Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, it looks like it's going to be 567-8910.
Greetings, my friends.
We're constantly prepping this program, even after it starts.
Greetings, my friends, and great to have you with us.
It's Rush Limbaugh, and I am serving humanity on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Snurgly shaking his head in there.
The only guy that doesn't like Open Line Friday is Snurgly.
This ought to be easier for you on Friday than Monday through Thursday.
Whatever you want to talk about, folks, that's the difference.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things that interest me.
I'm not going to sit here and be bored all day and fake it.
But on Friday, I will.
Nah, just can I love you and you know that.
Whatever you wish to talk about for the most part, we're not going to complain about the electric bill.
Everybody's electric bill is going up.
800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address is Elrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Somebody pointed out, I wish I had made this point yesterday.
I don't know who did this.
Somebody sent me a note saying somebody said it.
They couldn't remember who said it.
But Obama was out there praising the Supreme Court decision yesterday on the guns.
Oh, yeah, it's very constitutional.
I totally support after he had dissed it, you know, way back a year ago.
You wouldn't believe, by the way, the stories in the drive-bys trying to sanitize this guy from all of his changes.
He's recalibrating his positions.
And they're going on and on about what a brilliant pragmatist he is as he's growing and adapting here to the issues as they evolve.
And so is Obama.
I mean, it's hilarious.
Anyway, Obama was praising the decision, but he voted against the two justices that made it possible.
He voted against Alito, and he voted against Roberts, which is just par for the course.
And how about this show that's going on between Hillary and Obama in of all places?
How stupid do they think we are in Unity, New Hampshire?
How much energy did it take for both of them to fly to Unity, New Hampshire for a photo op?
We all know this is a stage thing anyway.
They could have done it in Washington in a hotel room, the Elliott Spitzer Memorial Hotel room at the Mayflower.
They could have done it any number of places.
Somebody's going to get screwed in this deal.
And look at this.
You have Mrs. Clinton who is in hock for millions.
She cannot raise a plug nickel.
And she's making a big deal out of telling her money machine to give money to Obama.
This is, you talk about a willing suspension of disbelief.
We have some audio sound bites on this.
Last night in Washington at the Mayflower Hotel, Obama said this about his grandmother.
My grandmother is now 86.
She grew up in a small town just outside of Wichita, Kansas, during the course of this campaign.
Obviously, she was rooting for her grandson.
But on more than one occasion, she said to me over the phone, she said, you know, when I look at what Senator Hillary Clinton is going through, when I see how the press sometimes responds, when I see that instinct of hers to fight on behalf of those who need a champion, she reminds me a little of me.
She reminds me a little of me.
I'll tell you, this guy has a center of the universe problem.
But what did he just do here?
He just compared Hillary to his 86-year-old grandmother.
I'm sure she dug that.
I'm sure she had a fun time.
My grandmother's now 86, grew up in a small town just outside of Wichita.
During the course of this campaign, obviously, she was rooting for her grandson.
But on more than one occasion, she said to me over the phone, you know, I look at what Senator Clinton was going through and I say, so Hillary is like his typical white grandmother.
This is Mrs. Clinton last night.
This is at the Mayflower Hotel.
Again, we got lousy audio here.
What we've done, we've doctored this to make it sound like it's messionic.
You know, we want the reverb and the echo all around it.
It's out of this world audio, but we left enough of it in here to be able to hear it and understand it.
I know my supporters have extremely strong feelings, and I know do as well.
But we are family, and we will do whatever it takes to try to win back this White House.
Anybody think she means it?
Anybody think she means this at all?
This is something she has to do to retire some of her debt.
And then Barry responds by saying he can't win this by himself.
I'm absolutely with nothing college, but I can't do it on this.
I'm going to need Hillary Clinton by my side campaign as well.
And the reason that he's going to knee her by his side is so she is not standing behind him where he can't see the knife.
That is why he wants her standing beside him.
Stephanopoulos does not agree with his pal, the punk, Terry McAuliffe, about this.
McAuliffe said, oh, it was a love fest in there.
And Stephanopoulos says, no, no, no, no.
A lot of tension in that room.
There was a lot of tension going into that room.
Yes, there was a lot of tension going into that room.
Early show today on CBS, the co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Senator Clinton's campaign.
Said, tell me about the importance of that gesture.
Well, listen, we had 300 of our top supporters from around the country.
That room last night raised about $230 million for Hillary's campaign.
