All Episodes
Previous Next
May 20, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
May 20, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The media trying to say that Trump was making fun of Chris Christie.
He went in there and did a deal to retire Christie's uh campaign debt.
Did an appearance.
And at some point during Trump's remarks, he said, by the way, no more Oreos for me, and certainly no more Oreos for Chris.
Chris and I no more Oreos, right, Chris?
And the press is saying, my God, Trump just won't let it go.
He won't stop making fun of Christie.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's a good one.
Do you think that's what he was doing?
Friday.
I don't know.
Anyway, folks, it's great to have you with us, Rushlin Bar on Friday, open line Friday.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882 if you want to be with us.
Whatever you want to talk about, hunky dory.
Here's the telephone number, 800 282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIVNet.com.
By the way, I have I heard, I think I I can't remember where I heard it, but I heard a great solution to this bathroom business.
It's a perfect solution and it will not be adopted.
And the fact that it would never be agreed to by the people pushing this issue ought to illustrate exactly what this is about.
You know what the solution to it is?
Let's say that we have a real problem.
That there is a genuine real day got this country in a hell of an argument problem.
Because there are so many transgender people, so many people born as men who think they're women, and so many people born as women who think they're men.
They're all over the place out there.
And it just doesn't feel right with members of the opposite sex going in the men's room or the ladies' room.
And so we, as a compassionate society, want to solve the problem.
Of course, none of those circumstances are real.
It is not a legitimate big issue.
It's been totally manufactured.
Do you know what I heard?
This thing really has its origins in North Carolina and and I heard let me shall I say thruster.
The organizer or the the the person that is behind this movement, the bathroom legislation or the bathroom initiative in North Carolina is a convicted child molester who spent two years in prison.
Had you heard that, Snertley.
Now, if that apparently Charlotte Observer knew it.
Apparently Charlotte Observer knew that and colluded that the person pushing this whole idea of letting transgender people pick their bathrooms is a convicted child molester who spent two years in prison.
He molested young boys while he had a youth pastor type position in a church.
And he's the guy pushing this.
And the Charlotte Observer apparently knew and never mentioned it until a bunch of bloggers forced them to admit that they knew that's who was pushing this.
So these cat calls, you are just racist, bigoted, all of these fears of imaginary things, things that are not happening, and you're standing in the way of equal rights and civil.
Well, no, they are happening, is the point.
We know that there are pedophiles out there.
They're all over the place.
We know that there are child molesters all over the place.
Parents worry themselves sick over it.
But somehow, we are to be assured, oh no, not a bathroom?
What makes you think that?
Anyway, here's the solution.
And it would never be agreed to.
But if it's a real problem, if it were to be, if it actually is, if it's a real problem, there's a simple, simple solution to this.
And that is a bathroom with one toilet and one sink and a door that locks.
Bingo.
Problem solved.
Transgender person can choose that.
We call it a unisex bathroom.
We just put a sign on it says bathroom.
And whoever goes in there, male or female, can lock the door and nobody can get in.
Anybody can use it.
That won't work.
Well, I know they've that's my point.
They've tried it, and it doesn't work because it illustrates that that's not what this is really all about.
You see, my whole point.
That's not what this is really all about.
And some of the objections, well, you need more than one toilet for crying out loud.
We're talking about public places, and that's the point.
There aren't that many people who were really talking about here.
It's one-tenth of one percent of the population, but even so.
Okay, two rooms.
Take your pick, but there's one toilet and the doors lock.
And then people say, well, that's not to stop somebody from grabbing somebody and taking them in that bathroom with them.
I know, but but but I mean, I'm trying to come up with a compromise.
The idea that that idea is rejected, the notion that idea is rejected, ought to tell everybody what's actually going on here, or at least give everybody some indication.
According to a University of Michigan study, white preschoolers often believe a person's race can change over time, and the youngsters even think they can grow up to become black adults.
