All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:37
June 11, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Rush will be back next week.
It's on his honeymoon.
Have I congratulated Rush on the wedding in my two days here?
I don't know if I have or I haven't.
If not, congratulations, Rush.
The whole area of marriage, I'm not I have very little to offer in that whole general area of things.
I haven't talked about the World Cup.
I haven't talked about how the force feeding us down this down our throats.
I want to get to Sailor Girl, too, the 16-year-old from California who's stranded in the middle of nowhere, trying to sail around the world.
I said yesterday, and I intend to get to how President Obama and the Democrats are going to use the oil spill to try to pass a new version of cap and trade like within the next two months.
We can cover it all.
Big story today, U.S. fury at BP starts backlash among British.
The British are upset at all the pounding being done on British petroleum.
There's a good reason for that.
British petroleum stock is held by numerous major pension funds in Great Britain.
BP is a huge company.
The stock has been pummeled.
There are now fears that the company may have to file for bankruptcy, which would drive the stock price down to zero.
President Obama is suggesting that they eliminate or cut their dividend.
The British are very, very unhappy about this.
They say it's unfair and it's not right.
Now, on the one hand, imagine for a moment that an American oil company, ExxonMobil, spilled hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in the north in the North Sea.
Like the British wouldn't criticize that company, of course they would.
But on their point, I think if anything, the American public's been very restrained about this.
I don't think that there's this overwhelming, terrible hatred of BP.
There's been talk of boycotting some of the gas stations.
We don't see a lot of that.
I think the American public has handled this just fine.
They understand that drilling for oil is a difficult and dangerous thing.
I don't think that there's been this terrible hatred of BP.
The only place that's come from has been Obama.
He's the guy that's doing all the beating up on BP.
And he's doing so in an attempt to distract attention from his own administration's failed and incompetent response to the whole thing.
So the only beating up on British petroleum is coming from the president.
What criticism has been offered of BP seems to me to be realistic.
They haven't had a handle on this thing.
They have rejected outside solutions.
We're fifty one days in and there are still problems.
It is one of the biggest oil spills of all time.
What?
You should be immune from criticism for that?
Clearly, they're fair game here.
As for the president using BP and its problems as a way of distracting attention from his own failed response.
I suppose they may have a complaint, but I doubt that their own politicians would have behaved any better.
There have been two problems with the president's response to the whole thing.
The first has been the symbolic.
The way a president behaves is important.
It does set a tone.
And he seemed disconnected, distracted, and a spectator for the first several weeks.
People keep bringing up the McCartney concert.
Well, the oil spill is getting worse.
President Obama is hanging out with his rock star pals at the White House.
I don't even know if that's a fair comment.
There's nothing wrong with having entertainers at the White House and a president doesn't have to do work twenty four seven.
But it did bother people and it set the wrong tone.
The other part is as he attempts to recover from his own image problems, he's making policy decisions that have ramifications and are going to make everything worse.
Pounding on a private company to cut its dividend is not only unpresidential, it's outrageous.
BP stock is owned by Americans.
There are a lot of people out there in the United States who own this company's stock and they're getting hammered.
They're losing money.
There are some retirees who are probably counting on that dividend for a big chunk of their income.
What he's doing is essentially saying we ought to make the shareholders, mom and pop out there poorer because of the actions of this corporation.
The second long-term ramification of this is this moratorium on drilling that I talked about yesterday.
It's devastating the Gulf states where the oil industry is very, very important.
USA Today has a poll out.
Questioned a bunch of residents of Louisiana.
Guess what?
They all still support offshore drilling.
We're apparently surprised.
I can't imagine the people of Louisiana seeing this would support offshore drilling.
Well, of course they do.
It's an enormous industry in their state.
Now, after being mocked and ridiculed that he hasn't talked to the CEO of BP, the president is summoning Carl Hendrik Swanberg, who is the chairman of the company, to a meeting at the White House.
He's a Swede, called in, is going to have to account for himself, apparently.
This is how the president deals with these things.
He hasn't bothered to have any communication with BP throughout this entire process.
He never reached out, he never tried to work to solve anything.
But as usual, when his image is challenged, when he realizes he looks bad, his response isn't to pick up the phone.
His response isn't to try to better coordinate what's going on, it's to summon.
You come in and see me.
And I guarantee you, after this summoning, there'll be the statement in the Rose Garden in which I made it clear to the chairman that we're not happy with how BP responded to this.
In other words, he did his dressing down.
