Finally! Science Finds the "Culprit" That Causes Women to Talk More Than Men
RUSH: I've got that story on women talk more than men and how they discovered why. I'll get to that in a minute. Did you see that? You didn't see that? It's from Science World Report: "Why Women Talk More Than Men." It's a government study. What isn't a government study? What happens here that isn't related to government anymore? It's a language protein that they've uncovered out there. Catherine Griffin writing for something called Science World Report, and I think this is hate research, hate science. I mean, this is beating up on women. This all part of the War on Women. Now we're doing a science survey on why women talk more than men? Hate science, hate research.
"You know all the times that men complain about women talking too much? Apparently there's a biological explanation for the reason why women are chattier than men. Scientists have discovered that women possess higher levels of a 'language protein' in their brains, which could explain why females are so talkative. Previous research has shown that women talk almost three times as much as men. In fact, an average woman --"
There is no such thing, by the way, but we'll go along with this here. "The average woman notches up 20,000 words in a day, which is about 13,000 more than the average man. In addition, women generally speak more quickly and devote more brainpower to speaking." They had me until we got to that point. "Yet before now, researchers haven't been able to biologically explain why this is the case."
Now, we've all had our theories about why women talk more, and it's because we upset them so much. We're constantly in trouble. We men are constantly on the edge. But now scientists can explain it. "New findings conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and published in The Journal of Neuroscience show that a certain protein may be the culprit." See, that's why this is hate science and hate research. Culprit indicates criminal. Culprit indicates bad person. So here we have a culprit explaining why women talk so much.
"In 2001, a gene called FOXP2 appeared to be essential for the production of speech. In order to test this protein, the team, led by J. Michael Bowers and Margaret McCarthy, looked at young rat pups." Did you know that baby rats you were called pups? I didn't know that rats talked too much, either, but that's why this is all hate research, hate speech. I've learned that. I studied the War on Women. I know about every battle.
Anyway, these animals, these rat pups, what they do is they "emit cries in the ultrasonic range when separated from their mothers. The team recorded the cries over five minutes in groups of 4-day-old male and female rats that had been separated from their mothers. They found that male pups had up to twice as much of the protein FOXP2 in regions of the brain known to be involved in vocalization -- perhaps an unsurprising finding since researchers noted that males made twice as many cries as females."
Do you want to hear the rest of this? You're kidding? "Next, the researchers wanted to test their findings in humans. They conducted a small study on human children aged four to five years who had died in accidents less than 24 hours previously." That's what it says. "They conducted a small study on human children aged four to five years who had died in accidents less than 24 hours previously. They then analyzed the amount of FOXP2 protein in the brains of these children. In the end, the researchers found 30 percent more FOXP2 protein in the brains of the girls."
All of this, rat pups and all, to find out why women talk more. Once again, I don't know what these guys were paid, but I would have blown the whistle on this for a dime. "The research shows that the protein, FOXP2, is a key molecule for communication in mammals. In fact, it could allow researchers to better understand other species that may or may not possess the protein, such as Neanderthals." So Neanderthal women didn't speak as much. "With this new biological link, scientists could potentially trace back the evolutionary origin of speech."
Massachusetts Public Schools Issue Rules to Make Sure Transgender Students Don't Get Offended
RUSH: Where's that story? Ah. Here it is right here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. Get this one. This is from Fox News Radio, Todd Starnes. "Parents across Massachusetts are upset over new rules that would not only allow transgender students to use their restrooms of their choice -- but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or support their transgender classmates.
"Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students -- including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify" that day. "The 11-page directive also urged schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities -- like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom.
"Schools will now be required to accept a student's gender identity on face value. ... The guidelines were issued at the request of the state board of education to help schools follow the 2011 anti-discrimination law protecting transgender students."The Massachusetts Family Institute's general counsel, Andrew Beckwith, told Starnes, "The state takes those students to task -- noting their discomfort 'is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.' ... For example: A fifth grade girl might feel uncomfortable using the restroom if there is an eighth grade transgendered boy in the next stall.
"Under the state guidelines, the girl would have no recourse, Beckwith said." I'm not making this up. This is in Massachusetts." We have kids, folks, who cannot read or do basic math who get frustrated and drop out, and we wonder why. So it says right here... You know, what this boils down to is a bugaboo I've always had. If somebody is offended, whatever offends them must stop. In a group of a thousand people, if one person's offended, the 999 other people have to stop doing it.