And if you look at racial dolazole, you might have to acknowledge that it can happen.
Stephen Roberts, a University of Michigan doctoral student, and the study's lead author, said that although children may be aware of races other than their own, they don't have a strong understanding of what race is, at least not to the degree adults do.
Stephen Roberts and colleague Susan Gellman, University of Michigan professor of psychology and linguistics, examined the extent that children believed race was stable.
That is whether a black child will grow up to be a black adult.
Kidding me, right.
I mean, this is something new they just discovered.
Some new phenomena.
It's always been among us.
It's always been that we've always had young people who thought they could grow up to be the opposite race, a different race, but we just never noodle now.
The experiment including included 74 children, 28 adults, children were recruited in the Midwest at museums.
The adults were recruited online.
The data were collected between 2014-2015 museums.
They recruited children at museums, and the adults online.
Researchers showed the participants pictures of children who were happy or angry and black or white, and asked them to indicate which of two adults each child would grow up to be.
One adult matched the child in emotion but not race, and the other matched the child in race.
This is a what is this?
Participants could have chosen a same emotion but different race match, or a same race but different emotion match.
Are you totally confused?
Let me try this again.
Researchers showed, imagine you're participant.
That's a way to try and understand it.
You are participant.
You've been recruited here in an experiment to determine whether or not you believe children can Grow up to become people of a different race.
Researchers, researchers show you pictures of children who were happy or angry, and then black or white.
And then you are asked to indicate which of two adults each child would grow up to be.
One adult matched the child in emotion but not race, and the other matched the child in race, but not emotion.
Participants could have chosen a same emotion but different race match or a same race but different emotion match.
White adults, white nine to ten year olds, and racially minority five to six year olds selected the same race matches, which meant that they believed that a white child would grow up to be a white adult.
Who would think that?
What kind of person would think that a white child would grow up to be a white adult?
Where are we going wrong?
White adults.
Five to six year olds, rather.
White five to six year olds showed a different pattern.
White five to six-year-old believed that white kids could glow up grow up to be black adults.
These data suggest that beliefs about racial stability vary by age and race.
And at an early age, children do not have strong beliefs about race.
They don't even believe that race is stable, said Stephen Roberts, the study author.
And because of this, white five to six year olds may be less likely to use race as a way to discriminate against other children when selecting who to play with, for example.
What do you think the purpose of this survey is?
Who would even conceive of this?
Who would who would think that we need to do a survey to find out if white kids think it's possible to grow up and be black?
And then when we find some who do, we praise them.
See, these kids are not racist.
They think it'd be perfectly okay and perfectly doable, and it'd be perfectly understandable for young white children to grow up to be black.
That means they can't possibly be racist.
Sounds like some kind of convoluted thinking from this white privilege crowd that has sprouted on American college campuses.
The research was funded by Ford Foundation pre-doctoral fellowship.
The findings will appear in developmental psychology.
Good lord, folks.
What in the world?
We're gonna make a big deal of what a group of three and four-year-olds imagine.
We're gonna make a big deal over what they dream.
And preschoolers, by the way, are not five or six years old.
These are kindergartners that we're talking about here.
You know, there's another story coming up here about how children are students are running institutions controlled by adults, a phenomenon we've been discussing much earlier in the uh in the week.
There's also political news such as this.
I've got to take a break, but there's a new poll over four in ten Hispanics view Hillary Clinton unfavorably.
It's from the Hill.com.
Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton viewed unfavorably by over 40% of Hispanics, according to a new poll.
Forty-one percent of Hispanics, it's a Fox News Latino survey said that they view Clinton negatively compared with 56% who view her positively.
Now, what does all this mean?
It's very simple.
Trump does not need a majority of Hispanics to win, but Hillary does.
Hillary needs them all.
Hillary's going to need 92 to 93% of the African American vote.
She's going to need the usual 70 to 80% of the Hispanic vote.
If she doesn't get that.