He did his whole macho thing in which he conveyed the expected amount of outrage.
Well, what does that accomplish?
It doesn't accomplish anything.
The lefties have been on him for not being tougher on BP.
So he's going to respond with a meeting that has nothing to do with dealing with this problem, but is nothing more than a photo opportunity so he can once again deal with the image problem that he has.
I want to, as promised, talk for a moment here about what's happening with cap and trade.
First of all, you may never hear those words again.
They've purged them.
Whenever a liberal idea is discredited, the idea itself doesn't go away.
What they do is they change the name.
The most brilliant example of this was with abortion when they changed the terminology to choice.
That's when they turned the tide in that debate.
They stopped talking about abortion and they started talking about a woman's right to choose.
But they've done this on almost every other issue.
Health care itself, when he ran for when President Obama ran for president, he talked about affordability.
Well, he stopped talking about affordability once he realized he couldn't do anything to reduce the cost of health care, then it became access and all of these other things.
Global warming became climate change.
Cap and trade was originally proposed as a way of dealing with the carbon footprint of the planet because everybody knows global warming is destroying the planet.
They tried this thing last year.
They pushed it hard.
And they didn't get anywhere.
It shocked them that with their supermajorities in the House and Senate, they couldn't give final passage to a cap and trade bill.
Once the public became aware that this was a massive series of taxes on energy sources that would have a real life impact on their lives, the support for it started to erode, particularly among Democrats in swing states.
Those in the industrial Midwest and those in energy producing areas started to shy away from the bill.
Instead, they rammed through health care, and cap and trade was sent off to live another day.
Global warming was never a sufficient selling point.
What has happened over the last two to Three years, and I think the exposing of the phony documents and the covering up of the numbers.
Prominent climatologists who've been pushing the global warming theory, I think that was the turning point.
What has happened is global warming is no longer accepted as gospel by a majority of Americans.
Many don't believe it, others are questioning it, and almost everyone fails to see the connection between United States public policy and global warming.
People aren't buying this argument that we can save the planet if we reduce our emissions while the Chinese are belching carbon out like crazy.
They've lost that argument.
Their rationale for cap and trade is gone.
But rather than give up the issue, they're just going to come up with a new rationale.
It's a new con job.
They're using the oil spill.
We're moving away from carbon footprints.
We're moving away from global warming.
Climate change is no talk at all.
Climate change is not going to be the rationale at all anymore.
Instead, we're going to talk about the terrible difficulty of reliance on oil.
We either have to get it from our enemies in the Middle East, or we have to drill for it and these terrible things happen like oil spills.
So that becomes the new excuse.
The fact that something is a problem, and clearly every energy source we have has problems associated with it.
Coal has issues, nuclear has issues, natural gas has issues, oil has a lot of issues.
The fact that these things are a problem can't be used as an excuse to come up with another stupid expansion of government.
Just because something is a problem doesn't mean that their answer is correct.
What the Obama administration's energy bill will do is put significant taxes on energy consumption with particular emphasis on manufacturing and in states where there's a heavy reliance on coal.
Every study that has been done has indicated that there will be an enormous increase in electric bills, in the cost of gasoline, and virtually every other form of energy.
The idea that you can force feed alternative energy sources to supplant coal and oil and other energy forms that we currently have is just specious.
We could put wind farms all over this country, you could solar panel the entire state of Wyoming, and we would not be able to do much to reduce our reliance on coal and oil.
We simply use too much and the alternative sources aren't efficient enough to produce a lot.
The cost to this country will be devastating.
We are losing manufacturers in droves as it is.
Companies that are faced with high labor costs now, the requirement that they provide health care to their employees.
They've been moving to Mexico, they've been moving to China, we've been outsourcing things to India for years.
Drive up their electric costs, drive up their energy costs, put these taxes on them, you're going to kill them.
As for the American public, make gasoline eight, nine, ten dollars a gallon.
That part of their disposable income is money they're not going to be able to spend on anything else.
What I am hoping is that the Republicans are successful in letting people know that the excuse being offered to do this is not a reason to do this to our economy.
I'm not exaggerating exaggerating when I say that I think cap and trade is going to be as bad as health care.
In some states, it's going to be worse.
It won't do any good, and it doesn't even really address the whole issue of oil.
The reason they are determined to do it now is they know the clock is ticking on them.
They know what's going to happen in November.
They're going to lose the supermajority in the Senate.
They may be down to 56 or 54 or 52.