So, "The state takes those students to task -- noting their discomfort 'is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.'" What that means is, in a bathroom where boys and girls are allowed to go at the same time because one of them's transgender, the non-transgender student is not allowed to be discomforted by the presence of the transgendered student and thus that's not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.
So what this means is the transgender student can be offended, and the non-transgender student will then be forced to accept it. But the non-transgender student cannot be offended and must accept the transgendered student. "For example: A fifth grade girl might feel uncomfortable using the restroom if there is an eighth grade transgendered boy in the next stall. Under the state guidelines, the girl would have no recourse, Beckwith said."
If she's offended, too bad. She's not transgendered.
Only the transgendered students are allowed to be offended by somebody not accepting them, and the people that don't accept them must shut up and accept them. (interruption) A boy can say he's transgendered and end up in a girls' bathroom. (interruption) Well, I assume locker room. I don't know! The point here is, there's not a whole lot in the story about how you go about establishing that you are transgender beyond just saying so.
"Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students -- including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify" that day. You know, transgender, you can change day to day, can you not? Depending how you feel? (interruption) Well, if you go on overnight trips, field trips that involve overnight right...
Let's say the school goes on an educational trip to Scotland to learn how they make scotch. So you have some 15- and 16-year-olds on a trip to a distillery, and obviously if you go to Scotland it's an overnight. Because schools don't have a lot of money they put two or three students in one room. I guess a transgendered guy could say, "I want to sleep with the two girls. It's okay. I'm a girl, in my mind," and you have to let it happen, if the school is part of the Massachusetts school district. If the girl... (interruption) Now, wait a minute, now.
In this example, a fifth grade girl might feel uncomfortable using the restroom if there is an eighth grade transgendered boy in the next stall. Under state guidelines, the girl would have no recourse, and if the girl continued to complain, she could be subjected to discipline for not affirming that student's gender identity choice. So in this one instance, the non-transgendered... I don't dare say "normal." (Ahem.) The non-transgendered student, if offended, can't do anything about what offends her. But if the transgendered student is offended by lack of acceptance, then the student who doesn't do the accepting can be disciplined.
That's in the state of Massachusetts.
We wonder why the dropout rate, and we wonder why they're not learning math and why they can't read.
Britney Spears' Grocery List Goes Viral
RUSH: A photo was taken of Britney Spears coming out of a grocery store. ABC News has it. She was holding in her left hand a copy of her grocery list. Her grocery shopping list has gone viral on the Internet. It says here, ABC News: "Yep, it seems Spears, like a lot of us, needs a list for the grocery store. But Spears’ list from her shopping trip last weekend has become a trending topic on Twitter. Curious about what’s on the list? The 31-year-old mother of two included ginger ale, tomatoes, Lunchables, ham, orange juice, 2 percent milk, bread and chicken."
Right there it is, a shopping list. Now I bash Britney Spears. Change the subject.
Senators Want Federal ID Card
RUSH: This the Wall Street Journal: "Key senators are exploring an immigration bill that would force every U.S. worker -- citizen or not -- to carry a high-tech identity card that could use fingerprints or other personal markers to prove a person's legal eligibility to work. The idea, signaled only in vaguely worded language from senators crafting a bipartisan immigration bill, has privacy advocates and others concerned that the law would create a national identity card ..." Exactly. My only question is: "What's Jesse Jackson gonna say?"
If you start giving people national ID cards, federal ID cards, are you going to have a photo on it? Are you gonna have some method of identification on it? What's that gonna do to vote fraud? Well, we can't have photo ID at the polls. Does this mean that Democrats will be exempted from the federal ID card? Probably so. I mean, if these people hold true to form, only Republicans and legal immigrants will get the federal ID card. Democrats and illegals will be exempted. Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee. No. It says here, "The lawmakers haven't committed to the 'biometric' ID card..." Folks, trust me, they have.
Well, the group that wants it has, and they "are wary of any element that might split the fragile coalition of Democrats, Republicans and outside organizations working toward agreement on a broad overhaul of immigration laws. But at least five of the eight senators writing the bill have backed biometric ID cards in the past. At least three of them -- Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) -- have said they support requiring the cards under the new law but are open to other options, aides say."
They do want this card. In fact, they want this card even if they don't get the immigration bill. Don't doubt me. I happen to be aware of this, and I'm serious when I raise the question about the photo ID at the polling place. Because as you know, the civil rights coalitions and a lot of Democrats are dead set against it. "A Photo ID you need everywhere but at the voting booth because somehow a photo ID will contribute to vote fraud," is what they say.
So how are these people who are opposed to a photo ID at the same time gonna support a federal ID card that will "use fingerprints or other personal markers to prove a person's legal eligibility to work." Once you do this, why not use this thing to vote? Well, we're gonna exempt the card from being required to vote. That's probably what they'll do. Exempt it from having to vote. It's only to get a job. So they will say. But your Social Security number, you see, is no longer enough of a federal ID. Nope! You need one of these.
Leno Crowd Cheers Obama Slam
RUSH: Last night Jay Leno made a joke about the president not understanding economics, and the studio audience cheered, applauded, and whistled. Leno said, "Over the weekend, President Obama... You know that? President Obama played golf with Tiger Woods, and Tiger said, 'The president was a very good golfer for a guy who only plays five days a week.' Actually, do you know what the president's handicap is? Does anybody know? He doesn't understand economics. That's the handicap. Other than that, he's fine."
The audience went nuts cheering. The Tonight Show audience, an NBC audience, was cheering for a joke made about Obama's ignorance when it comes to the economy. But right here from Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama enters the latest budget showdown with Congress with his highest job-approval rating in three years and public support for his economic message..." Sorry, this is written poorly. Let me start this again.
"President Barack Obama enters the latest budget showdown with Congress with his highest job-approval rating in three years and public support for his economic message..." That's a dangling sentence fragment that has no relationship to anything, and then there's a comma, and then: "while his Republican opponents popularity stands at a record low. So what they're trying to say here is that Obama's job-approval rating and public support for his "economic message" is at an all-time high.
You see, "his economic message"? Do you understand the crucial purpose of that wording? Not his "economic policies," not his "economic governance," his "message." He's campaigning. He's campaigning as an outsider. He's campaigning as fighting these powerful Republican forces who want 800,000 Pentagon people to lose their jobs. He's fighting these Republicans who want meat inspectors to stay home.
He's fighting these Republicans who want air traffic controllers to get fired and laid off! He's fighting these Republicans who want to make sure the cops and the firefighters and other first responders don't have money to go to work tomorrow. That's his "message," and Bloomberg says that public support for his "message" is at a three-year high. They didn't poll people's approval of Obama's economic policies.
I'm telling you, do not minimalize this: There is a profound and huge difference between polling Obama's "economic message" and his "agenda," because they're two different things. He's getting away with having no relationship whatsoever to the economy of the country. He has a "message. " It's Republican policies that are the problem, and the Bloomberg poll, that's what it says! Republicans are all to blame for this. Obama's "message" is really cool. Fifty-five percent like it. The problem with Leno's joke is the American people laugh about it, but Obama does understand economics.
He knows full well how he can use and create and capitalize on the crisis of a bad economy to expand the government.
Conflicting Polls on Immigration
RUSH: This Bloomberg poll also would seem to be lying about how popular Obama's amnesty policy is because there's a Reuters poll: "Majority of US Citizens Say Illegal Immigrants Should be Deported -- More than half of US citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the US immigration system.
"The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007." So this poll directly contradicts this Bloomberg poll, at least on the issue of amnesty for illegals. I don't know. We'll have to take both of them at face value, but I think it's profound here, folks. I don't think this is insignificant at all. "Public support for Obama's economic message..."
That is... I'm telling you, it is profound, because they're supporting what he's saying. They're polling what Obama is saying that he wants for the economy. They are not polling Obama's policies. They are polling current economic policies as though they are Republican policies that are in force and being implemented. Obama is getting the benefit of being seen as opposing them and trying to stop them, when it is Obama who's president -- and it's Obama who's getting everything he wants.
Obama Calls Boehner and McConnell
RUSH: Jay Carney, White House spokesman, said a few minutes ago that Obama called Mitch McConnell and John Boehner earlier today, had a good conversation with both of them. I guess he couldn't wait to tell 'em what it was like to play golf with Tiger Woods. That's about all we know.