If she doesn't get near one of those, she is in deep, deep doo-doo.
It's open line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh executing a signed host duties and responsibilities flawlessly.
zero mistakes.
A call screener hasn't made any either because they only take one call.
A call transcriber hasn't made any.
But the day is young.
Here is Dagmar in Bladensburg, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Thank you very much.
I think that these poor students in these schools.
I feel for them.
I play for them every day.
Because if I were one of those girls in that bathroom, I wouldn't want some guy dressed as a girl coming into the bathroom.
I would feel unsafe.
No, no, no, you're supposed to get used to it now.
You're supposed to overcome that.
That that's that's uh that's uh antiquated notion of discomfort that shouldn't any longer be a factor in your life.
You're supposed to be able to overcome that.
That's what Charlotte Observer says today, no matter how old you are, no matter gets get over it.
But that's not the way it is.
In reality, they are what?
One Well, see, that's the problem is that that's exactly Dagmar that's the the way it is what's wrong.
The way it's been is what's wrong.
But what it is is gone, and what it should have been all along, and what we're gonna make it be is what's happening.
This is that same thing they've been doing since the 50s.
Give them an inch and they take a mile.
It's an incrementalism where they start, well, you know, you've got to have bathrooms for boys and girls, but we're right about that.
That's what they feel comfortable with.
No, that's exactly it never ends.
It never ends up.
There is no none of this is ever solved.
You're exactly right.
There is no end.
Everything, and they never go away.
Every proposal, every identified problem and solution.
There actually is never a solution.
No, because they need more and more control over us.
And that's why they keep doing this.
They give them an inch, and they always take a mile.
I've been in the target bathroom in Newark, Ohio, and yes, there was a man in my bathroom.
I saw him walk in as I was getting ready to come out of my stall, and I like close the door.
I'm thinking, and he wasn't dressed as a woman.
He would be as a man.
Dagmar, let me ask you this.
What if you in that exact circumstance?
What if the guy told you he was having his period and wanted you to out get out?
I would have said he's crazy.
Well, you folks a period.
So wait a minute.
I did not make that up.
I've got it right here at dot mic.com.
Here's what it's like to have your period when you're a trans man.
It is a story about the trauma of having your period as a trans man in the men's room, and somebody walks in and you don't know what to do.
You know, they have bathrooms for men and they have bathrooms for women.
They also have a family bathroom.
Why can't you just have a bathroom that's neither gender, like you said, where it's one fall, one thing you can do.
I feel comfortable using that bathroom.
That wouldn't advance the cause.
That's what this is all about.
It's all about transforming America into something that it wasn't ever supposed to be.
Our founding fathers are in their grade spinning with all of these infringements upon the biggest.
Well, you've you've you've never read all the transgender references in the uh in the Federalist papers.
No, I never have.
They're not there.
That's why I haven't read them.
You know, this is just another big power grab.
It oh, and go with Obama's new little Let me tell you it's it's it's it's it's it's more than that.
Uh seriously.
I mean, it's a power grab, there's no question.
But the um this has so many elements.
It's got psychological elements, it's got ideological uh elements, political elements, social, you name it.
But um inmates are running the asylum in practically every venue in this country to one degree or another.
The inmates running the asylum.
Dagmar, thanks for the call.
Folks.
I was not joking.
I I was not joking.
It's what is the name of the website?
It's actually it's it's it's Mike.
It's dot Mike, it's something it's uh the Mike dot com.
And here's the headline.
Here's what it's like to have your period when you're a trans man.
So it's just like what they're asking here is what if you're in the men's room and you get your period?
Is what this article is.
Last month a new line Of period underwear for trans men reminded us that women aren't the only people who menstruate.
Called the boy short, thinks, T-H-I-N-X, a company, thinks, released the line, which is designed to be gender neutral in response to negative feedback about the brand's female-centric tagline underwear for women with periods.
