about Frida.
Just real briefly, I believe that's a hearts and minds battle going forward after the military operation.
I wish we could get rid of the madrasas.
I wish more people would spend time talking about that.
But specifically on her point, she said that What is said to the general people in the Middle East, not the fanatics, because they're going to be fanatics no matter what, was that we are Hollywood.
We are like Hollywood.
Her point was that the people over there that know our values like us as a people.
They don't like Hollywood.
And I wish we could do that more with that and get people to know that we aren't Hollywood, that the main people out there in flyover countries, such as myself, are not Hollywood people.
We have much better values than that.
And then we could probably come to some sort of consensus with the general people on the street in the Middle East.
Well, you know, you got a good point there, but they don't make TV shows about boring people like you and me.
I know.
In fact, you know, one of the things that led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union, and I kid you not, it was a very, very closed society.
The Soviet Union allowed their people to know nothing of the outside world.
They filled them with propaganda about what a bunch of decadence and destruction and poverty and unhappiness and misery was in the United States.
What they would do in their equivalent of grade school, in order to teach kids that there was no God, they would plant two flowers in a flower pot and they would water one of them every day and ignore the other one.
And they see, we human beings are making this flower grow.
God doesn't exist.
That flower that we're not watering is dead.
That flower is dying.
Well, what happened was eventually when the communication explosion happened, one of the things, one of the first things that began to really present them problems, and I'm not kidding about this, when bootlegged copies of the TV series Dallas found their way into the Soviet Union, the people said, whoa, this is not at all what we've been told this country is like.
They wanted to be JR.
They wanted 10-gallon hats.
Then they discovered blue jeans.
They said, what the hell is this?
We go to the gum department store and they don't even have day-old bread.
So that was the beginning of the end.
So in some cases, the influence of Hollywood, to the extent that it represents a rich, affluent society, can dispel all kinds of myths out there.
But Hollywood is what it is, and it's got an agenda.
It's liberal.
Well, I know that.
I just hope we're fighting back and getting our word out there that we're not all like Hollywood.
Well, but let me tell you something.
Well, I know, I know, but not all of us.
Most of us aren't like Hollywood.
That's why Hollywood's what it is.
But don't forget this.
Who was it?
The Hamas or the Hezbollah guys over in Gaza?
They're fully aware of the impact of G-rated stuff, like the Disney characters, Mickey Mouse.
It was Hamas.
They're fully aware of the damage that clean and pure, innocent as the wind-driven snow movies that some of the stuff Disney puts out can present a problem based on the way they are telling their own population about what's rotten about Americans and the Jewish people and so forth.
So they turn Mickey Mouse into a suicide bomber for their kids as a role model.
So it can cut, it can cut both ways.
Bill, thanks for the call.
This is Brian in Kansas City.
I'm glad you waited, Brian.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
You probably don't remember me.
I talked to you last summer.
I was the Democrat who called in and said when you had said that all Democrats are bad people, and I had an issue with that.
And I remember I said just most of them, but there is no exception.
Well, I appreciate the chance to talk to you.
I just have a question.
It seems to me that you're implying with Elvis Pollock, New York Times article and stuff, that Pollock, and I can't remember the other guy he was with, that they were these tree-hugging liberals before the war and everything.
He was an advocate of the war.
He was saying that the United States had no other option than a full-scale invasion.
So it would seem to me that when he comes out with a report that says progress is being made, and then please don't misunderstand me.
I want us to succeed, definitely.
But it's not.
Well, but that's not all Democrats do.
Elected Democrats in Congress don't want to succeed.
I understand that.
My only point in calling was, it seems to me that you're, seems to me that you're, I must.
I missed your, your discussion of this that he was an advocate of the war and the implication that I'm getting from listening to you is that he made this.
You know he had this come to Jesus conversion here and you know I was against it.
Now I'm for it.
That that's all I'm saying is I think I think these guys, these guys were advocates of the original invasion.
Since then they have been ardent critics.
One of these guys worked in the Clinton National Security Agency, the other was on Kerry's campaign and during the, you know, after the invasion, after victory there, the ensuing three and a half years, they have just they have, they have been highly critical.
They have suggested it isn't working, that this is a lost cause and blah.
That's why what they said in the Times on Monday was striking to everybody is because they have not been gung-ho about all of this since the beginning.
All right, I have one other question.
You know, because everybody, you know, when this report comes out and everybody is there, you know, on the right seems to be saying, see, it's working, it's working what?
And I haven't heard on any of the talk shows what happens, since we're dealing in hypotheticals here.
