All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:29
September 3, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show, documented to be almost always right, 98.7% of the time.
I am Rush Limbaugh amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and second hand premium cigar smoke.
Ensconced safely and securely in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the fortified and bunkered Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
A thrill and a delight to uh to have you with us.
It's funny, uh, there's a there's a story in the Washington Post today about Carl Rove by Monica Hess.
Uh H E S S E is how she spells it.
She might pronounce it Hesse, I'm not sure.
And uh she's all upset because she thinks Carl Rove called her stupid.
In explaining the timing of his pending resignation, and by the way, I'm not I'm I'm not making this up.
You will not believe this column.
In explaining timing of his pending resignation, Carl Rove told the Wall Street Journal, I'm not gonna stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.
The mob it's a three-letter grenade of a word, so French revolution, so frothy mouthed peasants torching the streets.
She spends an entire column defining mob.
And gets exercised about listen to this.
The official definition of mob now is a the disorderly and riotous part of the population, B, the common mass of people, the lower orders, the uncultured or the illiterate.
As in the mob has many heads but no brains.
It's a word design designed to rile, implying as it does that people are not only a stupid, but be stupid in a collective cowherd sense.
And yet we the people are a heck of a lot closer to the original definition of mob than we've been in a long time.
Not only do we have the warp speed ability to change our minds, love hate, love hate, love hate, love hate, but we also got warp speed ways to disseminate that mind changing among the masses.
Think of what chaos the Romans would have created with texting and blogging technologies.
Uh you know, I don't know.
She's upset here.
She very peeved Monica is because she thinks Rove called her stupid.
Uh, and you know this, this this love hate, love hate, love hate, love hate.
Hey, Monica, from your side, from your mob, it has been hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
For seven years now.
There hasn't been any love from the drive-by media when talking about the country, when talking about Bush or Rove.
It's been all hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
Love, hate, love, hate, love, hate.
Indiana State Fair banning trans fats.
Now, I mentioned this at top of the uh last hour at the beginning, or the end of last hour, you may not have heard it.
Uh it's the fair.
You know the kind of food at the fair.
They're gonna get rid of trans fats at the Indiana State Fair beginning this year.
Uh, and I'm just I'm gonna make a prediction to you, and we're gonna flag this prediction, ladies and gentlemen, it is this.
In a few years, scientists will issue a report.
And the report will say that trans fats are actually good for us.
And that we're all dying now because we're not eating enough trans fat.
It's the way it went with oat bran, it's the way it went with coffee.
Uh, it's the way it's the way it went with all these substances that they say are gonna kill us.
I mean, one of the most deadly, deadly things that we eat out there, and one of the most dangerous things is carrots.
Do you realize how deadly carrots are?
You realize that 99% of people who have been in an auto accident ate carrots the previous twelve months.
Do you realize that 99.9% of all people who have died have eaten carrots?
Do you realize how many people who have come down with cancer have eaten carrots?
Do you know how many people who have had any kind of accident, be it an auto accident or whatever, just fell on the playground playing dodge ball.
You know that most of them have eaten carrots in a limited Period of time prior to the accident.
Carrots are hugely deadly.
More deadly than cigarettes.
And yet, nobody is discussing banning them.
Da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da.
Paul Shanklin is Algore.
Ball of fire.
Time for global warming update.
From yesterday's global warming stack from the Washington Times, John McCaslin inside the Beltway.
Reports that a Washington, D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress, came across an intriguing page two headline in the November 2nd edition of the Washington Post, 1922.
1922, Washington Post, page two headline, Arctic Ocean getting warm.
Seals vanish and icebergs melt.
1922.
So they uh got it at Inside the Beltway.
It goes on to mention great masses of ice have now been replaced by morains of earth and stones, and at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Likewood said this one of the one of several such articles I've found at the Library of Congress for the 20s and the 30s.
I uh had read of the just released NASA estimates at four to ten hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 30s, with 1934 the hottest of all.
Now, this is an interesting thing.
We've talked about this, but you may not remember it.
And I wish I could remember who did this.
This two guys.
Um their names escape me.
But what they did was an analysis of media.
I know Coco will find this, and we can put it up on the website this afternoon when we update it for today's content.
But what they did was research the media treatment of climate change going all the way back to the 1800s.
And what they found was fascinating.
That the whole notion of climate change could not be in the public domain were it not for a willing accomplice media.
And every 25 years, the cycle changes.
