All Episodes
Sept. 30, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
September 30, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Your guiding light, your real American anchor man and truth detector Rush Limbaugh.
Here serving humanity simply by showing up.
The telephone number 800 282-2882-2882 in El Rushbo at EIBNE.com send an email.
I I want to apologize to our last caller, Bill, who was calling California.
It was my fault.
Here's here's the problem.
And I can't do anything about this.
I am the mayor of Realville.
I'm a literalist.
And I wasn't sure what he was calling about, but I got sidetracked when he said that to write science fiction, they do a lot of research to find the truth.
Well, those things, that's confused me.
Science fiction and truth don't go together to me.
So I'm I'm sitting here trying to figure that out.
And then I heard an asteroid hit Mars 65 million years ago like it hit us and destroyed the dinosaurs.
And that if you watch the movie, at the end of the movie when the Martian tells Gary Sinise, I was lost.
There aren't any Martians, and so I just got confused.
And then there was the time constraint problem.
So I ended up babbling here.
I was, I was I was fighting off the snarky comment about the contradiction in science fiction and truth.
Because I didn't want to be mean, because I'm the politest host in America.
So, and I was I was waiting for for the comment to go toward the whole idea about this this so-called science of what they are saying now happened to Mars, and I thought he was going to relate something in a movie to it, and then that wasn't the case.
So I was just, I didn't make a connection with a guy, and it's my fault because I'm Mr. Literal.
I hear what people say, and I see I mean what I say, and I assume everybody else means what they say.
And you would not believe the problems that causes.
Because most people do not say what they really mean, but I think they do because I do.
And man, I have had I've I've been in more spats with people.
It's a burden, folks.
It's a it's a burden to be a literalist.
Uh and and to not speak in in codes and so.
I just have never learned to do it.
Anyway, and I I didn't want anybody to think that I was being rude or disrespectful.
It was a consistent it was just a lack of time problem, and I was totally confused.
And it wasn't his fault.
I'm the highly trained specialist professional here.
I should have been able to weed my way through that.
So I still don't know what his point was going to be, as it relates to the so-called science of what's happened to Mars.
Uh we didn't have time to get there.
Now, one more thing while I'm on this subject.
Yeah, this is from the what's the website?
Uh website interest, what is this?
Uh I think it's Daily Caller.
Arctic sea ice is still too thick for ships to traverse the Northwest Passage.
And this story is how about how all these scientists are confusing, confused.
For years, scientists and activists have predicted the Arctic would be ice-free during the summers, and winter sea ice levels would continue to decline.
But what they didn't count on was sea ice remaining too thick for ships to regularly travel through.
This is not the first kind of this story we've had.
We've had numerous stories in recent years about expeditions to Antarctica to study climate change and global warming, getting stuck in ice so thick that icebreakers couldn't even reach them.
And they were shocked and they were stunned.
They believe their own nonsense that the ice at the North and South Poles is melting.
When it's not, it's getting bigger.
So they get and set out to study the decline in ice, and they get caught in ice so thick that nobody can get in there to rescue them.
The first ever study measuring sea ice thickness in the Northwest Passage has found Arctic sea ice is still too thick for ships to safely travel through it year-round.
Scientists found that, quote, even in today's climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.
What the hell does that mean?
Even in today's climate where we are enduring massive warming, even in today's climate where we're in, we are not enduring massive warming, but look at how they automatically just accept it and believe it, even with all of this sweat inducing warming, why the ice is still so thick.
Do they not stop to think that maybe the ICE is so thick because it isn't warming?
See, this is again mayor of Realville.
I'm a literalist.
How in the world can it be getting warmer and the ice be getting thicker at the same time?
It can't.
And yet these people are able to believe that.
And I can't relate to it, other than to call them stupid.
And that doesn't advance anything.
Okay.
Now Syria.
Let me see if I can make sense of this for you.
Because what's happening in Syria based on what we learned yesterday about Putin and what he said to the UN about us abandoning our role, our moral leadership there.
As best I have been able to assemble this, here is what's happening.
Over the past few weeks, we have learned that Russia is sending military planes and soldiers to Syria.
We didn't like that.
When asked about it by the United States, Russia said, mind your own business.
And they, of course, knew we were going to do nothing about it.
Then at the UN, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia was going to take the lead in fighting ISIS because we had given up, essentially.
That the Western world had decided it wasn't worth it, it wasn't worth the risk, that we had abandoned our moral leadership.