So trans men were offended that this company manufactured underwear for women on their periods and demanded that they trans men be included because they menstruate too.
So that's how the boy short came to be in the campaign.
A model discusses the reality of living with a minstrel period as a trans man, stating that menstruation is a safety risk.
You're in a men's room, somebody hears you're wrestling a paper in the stall because you're changing a tampon, and that outs you.
I'm reading from the article itself.
Learn it.
Love it, live it.
L Rushbow, a man, a legend, a way of life.
There's another website out there, folks.
This is called Everyday Feminism.
My period and me, a trans guy's guide to menstruation.
You know, sometime back in the early 90s, we got a call here from a guy who claimed to be a male lesbian, and we just cracked up.
We just thought that was a funny male lesbian.
He started explaining to us what that was.
We are so far beyond that now.
Male lesbian seems halfway normal.
We had a call yesterday from a guy we had to cut short because we ran out of time.
His name is Peter in Washington, D.C. was talking about algorithms and all this stuff going on a fake book.
And he and I got into a discussion.
He's an IT specialist, computer special scientist, and we were discussing algorithms and uh various theories about them, and we had to cut it short.
So we asked him if we could call him back, and he said, yes, so we have.
We welcome him back to the program.
Hi, Peter, thanks for letting us call you back today and continue this.
No problem.
Hey, Russ, happy Friday.
Um Happy Friday to you too.
I would like to start off by asking for a little bit of patience because I stutter, and speaking on the radio isn't the most comfortable thing for me.
Um my point yesterday was that Facebook would have had to go very far out of their way to implement an algorithm that had a bias one way or another.
And I'll explain why.
I think when you considered the what's trending feed.
The expectation is that uh it would be uh what everybody on uh Facebook is posting about um what's most popular.
At least as an end user, that's what I would expect.
All right, now wait, wait, let me stop you at various stages here because I don't do fake book.
I mean, I've got a fake book page, but I don't, I don't we have it for the audience.
I don't even know how many followers I've got.
But on this trending news, but it had to start somewhere.
Somebody had to start the trend.
What are you laughing at in there?
You're distracting me.
What is what is so funny?
I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, but you don't have to do fake book to know what this is about.
I can give you a classic example of fake book bias that has nothing to do with algorithms.
I'll do that here in just a second.
But my specific question to you, Pete, you I know what you're saying.
You're saying that that an algorithm that simply calculates what's most popular among fake book readers in the news feed, the trending news, is what gets reported top to bottom.
And therefore, uh that don't need to have an algorithm that that that slants it in any direction because all it is is a reflection of fake book readers and what they're and what they're reading in the news, right?
Exactly.
All you would do is count words used most often in people's posts.
Um the Okay, but my question is from what are fake book users choosing?
What who puts the news in the news feed?
Who curates it, who aggregates it?
Are are people going out and like say going to CNN, finding a story, and posting it on the fake book site?
Is that what they do?
My suggestion is that if people are posting links from other news agencies, then you could very easily count which ones are used most often and post that in the feed.
It's completely unbiased.
Well, you know, I here's the easiest way to go about it, too.
To me, let me say it's something here at the top, too.
This is not a big deal to me.
Fake book is a private company and they can do what they want to do as far as I could not care less.
Now I will admit that the trending news, whatever it's called, does happen to be a primary news source for a vast number of Americans.
And it is it they have 1.6 billion users worldwide.
So it's it's a it's a serious, it's a serious thing.
But my whole point about these algorithms is very simple.
If every employee at fake book who works in this division is a liberal, has been born and raised by liberals and has known nothing else, that person is not even going to think they're biased.
They're gonna think they're normal.
They're gonna think they are what is, and anything that's not them is what's odd and quirky and weird, and they might have to be overly sensitive to what it is to to include it.
But uh, you know, you you I think you can write an algorithm to exclude or include anything you want.
I mean, Apple News, you know, they they've they've uh it's not a competing feature to the fake book.
What is this?