They're going to lose 40 to 50, maybe 60, maybe 70 house seats.
One party rule ends in a few months.
They got through health care.
Now they want to do this.
This is their last chance for pure socialism in this country.
And they're going to use the oil slick as the means to do it.
Rama Manuel was honest last year.
Never let a crisis go to waste.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Boy, just a big weekend.
Big match tomorrow.
U.S. and England, World Cups.
Oh!
Not going to talk about the World Cup.
I'm forcing myself not to do it, even though I strongly want to ridicule the whole thing and other force fitting it down our throats.
Not going to do it.
Do have some good news though.
GM is backpacking, they say they're not going to try to stop you from using the word Chevrolet Chevy.
Instead of just Chevrolet, the whole memo was a mistake.
We put it wrong.
apologizing, we can keep on saying Chevy to Archdale, North Carolina.
Don, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with me, guest host Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
How are you?
I'm great.
Thanks.
Um the uh problem with the environmentalist position as far as carbon emissions and global warming is if they're wrong, we can destroy the economy without accomplishing anything.
If they're right, the only way to achieve the emission levels that they say are necessary to save the climate is essentially to destroy civilization.
So it's a no-win for anybody.
Well, certainly destroy the American economy.
The problem with imposing these mass and people have been so confused because the legislation keeps changing.
They can't agree on a bill.
What they're going to do, what we do know is this.
Every proposal that's out there includes a major tax on the use of traditional forms of energy, in particular oil and coal.
That means major sanctions on manufacturers in states where they get heavy reliance on coal for their energy source.
It means utility companies that have coal plants will be have to pass on massive increases in costs to their customers.
This will kill our economy.
We as much as some of the union people want to pretend that we can go back to 1950, we can't.
It's a global economy.
We are competing with other nations.
Our own economy is in very bad shape as it is.
To impose these kinds of artificial charges, just make the cost of everything go up.
To encourage alternative sources is folly.
It's dangerous.
Alternative energy, if it is viable, is going to be forced into the private market by need.
We're going to take a look at the fact that we need to increase reliance on other forms of energy.
All of that is good.
To force it by artificially making energy more expensive and pumping that money into government destroys our economy.
It's terrible.
As for the consequences for the planet, they're dropping the whole global warming thing.
You're not going to hear them talk about it at all.
It's all going to be about the oil spill.
This is why we have to pursue alternatives.
Nobody's saying we shouldn't pursue alternatives.
What we are objecting to are massive taxes on states like my own, Wisconsin, where we still have some manufacturers, where we have a lot of coal plants, and we don't want to see every last job go away.
The people who should be fighting this the strongest are the industrial trade unions, but the AFL CIO has been so co-opted by the public employees that they've been silent.
This isn't just a job killer.
It's a quality of life killer.
And for what purpose?
It certainly doesn't do anything to stop oil from being spilled in the Gulf.
It's just the excuse that the salesman, president is going to use.
Thank you for the call.
Philadelphia and Nikki, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Mark.
Hi.
I'm a little bit nervous because I've never called before, but I'm happy to get through.
Um I just wanted to mention you were talking about the um the British being affected, um having their pensions affected, but I wanted to um let you know that many Americans are going to be affected, especially um also because recently BP has bought up a bunch of American companies, including AMCO, Standard Oil of Indiana, and Sohio.
Um my dad worked for one of those companies.
BP's a huge company here.
There's no doubt about that.
Yeah.
Um not not just not just that, but I mean the pensioners, um, we I I just hear on a lot of um uh you know the talk radio that I listen to, they're always talking about the British pensioners, but I want you I just wanted to get it across the There's no you're right.
There's no doubt that BP's presence in the United States is overwhelming.
Everything from the retail gas stations, BP bought out the old standard oil.
That's them.
It's an enormous company.
And while it may make us feel good to make them this year's tobacco company, the evil corporations, if you damage that company badly enough, it's going to hurt all the Americans who benefit from it.
But if we rip on BP, it means we're not ripping on the president, right?
That's why he's got BP in his crosshairs.
I'm Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
I've been asked to uh point out that Doug Urbanski will be the fill-in host on Monday.
In fact, I'm being badgered to mention you're all excited about Doug Urbanski coming in.
Yeah, why?
Why?
Why are you so excited?
You're you're gonna you're gonna be done with me?
It kind of hurts the feeling of the guest host that's here when the staff is just in a tizzy that we've got a new guest host on Monday.
Maybe you ought to be excited when Rush comes back rather than kid.
See, we guest hosts, we've got our own little rivalry out here, you know.
Most of us are named Mark, at least his name isn't that.
No, he comes highly recommended uh Hollywood guy, right?
Hollywood conservative.
Uh he's going to be here Monday.
Rush will be back on Tuesday's program, and whenever he wants to share about the wedding and all of that, you'll hear from him.
Well, lots happened when Russia's been gone.
Anyway, Doug Urbanski on Monday, rush back on Tuesday.
I'm fascinated by the whole sailor girl story.
This I usually don't get into these.
This one is a real thing.
Abby Sunderland, she's the 16-year-old from California who was trying to sail around the world.
Her mast broke on her sailboat, and she's stranded in the Indian Ocean.
You heard you've heard the saying in the middle of nowhere.
Well, this is it.
She's in the middle of nowhere.
This is literally no man's land.
There was a search for her after she put out a distress call, and a plane found her.
The problem is she's nowhere close to anything.
And the nearest boat is apparently a French fishing vessel, which is going to go and get her, but it's still hours away.
She's radioed that she's fine.
She has all sorts of supplies, she has enough food, and her sailboat isn't going to tip over.
She's just going to wait for the rescuers to come.
What she was doing is trying to copy what her brother did.
Her brother's seventeen, also sailed around the world solo.
There are people who do this.
If you've never been on the ocean, I don't think you can grasp how impossible this is.
I don't mean like go out on some sailboat too, you know, somebody off the Jersey shore going out a couple of miles.
I mean way out there on the high seas.
They say that her mast broke when her boat was hit by thirty foot waves.
Thirty feet.
I've been on back in Milwaukee, I lead a listener cruise.
We've done 19 of them.
I've been on some of the biggest cruise ships in the world.
I mean massive things, 300 yards long, over a hundred huge, huge, huge, massive ships.
When you get waves of six to eight feet, it rolls the boat a little bit.
You feel it.
Ten to twelve, that's a real thing.
Fourteen to sixteen is considered rough seas.
You sit out on deck if you have twelve foot waves, and you're seeing chop all over the place.
I mean, that ocean is raging.
Thirty foot waves.
Thirty foot waves if you were in a cruise ship would be disconcerting.
I mean, it's enormous strength.
To s imagine sitting there in a sailboat with that kind of weather condition and that kind of sea condition.
I'm just awestruck by the whole thing.
And she's sixteen.
On the one hand, she's got to be the toughest kid there is.
And you've got to admire her for wanting to do this.
This is not some contrived little let's try something and have a trailer boat with the reality TV cameras trailing behind, showing her she doesn't get off the sailboat and get onto a big boat for five hours every night.
She's on this thing and she's alone.
There was nobody behind her.
There was nobody tracking her.
There weren't planes that were following her progress.
There wasn't anything like this.
She got in a boat in California and decided to sail around the world.
She got into trouble after passing under South Africa and heading to the Indian Ocean.
If you take a look at a globe, once you pass Africa, there isn't a lot between you and Australia when you're way down there.
Secondly, this is the southern hemisphere's winter when the seas tend to be very, very rough.
There are some veteran sailors who are saying that she was facing hurricane type winds, all alone in this sailboat.
It's a sailboat apparently with a small motor on it.
She's out there like that.
So on the one hand I'm in awe of the fact that she's doing it.
On the other I I know parents.
How do you let your kid sail around the world by herself when she's sixteen years old?
That thing kips over, she dies.
There's no more adventures, there's no more expeditions that she's able to go on.
It's the end of her life.
And I've been going back and forth on this all day.
Are the parents irresponsible?
Or the parents, unlike today's nannies, unlike today's helicopter parents, are they parents who are willing to allow her to chase her dreams and chase adventure?
I can kind of go either way on it.
But the thing that is just so hard to process is imagine being out there like this all alone.
I'm telling you, when I'm on that cruise ship, you take a look at some of these smaller fishing boats that are out there on the ocean, they're bobbing around moving up and down.
I wouldn't want to be on that.
I was on a tender boat in Casumel, Mexico, headed back to the uh ship.
We had twelve foot waves on this.
Tenderboat is where they put like two or three hundred people on, take you back to the main ship from the shore.
We're bouncing around and rolling all over the place.
There were people who were afraid.
She's alone in a sailboat with this mast in the middle of nowhere.
Here's how far away she is.
Even though this plane has found her, she's hours away from the nearest boat.