From warming to warning about cooling.
Uh it was a fascinating piece.
And this 1922 Washington Post story illustrates that that's exactly what's happened.
So you can have a bunch of scientists at any time in history.
Uh say, hey, well, you we just did some research here, and I think the world glaciers are expanding, the world's getting colder.
Remember 1979 time in Newsweek?
The coming ice age?
It's about a little more than 25 years ago, but the cycle's starting to repeat itself, isn't it?
So it was global cooling back then.
Now we're into global warming.
And this has been the cycle every 25 to 30 years.
The media changes its tune.
It's all part of it's it's the narrative.
It's all about having something catastrophic on the horizon to report.
Uh just like they're going nuts with these two we got tropical storm uh Aaron Burnett out there, tropical storm street sweetie, uh, which is about to hit uh Corpus Christi.
We got we got uh tropical storm Dean hasn't become a hurricane yet, is down there in the Southern Atlantic.
Uh and the track on that one keeps changing.
But all the drive-by, the drive-by is excited now, folks.
We got we got catastrophe on the horizon, and this is something that excites them.
So uh, and I know people are starting to pound me out there uh for saying this whole global warming thing is a hoax.
Let me clarify.
I'm not I we may be warming up.
What is a hoax is that only rich industrialized nations are causing it, that it is man-made.
I don't think we have the ability, and I think it's outrageous for people to claim with such vanity that we have such power on the one hand, and on the other hand, we're no more important than field mice.
In terms, in fact, uh, we're we we're we're with some people say we leave the earth to survive, we have to get off of it or die.
Uh it's a religion.
The whole thing is a political process and a political agenda uh hiding behind the uh saving of the planet and so forth.
I don't know if it's warming up or not, but I I I don't I don't I think it's always warming or cooling.
How do we know what the ideal temperature on the planet is?
Who the hell are we?
We've been around none of us have been here more than 85 a hundred years.
And look at our vanity.
Why, it's perfect right now.
This is what the world was meant to be, and it's changing, and it's our fault.
And this is it's just cockeyed.
Hotter in the past, colder in the past.
Who's to say what's normal, natural, and ideal?
We have to adapt to whatever happens, which is what we've done.
We're doing great things and the right things and keeping the climate clean and the environment clean.
Uh every species has to adapt in order to thrive, because it's a constantly changing climate, a constantly changing environment.
But we have all this vanity now suggesting that it's just as it was supposed to be right here, and we, because we are here right now destroying it.
And I think, folks, that is sophistry.
Here uh another interesting story.
Trees will not fix global warming.
Now, of course, trees are the linchpin to another hoax, and that's carbon offsets.
You don't want to reduce your carbon footprint, i.e., your pollution, fine and dandy.
Go out and buy some carbon offsets.
There are a bunch of companies that will scam you into doing this, and you'll you'll pay them to go plant a bunch of trees, and then you can rest easy.
You can keep polluting all you want, knowing full well that your uh carbon footprint's gonna be absorbed because somebody's out there planting trees for you.
Well, guess what?
The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere wasn't such a hot idea, new research indicates.
Scientists at Duke University bathed, bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for ten years, and they found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that receive the most water and nutrients stored through uh enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.
Only the trees that receive the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.
The Department of Energy funded project called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment Experiment.
Spearment, for those of you in Rio Linda, compared four pine forests that received daily doses of carbon dioxide at one and a half times current levels.
Uh it made no difference.
It made it it it didn't make a hoot's worth of difference.
And this is why I say all of this is a hoax.
Look at this from live science.
Irrigation counteracts global warming.
No, irrigation's destroying the planet, I thought.
We're upsetting irrigation isn't natural.
It's man-made.
God never intended.
Nature never intended it.
We're destroying what was Christina Wonderful, Mr. Limbaugh.
Irrigation can counteract global warming on a local scale, a new study shows, but increasing demand for water is likely to curb the influence in the future.
Scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Lab out in California showed that there was an irrigation-induced cooling in agricultural areas based on observations of temperature and irrigation trends throughout California.
Well, how about that?
Then I got an idea, folks.
Let's start irrigating Laurie David's backyard.
Let's irrigate Brentwood.
Let's irrigate Bel Air and Beverly Hills.
They care about global warming out there.
They got the solution right in their backyards.
Dig a ditch and put some water in it.
By the way, one more global warming story here.
This is from um Reuters.
And I get this.
Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world's oceans and helps govern global climate.
They just found this.
Would somebody tell me how in the name of Sam Hill, and there was such a guy?
How in the name of Sam Hill?
Can they been predicting all this global warming when there's been such a huge missing link that they just now found?
New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia's southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate systems engine room.
They just found what else don't they know?
See, I thought this was settled science.
I thought it was settled, and the consensus was there.
All right, to the phones.
We have a nine-year-old from Acton, Massachusetts that's joining us.
Her name is Lily.
It's a pleasure to have you with us, Lily.
Hi, Russ.
Hi.
Um, I was thinking I think that the liberals should um tell people when and where they should smoke, because if they're smoking the car with their kids, they the kids can get sick, and that's what happened to my mom when she was little.
She used to ha be riding in the car with her friends, and one of them would be smoking and she'd get sick.
And also I think that people shouldn't be smoking because what what kind of sick, Lily?
She throw up and she wouldn't feel good and how long did it last?
It lasted as long as they were smoking.
It lasted as long as uh as uh she was smoking.
As the person with the person who was not college.
Okay, what now what did you say at the beginning about liberals?
Liberals should say when and where you smoke.
Okay.
Thank you, Mrs. Snerdley.
Liberals should say where you can and can't smoke.
Lily.
If smoking makes somebody sick, then whoever's smoking shouldn't do it.
And I am not suggesting that it's okay to smoke in a car with a windows up or down if kids in that's not my point.
My point is that uh the government has no business dictating that degree of our behavior, because if you let them start that doing it in that way, they're gonna start they're gonna eventually tell your mommy how she can raise you.
They're gonna tell you if she's being too mean, too cruel, too nice, or what have you.
It's a it's a it's a dangerous path to go down.
Uh I can't I can't believe that that if somebody actually was made sick in the presence of smoke that the smoker would continue.
Especially, especially a parent.
A parrot ought not uh in that circumstance continue it anyway.
I don't I don't know how often it happens anyway.
I don't I don't see that many people smoking their cars anymore.
But uh regardless, the government, Lily, is this is crucial.
The government is not the solution to that to that family or that problem.
Wait, wait till the government starts telling you what dolls you can and can't play with.
What if it you have a Barbie doll?
Only one.
You what?
I've only got one.
Okay, you've all you've only got one.
Um so what what what if someday the government decided that the Barbie doll you have is just inappropriate for you and that you shouldn't have it, uh and they and they penalize your mother for letting you have it.
Should the liberals be able to do that?
No.
Definitely no.
Okay, good.
Well, then we have reached a teachable moment here.
We have uh th there's in in my mind, uh that's possible if we allow them into our cars.
So I think families ought to decide this themselves.
Parents need to be responsible.
It's not the government's job to make them responsible.
Um I understand you don't want to be around people who smoke, right?
And you don't have a chance you don't have a choice.
If do your mom smoke in the car.
No, nobody in my family smokes because my mom doesn't want anybody smoking.
Cool, cool.
Everything's fine then.
No no no complaints.
Don't start saying the liberals need to be telling people what they can and can't do, Lily.
Please, please.
All right, the um the audio and the transcript of the Carl Rove interview at the top of our second hour now posted at Rushlimbaugh.com, which means the transcripts up there, so drive-by's can consult it uh for taking him out of context and misquoting him.
It's it's right there for them to utilize as they do best.
The audio is uh is there as well.
Uh also um, you know, Lily, uh if you're still out there, uh I goofed up on one thing.
Uh Barbie dolls are part of the Mattel recall.
Because they're lead in there.
Uh uh So Lily, don't don't lick Barbie.
Don't don't lick your Barbie doll.
Any of you kids out there with Barbies.
Don't lick 'em because they may have lead in the paint or whatever in the in the manufacturing process.
So I'm I'm happy to be able to perform this public service.
Uh Young future patriot calling this program to get guidance.
And I should have had that knowledge at my fingertips, but didn't.
By the way, this story on uh the on the media in the last hundred years and their reporting on global warming and how it's always a cycle.
It's by uh Warren Anderson, research analyst and Dan Gaynor, the Boone Pickens free market fellow.
And this was at Business and Media, the Business of Media Institute dot com or Business Business and Media dot org.
Uh and the headline says it all journalists have warned of climate change for a hundred years, but can't decide whether we face an ice age or warming.
Cycles of 25, 30 years and they repeat.