Putin at the UN says, Do you realize what you've done?
So he decided to swoop in and single-handedly take the lead in fighting ISIS, which Obama still will not refer to as a terrorist or Islamic extremist group.
Now that was supposed to explain Russia's military presence in Syria.
That Putin was taking the lead in fighting ISIS.
That is a key point in understanding what's going on here.
Our Secretary of State, who once served in Vietnam, John Kerry, Jean-Francois Kergui, and Obama said they were open to the idea of Russia and, by proxy, Iran joining the fight against ISIS.
Now in Putin's mind, we haven't joined anything, we're abandoning it.
This is also key to understand.
In Putin's mind, and of course what he said yesterday to the UN, we have essentially checked out of the hotel.
And they've checked in, and they are single-handedly fighting ISIS.
So Kerry, in a face-saving move, goes out and says, we are open, of course, as though we're still the world's lone superpower, which we aren't, because Kerry and Obama don't even want to be.
Kerry goes out and says with his superpower Secretary of State attitude that we're perfectly fine, that we're open to the idea of Russia and Iran joining the fight against ISIS, when in truth we have abandoned it.
Last night, there were reports that Russia had warned us to get all of our planes out of Syrian airspace, because they were going to mount an attack.
Now, I don't know how it is in this administration, but any previous administration, if a Soviet leader had called and warned us to get out of Syrian airspace, we would have had some choice words for the Soviet leader, and we would have told him you don't dare launch your aircraft or else.
But we're not dealing with administrations like we've had in the past.
Putin, essentially Russia, warns us to get all of our planes out of Syrian airspace.
We scoffed at the warning.
This morning, there were reports that Russia had indeed conducted its first bombing mission.
And this is what CNN was all excited about.
It's been practically wall to wall news this morning on CNN that Russia had indeed done its first bombing mission in Syria.
But turns out, and everybody assumed that he was bombing ISIS, because that's what he said he was going to do.
And we had welcomed.
Oh, sure, you want to join us in the fight against ISIS?
Head on in here, Vladimir, we'd be happy to have you and the Iranians come in and partner up with us.
Except Putin threw a change-up curveball and didn't attack ISIS.
No, no, no, no.
This is where it gets really, really interesting.
They didn't bomb any ISIS targets.
Instead, Putin and Russia bombed moderate le uh rebels that are our allies.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh.
Russia targeted moderate rebels that are supposed to be our allies fighting ISIS.
And all this time we welcome them in.
Under the premise that they're going to join us in hitting ISIS targets.
Putin comes in, he doesn't hit ISIS targets, he hits our allies, the so-called moderate rebels.
There are now unconfirmed reports that Russia hit a CIA-vetted moderate Syrian rebel group that was receiving U.S. anti-tank missiles.
So instead of Russia targeting ISIS, which they led everybody to believe they were going to do, and which we welcomed them to do, they hit a moderate rebel group that the CIA had vetted and told Obama they're us, they're our allies, they're good people, we can partner up with them.
That's what Russia hit.
So the Russians hit these moderate rebels because they, the moderate rebels, want to bring down Assad even more than they want to defeat ISIS.
And Putin does not want to get rid of Assad.
And nor does Iran want to get rid of Assad.
So while we thought Russia was coming in to bomb ISIS, and we're creating the illusion or operating under the illusion that we are doing the same thing, they hit our allies.
This is serious, serious stuff.
And Kerry and oh, but here, grab some by 25.
This is this is Kerry.
They've been running around all day today trying to get comment from Russian and American officials about this.
This was at the UN this morning, a Security Council meeting on counter-terrorism.
John Kerry spoke about the battle against ISIS and these Russian airstrikes in Syria.
And here's a portion of what he said, and I just well, here, here.
I'll characterize it after you hear it.
If Russia's recent actions and those now ongoing reflect a genuine commitment to defeat that organization, then we are prepared to welcome those efforts and to find a way to deconflict our operations and thereby multiply the military pressure on ISIL and affiliated groups.
But we must not and will not be confused in our fight against ISIL with support for Assad.
Moreover, we have also made clear that we would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL and Al-Qaeda affiliated targets are now operating, are not operating.
Well, that's exactly what they're doing, Secretary.
They're attacking targets where our allies are operating, not ISIL.
So uh if Russia's recent actions uh and we're prepared to welcome it.