It was significant to get everybody together.
And Senator Obama said he wants to help Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has said she will do anything she can to help Senator Obama win this fall.
So it was a great unity last night.
There was a great feeling in the room.
People were fired up.
This is so funny.
It is so phony.
The last place anybody in the Clinton campaign, including Mrs. Clinton, wanted to be, was in Washington last night with Barack Obama having to go through this dog and pony show, especially the punk.
Folks, we've got stories here in the stacks today.
The women for Hillary are still fit to be tied, and they are professing no loyalty whatsoever to the Democrat Party, no loyalty to Obama.
They are mad as hell.
I got a bunch of stories about it.
And the Clinton campaign knows this.
It's just June.
A lot can happen in July.
Really big things can happen in August.
And even bigger things can happen in September.
Momentous things can take place in October.
And absolutely unspeakable things can happen in November.
Here's McAuliffe again with a question.
I just want to hear Terry McAuliffe say, I'm a Barack Obama supporter.
I was up there.
I was the MC last night.
I said, we are here.
Say it.
100% for Barack Obama.
We're going to win this thing.
Let's do it together.
I love Barack Obama.
Here, the drive-bys are so intent on this unity being real.
Come on, say it, say it.
Say it.
Say it.
You're for Obama.
You could hear the clear lack of enthusiasm coursing through the punks' veins.
And remember, these are the Clintons' good news.
Out of St. Louis, Anheuser-Busch yesterday rejected the takeover bid from InBev in Brussels.
They're actually a Belgian and Brazilian company.
It's a $46 billion takeover.
Patrick Stokes, the chairman of Anheuser-Busch's board, said InBev's proposal significantly undervalues the unique assets and prospects of Anheuser-Busch, August A. Bush IV, who runs the company and says, we have no interest in selling.
So InBev said, well, screw you.
We're going hostile.
InBev said yesterday it was preparing to launch a hostile bid for Anheuser-Busch following reports that its U.S. rival was preparing to reject the bid to buy Budweiser.
In a court document filed in Delaware, InBev said that it was preparing to launch a proxy battle seeking the removal of Anheuser's entire board, citing delays and apparent plans to attempt to block the acquisition.
InBev's court filings said have been told by August Bush IV, the CEO of Anheuser-Busch, before launching the bid that he was opposed to the planned bid and that Anheuser was not for sale and that he and his board were committed to the company's independence.
So InBev says, screw you, we're going to get rid of your board.
We're going to make a move.
So this is now going to become a hostile takeover.
And the InBev people they've done a smart thing.
They have let America's politicians know that nothing would change.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley, a question from the program observer.
Right.
That's right.
That's right.
The Belgians have no interest in fighting terrorism.
They've got their priorities.
They fight for beer.
I mean, if you were in Brussels, Belgium, what would you do?
Fight terrorism or fight for beer?
And so the, yes, the Belgians are going to go to the mat here for Anheuser-Busch.
And the Belgian, the InBev guy, got hold of all these politics.
Don't worry about it.
We're not going to change anything Anheuser-Busch does domestically.
It's another summer spectacular.
Rush Limbaugh wrapping up a fabulous and extraordinary week of broadcast excellence here on Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882.
If you.
And remember, we go to the phones, the program's yours.
This is a huge risk that I, as host, responsible for content on this program, take.
Because we go to the phones, the content's up to you with hardly any policing, hardly any regulation.
So it's a golden opportunity for you.
It's always fun.
We never know what we're going to get.
And a lot of it depends on Snerdley's mood, but it generally works out.
Now, one of the things that we talk about the drive-by media here quite a bit.
We analyze them a lot.
And there have been periods of time in this program.
I've frankly gotten tired of it because everybody knows that they have a bias and everybody knows they have an agenda.
And what's news about it?
And I try to ignore them, but you just can't.
They are such a destructive force.
They are so heavily aligned with the Democrats.
But perhaps the thing for which or of which they are the most responsible and guilty is a calculated and orchestrated daily effort to literally depress as many Americans as possible about their lives, about their future, and about their country.
And all this is done for a number of reasons.
One, it's easy.
Anybody can be negative.
Anybody can be a pessimist.
Number two, it works.
People respond far more to an impending crisis than reports of things going well.
And the third reason is that they have a direct interest in you being mad.
They have a direct interest because they're so aligned with the Democrats.
They have a direct related interest in you beginning to doubt the basic structures of this country that define its uniqueness and greatness, i.e., capitalism, the markets.