She's not in any industrial shipping lane.
She's not down where anyone else is.
There's nowhere near her.
At night it's dark.
You're all alone.
It's an amazing thing she's tried to accomplish, and obviously she hasn't pulled it off.
But here's the thing.
I guarantee you, after they rescue her, the only thing she's going to be thinking about is when she gets to try it again.
There are some people who are adrenaline junkies.
There are some people who want to chase challenges, but this one, and I've heard of people who've done this, sailed around the world and get in their own boat, get the provisions, sail from one distant port to another and pull it off themselves.
To imagine a 16-year-old girl doing it, particularly in the world we live in where most kids are pampered and spoiled and doing nothing but playing video games is just an amazing story.
Uh let's take a call on this.
Good morning, Mr. Belling.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
I'm calling I'm thank you for the setup to this call.
I've been listening to you, and I think most people in America would fall on the side of your concerns.
Um but I just I wanted to first to let you know that she they have made contact with her.
She is okay and the damage to her boat, they're gonna assess when they reached her.
Um our families belong to the same school.
Our school families are extremely close, and we get daily emails, many with information about Abby's journey.
So you know her.
I know the I know the mom, and and and that's just a recent experience.
We're new to new to this school.
Right.
Um, so our entire school has been aware of her distress, and we've been praying for her and her family ever since.
But I I had to call you this morning.
I heard you set up earlier at the beginning of the show that you were gonna talk about her.
And the reason why I'm let's call this because I'm I really do take exception to how the Sunderlands are often characterized.
The cur critiques I hear often more um, how can they send her sixteen year old daughter out to sea by Herself, she's too young, or or my personal favorite.
I could never do that.
So that means that their personal experience or the or even our own personal limitations become the standard for the Sunderland family.
And I I just don't think that's an American.
I don't think I know.
I understand that I could never do that.
I'd be freaking if I was on a lifeboat out there with a seasoned captain.
I understand that.
But isn't it unamerican for us to say because we couldn't do it?
They shouldn't do it.
I just think that that becomes our perspective.
Kind of.
But but but also the fact that a parent thinks it's okay for their kid to do it doesn't mean that there are no limits to that.
By that standard, if a parent thinks it's okay for a kid to use crack, the kid can do that.
If the parent thinks it's okay for the kid to be uh, you know, inexperienced on a motorcycle and ride a motorcycle at 125 miles an hour.
So I think that there are some l there are some limits there.
On the other hand, these are clearly extraordinary kids, and the challenge that she's taking on isn't amazing I mean, this isn't Bethany Frankel living her fake reality life on her fake reality show, acting outrageously just because it's going to give her good ratings, knowing that there's the safety net of her actual real life.
This is this is nothing like that.
This is a young woman who did this without any real publicity, without any TV crews following her, with no safety net at all.
I mean, if this boat capsizes out there, she's dead.
There's no swimming to shore.
She's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles from the nearest rock.
It is an extraordinary thing.
Now, what if something what if she didn't make it?
Are you saying that the parents aren't at all accountable for that decision to let her go?
No, no.
No, and that's part of the reason why I was calling was because I think that I needed to to share some perspective about this family in particular.
Um, you mentioned earlier that her older brother Zach had completed his own trek around the globe last year, and that's true.
The other thing is the perspective that I see that most people can look at this with is that their experience with own with other sixteen year olds that they know, you know, most of them, not many, but most of them can barely juggle homework, let alone circumnavigate the world.
But I think we're just so comfortable with average that we we want to look past exceptionalism.
And Abby's homeschooled, her daily experience is being with her parents, guiding her, instructing her, and more importantly, equipping her to achieve her goals.
This is Abby's goal.
This goal isn't realistic for 99% point nine percent of the of the teenage girls, but it is for Abby and her family.
When you take an exceptional.
Well, is it Danielle?
Is it after all?
If she has to be rescued, maybe the goal was beyond her reach.
I mean, what if they what if her radio didn't work?
What if they didn't make contact with her?
And what if she gets hit by another wave with her mast broken right now to say that this is her goal?
Well, okay, a lot of kids have goals.
Is this one that we should allow someone who was not yet an adult to decide is her goal and is going to be acceptable?
Okay, let me let me answer that.
Let me answer that with an with an example.
I liken it to when our young men went into the military.
They only become too young when they actually have to go to war.
We forget that this was their choice and that they have been fully equipped for the task.
We can't relate to it, we might not choose it, and we certainly know other young men who couldn't do it.