Is it trending news, trending trending feed?
What's it called?
Does anybody know?
Nobody on my staff even it's that's it's trending, whatever it is.
I'm sorry, folks, I'm woefully uninformed, but I don't need to be on this to make my point.
The argument is or has been made that people who have no clue how things work are being inundated with the liberal point of view on fake book and have no idea.
They just think it's what's popular among fake book readers.
And of course, since most people are followers, if the number one trending story on fake book is Trump sucks, or some derivative of that, then a vast majority of people are going to read it and get in line because they want to be with what's popular and they're gonna end up thinking Trump sucks, which is probably an objective of a lot of people at fake book.
Now uh if you if you examine the the whole concept of news consumption, you look at Apple News.
Apple started uh uh with iOS 9 last fall.
They had a new app called Apple News, and if you know what flipboard is, it was kind of a I don't want to call it a flipboard ripoff, but it's basically an RSS feed with with graphics and and photos, and you can go in as a user and you can pick the sites that you want featured, but you pick from a list of publications that Apple provides you.
And if you happen to be a conservative, you won't see very many conservative sites, blogs, publications.
They're there if you already read them and can enter them in the search field.
But from the list of things from which you can choose, it's the it's the usual suspects.
It's the New York Times, it's the Washington Post, it's CNN.
And then it's the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, and then it's Wired, and then it's Salon.com.
If you want to read Power Line, you might have to search Power Line in the search field to find it.
It's there, but it's not readily at least it wasn't last fall when I last toyed around with this.
Um but I I I maintain that these, you know, you uh that it's impossible to write an unbiased algorithm because people are not unbiased.
I I've always believed thoughtful people, engaged people care about the outcome of events.
And if that's you, you are biased.
You are not objective.
You have to make a special effort to include that which you instinctively disagree with.
And if you happen to write the algorithm that calculates, you could write an algorithm, for example, that eliminates from your trending top 20 anything from a conservative site.
If you wanted to write that algorithm, you could.
Nobody would ever know.
You would just assume that conservatism is not very popular.
If you read what's trending on fake book and there's no conservatism there, you would just left it could be the result of an algorithm being written.
Now, what what Peter's point here is if all you do is write an algorithm that does nothing more than tabulate the most red pieces on the most clicked on websites, then that's what you're gonna get.
You're gonna get a list of most red, most popular, whatever you want to call it, and then you can call it trending.
And it and you can do an algorithm that does nothing but genuinely tabulate the real popularity of any number of articles anywhere on the web that people are finding and then posting to the trending, whatever it is on fake book.
But it has to start somewhere.
People, there has to be a starting point for this.
And I don't know whether that algorithm exists.
Now, fake book wants everybody to think that's what their algorithms are, that all they do is tabulate what people are posting on their own news feeds that ends up in the fake book trending newsline, whatever it is, and it's nothing more than the results of their uh readers, their their members posting each and every day what they're reading.
But you can come up with any kind of algorithm you want to alter that however you wish.
And if they want to do that, that's fine.
But it goes beyond that, folks.
And a glaring example was discovered yesterday, right at fake book.
And it is this actress Patricia Heaton, who those of us who know her know that she is a devout pro-life actress in Hollywood, and she is very public about it, fearless about it, and she still works.
She's talented, she has everybody loves Raymond.
Uh, her husband as well, they are they're they're openly conservative.
And she's open and uh visible in her pro-life position and in her pro-life charity work.
So the fake book version of the of a recent story of a tweet that Patricia Heaton posted.
Here's here's a tweet that she posted.
Choose, celebrate, support life, thanks Northwest Center.
Northwest Center is a is a place that she supports that cares for pregnant women and their children after they are born.
In what she put her tweet and in things there was not a word, there wasn't one mention of abortion.
The fake book headline, they made a fake book made a news story out of this.
They converted her tweet into a news story, complete with a picture of her.
