All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:58
May 10, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, get this, folks.
One of Osama bin Laden's sons is missing.
One of his sons who was present in that crackhouse rat hole.
A couple of Sundays ago during the raid is missing.
They can't find one of Osama's kids.
Is he being waterboarded?
At a CIA black prison somewhere.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Great to have you with us.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
And uh the Limbaugh Institute.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
A couple of emails.
Where's the first one?
Oh, yeah.
This is from Christine.
Dear Rush, you're losing me.
You don't like Mitch Daniels because he stepped on your ego, pure and simple.
Now no, no, not true.
And then there's this.
This is from Gregory.
Rush, it's funny.
Mitch Daniels said that we need people who don't listen to you, yet all of his acolytes are glued to their radios, listening and calling you.
That's a good point.
I have to also observe, certainly pointed it out, uh, I don't care what candidate you talk about.
Uh pick one.
We don't get calls from Alaska when we talk about Palin.
We don't get calls from Arkansas, we talk about Huckabee.
We don't talk about people.
But we don't much.
Uh we don't get calls from Massachusetts when we talk about Romney.
Uh I get without question.
We talk about Mitch Daniels, and the response from Indiana is through the roof.
But pro and con.
The closest I would say that rivalhood would be would be Trump.
But those calls are not from New York, and they run the gamut, too.
Now, Mitch, where's the story?
Let's just clear what is this is uh AP.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels says he thinks he could beat uh Obama in 2012, he just hasn't decided whether he'll try.
He said today his chances of beating Obama would be quite good, but that's not factoring into his deliberations on whether to run.
He spoke to reporters after giving public service awards to state employees.
Now we have also this soundbite from uh from Mitch.
This is from Friday night.
Bloomberg Television Political Capital, the host is Al Hunt, and he interviewed Mitch Daniels.
Said the question is a familiar GOP refrain in recent months, Governor, has been that Barack Obama is weak on foreign policy, a multilateralist who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and the like.
You praised Obama, as did many other Republicans for getting bin Laden politically, does that take the national security issue off the table?
If it does, that'd be good.
What we want is an effective foreign policy, and uh we want this I want this president to succeed.
I'm very pleased for him and his team at uh that one victory, and I hope it's followed by many more.
If it is, that's a great thing for the country.
Now, what am I supposed to do with this?
What am I supposed to for those for those of you in Indiana?
What am I supposed to do?
Just go ho hum here and move on.
Well, my initial reaction is you want him to succeed at what?
And why are you even thinking of running in opposition to him if you hope he succeeds?
What would be the point?
If you want many more Obama successes, why even consider running?
Uh, just a little question that I have there.
All right.
Let's let's move on to this uh Wall Street Journal piece and try to squeeze these three pieces here into the final hour of the uh of the program.
Wait a minute.
Wait just a second.
Hang on.
Let me...
Yep, in fairness, let's play this one.
This is one more from Al Hunt.
Number 17.
This is Al Hunt uh saying to Mitch Daniels, conventional wisdom is that revenues are at an historic low.
Republicans would have to give on increasing revenues, tax increases.
Do you agree?
And should that be part of a compromise on the debt ceiling?
We need a lot more revenues.
If you take a what I believe is a very flawed tax system, way too complicated.
Too many uh preferences and gimmicks in it.
Many of them, by the way, tilted toward upper income people.
Right.
And what's more, a system which is trying to squeeze more and more dollars out of fewer and fewer people.
The question is how do you get the revenue?
So tax increases from the Daniel's point of view would be off the table.
Tax rate increases, I think, are a mistaken idea.
How about net tax increases through closing preferences?
Yes.
Net tax increases, tax rate increases are a mistaken idea.
How about net tax increases through closing preferences?
Daniels, yes.
Okay, so you can make of that what you want.
Now let's move on here, ladies and gentlemen, to the Wall Street Journal.
I know it sounds like he's back to thinking about the VAT tax again.
But we don't need more revenues, folks.
We need less spending.
We need less spending.
And I, by the way, on the I still want Obama to fail, lest there be any doubt.
Wall Street Journal, the tricky chemistry of attraction.
And I will just say we're we're guided here by an expert on male-female relationships, a man who exhibits animal magnetism wherever he goes both snurdly.
The tricky chemistry of attraction.
Taking birth control pills may mask the signals that draw the sexes together.
Research shows.
The author is Shirley Wang.
As you listen to this, and I'll appreciate Mr. Snerdley's input either during or after.