They have over the years convinced you to hate or suspect virtually every American institution and corporate entity on the basis that they're out for themselves.
They don't care about you.
They want to kill you.
They want to harm you.
They want you to lose your job.
They want you to be poor.
They want you enraged.
They want you miserable.
They want you unhappy and they want you loaded for bear, particularly when the White House is held by the Republican Party, because they know that in periods of time where people are feeling ill at ease, they're always going to blame the president, not the Democrats running Congress.
Blame the president.
It's human nature.
Nothing is going to be able to do about it.
And one of the things that they do, and we've chronicled this in the recent past, if you take a look at any Drudge page, look at any list of slugged news items, and the majority of them will be things that have not happened.
The majority of them will be things that are speculation.
And all of the speculation is rotten.
All of it is bad.
All of it is horrible.
Much of it is simply a wild guess.
Much of it is news reporting what some interest group has had to say about something.
And the interest group is speculating because they're fundraising and they want everybody to think there's a crisis.
And so the reporting of news, real journalism does not happen much anymore.
Journalism has become a look to the future with an attempt to cement in as many people's minds the doom and the gloom that awaits us as the hours, the days, the weeks, and the months continue to pile up.
For example, this story is still up.
A couple days ago or yesterday, I forget when.
Big story.
Scientists say there might be no ice at the North Pole this summer.
Might be.
There might be no ice at the North Pole this summer.
And here is how it was reported on the CBS Early Show today with a co-host Maggie Rodriguez and her report on this.
A disturbing new report from some scientists in Colorado who say that there is the very real possibility that for the first time we will see the ice in the North Pole melt away completely during the summer.
Now, there is no news here.
The ice has not melted away.
It is only a very real possibility.
Scientists talking about things that haven't happened in a scientific context.
So I reached out today to the official climatologist of the EIB network, Dr. Royce Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
And Dr. Spencer said, I saw that story.
There's a 50% chance the North Pole will be ice-free this summer.
I'd like to take those odds.
If anybody'd bet me $1,000, I would take those odds.
And then he said, let me show you this.
The latest chart shows the Arctic has more sea ice right now than this time last year.
You can compare the beginning and end of the one-year plots because they got the chart here.
The black curve would have to go all the way to the zero line in order for this to happen, and it ain't going to happen.
Now, I describe this chart.
The ice area here is measured in million square kilometers.
And at its least, last summer, in September and October of 2007, it was at about 3 million square kilometers.
As we speak, in July, June of 2008, it is at, 10 million square kilometers.
Now the trend line's going down.
But the trend line was also going down at the exact same time in 2007 at this time of year.
And it bottomed out at 3 million.
50%.
They don't know what's going to happen.
They don't talk about the undersea volcanoes that are erupting these things as powerful as Vesuvius that blew up Pompeii and so forth.
Classic.
And it's designed to dovetail with all this global warming stuff.
And I'll guarantee you these scientists are in the mood and in the market for research grants.
Science has now devolved into nothing more than pure market capitalism.
There's nothing, I mean, there's less and less science today, and there's more and more attempts to grab money.
And it is having a real effect.
I'm sure you saw that.
I was sent that story, and it's a UK newspaper.
I forget what the source.
It doesn't matter.
It was the UK Independent.
I saw the story, and I wrote back to the person who sent it to me.
I said, BS, except I spelled out the word.
This is absolute BS.
If there's no ice at the North Pole this summer, my friends, we are in trouble.
Now, here is another example of this very same method that we have been discussing of treating the news.
We have a montage here.
Katie Couric from CBS, John Berman and Bianna Golodriga at ABC, Jeff Glore from CBS, and George Stephanopoulos on ABC.
Are you ready for $7 gas?
Yes, but it's $7 a gallon within two years.
$7 a gallon within just two years' time.
The new report out is predicting gas prices of $7 a gallon.
And here's a number for you.
$7 a gallon.
That's stunning new prediction.
Yes, it's just that.
It's just a prediction.
$7 a gallon gas.
And you're supposed to sit there and fall right in line and start panicking.
And then you're supposed to start getting mad.
And then you're supposed to start demanding that somebody do something about it.
And who is it that you're going to demand do something about it?
Odds are you're going to demand that government do something about it.
The Democrats in Congress have been in office since January of 2007.
They had this massive scheme, they said, to reduce gas prices.
It hasn't happened.
They haven't done diddly squat.