And the headline said, Patricia Heaton, actress shares anti-abortion message, says support life.
And then they publish her tweet.
Thanks, Northwest Center.
Well, no algorithms involved here.
Some human being at Fake Book saw her tweet, choose, celebrate, support life, got mad, and probably started cursing her and said, all right, we'll take care of this.
And then he posted a story with a headline, Patricia Heaton, actress shares anti-abortion message, said support life.
She did no such thing.
She didn't talk about abortion.
She didn't make one reference to the word.
She simply posted a tweet acknowledging the work of this place that she supports, the Northwest Center, which cares for pregnant women and their children after they're born.
Now, obviously it's a place that asks women to go there instead of to an abortion mill, but the word abortion is not here.
It's not anything she talked about.
This is exactly the kind of bias in the drive-by media that everybody's concerned about would point to.
Because this has nothing to do with an algorithm, nothing to do with the trending news feed.
This is somebody at fake book deciding to characterize Patricia Heaton in a way that she isn't.
Or wasn't in this particular tweet.
And it is designed to defame her.
It is designed to be controversial.
It's designed to misrepresent what she's talking about here.
And at the end of it, it is designed to impugn Patricia Heaton because she celebrates life.
Somehow that's insulting to leftists.
Patricia Heaton, actress shares anti-abortion message.
There's no anti-abortion message here.
But look, all that aside, fake book can do what they want.
They're a private company, and live and die with it.
I just I think it's worthwhile trying to point out, just people like I've been doing it for 25 years.
Bias when you see it to educate people and to inform them so that they can learn to spot it on their own at ABC C B S N B C and now spotted at fake book or spotted at Twitter or wherever it is, because it's everywhere.
But to go beyond that seems to I take a break on this on the clock.
Way long, back with more after this.
Remember what got this fake book stuff started, folks?
Not me.
It was a story on Gizmoto, which is the tech site version of Gawker.
And somebody at Gizmoto said they talked to a former fake book employee who was a curator in the whatever division that produces news in the news feed.
And this guy told Gawker that it's a bunch of liberals and a bunch of leftists doing their best to exclude any pro-conservative news from the Twitter news feed trending, whatever it's called.
That's where all of this started.
One one source.
Former fake book employees.
And that's what the debate has been about, is what it.
I don't need question that that happens.
We're talking about it's all drive-by media.
Remember John O'Sullivan and the first law of what is.
Any organization that is not by definition conservative will be liberal.
Conservatism is an active daily pursuit.
Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.
Doesn't require anything other than feelings and good intentions and all the rest of it.
But conservatism is an actual, it's it should be the opposite because conservatism is the when you boil it all down when if people left at their own devices, not today, but for most of American history, people in the way they led their lives, that that's that's what conservatism is.
It's just personal responsibility and budgeting in personal behavior, in personal responsibility, in morality, you name it.
I mean, people raise their kids to avoid trouble, to be the best they can be, to get educated, to learn to compete, all that's conservatism.
But it has been branded and maligned.
Uh liberalism is just get up and go about your day and get your feelings hurt, somebody's responsible for it.
Uh somebody owes you something.
Uh you're a victim of something.
It's easy to fall into the tram.
You see suffering and you go, oh my God, look at it, suffering.
You're a great liberal.
That's all you gotta do.
You have to fix it.
You don't have to have an idea how to fix it.
You just have to spot it.
And you're a great, great liberal.
It's easy.
But conservatism's an active intellectual, ideological conservatism is an active daily pursuit, and I know they're not doing it at fake book, which means they're going to be liberals.
It's just the way it is.
Incidentally, that that Patricia Heaton story that I just decided on Fake Book, where they refer to her as anti abortion comments when she didn't make any, shot to the top of whatever we're talking about here.
Shot to the top of the trending list at fake book.
And that's how it happens.
So you got these average numbskulls that don't know what's up out there reading this stuff, having on Patricia Heaton today.
▲
Export Selection