So uh I have Coco put that on the website as well.
Going to San Bernardino, California says Michael, I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome.
Yeah, it's funny because I think uh here uh your last caller spoke something about quote liberals, and quote, that uh you may not have intended to be exposed.
Here I was thinking I was so brilliant uh that I was gonna take down your argument about smoking in cars, and it really only took a nine-year-old to do it.
She didn't take down an argument at all.
Oh, you you had said you'd gone on for several minutes about how could this be harmful, it's not harmful, and then a nine-year-old explained to you that's a very good thing.
I've obviously no, I specify by harmful.
There's a bunch of misinformation out there.
Harmful as in causes death.
Secondhand smoke does not cause death.
I acknowledged earlier it makes some people sick, they have allergies to it, and they shouldn't shouldn't have to be around it.
You're missing my whole point.
The point is that the government has no business telling people how they can live their lives, and they're way too into it as it is.
I think we've already lost the battle.
Well, let's it the obviously let's just take that argument, not even a full step, but just a micro step further.
Let's legalize drugs, let's legalize all forms of poison, let's legalize explosives, let's legalize anything.
No, that's not the answer.
No, no, no.
You're going the the the logical thing to do based on everything we're told about tobacco is to ban it as well.
If we are not going to be able to have cigarettes smoked in cars with little kids because it's going to kill them and make them sick, what the hell business the government have allowing the product to be sold?
Well, I think the argument is is as follows.
Look, you want to make yourself sick, you want to poison yourself, go right ahead.
But we're not going to allow you to do it to people who can't defend themselves, like children.
Uh or waiters.
Or waitresses, or people that you might have in your house.
So you see, the point is that week instruction.
Oh, no, no, no, no, wait, wait.
There's no log in smoking in your own house.
Well, they've tried it in a couple of counties in Maryland, and it's next if you let them into the car.
Damn right it is.
There's no question.
Now we're back to my original point, which is that only really kind of a paranoid right winger which is a liberal plot in this.
Some things are obviously sensible and some things are not.
And no one is suggesting in any real way, or has it ever become a close to being a reality?
Wrong.
I am suggesting it, and you're blind to it.
It is not paranoia when evidence already exists of the trend.
You're not honestly seriously suggesting that there is a trend to ban smoking within private homes.
I'm telling you, it's coming.
It's been tried, it would have succeeded in Maryland were it not for an outrage.
And Montgomery County, Maryland.
Now listen to this, Michael.
Montgomery County, Maryland, a little ninny neighbor claimed in her locked house with the windows down, she could smell somebody's cigarette smoke a hundred yards away, who also in their house.
And so a city councilman says, Well, we can't have this.
That's disruptive, and they tried to ban smoking in the house.
Okay, you're talking about one place, one person making one complaint.
I wouldn't call that a trend.
Well, Michael, this is how liberalism spreads.
It this once they start this stuff, it never goes like gay marriage is going to happen in this country.
It's going to be the thing is what I'm saying is when you see it, quote, spreading, end quote, that is right-wing paranoia.
No, no.
It's not right-wing paranoia, it's stopping it.
It's making sure it doesn't grow.
It's making sure that the that these powers, these liberal ninnies, nannies, and do-gooders do not get foothold and traction in trying to tell everybody else how to live, including in their own homes.
Uh in New York, for crying out loud, you can't that you have to ban trans fat at the grocery store as well.
You you are blind if you don't see what's happening here.
And the fact that you're not concerned about it means you probably think that these people doing this have the public interest.
The highest standards of public history is at heart, and they don't.
It's about it's about control.
They just can't leave people alone.
You gave me a libertarian definition a minute ago.
They don't believe in that.
They're not going to sit there and let people do what they want to do in their own homes.
They're trying to change everything about the way people live, what kind of cars they drive, pressuring them into buying these little hybrids and stuff.
Been going on a long time, and it would have been advanced a lot sooner had it not been for the effectiveness of me and this program.
John in Lincoln, Nebraska, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, Megadiddos from uh Nebraska Army National Guard Cavalry Scout.
Well, thank you, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
We salute you.
Thank you.
I'm glad to be uh following a caller that set the bar so low.
Okay.
It it just worked out that way.
I uh I'm calling because I heard Hillary Clinton's comments about uh the soldiers being invisible to the president.
Yeah.
And I realized the ultimate example of that.
Her and her husband walking on to the Marine Corps helicopters and acting like those Marine Corps guards weren't standing there.