So all that becomes our basis for the for our criticism towards it.
And I think uh the other th the reason I have um for supporting the Sunderlands in this is I think that sometimes we forget that we were ordained to train our children, and then when we get uncomfortable with what they want to accomplish, I think it really is questioning did we train them well enough?
Oh, I agree with you.
I think that the if if the entire country had kids that were like this kid, we wouldn't be facing the problems we were facing.
Absolutely.
Thank you for the thank you for the call, Daniel.
That was fascinating hearing her her perspective.
As I said, I'm torn on the whole thing.
I will say this though.
It's a good thing.
Abby out there isn't waiting for Obama to come rescue her.
It'd be fifty days before they got out there and found her.
I'm Mark Gilling in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for rush.
Responding to criticism that it was far too dangerous to allow a sixteen-year-old to sail around the world by herself, Lawrence, that's the father, told ABC that those people didn't know how carefully he had considered his decision to let her go.
You don't know Abigail.
You don't know how long she's been out there On the ocean, he said.
But renowned Australian round-the-world sailor Ian Kiernan said Abby should not have been in the Southern Indian Ocean during the current Southern Hemisphere winter.
Abby would be going through a very difficult time with mountainous seas and essentially hurricane force winds, Kiernan told Sky News Television.
Conditions can quickly become perilous for any sailor exposed to the elements in that part of the world.
Abby, whose father is a shipwright and has a yacht management company, set sail from Los Angeles County's Marina Del Rey in her boat Wild Eyes on January 23rd in an attempt to become the youngest person to sail around the world alone without stopping.
Her brother briefly held the record in 09.
Abby soon ran into equipment problems and had to stop for repairs.
She gave up the goal of setting the record in April but continued on.
Today's communication with Abby was the first since satellite phone communications were lost early Thursday.
She had made several broken calls to her family in Thousand Oaks, California, reporting her yacht was being tossed by 30 foot waves, as tall as a three-story building.
An hour after her last call ended, her emergency beacons began signaling.
South Portland, Maine.
Bill, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Go ahead, Bill.
Uh, you know, this isn't you know, I I I salute kids that aren't pampered and spoiled and want adventure.
I wish there were more of them.
But this is absolute insanity.
You don't let a 16-year-old who's not an adult, who doesn't had uh have adult thought presses processes go around the world alone in a sailboat.
You would generally think that that's not something that she would do.
It's clear to me that she's a fairly that she's an extraordinary person.
It's clear to me that the parents are allowing the daughter to chase a dream.
But boy, as dreams go, I understand what you're saying.
You think that it's crazy to allow.
I I you've got to do it real quickly, though.
Okay, I I had an uncle in the United States Coast Guard, he's deceased, he's a commander.
Quickly.
He would be scrimming his head off.
You don't play on the ocean.
It's not a playground.
It's you know, in the end, I think he's probably right.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
I had to deter the chief of staff from this program from one of his rants on an issue in which he's misguided.
He would have been hurt on the air had I not thrown him out of the uh had I not thrown him out of the studio.
I really had a kick doing the show the last couple of days.
Uh, congratulations to Rush on his marriage.
He'll be back on Tuesday.
Doug Urbanski is the highly touted guest host uh who will be on the program on Monday.
I've got a minute and a half left.
I misunderstood on the subject of the World Cup.
It is one of the greatest sporting events of the world.
The thing that I like most about it is that they don't do it every year.
They only do it every four years.
That makes the championship particularly special.
Secondly, I understand that soccer is the ultimate global sport.
It's played virtually everywhere.
And I also am into the notion that we actually have some good old nationalism where athletes are fighting for national pride and their countries get behind them.
All of that, I accept, all of that I understand.
I'm even kind of interested in it as you get down toward the end of the whole thing.
What I object to is the American sports media trying to jam this down our throats and tell us we have to be more interested than we are.
The fact of the matter is, way more people are paying attention to the NBA championship between Boston and the Lakers than are going to pay attention to the World Cup.
A lot more people are in awe of Kobe Bryant making a fall away jump shot from twenty-four feet with a hand in his face when the game is on the line than seeing some guys run up and down a field that seems way too big and kick a ball around.
Just because we're into other things doesn't mean there's anything wrong with us.
If we've decided that our sports are more interesting than soccer, that is our prerogative, and we shouldn't be guilted into doing something.
The last time we tried that, we ended up socializing healthcare.
Thanks for listening to me.
▲
Export Selection