If what you hear here is true, possibly changes everything we know about our lives since the pill, since 1970.
Much of the attraction between the sexes is chemistry.
New studies suggests that when women use hormonal contraceptives like birth control pills, it disrupts some of these chemical signals, affecting their attractiveness to men and women's own preference for romantic partners.
Evolutionary psychologists and biologists have long been interested in factors that lead to people's choice of mates.
One influential study of the night, believe me, men have been trying to figure this one out since the Garden of Eden.
One influential study in the 1990s, dubbed the T-shirt study, asked women about their attraction to members of the opposite sex by smelling the men's t-shirts.
The findings showed that humans, like many other animals, transmit and recognize information pertinent to sexual attraction through chemical odors known as pheromones.
Snurdley nodding his head as though he's fully aware of pheromones.
And he now assures me that he is.
The study also showed that women seemed to prefer the sense of men, the smells of men whose immune systems were most different from the women's own immune system genes, known as MHC.
The family of genes, for those of you in real linda, we're not talking about Levi's here.
We're talking G E N E S. The family of genes permit a person's body to recognize which bacteria are foreign invaders and to provide protection from those bugs.
Evolutionarily, scientists believe children should be healthier if their parents' MHC genes vary because the offspring will be protected from other pathogens.
Now more than 92 million prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives, including birth control pills and patches and injections were filed or filled last year alone in the United States.
Researchers say that their aim isn't To scare or stop women from taking hormonal contraceptives.
No, quote, we just want to know what we're doing, unquote, by taking the pill, says Alexandra Alaverna, a researcher in biological anthropology at the University of College London in the UK.
If there is a risk, it affects our romantic life and the health status of our children, and we want to know that.
Now, both men's and women's preferences in mates shift when a woman is ovulating.
You know what that is, right, Sterling?
Animal magnetism strikes again.
For those of you in real Linda, that is the period when the woman is fertile.
For those of you in real linda, most often day 14.
And if you're still confused, it's probably when you use the condom.
Okay.
So both men's and women's preferences in mates shift when a woman is ovulating.
Some studies have tracked women's responses to photos of different men, while other studies have interviewed women about their feelings for men over several weeks.
Among the conclusions, when women are ovulating, they tend to be drawn to men with greater facial symmetry and more signals of masculinity, such as muscle tone, a more masculine voice and dominant behaviors.
That is when they are ovulating.
The women also seem to be particularly attuned to the MHC gene diversity.
From an evolutionary perspective, these signals are supposed to indicate that men are more fertile and have better genes to confer to offspring.
And all of this happens in a split second.
It's not something that's calculated.
It just happens.
It's the chemical.
You don't even know what's happening.
But it does, they say, dictate your behavior in choices and so forth.
Women tend to exhibit subtle cues when they are ovulating.
Men tend to find them more attractive at this time.
Women try to look more not a woman wrote this.
Keep that in mind.
But when they're ovulating, women try to look more attractive by wearing tighter or more revealing clothing, says Marty Hazleton, a communications and psychology prof at the University of California, LA.
Research on this includes studies in which photos that showed women's clothing choices at different times of the month were shown to groups of judges.
Women also emit chemical signals that they are fertile.
Researchers have measured various body odors, says Dr. Hazelton, who has a paper on all this.
Such natural preferences get wiped out when the woman is on hormonal birth control.
According to the all of this ceases to exist.
Women on the pill no longer experience a greater desire for traditionally masculine men.
Women on the pill no longer experience a greater desire for traditionally masculine men during ovulation.
Now this to me explains most marriages in Washington.
Women on the pill no longer experience a greater desire for traditionally masculine men during ovulation.
Their preference for partners who carry different immunities than they do also disappears.
And men no longer exhibit shifting interest for women based on their menstrual cycle, perhaps because those cues signaling ovulation are longer present.
The signals, the chemicals that alert men to all this are just wiped out by virtue of the pill.
There is also accumulating evidence indicating men react differently to women when they are on birth control.
A 2004 study in the Journal of Behavioral Ecology used the t-shirt study where they sniffed it.
But instead they put the shirts on 81 women, a panel of 31 men smelling the t shirts Experienced the greatest attraction for the non-pill using women when they were ovulating.
Twelve women on the panel did not detect any difference whatsoever.
And then they did the study on primates and so forth.
And basically, if this is true, the natural selection process of a woman wanting a traditionally masculine guy when she's ovulating goes out the window.
Nothing to do with sexual orientation here.
But this, for example, could give rise to this whole notion of the metrosexual.