Bush continues to get the blame.
Capitalism is now getting the blame.
Speculators are being targeted.
You want action.
This is designed to make you even madder and more panicked.
It's designed to make you turn to government to get this fixed.
It's all a scheme.
Don't fall for it.
A man, a living legend, a way of life, a prophet, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
Servant of humanity, and general all-round good guy, harmless, lovable little fuzzball, 800-282-2882.
I went back, I looked at this ice chart, the sea ice chart for the northern hemisphere, the North Pole.
And here are the numbers.
I mentioned to you that the Arctic has more sea ice right now than it did at the same time last year.
Last year, at this time, Arctic sea ice was about 7.5 million square kilometers.
And that's late June of 2007.
They move over here to late June 2008.
And Arctic sea ice, as we speak, is about 10 and a half million square kilometers.
So, 7.5 to 3 million square kilometers more sea ice at the North Pole now than at the same time last year.
And yet, these two doofuses in Colorado talk about how it's a likely possibility that it might all melt this summer.
And then there's this, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from The Guardian.
Plants and trees head for the hills to escape global warming.
Oh, by the way, one other thing about this business that the ice at the North Pole is going to melt.
You know, you waited, your little six and seven-year-olds hear about this.
Mommy, mommy, mommy, is Sanquois gonna drown?
No, mommy, you guys stop driving your car.
You know, we can't have Sanquois and the elves get her.
That's what's going to happen.
I'm not kidding you, folks.
This is how these people operate.
What do you think they're showing these little crumb crunchers and these mull skulls full of Moshe Algore movie for?
It's to cause those parents to take action to get the kids off their backs.
Well, there is, I know there is one upside.
If the ice melts at the North Pole, it'll be easier to drill for oil.
That is a good point.
But it isn't going to melt.
At any rate, plants and trees head for the hills to escape global warming.
You never heard anything more ridiculous.
This is from the UK Guardian.
Trees, shrubs, and other plants that make up mountainside forests are shifting to higher ground to escape the warming climate, researchers have found.
You can see them.
If you go to the right place, you can actually see these things walking up the hills.
You can see these trees and the shrubs.
You have to see it at night.
They don't want anybody to know they walk around and move.
You go out there at night, you're going to hear the rustling around.
You think it's wind.
No, the trees and the shrubs, they are making the climb up the hill.
They even got a picture of it.
I did that in the Lord of the Rings.
I mean, the trees were the saviors.
It's absolutely right.
You got a great picture here of a couple of idiot hikers who are looking at a valley of lush green.
And we're supposed to see in this picture the lush green going over halfway up the valley wall.
On both sides, common species found on mountain ranges across Europe have steadily spread to higher altitudes during the 20th century.
What does that mean?
Let's accept for the sake of it that this is true.
What does it mean?
That means they're adapting.
Exactly.
They adapt.
Just like every living thing must adapt in order to survive.
We have to adapt.
The trees and shrubs when we're not looking are climbing the valley walls to get up higher there to escape the heat at the bottom of the valley.
When it gets cold, they're going to climb back down.
It's very simple.
When the global cooling starts and the heat's over, they'll start climbing back down.
They will migrate.
They will adapt.
But the headline here, plants and trees head for the hills.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say global warming causing greening of the earth?
There is more lush greening of the earth if we accept all this.
Global warming allowing more plants to flourish.
This headline makes as much sense.
This headline, plants and trees head for the hills to escape global warming.
This headline makes as much sense as a headline like this.
People flocking to the coasts to escape rising salaries.
Yes, I meant to say salaries.
All right.
To the phones we go on Open Line Friday, Corvallis, Oregon.
Kathy, I'm glad you called.
You're up first.
That's an awesome responsibility.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello, Just Rush.
Yes.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Anytime, madam, anytime.
Madam, gosh.
Well, I called because you had a statistic yesterday about college students, 65% women, 35% men.
Yeah, that was a University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, but it's like that.
In fact, Dawn's daughter's going to go to one of Florida universities, and she went up there.
What was it, a look around?
And they told her that the vast majority of the students are going to be women.
Yeah, well, I teach at a community college.
I teach math, and I teach often pre-engineering students that are going to go on to Oregon State University in Corvallis.
Yeah.
And it is not 65% women, 35% men in my classes.
And it's just ironic that one of my sons is taking an electrical engineering class this summer.
Well, wait a minute.
If it's not 65, 35, what is it?
It's more like in my math classes now.