What happens if Petraeus comes in September and says, well, you know hey guys, I don't think it is going to work.
Has anybody ever discussed that?
Yeah, the Democrats are setting up a scenario for that even now, to make sure that that's what the report says, even when it does.
What if that is what happens what?
What do you think the Republicans will say if he says, you know hey, I don't think we can do this because, you know obviously, we all were there, whether right or wrong.
I don't want to get into that, but we're there, we need to win, we need to.
You know, let me, what's what?
What are you all going to say?
Well, let me, let me give you a little hint.
A report isn't going to say that.
The report, if it does, it can't say it because it's the reports.
The report's only a month away.
This thing is September 15th, a month and a half away.
This report's not going to be written the night before the, the preliminaries on this.
That's why there was a preliminary in July.
That's why the Democrats are so insistent that we, you know, not even wait for September.
They don't want to wait for the good news.
Look I, you know the desire you have and the quest that some in your uh camp have for defeat.
Here is is uh, is breathtaking to me.
We can't afford to lose it.
We can't afford to lose it.
The the, the energy that people are expending and the emotion that they are investing here in loss, in defeat, just so they'll be right about it uh, just so we pull the troops out the the the, the whole notion of losing this is just uh, not something that that can be even be considered, and that's that's what so offends me about this.
Well, what if we lose?
What are the reports about?
What if it's not working?
And so uh, that's not a nation of greatness, that's not.
That's not how anybody accomplishes anything.
I don't care if it's war.
Getting a job, getting a promotion, getting a raise, starting a business oh, what if it doesn't work?
Well, what if it falls apart?
I mean, people have these doubts and so forth, but that's not the, the energy that creates Success.
And to have so much of this floating around out here in the form of a desire for it to fail is breathtaking and frankly saddens me.
It's disappointing to me that there are so many people, or at least a significant number of people in this country, who would embrace defeat, particularly in the midst of success.
Here we have demonstrable success from two independent leftist scholars that go over there.
Well, what if the final report comes out to be bad?
What kind of people look forward to the day the news is bad?
What kind of politicians force their armies off the battlefield against an enemy, killed 3,000 of us, wants to kill a million more of us while we're succeeding?
What kind of American wants to do this?
People, I don't understand.
Well, not true.
I do understand them, and that makes it even worse.
By the way, more health news, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from Australia.
It's just unbelievable the amount of this garbage that gets reported, gets studied.
Get this.
Your office printer could be posing as much danger to your lungs as a drag on a cigarette, according to air quality tests by Australian scientists.
I mean, is there anything worse than cigarettes?
You've got a lot of things that are just as bad.
Well, I'm sorry, marijuana.
One stick of marijuana worse than five cigarettes.
Office printers.
An investigation of dozens of laser printers revealed that almost 30% of them emit potentially dangerous levels of tiny toner-like material into the air.
These ultra-fine particles are capable of infiltrating the lungs and causing lasting damage on the scale of inhaled cigarette smoke, said researcher Professor Lydia Morwaska from the Queensland University of Technology.
Ultra-fine particles are of most concern because they can penetrate deep into the lungs where they can pose a significant.
This is utterly ridiculous.
So now there's going to be a move to ban the printer or to change it or do something.
You watch this is how this stuff starts.
Left eats this stuff up.
Capitalist success makes life easier.
People's lives become more productive.
Got to stop that.
Well, we'll just say that the stuff is as damaging as cigarettes because we've succeeded in convincing everybody that cigarettes are the absolute worst thing on the face of the earth.
The investigators say that their results highlight a need for governments to regulate particle emissions from the machines.
I know you read this, you hear this, and you hear me read it to you, you think, this is ridiculous, it's stupid.
Remember when I told you they were going to be coming after your SUV back in 1995 and a Sierra Club targeted them?
Come on, Rush, you're exaggerating.
You're a little bit paranoid, these people.
You have an Australian agency now research group urging government to regulate particle emissions from printers?
You don't think that we have a whole bunch of liberal politicians and bureaucrats in this country who would love to be able to have that kind of control over you?
You have a printer in your home.
You have a printer in your house.
And you may have employees.
And they have no choice but to be around your printer.
It's just as bad as cigarettes.
And you can't smoke around them in public now.
Employees, you can't.
Pretty soon you're not going to be able to smoke in your house if you have household staff because they are exposed to it and they have no choice.
They'd be a victim.
Same thing now with your printer.
Well, let's just watch this.
See where this goes.
It's in Australia now, but liberals everywhere are liberals.
All right.
Drive-by media last night.
Desperate sniffing for a scandal in the seizure experienced yesterday by the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts.