They don't have these I our people are clueless here, sadly, is what it seems like.
And don't know how to uh react to this.
So the best they can do is to go out and act like Russia is following through on what it said it was gonna do.
This whole statement from Kerry is sounds like it's predicated on his belief that they're they're hitting ISIS.
First half of the statement, he thinks they're hitting ISIS.
He knows they're not.
He's trying to tell anybody listening, hey, they're hitting ISIS, and we agreed to it, and we're all in for them.
But but but if they veer from this, then we're gonna have it.
Sit down with them.
That isn't gonna happen because the only reason Putin's doing any of this is because he's confident as hell we're not gonna do anything about it.
What is this de-conflict anyway?
And to find a way to de-conflict our operations and thereby multiply the military.
We are so, so screwed here, folks.
Okay, I want to take you back to me on this program, September 15th of 2015.
But I have I have explained this countless times over the last ten years.
Actually, I've been explaining Hillary Clinton to people for 25 years.
And here is an abbreviated version, one of the most recent explanations I have offered.
In the Clinton world, she already has earned it.
She's earned it countless times, sacrificing her own life and future in marrying Bill and going to Arkansas and having to put up with all of that.
I mean, having to live in Arkansas bad enough, but then when your husband's running around with all the bimbos, and then he's only making 25 grand as governor, you have to go to the Rose Law firm, and you have to make strange cattle deals with uh Robert Red Bone.
You have to find ways to turn 10 grand into a hundred grand by reading a Wall Street Journal, and you have to pull down a hundred some odd grand in salary from the Rose Law Firm, and you hide documents at Rose Law Firm that don't show up in the White House map room for years.
I mean, she put in a lot of heavy duty here.
So in her mind, in her campaign's mind, she's already earned it.
She doesn't have to campaign.
This is all about the explanation of why Hillary Clinton has an entitlement to the presidency and why she thinks the Democrat Party owes it to her.
And it goes back to when she met Bill and they're at Yale or whatever.
He proposes that at the time Hillary had a reputation.
She could have been anything she wanted.
She was the smartest woman in the world.
Instead, she gave it all up.
And hitched her wagon to Bill Clinton and decided to follow him wherever he went and then take over wherever he went.
Rather than chart her own path.
She gave up what could have been a magnificent life on her own.
And doing this required her to go to the swamps of Arkansas.
Oh my God, the worst thing could happen is somebody from Yale, a sophisticated Northeasterner having to go to the South.
Oh my God, it's horrible.
But she did.
And then she got there, and her husband's making 25 grand as governor of this hick state in her mind, is running around with TV anchors and who knows what other kind of women, and she knows about it, and she has to stay quiet, and she has to never leave him.
She has to constantly support him in order to keep his career alive, is the only way to keep hers alive, and she's done it, and she has accepted all the humiliation and most cheated on woman in America.
She even got to the point where she helped destroy some of the women that came forward to say that Bill Clinton had hit on them.
And it's all of this that makes her think she is owed the presidency.
They tried to pay her off by letting her have health care in 1993.
Clinton said, hey, you know what?
You've been you've been real helpful for me.
I'm gonna let you run health care.
You're smartest woman in the world.
You got brilliant ideas here to say, people say, have at it, babe.
And she made mincemeat of it.
She's totally screwed it up, but they let her have it.
But she wants the whole enchilada now.
It was hers in 2008.
And then there was something that happened that blew it all up, named Barack Obama.
Well, guess what?
She had an interview with Lena Dunham on the Lenny Letter.com website.
And during this discussion about her concerns about marrying Clinton, she said this.
I was terrified about losing my identity and getting lost in, you know, the kind of wake uh of Bill's force of nature personality.
That was a large part of you know, the ambivalence and the worry that you know I wouldn't necessarily know who I was or what I could do if I got married to someone who was going to chart a path that he was incredibly clear about.
You know, my ideas were much more inchoate.
Don't doubt me.
The woman has just admitted it, even though she didn't need to admit it for me to know it's true.
She just admitted it.
She gave up everything, what could have been her own life, and she followed the schlub.
And now it's her turn.
But there is and there has been, as characterized by me on this program, this drip-drip-drip-drip-drip-drip-drip of daily revelations of Hillary's email scandal, the server, private emails commingled with uh State Department emails soliciting contributions from foreign governments before she's president to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
It's been a drip-drip-drip-drip-drip-drip-drip of news each and every day.