If this is true, that's right.
If all of this is true, then it it it changes everything we we know about our lives since the pill became profligate in uh 1970.
It also tells me what robots we sometimes are.
I mean, all this stuff is happening, and we don't even really know it.
It's programmed in.
I mean, I don't know about you, Snerdley, you know, you have the animal magnetism out there, but I would not know any of this stuff.
I would not I I couldn't tell you today when a woman's ovulating or not.
But I I apparently I know.
I couldn't tell you.
Apparently I act on it, but well, I used to.
But I but uh but I but I don't know.
And I still don't know why or how or do what it so it is, it's um it's fascinating.
Now you couple all you you couple this with the obvious role changes that militant feminism brought on, and it could explain a lot about general unhappiness,
uh confusion, who's supposed to be what uh that that uh that both sexes seem to um exhibit it.
Another thought on the impact of hormonal birth control and how it affects women and men.
When the pill was approved for use in the U.S. in 1960, the divorce rate, 1960 was less than 10%.
Over the two decades that followed, divorce rates climbed to over 20%.
So maybe, maybe it's harder to stick it out in a marriage if the power of attraction wanes, and if the attraction wanes because the chemicals aren't there that make it possible.
Well, that would explain a lot too.
Now, pheromones, Snerdley, of course, knows.
He assured me knows what they are, pheromones.
It's pheromones that that cause women to synchronize their menstrual cycles.
And Snerdley's uh inf intimately aware of that.
When I have three wives in there, imagine what that must have been like in bin Laden's compound.
Imagine the fun.
Three wives in that and the place was still a pig style or just different what.
Oh, oh, okay, okay.
We are back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Snerdley was lecturing me on how to tell when a woman is ovulating.
Okay, uh.
They have bloat clothes.
I got a they got a bloat section in the closet.
Okay.
Here's Robert going back to the phones, Detroit.
Great to have you on the program, Robert.
Welcome.
How are you doing, Rush?
Very good, sir.
Thank you.
You know, last week I listened uh to you.
You talked a lot about uh Obama carrying on Bush's policies.
And that, you know, um, of course, you hope he fails and all that stuff.
Yeah.
And uh, you know, of course, uh, after the killing of bin Laden, uh, you seem to go on about uh him just carrying on the Bush policy.
So it sounds like, you know, to me that, you know, while you absolutely want to continue uh, you know, the the negative speech and things to say about President Obama, you kind of reluctant to have to say some nice things, you know, but you know, you kind of put the the old rush.
What are you talking about down there?
We all know you you just trying to ragging on him.
Oh, come on, Robert, I thank God for Obama on that day.
Well, I know, I know that, but come on, Rush.
I mean, a lot of the media probably, you know, took it serious.
I knew that you were just being sarcastic, you know.
And I think that, you know, it just ultimately goes back to uh, you know, uh one big problem is just my opinion.
I just think that you really have a problem with Obama because he's a black man.
I wonder I really I really wish you didn't think that, because it's got nothing to do with it.
Well, I just don't like let me tell you something.
I don't like socialists or liberals.
I I this b believe me when I tell you my opposition and reasons for not being an Obama supporter are entirely rooted in issues of policy substance.
Nothing else.
I think care less.
Go ahead.
I'm I'm uh you know, all right, all right.
I'll you know, take you saying that, but uh that's such a simpleton thing.
I mean, that's the business be such a simpleton to have that view.
Do you suppose somebody because of the color in her skin?
Let me say that.
You gotta stop telling yourself stuff like that.
This is not a blame Bush comment.
Please, you know, I mean this, I just want to say this and then.
Well, no, but you know, hang on, I gotta take a break.
But you're out there telling me the only reason I oppose Obama is because he's black.
You're smarter than that.
That's disappointing to me.
You know, you could say that hormones kill this guy.
Lead singer uh NXS Michael Hutchins, you know he died?
One of those oddballs that wanted to be nearly asphyxiated during uh during sex and he ended up strangling himself or being strangled.
Hormones played a role there, back now to Robert in Detroit.
Robert, let me let me just tell you something.
You know, uh don't d don't don't stop me here.
Get your chance to respond here.
But this business about my opposing Obama because he's black, I don't like his white side either.
Let me ask you this.
Do you what what if I were to say to you?
The only reason you do support him is because he's black.
What would what would what would be your reaction?
Wouldn't wouldn't that be just as racist?
Uh yeah, it would.
I believe it would.
All right, do you only support him because he's black?
Well, I didn't only support him because he was black.