I'm not in the engineering program.
I'd say 35% women.
Well, no, wait, 35% men.
Kathy, A, this is a community college.
Right.
And those are traditionally less populated, right?
Right.
So the population is smaller, but we have a really strong core of transfer students that go to Oregon State University in the engineering program, and that's who I'm teaching because I'm teaching that upper level first two years of college math.
Here's the second thing.
Okay.
And I know that it got Larry Summers fired at Harvard.
Uh-oh.
But I'm not Larry Summers, and this is at Harvard.
Okay.
Look, we know that women are not that interested in math.
No, traditional.
She's already getting her backup.
No, no, it's okay.
I'm asking.
I'm not telling.
Let me put it in the form of a question.
Isn't it true that statistics show that women interested in math not nearly as high as men?
And when you get to engineer, I mean, engineering.
Yeah, that's what I was going to say.
My son took a poll of his engineering class, and there are four girls about 35 in the engineering.
Right, engineering, people don't understand.
Mechanical engineering or what kind?
It was an electrical engineering class, but it's a pre-engineering, so everybody has to take it.
So, I mean, that's a pretty good poll of engineering in general.
I'd say 4 to 10 out of 30 to 35 are going to be women.
Right, right.
Well, you're talking very specialized area.
I don't think people who haven't taken time to look into it have any idea how tough it is to come out of school as an accredited engineer, mechanical, civil.
I mean, it is one of the toughest courses.
It is, I mean, we read the word in news stores, NASA engineers or engineers at Microsoft.
Right.
And we go, okay, engineers.
These people, I mean, it's a tough course.
It is study and labor-intensive, like a lot of them are, but people don't understand this about engineering.
And you don't see very many women in the field at all, period.
There are exceptions, but you don't.
So I'm not surprised that you'd have so few of them in an engineering class, and you don't sound surprised either.
Oh, no, I'm not surprised.
It's been like that for 20 years since I've been teaching.
I just wonder what field all these women are in if 65% of the graduates are women or enrollees.
Maybe they're not graduates.
And 35% are men because it's not in the engineering program.
So there must be some field where there are huge proportions of women.
Well, it's not home ech either.
Yeah, I heard.
No, I mean, the only people taking home eck on major college campuses are men.
I know, I know.
These numbers are true.
I mean, the statistics are true.
And these guys are being, they're being feminized.
And I was being, we always joke about these kind of things, the relationship angles, men and women and so forth.
But I have to tell you something.
I think we have a feminized male culture.
Not a majority yet, but it's been creeping.
And I think you put 65% females on a college campus and 35% men.
Who are those 35% men?
And if a majority of them are wusses, the women are not going to encounter real men during their college years and so forth.
And who knows what impact that's going to have later on.
The real men aren't going.
They don't want to put up with it.
They don't want to mess with it.
They don't want to deal with feminized curricula.
They don't want to deal with, and college is no longer the place to go meet your mate.
It used to be back in the old days.
But vocational training they're doing and junior college stuff.
I mean, they're starting to work.
Now, this excludes, you probably think, well, how do we have all these guys on Wall Street?
How do we have all these guys in government?
Well, that's the Ivy League.
You know, Harvard and Yale and Brown and these kind of places.
But a lot of them just are not messing with it.
They start, they drop out because they want to put up with the feminized curricula that is there.
And college isn't for everybody.
It's one of the things that's being demonstrated here.
We were growing up, folks, and you and I, same age, you'll know this.
Our parents had lived through the Great Depression.
And when you lived through the Great Depression, the one exit, the one escape from that was a college education.
And so our parents were hell-bent that we go to college, and it became almost an American right.
It became an American passage.
You went to high school, then you went to college.
And if you didn't do that, then something was wrong with you, and you weren't going to maximize your potential.
You were going to be harmed.
You weren't going to become the best you could be.
It's a generational thing now.
It's changed.
Parents today want their kids to go to college for a whole host of reasons, but they don't necessarily think they're going to bomb out failures.
I mean, look at, you got Bill Gates that dropped out.
You got a number of people that have dropped out of school and Steve Jobs, I think.
Does Steve Jobs, or am I confusing with somebody else?
It's not a route to success.
It's not for everybody.
And especially if you end up at a place that's dominated and run by feminized liberals and in the curricula and then the most of the student body.
I mean, you can have your fun with a student body one semester and then get out of there.
The female student body.
You hang around for four years for that.