People have been wondering who's drip-drip-drip-drip-dripping it.
I've always thought it's Obama.
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, on the Today Show today, with a report about the release today of even more emails from Hillary's private server.
Under court order today, 6,000 more pages of Hillary Clinton's emails will be released by the State Department.
Continuing the drip-drip-drip that Hillary Clinton has acknowledged is haunting her campaign.
After today, there will still be four more releases all the way through January.
That ensures this could well remain an issue for Clinton all the way up to when voters are making their first decisions in those primaries and caucuses in February.
Did you hear her there, folks?
The drip drip drip drip drip drip.
Even Andre Mitchell, NBC News in Washington, is now using the terminology popularly coined here at the EIB network.
Okay, we're gonna take a break.
We'll come back and get to your phone calls.
We'll try it again.
Don't go away.
Yes, sir, great to have you with us on the program today.
El Rushbo, here is Tim in Washington, D.C. Welcome, sir.
Great to have you.
Hey Rush, great honor.
Thank you very much.
Um I've been, you know, I'm I'm very politically vocal.
And when I used to debate or you know engage with a liberal, I would always point out how their point of views were very similar to socialism.
And before they would deny it.
You know, they would fight say, oh no, no, no, I'm not I'm not a socialist.
Well, now it seems like they embrace it.
I mean, they have a candidate running who's openly socialist.
And I'm just talking a period of, you know, 15 years.
So I guess my question to you is have things really changed that much in that short of a time period?
Yes, they have on their going.
On their side, yeah.
No question it has.
They are all in now.
They it used to be that calling them liberal enraged them.
I mean, it but before I remember.
Yeah, but uh, you know, I'm talking 10 or 15 years ago they would fight, oh no, it's that's not socialism on the city.
Well, that's yeah, no, that's that's that's right.
Ten years ago, 15 years you'd call them liberal and they would get upset.
If you call them socialist, they would become enraged.
Today they're happy to be socialists.
If it's changed that much in that little time, then where is it going?
I I don't think it's been that long.
I I think the change where was all this during the eight years of Bush.
I think this change has been more overnight than just last 10 to 15 years.
Now it may be that these people have always been there uh beneath the surface.
Well, they have been.
They've always been there who they are.
We're talking about comfort with uh with labels.
I think the election of Obama has inspired and encouraged a bunch of them, just be honest about who they are.
Um not interestingly elected elected Democrats will never permit you to call them socialists.
But the rank and file, um they actually they the transformation is is remarkable, as you point out.
They believe that it is a positive moniker because of what they think people believe it means, and I think it it it ties into how successfully they have uh co-opted the public education system for years and years and years.
Now, I I don't think these people are anywhere near a majority of the country.
That's the great irony here.
They are not a majority of the country.
I'm convinced of that.
We have not reached tipping point.
Now we're probably closer than we would like to admit, but they're they they do not have guaranteed victory every election.
It's not reached the point where we're outnumbered now.
That That's why I have such a visceral reaction to Republicans who think and who say that they can't win anymore with just Republican votes.
Well that may be, I don't know.
But the answer to that is not to go out and change who you are to attract people who you're talking about who are avowed socialists.
We're not going to get Hispanics who are predominantly vote Democrat just because we may be open to amnesty.
It doesn't work that way.
The problems that we have with those people run far deeper than just where they perceive us to be on one issue or two issues.
But I think all of that's part of the political battle.
Those people are not to be joined, they're to be defeated.
That's that's why there's such anger in the Republican base.
Whenever any Republican talks about the ability to work with these people, we don't want to work with them.
They don't want to work with us.
There's no cooperation.
That's always a one-way street.
We're talking politics here.
We want to defeat them.
And the Republican base is fed up that that doesn't seem to be part of the Republican agenda is defeating the opposition.
Seems to be trying to mollify it or appease it or get along with it.
And that's why you have outsiders who are leading the Republican presidential primary race right now.
Trump and Ben Carson.
Now where is it going?
What happens if if the uh if the Democrats lose the presidency?
Let's say take your pick.
Take uh well, I don't I think they would react, they're gonna react violently if a Republican wins the White House.
It isn't gonna be pretty.
Uh and how they, you know, behave after that, who knows?
I I can't predict that.
It's that's one of the um actually one of the fun aspects of having a a job like this is you don't know what's gonna happen day to day.
I mean, I can predict what liberals are gonna say, and I can tell you what they believe, and I can tell you what they think.