I mean, it was it was policy as as well, you know.
All right, well, same for me.
The reason why I oppose him.
Okay, well, my point is.
But I will admit I got over the fact that he's historically the black first black president.
I got over that in the first two hours.
And after that it's all policy with me.
All right, all right.
Now, okay, well, here's my point.
This is what makes me think uh what I'm what uh what I'm saying here.
Now uh if Obama uh had told the American people, hey, look, I ain't got no magic wine, I can't fix these problems.
You gotta give me some time.
Or if he had told the American people, oh I didn't know nothing about no four dollar and twenty-five uh, you know, four dollar and twenty-five cents a gallon gas.
I just didn't know.
You know, if there was a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina, and Obama had told the people, oh, we just didn't know.
Or if uh Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of Defense under uh Obama, uh in the middle of wartime would have went out there and said, Hey, look, yeah, we started the war, but that don't mean you're gonna get the equipment that you need.
If Obama had did these things, I'm sure your head would have been exploded by now.
No, my Obama tried to take his wife out to dinner.
No, no, the whole nation had a second now.
You tried to talk to someone who's the entire nation.
I'm going to object because of facts not in evidence.
I mean, this is absolutely silly.
My head's exploded multiple times already.
My head's exploded over the stimulus.
My head has exploded over the destruction of the U.S. private sector economy.
My head's exploded because I know we've elected a guy who resents the country as it was founded.
I've been perfectly honest about this.
And I've been perfectly honest about why I think he holds this grudge against this country.
And I don't think there's any doubt about it.
My opposition in him is purely and simply based on policy.
And you are smarter than all this.
You're talking in cliches here.
I'm just gonna Robert, I'm gonna tell you one more thing.
Don't doubt me.
If Obama had leveled with the American people about what he planned, he wouldn't have gotten 30% of the vote.
Oh buddy.
No liberal would.
No liberal Democrat, if they were honest about their intentions for this country would ever get 30% of the vote.
We were all gamed.
And we were gamed by everything but substance.
And we're now paying the price.
That's Robert in Detroit.
I'm glad you called.
David Brooks.
Column in the New York Times yesterday, the missing fifth.
In 1910, Henry Van Dyck wrote a book called The Spirit of America, which opened with this sentence.
Energy.
This has always been true.
Americans have always been known for their manic dynamism.
Some condemned this ambition as a grubby scrambling after money.
Others saw it in loftier terms, but energy has always been the country's saving feature.
So Americans should be especially alert to signs that the country is becoming less vital and industrious.
One of those signs comes to us from the labor market, as my colleague David Leonard pointed out recently.
1954, about 96% of American men between 25 and 54 worked.
Today the number is around 80%.
One fifth of all men in their prime working ages are not getting up and going to work.
Okay, that's a great lead.
My gosh, you give me the 500 words and I can win a Pulitzer Prize.
Mr. Book Brooks does not understand what a great lead he had, and he just goes off on some intellectual size tangents here.
Okay, the answer the question why?
Why?
Why is one fifth of this country men in their prime not getting up and going to work?
Back to his piece here.
According to figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has a smaller share of prime age men in the workforce than any other G7 nation.
A number of Americans on the permanent disability rolls, meanwhile, has steadily increased.
Ten years ago, five million Americans collected a federal disability benefit, now eight point two million do.
That cost taxpayers $115 billion a year or about $1,500 per household.
Government actuaries predict that the trust fund that pays these benefits will run out of money within seven years, as will everything else.
Part of the problem has to do with human capital.
More American men lack the emotional and professional skills that they would need to contribute.
Why?
After every sentence, you ought to ask why.
There is an answer to every one of these questions.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 35% of those without a high school diploma are out of the labor force.
Compared with less than 10% of those with a college degree.
Part of the problem has to do with structural changes in the economy.
Sectors like government, health care, and leisure have been growing, generating jobs for college grads.
Sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and energy have been getting more productive, but they have not been generating more jobs.
Instead, companies are using machines or foreign workers.
Now this is where it starts getting really provocative, maybe even good, and he doesn't know it.
The result is this.
There are probably more idle men now than at any time since the Great Depression.
And this time, the problem is mostly structural, not cyclical.
These men will find it hard to attract spouses.
Many will pick up habits that have a corrosive cultural influence on those around them.
The country will not benefit from their potential abilities.
This is a big problem, writes Mr. Brooks.
It cannot be addressed for the sort of short-term Keynesian stimulus.
Some on the left are still fantasizing about, i.e.