By the way, we have discussed this before.
You want to know what fields the women in universities are going into?
They are becoming lawyers.
They're going into medicine.
They're going into teaching.
And they are going into the drive-bys.
They are going into journalism.
That's where women are going.
We have talked on this program countless times about the chickification of the news.
You don't see all the producers and the editors and the assignment editors behind the scenes in all these networks and newspapers.
Why do you think you get so many stories on babies goo-gooing all the time?
Why do you get so many stories on the drive-by media about families and not even news stuff?
They just go out and tell you how to buy the right kind of diaper, what to do when the diaper gets wet, when to change the diaper.
They do all this stuff.
I mean, it is what it is.
I'm not going to sit here and lament it.
But the drive-bys, journalism, Law being totally taken over by women, it's a problem because they eventually are going to want babies.
Well, now, wait a minute.
I know, you know, some people don't like this kind of talk because they think it sounds sexist.
This is another problem we've got.
There are certain truths about men and women.
Their brains are different.
They see things differently.
There's a book out there by a PhD named Sachs on the truth about gender differences.
It's an intellectual treatise.
You ought to get it and read it.
Explains why women couldn't care less about electronics.
There's a brain reason for it.
Why women get dazzled over diamonds?
They really do.
They like diamonds like my high-definition TV equipment.
I can't get enough of it.
Diamonds, to me, are a price.
The last thing I do is wear a diamond.
I don't wear bling.
Some cultures value it and so forth.
But there are genuine differences in the brains.
And there is this thing called a biological time bomb.
I'm sorry it exists.
You've seen it.
It's a time bomb if you're not interested in kids.
And we know that whether it's genuine, well, we know it's genuine, but there's certainly psychological truth to it.
Time you hit 35, you start, women know that it gets tougher to give birth at 40 and beyond.
And they're told that if they do give birth, that the odds of birth defects are higher.
So the thing starts.
The biological time bomb goes off.
And eventually you give birth to the child.
I'm going to go out and either find somebody to sire the kid or they go to a sperm bank or they may get married.
And then all of a sudden, they fully intend once the baby is born, they take the required maximum maternity leave during which time they shop for a nanny.
And then when it's time to go back to work, go back to work, nanny takes over.
But a lot of women are discovering, and this has been going on for a long time: I'd rather stay home with the child.
And that's an instinctive thing, too.
I'd rather stay home.
When the feminist movement started, that was the thing they taught women to do.
Don't depend on that kind of thing for happiness.
Don't depend on a family relationship, a man.
Don't become a prisoner.
Don't make your womb a prisoner to this sexist, racist culture.
But nature just happens to take over.
It's sort of like, I got an email from my cousin Andy.
He said, those plants that are climbing up the walls of the valley, don't those idiot plants know that heat rises?
Those plants are stupid.
Why are we doing newspapers about them?
Another guy said, you know what?
If the Arctic ice is melting, maybe it's God's way of making oil and the planet easier to get.
I got all kinds of people responding to this stuff.
And people have different thought processes.
And what happened is that after the feminism, the ribald pedal of the metal feminism died out, natural instincts, the cyclical instincts, women in motherhood took over.
They want to have babies.
And just saying that, look, I've got spawned an argument out there.
I bet many arguments.
Sexist limbo is at it again.
All women want us to have babies.
Not saying that.
Didn't say that's all they want.
So these women who start out going to law, into the drive-bys, into these other professions, guess what?
When they have the babies, the jobs have to be filled.
And who's there to fill them?
Other women who are just coming out of school.
I mean, there are probably some guys that do want to go to these colleges, but they can't get in because the SAT score is too high.
The demands are so forth.
The universities are doing certain things to limit who can get in.
That's always been the case.
So it's not that all of the guys not there don't want to be there.
Some want to get in, but they're just not able to for a host of reasons.
They don't have the academic smarts that women do or the application to academic smarts that women do on average in their teenage years.
They're interested in far different things.
I'm saying women, no, I'm not saying women are smarter than men, period, snurdily.
What I'm saying is in their teenage years, women are more applied to the intellectual pursuits than the average guy is.
That happens to the average guy later.
If you get my drift, there's a whole lot of other stuff out there to do.
There's sports, there's cruising around, any numbers there.
They got to be on the move.
They're not going to sit around here and get bookworms and so forth and exchange instant messages with each other while the women are doing that.
Okay, we've got to take a windfall profit to timeout, ladies and gentlemen.