But uh how they're going to react uh can also predict that, but how it's gonna manifest itself in terms of how they label themselves uh going forward, uh the one thing they've mastered is even when they lose, they do not act like it.
And because they have the media, they continue to act like they still won, or they are still running the show or still leading the show, and the winners, the Republicans, are still treated as the outsiders or as the aliens or what have you.
And so it's it's it's kind of hard to say, but I I'm like you.
I this this seemingly overnight change, not just in them but w in the in the whole culture of the country has been something I have been extremely curious about.
Tim, thanks for the call.
Peter in uh in Madras, Oregon, great to have you.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Uh it's a great to uh finally talk to you.
It's awesome.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Um I was just wanted to point out that um the Democrat voters really don't have any candidates, and I think that they're all kind of leaning towards Trump.
And I don't think it's because hold it, hold it.
You've lost me.
This is another example.
You said you don't think the Democrats have any candidates, but they do.
They've got Hillary and they've got Martin O'Malley and they've got Biden and they've got uh Bernie Sanders, and they're people excited about all of them.
Um I don't know.
It's just it doesn't really seem like that.
I mean it I don't know, maybe it's just because I always uh see the other side of it.
But when I was listening to uh uh Trump on 60 Minutes, he also talked about that if it it didn't matter, it didn't if he cost them votes, he still wanted to get uh national health care that would work for everybody.
And I mean, along with that and his tax increases for the hedge funds and all of the other things, I think that I I'm in full support.
I'm a big Trump guy, and that's why I like him, is because he has his own thing and he is gonna do what he wants to do.
So what you're doing then, you are hoping Democrats are losing interest in Hillary and Sanders And the others, and you're hoping that they will sidle up to Trump.
Well, I don't I'm not hoping.
I think it's already happened, and we just don't see it yet.
I think that there's so many Democrat registered Democrats that are in favor of Trump.
But I could be completely wrong.
I am, you know, I'm just I'm kind of spectacled.
Hang on now.
Where have you seen that?
The only place you can see that is in polling data.
Where have you seen it?
Well, I mean, when you had your polling data on uh African American votes, I think you said it was uh twenty-five percent of the are in favor.
That's yeah, twenty-five percent of them are in favor of Trump.
That's true.
And they would predominantly all of them would vote would vote uh our Democrat do vote Democrat.
Right.
So you think it's even bigger than that.
Well, I think it extends even more than that.
I think that you're getting a lot of people that you say they see Bernie Sanders uh, you know, is taxing the uh corporate corporations because they're making too much money.
That's unrealistic.
But when they see tax uh Trump's tax plan, it's a lot more uh viable and you know it's a lot more realistic, and I think that he's kind of taken away swaying voters away from that crowd.
Okay, so here's what we have here, folks.
I'm I'm pretty confident of this.
What we have here is someone who likes Trump and is seeing some things that he doesn't believe are being accurately reported in either the news or in polling data.
One of the things is that the excitement level that Democrats have across the board for their candidates is not really what the media would like us to believe.
And so I'm I'm assuming here that what you really think is the media is not giving us the real full story here that Trump's popularity is much more massive than what it's being said to be, either as r uh reflected in polling data or just the general tenor of uh of news stories.
Well, when you boil it all down, what he's asking here is how many Democrats might be tempted to vote for Trump down the road.
And I don't know that would become relevant until after the primaries are over, and Trump actually is the nominee.
Uh in the primary process, th there are some open primary states where that could matter and be a factor, but not enough to gauge any kind of of uh national indication or activity.
Uh so I you the idea that there's not nearly the excitement for Democrat candidates that the media would portray that I that's possible.
That's possible.
But again, all of it is is is supposition uh right now, or in some cases, gee, I hope this is happening.
And if you hang in there long enough, time will tell.
Don't go away for Amy, St. John, Indiana.
Glad you called, and welcome to the program, Amy.
Hello.
Oh, I'm fine.
Thank you.
Huge fan.
Huge fan.
Thank you very much.
Um back to what you were saying about the college students.
These kids can't do anything by themselves.
I'm surprised the ones who called 911 about the mouse did not call their parents first and have the parents call 911.
Is it that bad?
It is that bad.
There are these parents complaining that, well, their students' teachers won't talk to them.
They need to talk to their students to clear up this problem or that problem.
They don't understand that Susie's just having a hard day.
Now wait, do you have some college-age kids that uh I have a um a daughter who's a freshman at Purdue University.
She turned down Harvard to go there.
Um never really wanted to go Harvard in the first place.
But uh Well, is sh i she's obviously not one of these.
Oh my god, no.
Couple of students.
So how do you how do you how do you know?
Do you you have friends of yours with Um there's a Facebook page actually for Purdue of um the freshman students?
And the parents post this on there and they are throwing hysterics, and there it's my son is crying because he can't figure out how to do this.
Um You mean the parents are surprised?
They're shocked.
These kids have all been told they're number one, and and Purdue is a very good school.
These kids were all top of their classes, but nobody mentioned to them that someday when you go to college, everybody else will be at the top of their class, and and you're you're gonna be a small fish in the big sea.
Well, that is a downside of the self esteem movement.
The self esteem movement was designed to told kids, you're the best, Johnny.
You're super Johnny.
You're okay, Johnny.
You're really great, little Susie.
It's designed because liberals are so worried that kids are going to have failing self-esteem and not be happy and think everybody's better than them.
And so they've pumped full of this uh artificial you're the best stuff, and they end up believing it and they haven't done anything.
Let me get to the story.
Amy, I'm glad you called.
Let me just get to the story here.
It's a great segue.
The story is from the Daily Caller.
America's college students are delicate, immature wusses who become traumatized, get the vapors, and seek professional counseling any time they face adversity or even earn a grade lower than a B. And this insight comes from Boston College research professor Peter Gray, who wrote last week at Psychology Today.
Peter Gray explains that he has participated in discussions at Boston College with the head of counseling services and other faculty members about how to deal with a notable decrease in resilience among students.
The problem of weak-willed, fragile, gutless students has been severe, Peter Gray says.
And by the way, Boston College costs $63,000 a year.
That is the tuition.
In the last five years, remember now, this is a essentially a a um research professor writing at psychology today.
This is not somebody's opinion.
This is the result of deep, deep analysis and research.
In the last five years, for example, emergency calls to the counseling center at Boston College have doubled.
The reasons for the urgent calls are sometimes frivolous and stupid.
One woman sought counseling, Grace said, because her roommate called her a BI itch.
Not one but two students wanted professional therapy because they spotted a mouse in their off-campus apartment.
They wanted professional therapy.
The same pair of students also actually call the cops about the mouse.
The cops responded and installed a mouse trap.
The Daily Caller, which is where this story is appearing, is not making this up.
Professors at Boston College say that they receive a constant stream of email from students about trivial issues.
The students expect prompt quality customer service in response.
Professors have also seen huge upticks in students who freak out when they earn low grades.
Students equate grades of C or lower, and sometimes even a B, with failure.
And failure means total failure, Gray explains.
Like an apocalypse, students don't think to study harder to try harder and come back next time and do better.
They think it's over when they failed.
They beg for higher grades or the chance to do the paper over.
They yell at their professors for not making the grading criteria clear enough.
It's gotten so bad, says the researcher, that many professors, particularly the young ones, are hesitant to give students the bad grades they deserve out of fear.
The students will give them a scathing rating or have some emotional meltdown during office hours.
Professors seriously worry that a bad grade could even lead to a student suicide.
You know, you know what that is?
You know what's happening here in a sense?
I mean, that is the epitome of controlling behavior.
Now, I know some of you are gonna have a little problem with me on this.
But if somebody is constantly trying to make you think that they would actually commit suicide or that they're gonna do great harm to themselves, that is an attempt to control you.
Uh And it's the epitome of controlling behavior.
And it's working here.
In this case, these students are not getting the grades they deserve because the professors are afraid of what it's going to do to them.
Now it may be legit.
They may be so fragile that they may indeed go off the deep end.
I don't mean commit suicide, but throw a tantrum or report the teacher, make something up about something, get teacher fired, all because they have not learned how to fail and overcome it.
In other words, there hasn't been any adversity that these young people have had to face and triumph over themselves.
The way has been paved for them by their parents, which in this story are called, who are called helicopter parents.
There are other examples of this.
You remember my story about what I did when I found a mouse in my brand new house?
I damn well didn't call a copse.
I killed it.
Helicopter parroting.
A generation has been creative of traumatized risk averse.
Wusses.
By the way, unrelated, just you see that Tom Brady has walked back his endorsement of Donald Trump.
One sports illustrated story is all it took.
Export Selection