Amen, bro.
Amen.
Ignoring them in the White House, ignoring the Yep, absolutely.
That's a great, great point.
The entire country has seen this on TV already, and it's her husband, not George Bush.
Right.
Yeah, no, don't forget that letter to Colonel Holmes.
I said I loathe the military man.
These people have made uh no secret of the fact uh that the the that they're anti uh anti-militarism.
That's a great point.
I'm glad you called, John.
Thanks much.
Uh Alexandria Virginia is next to this is uh this is Sharon.
Hi.
Hi, Rush, this is Sharon.
Yes.
Uh I hate to remind you and your audience of this, but the government came into our cars in the 60s when the seatbelt debate was going on.
I was in high school and I was in college when this was debated, and my father, we were raised in Kansas, was totally against this.
Because he said the first thing, the first time you let the government into your car, it's going to keep going.
The next thing that happened was the airbags.
And I remember that debated in Congress where the the auto companies, uh scientists came back, technologists came back and said airbags were not yet ready for cars.
So what happens?
Children are terribly crippled and injured.
There wasn't even one child in Texas that was beheaded by an airbag.
So the next thing, we get car seats, and we put those kids in the back seat where mom and dad can't hear them.
They the first thing that happens when a child gets in a car usually is that they fall asleep, out of sight, out of mind.
They you are then driving to work, and all of a sudden, you forget the child's in the car.
And they are left in cars dying in temperatures of a hundred and fifty fifty degrees.
I am sick of the Nazis.
I'm tired of the fat Nazis, the car Nazis, the tobacco Nazis, the ethanol Nazis, the food Nazis, the environmentalist Nazis, the speech Nazis, and the alcohol Nazis.
I'm sick of them.
Get out of our lives and stay out of our lives.
Well, but see, they they think you don't know how to live your life right.
I do know how to live my life, and I've had a rough year, and this conversation today has really taken me right over the edge.
Oh, gee, I'm sorry.
I am so sick of all of it.
They have no right to be in our business on that personal a level.
And you are also right that once they get under our cars and they can they can dictate what they do in our cars, the next thing will come our homes.
And that will happen.
Haven't there been places in the country have tried to ban or stagger the times people can barbecue outside because of the effect on global warming.
Yes.
In large, I think they tried that in uh in Los Angeles some years ago, and I don't know if it ever became law or uh or what have you.
I know it's um it is it's pervasive.
And everybody thinks that the the thing behind it that motivates it is the good intentions and the big hearts and the public safety concerns these people have, and while many of the underlings in that group of people uh probably do have the best of intentions.
the the people behind all this are just aiming for control.
Uh for the government to be able to tell people they can and can't do it.
It condition people to accept permission from the government for what they do.
Uh it's all about control and it's all about keeping people dependent.
It's about keeping people from growing up and becoming adults, uh, able to handle their own lives and deal with their own problems, uh, so that the liberals that run the government, the Democrats that run the government can be there to step in when people uh slip, which most people do, and it's yeah, I know it's hideous.
And it's uh there's there's there's I don't know where it stops, uh, but it's gonna be a constant thing we fight and battle against on this program.
Bless you.
Keep battling it.
Don't stop.
I won't.
It's in my nature to oppose to oppose this kind of thing.
It really is.
Um Sharon, I appreciate that.
We've got to take quick time out here, folks, and we'll be back right after this.
All right, a quick note.
This fire and ice piece that um that I've referenced how the media have been covering global warming and global cooling for a hundred years.
If you have the August issue of the limbaugh letter with a little fun piece on it in there, too, so you don't have to wait for Rush Limbaugh.com this afternoon to be updated.
Uh you already have it if you have it in your possession.
Now, you you you you think that there's nothing going on out there.
Get this.
This in the UK.
Call to ban cars near schools to tackle obesity.
Car exclusion zones should be set up around schools to help tackle obesity and climate change, a report suggested today.
The Institute for European Environment Policy, I. Found that banning vehicles from roads near schools could help reverse the dramatic decline in walking seen in the UK in recent decades, and leaving the car at home would benefit children their parents.
And it would also cut down on global warming.
Uh so you can only drive so close, you're gonna you're gonna park your car in a government-approved place, then you'll let the obese kids out and they trundle into school, reducing their obesity problems, saving global warming.
And who could oppose this?
Why it's it's for the widowed children.
And it's just one plan, this one plan, and we were all trying to help here.
Ellen in Knightstown, Indiana.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, I know you don't mean to, but you're coming between me and my grandchildren with this food stuff.
And I hope you all think about it and talk about it tomorrow.
I'm trying to get my children to stop eating junk food, not just junk food junk.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Grandchildren or children, which is it?
Both.
But mostly my grandchildren.
Because when I grew up, we ate food out of the garden.
Uh it was a treat to go to the root beer stand and and and now the kids are living on Cokes and Diet Cokes, which is even worse with aspartane in it.
They're eating potato chips and French fries and and and that's what they're living on.
Wait, I guess.
Ellen, Ellen, you're a grandmother.
I cannot believe you think this is new.
I grew up, my little town, we grew up on a place called Wimpy's, which is a burger joint.
It was like Mel's Drive-in and American graffiti.
Then we got our first McDonald's.
And we had potato chips.
We had a barbecues in the backyard.
Hamburgers.
They may not have been from Wimpy's and McDonald's, but they were hamburgers.
We had mustard and mayonnaise, we had onions.
Okay, Rush.
And we drank coke.
But but but Rush, are you denying that Medicare and Medicaid is our biggest problem in this country?
And the government is making all of us that want to live healthy lifestyles, put food into our bodies instead of junk.
Wait a minute.
The government's not forcing your grandkids to go to McDonald's and the and they're not forcing your grandkids to pick up the Lay's wavy potato chips at the local hot and spot.
Okay, and all I'm saying, Rush, is that it's coming across as though it doesn't make any difference what you eat.
Saturated fat, smoke, whatever.
You don't mean to, but that's the way it's coming across, I know, because I'm having this debate with my twenty-six-year-old grandson who says, Grandma, you're you're you're they don't they haven't proven these things hurt you?
Rush, we're not eating the same thing.
Wait a minute.
Did I hear you right?
You are debating a twenty-six-year-old adult?
Yes.
Who's your grandson?
Yes.
Over what he shouldn't shouldn't eat?
Yes, because when are you gonna let him grow up?
This is not my fault.
Okay, the point I'm making is does it make a difference in our health, what we put in our bodies?
If we put the wrong things in our car, does it make a difference in how it runs?
Well, of course, but but everything's proportionate.
People say cigarettes kill you, but it might take fifty years.
An auto accident can take care of it instantly.
We lose a proportion on that.
Potato chips are not gonna kill people.
It is when that's all they're eating.
They're not eating vegetables.
They're not eating fruit.
Okay, then give them a can of V8 and have them drink that and they get their vegetables.
Okay, and all it's all about nutrients.
It's about new just get them, get them get a can of V8.
Okay, all right.
Some bloody Marys made with V8.
Bring that part across too.
Because you're making it sound as though I'm I'm exaggerating everything, that it's not all that important what you eat.
And it comes across as though that's the side you're on.
In the big scheme of things, it isn't.
There are there are really a lot of pressing problems in this country, like uh taxes, the war on terror.
I'm being deadly serious.
We have we are so affluent that we have time to get ourselves roiled up in all this angst.
And what about Medicare and Medicaid?
Isn't everybody on prescription drugs now?
Isn't that what we're upset about?
Because the government is making us pay for people, whether they're healthy or they're not healthy.
Okay, so this is where it comes down to.
Yes.
The stress on the health care system because of what people's obese and so forth.
Why why?
Why should people who see that's the wrong solution?
Educate themselves I I agree with you, and I'm killing myself.
The solution to this is not changing diet dramatically like this.
The solution to Medicare and Medicaid, uh uh because I don't I don't think that what the people eating a each and every day are contributing to the kind of illnesses that end up on uh on uh Medicaid is for the poor.
Medicare is for the seasoned citizens, and then they get seasoned citizen status, and the odds that you're gonna get sick from anything go up simply because law of average.
Look, Ellen, I will talk about this in greater detail uh uh tomorrow.
Uh if somebody will remind me to bring it up.
And Jenny in Forsyth, Missouri, I want to talk to you tomorrow too.
I don't have time because I'm out of time for this segment.
But Jenny, one of my top ten all-time favorite female names.
Headline the Honolulu Star Bulletin from May 29th.
Homes, next target for smoking ban.
An effort this fall will urge multi-unit buildings to adopt a smoke free policy.
We'll continue this tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.
I can't wait.
I can not wait.
▲
Export Selection