We have a montage of the drive-by sniffs.
David Schuster of PMS NBC, Pete Williams of NBC, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Gene Mazerva, CNN, Jack Cafferty, and Jeffrey Toobin, all discussing Roberts' health.
Did this come up with his confirmation hearings?
No, it did not.
He was asked on his questionnaire that he had to submit to the Senate what his health was, and he described it as excellent.
They actually had that information during his hearing.
No one on the judiciary can brought it up.
Has anyone let the media know what the details were of the seizure that the Supreme Court Justice suffered some 14 years ago?
We don't get the kind of health reports from a Chief Justice.
It was never brought up in his confirmation hearings.
We don't know how healthy these people are, whether they're concealing something.
Chief Justice Rankus, in his last fatal illness, put out some overly optimistic statements.
And now, up next from the legal analyst at CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, gives his esteemed medical opinion that it's way too early for doctors to say that Roberts is fine.
Anderson Cooper said to the legal and medical expert at CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, you follow the court closely.
What was your reaction when you heard what had happened to Chief Justice Roberts?
For the Supreme Court to come out with a statement within hours that he is fully recovered, that was the term they used, fully recovered.
That seems, at least in my layman's knowledge, to be a little premature.
It seems like they should probably do a little more investigation before they make that sort of categorical statement.
Yes, of course everybody lies.
Supreme Court lies.
The government lies.
Bush lies.
This is one of the templates of journalism that you're taught in journalism school.
Everybody in power lies.
You can count on it.
Everything they say is a lie.
Everything they do is a cover-up.
So Roberts is out.
He walked out, waved, gotten his red SUV, and headed back to his main vacation home.
It was in his report to the committee, the Judiciary Committee.
They just never brought it up.
They just never asked about it.
Remember Time Magazine?
Time Magazine cover story.
Recent research concludes men and women are different.
Boys and girls are, remember that cover story in 1996?
Mind-boggling.
What must they have thought in order to make that a cover story?
Well, they're back.
Today's show today.
Co-host Matt Wauer speaking with Time Magazine editor-at-large, David Von Driel.
Matt Wauer says, David, what's behind the apparent change?
And this is the thing they're talking about here, is that boys have caught up to girls.
I think there's more of a celebration, recognition, and differences.
Our schools are becoming more boy-friendly, I think.
But most importantly, parents are putting more attention into parenting.
The time to be afraid of our kids, afraid for their future is over.
Now we just need to believe in them.
I think parents are farming out more of the parenting these days than ever before.
And Hillary wants to crumb grab the kids at age three or four now.
Schools are becoming more boy-friendly, but most importantly, parents are putting more attention into parenting.
Anyway, then Lauer talked to a psychologist who disagrees with this, Dr. Leonard Sachs, author of a book called Boys Adrift, The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men.
That's the title of his book.
And Matt Wauer says, let me go over some of the problem areas.
More boys than girls in special education classes, because women have decided men are all crazy.
More boys prescribed with mood-managing drugs.
Yeah, because girls just don't want to deal with boys the way they are, neither do mothers.
More boys drop out of schools.
They don't read well.
They're in prison, five times as likely as girls to die by suicide.
Any improvement anywhere in there?
On some of those, we're actually going in the wrong direction.
This problem I call the medicalization of boyhood.
Today, there are 20 times as many boys taking medications like Ritalin, Adlerol, Concerta, Medadate, compared to 20 years ago.
Boyhood in this country is becoming to be seen as some kind of disease.
In affluent suburbs, it's common today to find one in three boys are on medication.
That's right.
The chickification of society.
Yeah, one in three boys on medication.
ADD, ADHD, DDD, DDT.
Call a Triple-A Club, you know, their initial.
It's the feminization of the culture.
So boys are just the way they naturally are.
No, it's not good.
It's not good.
Threaten women, they're predators, and so forth and so on.
Back right after this.
All right, try this.
This is how they're trying to fight gang crime in Seattle.
You've lived there, Mr. Snerdley.
Tell me this will work.
Transit workers installing speakers this week to pump classical music from a Seattle radio station into the Tacoma Mall Transit Center, a tactic designed to disperse young gang members who make drug deals at the bus stop or use public transportation to circulate between the mall and other trouble-prone places.
They're going to use Bach, Brahms, Beethoven.
Folllows the theory that prompted the city to stage pinnacle games on dangerous street corners.
Do you think classical music will drive gangbangers away from the mall?
Of course it won't.
Of course it won't.
And what are they going to do when it doesn't work?
Folks, it's been great.
▲
Export Selection