Obama, and it cannot be solved by simply reducing the size of government, as some on the right imagine, oh yes, it can.
That would be a damn good start.
What are those 20% living on, Mr. Brooks?
And off of whom are they living?
This solution will probably require a broad menu of policies, see?
Only government policy can fix this.
Government made this problem, Mr. Brooks.
Government created this problem.
Probably require broad menu of policies attacking the problem all at once.
Expanding community colleges and online learning.
No, no, Mr. Brooks.
What needs to change is what's being taught.
The curriculum needs to change, Mr. Brooks.
We are spending more than we ever have on education.
There are more schools, junior colleges, vote, but we got more training centers, relearning, we got it.
And they're not learning anything.
They're being taught a bunch of gunk.
They're being indoctrinated, propagandized, whatever.
He then says we need to change the corporate tax code and labor market rules to stimulate investment.
We need to adopt German style labor market practices like apprenticeship programs, wage subsidies, and programs that extend benefits to the unemployed for six months as they start small businesses.
Well, we're already up to 99 weeks.
Wage subsidy.
Yeah, this now welfare.
This this is the New York Times conservative columnist.
Reinvigorating this missing fifth, bringing them back into the labor market and using their capabilities, that will require money.
See, every one of these beltway insiders, whatever the problem, the solution is more money.
The problem is not enough money.
We've spent $14 trillion We have targeted money at people like this.
I'm focused targeted since the 1960s, Mr. Brooks.
And that has made this problem.
That has created this.
You didn't you couldn't write this piece if this were 1940.
1950.
If the U.S. was a smart country, we would be having a debate about how to shift money from programs that provide comfort toward programs that spark reinvigoration.
But of course, that's not what is happening.
Discretionary spending, which might be used to instigate dynamism is declining.
Healthcare spending, which mostly provides comfort to those beyond working years, is expanding.
Attempts to take money from health care to open it up for other uses are being crushed.
And he goes on to talk about how to take, you know, cut back on government health care spending.
But the close to this thing is this.
Let's be clear about the effect of this mendacity.
We're locking in the nation's wealth into the Medicare program.
We're closing off any possibility we might do something significant to reinvigorate the missing fifth.
Next time you see a politician demagoguing Medicare ask this, should we be using our resources in the manner of a nation in decline or one still committed to stoking the energy of its people and continuing its rise?
You need the next time you talk to President Obama to get past the crease, Miss Pance need to ask him that very question, Mr. Brooks.
Because he is presiding happily over a nation in decline.
That 20% is a success story for the American left, Mr. Brooks.
And there used to be days years ago where you used to teach people this very thing.
Back when you were genuinely conservative, you understood this.
You understood that that missing fifth is a political boon to a particular political party in this country.
The simple best solution to this is defund the Democrat Party.
You defund the Democrat Party.
That's step number one.
And then you focus on long-term here, which is going to be self-reliance.
At some point, this missing fifth is going to have to do it themselves.
Mr. Brooks, nothing's going to change as long as that missing 20% continue to vote Democrat.
As long as they continue to vote Democrat, the Democrats will be happy.
And in fact, be looking to make that 20%, 25%.
That's Mr. Obama's purpose.
It's right in front of your eyes, and you refuse to see it because of the crease of his pants, or because he's a smart guy, or what have you.
So Mr. Brooks, a good column.
He doesn't know why.
But it was a good piece.
Far as it goes.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
By the way, you know, this missing fifth.
Stop and think about this.
Twenty percent of men between 25 and 50 get up and do not go to work.
That missing fifth helps the Democrat Party keep the unemployment numbers low.
I mean, how can you have?
Because they've given up looking for they're not getting up and looking for work either.
They're out of the workforce.
They therefore are not counted in the unemployment number that's reported every month, the U3 number.
They actually help the Democrats keep the unemployment number down.
How in the world can you have 20% of the 25 to 50 years old male workforce not working and only have an official unemployment rate of 9%?
That 20%, the missing fifth.
Interesting, Mr. Brooks thinks the future revolves around them, but regardless.
They're part of the group simply dropped out of the workforce, which is knopped almost what, half the adult population?
58.4% of the country now works.
This is unsustainable.
Box?
Box?
you you So you see, uh, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Brooks.
The problem is not government.
It's government's using the wrong programs.
But government is the solution to all these things.
And that, of course, is wrong.
We'll get to Mr. Cohen's myth of American exceptionalism sometime during tomorrow's program.
Of the three, it was the least important to get to today.
It'll happen tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection