Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: You people know what Sunday is. It’s Father’s Day. Now, TIME Magazine is famous for a number of things: The cover on me, ‘Is Rush Limbaugh Good for America?’ asking, ‘Is there too much democracy out there?’ Fidel Castro, ‘Lion in Winter,’ trying to save his great little communist nation; and the cover story on TIME Magazine: Startling new research data indicates that boys and girls are actually born different. That was a cover story. Now, TIME Magazine has a story on the Father’s Day weekend. Let me just read to you the opening paragraph, shall I?

‘The folks at Hallmark are going to have a very good day on June 17. That’s when more than 100 million of the company’s ubiquitous cards will be given to the 66 million dads across the U.S. in observation of Father’s Day. Such a blizzard of paper may be short of the more than 150 million cards sold for Mother’s Day, but it’s still quite a tribute. What’s less clear is whether dads — at least as a group — have done a good enough job to deserve the honor.’ TIME Magazine actually with a story on whether or not you dads deserve a Father’s Day, because you’re screwing up so bad. ‘Worldwide, 10% to 40% of children grow up in households with no father at all. In the U.S., more than half of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within a few years. By the end of 10 years, as many as two-thirds of them have drifted out of their children’s lives. According to a 1994 study by the Children’s Defense Fund…’ Now, let me tell you. The Children’s Defense Fund may as well be Hillary Clinton. She and Marian Wright Edelman set up this thing, and it’s nothing more than a sinkhole for liberalism. This is like saying, ‘According to a 1994 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute…’ That’s Planned Parenthood.

So the Children’s Defense Fund is just another way of saying it’s Hillary front group. ‘[M]en are more likely to default on a child-support payment (49%) than a used-car payment (3%). Even fathers in intact families spend a lot less time focused on their kids than they think: in the U.S. fathers average less than an hour a day (up from 20 minutes a few decades ago), usually squeezed in after the workday. Anthropologists are trying to figure out why. Homo sapiens produces the most slowly maturing young of all mammals. Among foraging humans, children need 19 years — and consume 13 million calories — before producing more food for their community than they take from it, according to research by anthropologist Hillard Kaplan.’ I kid you not. ‘You’d think fathers would be hardwired to provide for such needy offspring, and yet there is more variation in fathering styles across human cultures than among all other species of primates combined.’ I mean, this just gets better. As you read this it becomes more incredible by the sentence. ‘Many of our primate kin are far better fathers than we are (investigators at the California primate center discovered that baby titi monkeys are in the arms of their fathers for as much as 90% of daylight hours); many are far worse.'(interruption)

Hang on. We’ll discuss what the mothers are doing in just a second, Snerdley. Just chill out in there. We have this handled. I can handle it here. I’m hosting the show. Everything is under control. Okay, so, ‘titi monkeys are in the arms of their fathers for as much as 90% of daylight hours; many are far worse But all are at least consistent within their species. Why does paternal care in our species vary so much?’ Well, because we are hardwired but we also have souls! A titi monkey doesn’t have a soul. It’s just a God-programmed robot! You people who have cats, have you ever scratched a cat’s butt right above the tail? What does the cat do? It starts licking its left-front leg. Every cat in the world does this! Why do cats bathe themselves? No one taught them to. They just do it. This business that we are no different than animals, it’s kind of like the whole concept of pollution. Do you realize that whenever an animal poops in your yard, that is ‘nature’? That’s fertilizer. That’s whatever. Whenever an animal eats another animal, it may be brutal, but that’s ‘the law of the jungle.’

Whenever animals or any other living organism engage in what they do, they don’t even know they’re doing it. They’re preprogrammed by God. You think the bees have to be told by mom and dad, ‘Bee, go to that flower and pollinate the thing’? They just do it! They may learn by following, but they’re not thinking. They don’t have any souls. We on the other hand build a smokestack and we’re destroying! We are not part of nature, you see? This has long been one of my bugaboos about the whole environmental movement, is that human beings are by our own nature, intruders. How can this be? We are as much a part of nature as anybody else. ‘Well, it’s not fair, though, Rush because we can invent and produce shotguns that kill ’em.’ Let me tell you something. If the tiger could get a shotgun, it’d fire back. But we’re not wrong because we can invent shotguns or rifles or whatever else or space shuttles. But all the stuff that we do intrudes on nature, destroys it. Everything these primates do…

Now we’re being compared to titi monkeys! The other day we’re being compared to cockroaches. ‘Yes, cockroaches can learn, just like us.’ No, they don’t learn, otherwise if they saw the Raid can, they wouldn’t sit there and soak it up! (sigh) So, anyway, here we are. I don’t care what the mother titi monkey is doing, when the stupid idiot father titi monkey is sitting there holding his baby for 90% of daylight hours. More interesting to me is what this guy is doing at night. The mother’s out there. This guy’s probably got it wired. The mother is probably out there working and finding food and bringing it home for the family. All the guy has to do is sit around and hold the baby, you know, get credit for caring and lounge around all day. He doesn’t have to change any diapers. The little titi monkey throws up. ‘Yippee! Lick it up.’ They’re animals, for crying out loud. Anyway, here’s TIME Magazine. It doesn’t have to go out get little gummy bears. It doesn’t have to pop popcorn for little monkey at midnight four nights in a row. It doesn’t have to do any of this. I’m not complaining. I’m just making observations here.


RUSH: This TIME Magazine story, they’re dead serious about this, and two women wrote the story: Sarah Blaffer Hrdy [sic] and Mary Batten, and it’s all about how you dads out there don’t deserve Father’s Day because you are screwing up. You are not as good a father as the male titi. (By the way, it’s t-i-t-i. I never heard of a male titi monkey until this story, but (sigh) I have now.) ‘One thing that draws a human male to a child of his is that, hormonally speaking, men are a lot more similar to women than many of us realize, particularly during the critical survival period approaching a child’s birth and its infancy. As in some other mammalian species, human males are known to have high levels of prolactin (a hormone usually associated with lactating mothers) toward the end of a partner’s pregnancy. Canadian biologist Katherine Wynne-Edwards and psychologist Anne Storey…’ So far, everybody quoted in this story is female, and everybody who has written the story is a female. This biologist and psychologist ‘have shown that the similarities don’t stop there. New or expectant fathers holding either their baby or a doll wrapped in a blanket that recently held — and still smells of — a newborn experienced a rise in prolactin and cortisol (a well-known stress hormone associated with mothering) and a drop in testosterone.

‘When the men listened to a tape of a crying newborn and were shown a videotape of a newborn struggling to nurse, the ones who reported the greatest urge to comfort the baby were the ones whose hormone levels had changed the most. But dads have to spend time close to babies for hormones to kick in, and this hasn’t always been possible. Today we take child survival for granted, but in traditional societies, 40% of offspring might die before age 5.’ (Gasp!) ‘To keep infants safe, it made sense for them to be held at all times. With Mom often caring for more than one offspring and Dad busy rustling up food, the job sometimes had to be outsourced to grandmothers, aunts and others.’ So there you have it. We don’t deserve Father’s Day. We’re just no good at it, certainly not as good as the titi monkey — and I’d have to say, it seems that TIME Magazine here just can’t find itself to ‘celebrate diversity’ in different styles of fathering, which is rather judgmental of them, don’t you think, especially when we have so many nontraditional family units that we’re supposed to embrace out there? The ‘family’ has been redefined by liberals to include pretty much anything you want it to be, and we’re supposed to accept this out of diversity, but we’re not supposed to respect the diversity of different methods and styles of fatherhood. The real question is — and I’ll tell you where this is leading — ‘Who needs a father anyway?’ It takes a village to raise a child, and we know that even the dads that stay home, they’re a bunch of predators. Child Services is but one phone call away.

Thank you, feminists. Thank you for taking us down this path.


RUSH: I want to expand for just a second, seriously, on this whole fatherhood business in TIME Magazine and how we humans are compared to animals. Animals do everything right. In nature, everything but us, we are not part of nature, but everything that happens in the animal world is perfect. The only thing that screws up the animal world is us — and you know this has been one of the central tenets of the environmental wacko movement, and of the animal rights movement as well. It’s always amazed me, and frankly, I will admit whining about the fact that we humans are somehow considered intruders on nature and that whatever we as humans do is destructive by virtue of our nature. But every other living organism on this planet is absolutely pristine, wonderful, and harmless to nature, to the environment. You know, a guy called here yesterday, and he asked, ‘Do we have the capability to hurt our environment?’ The fact is, we are as much a part of nature and what we do is every bit as natural and okay as what any other element of nature does, and many elements of nature are destructive. Maybe we should ban the oceans! Maybe we should start blaming oceans for what happens during hurricanes. Somehow, we want to end up blaming us.

The only way to blame us for hurricanes is for us taking a risk for leaving near the shorelines where these things are most destructive. That is something we do. We assume the risk. We pay a premium for it. We assume the risk, but all of a sudden a hurricane comes along, and what do we do? We blame us for causing the hurricane or setting circumstances up which led to more powerful hurricane. So this notion that we are destructive helps the libs push Algore’s global warming hoax and any number of other aspects. We’re destroying victims of our own species, victims of nature. We’re just horrible people. But humans, like every other form of life, have to alter its environment in order to thrive. When people do it, we call it ‘wasting natural resources’ and ‘causing pollution.’ When other forms of life do it, we call it ‘nature’s beauty.’ Why is that? Do you know a forest alters the climate compared to if the forest wasn’t there? It’s the same with grasslands, oceans, everything else. Even the climate system, through its own natural processes, creates dead zones on earth. Why do you think we have deserts? It is not because not enough people care. It’s because the climate has created them, and we even consider them beautiful.

Fine. You think it’s beautiful, go live there, and hope Sally Struthers shows up with a tuna fish sandwich for you. Oh, yes, the deserts, they’re absolutely beautiful. Climate, you know, created dead zones called deserts. Maybe humans have some small impact on the climate just like everything else does on earth, but so what? Why is nature allowed to affect climate but we aren’t? We’re as much a part of nature as any other species. Folks, I’m serious. I want you to think about this, because the idea that — and I think it stems from the fact that we are considered superior and therefore we have dominion, and so we have responsibility, and all these things are true and all these things I agree with. But we are part of nature with those characteristics. We didn’t become superior because we belittled the other creatures on the earth and made ’em feel bad, robbed their brains, took them ourselves. We’re it. We were created just like everything else is on this planet, and our quest since the beginning of time has been to improve our standard of living. Doing that, when you start getting into liberalism and socialism, is considered destructive because it leads to ‘inequality,’ and it leads to ‘hurt feelings,’ and it leads to some having more than others, and this just isn’t right.

Now, these are all philosophical questions, and people need to realize that other forms of life have no greater right to use the environment and modify the climate for their purposes than we do for our own. I mean, I’m glad I’m not a cow or a steer, but we’re all who we are. I’m glad I’m not a salmon. I wouldn’t mind being my cat, though, I’ll have to admit that. You get to have your butt scratched all the time and lick your front paw. Cats have staff; dogs have masters. At any rate, I digress. As is the case in all of life, folks, there are winners and losers in the process of life on this planet. There are winners and losers every day. It just seems that some species use other species for their own benefit. We are one, and there are others that do, too, and this creates all kinds of guilt. You need to get over your guilt regarding the use of natural resources. It’s what humans do. It’s what we have to do in order to thrive, and thrive, improve our standard of living, is our quest. If we’re hardwired for anything, it’s that. The idea that we should leave the environment in its original state is just a religious belief, and who’s original state? Somebody tell me: When’s the last time it was in its original state? When was the environment on the planet in its original state? Was last week? Was it before we built Las Vegas and all those casinos? Was it before we built all the skyscrapers in New York? Before we came to America, is that when it was?

When was the environment original? It’s sort of like the NASA guy’s question. Well, who says that the climate today is the optimum climate, and if it changes we’re all in deep doo-doo? Now, here’s how you help the environment. This is what the commie libs don’t want to hear; this is what socialist don’t want to hear. History shows — and I’ve tried to make this point for the longest time, every time they accuse the United States of being guilty of all this pollution in the world: Go to the Third World. Go to underdeveloped countries. Go to the Soviet Union back in its day. Go to China today. Go to North Korea. Go to any Third World outpost, and then come home, and you tell me where conditions are the more sanitary and where you would prefer to live. The reason for this is, wealth is the key. Wealthy nations of the world can afford and do clean up their messes, and they also have the lowest rates of population growth. If people really want to help the environment (and reduce population growth, if that’s something that you think matters and that they’re interconnected), you should be supporting policies that help generate wealth. Now, when’s the next time you think environmentalists will starts doing that?

Name for me an environmentalist group that will start promoting wealth as the key to a clean environment, wealth as the key to lower population rates, wealth — and I’m not talking about super wealth. I’m just talking about the opportunity for it, growing, productive GDP, a wealthy society, a wealthy nation. You tell me the next environmental group that’s going to suggest, ‘You know what? We need to go more capitalist in the world. We need to have more wealthy countries who are pursuing their own self-interests because that will create the wealth necessary to clean up the messes they make and they’ll have fewer kids.’ None of this is arguable, folks. Everything I’ve said to you here is not arguable. You can call and you can try to argue with me about it but it is inarguable. It just takes something other than faith, something other than guilt to accept it. It takes a willingness to get rid of all of this propaganda that you’ve been subjected to for all these years about the selfishness, the mean-spiritedness, the dirtiness of mankind, the notion that we somehow really don’t have any right here, and we don’t have the right to exercise all of our God-given abilities — our intelligence, our creativity, fulfilling our ambitions. No, whenever we do this, whenever we build subdivisions, whenever we expand towns and neighborhoods, ‘Oh, we’re destroying a pristine environment! Why, why, we’re getting rid of wetlands; we’re getting rid of grasslands! The earth needs this stuff.’ Every species alters its environment in order to survive — and we are not destroying an environment, and we are not destroying a climate, we are, frankly, doing just the opposite. What we’re doing is good for the world, good for ourselves and those who accept our help, we’re doing good for them.


RUSH: Case in point. What I was just talking about. It’s an Australian newspaper called TheAge.com: ‘Carbon Footprint of Rich Twice That of Poor. Rich, well-educated Australians are contributing twice as much to climate change as average households, according to new analysis of consumption habits.’ So you see, the truth is, it is the creation, the pursuit of wealth, the realization of wealth. Wealthy nations clean up their messes! Folks, take the test. Go anywhere in the Third World. Go to any jungle. Go to any Eastern Bloc country that still hasn’t come out of its travails with the Soviet Union, and you tell me where you want to live, in terms of where is the cleanest place, where is the hygiene best, where does the sanitation work best, where is the garbage pickup work the best. I mean, you have to leave Rio Linda out of this, but for the most part countries that produce wealth are the cleanest places in the world. This whole thing, carbon footprint, is based on the false premise, the hoax that CO2 is a pollutant. Well, if that’s true (exhale, exhale, exhale), I have just polluted you three times. Well, at least the room I’m in, with really big exhales. So the hoax CO2 carbon footprint, the environmentalists will never tell you the truth that it is wealth, because their purpose in the environmental movement is the advance of socialism, big government, anti-capitalism, and that’s primarily what they are, and the vehicle just changes. It’s either feminism or militant environmentalism or animal rightism, abortion, what have you, the immigration bill, amnesty, they’re all just code names. They’re distractions that allow liberalism undercover to advance.


RUSH: We move on to New Bern, North Carolina, and Dean. How are you?

CALLER: How you doing, Rush? Dittos to you. Listen, I was listening to the show and that TIME Magazine article that you went on about.

RUSH: Oh, folks, if you missed this, TIME Magazine has a story in this issue, written by two women — every expert in it is either a female biologist or a female psychologist and it’s all about how this is Father’s Day Sunday, but most American fathers may not actually deserve the honor because they’re so bad.

CALLER: Yeah, but I lost my dad almost two years ago, and there’s not a day I don’t think about him, and it’s just… I’m sorry, but it’s just that I loved him so much, and I just can’t understand how other people just don’t have the same kind of relationship.

RUSH: Well, we’re all different. We’re all different. Did the TIME Magazine story offend you or bother you?

CALLER: Yeah, it does, because it’s not speaking for a majority of people who love their father dearly.

RUSH: Right. It’s liberals. It’s a bunch of liberals trying to trash the country.

CALLER: Hundred percent.

RUSH: It’s the chickification of our culture. It’s the demonization of men which has been going on since the modern era of feminism.


RUSH: Something which has personally impacted me in ways that are not positive. I see stuff like that, and I just light up because I know these people, and I know the exact reason why this story is in the magazine. It’s liberals trying to push an agenda, and there are all kind of things behind it here. It’s to empower women in child support custody cases; it’s to promote family and medical leave paid by the employer because the husband can’t be depended on to help. It’s designed to paint women as ultimately at the same time victims, but great heroes and heroines, because they’re doing two jobs: mother and father.

CALLER: Well, all I gotta say is God bless you, Rush, and keep up your good work.

RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Dean. Yeah, I don’t want to repeat this because I have too much stuff to do but if you missed it, you can get it on the TIME magazine website. We will (unfortunately) link to it because that’s the only way we can let you see it at RushLimbaugh.com. But it’s an amazing assault — and, of course, one of the anthropologists in the story, one of the biologists in the story, draw their comparisons. See, normally TIME Magazine would celebrate the ‘diversity’ of the different techniques of being a father. ‘Fatherhood? There’s not one simple rule book for it. Fathers decide different philosophies and different things, and of course some fathers run away,’ but the implication here is that mothers are clean and pure as the win the driven snow. Never, ever do mothers abandon them, not take care of them. No, no, no! That never happens. It’s always the father. But the implication in this story is that animals, particularly the titi monkey, why, that father spends 90% of the daytime hours with his kid. Now, that’s a responsible father! So we get compared to monkeys and cockroaches in the same week.


RUSH: Chris in Indianapolis, you’re next on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hey, dittos, Rush, from the racing capital of the world.

RUSH: Thank you, sir. It’s great to have you with us.

CALLER: Yeah, I wanted to exception with the story about the fathers and the monkeys. I resent the comparison. I’ve been a father basically for the past 31 years. I’ve got a 31-year-old is my oldest and my youngest is nine.

RUSH: You know, it’s a good thing you said your son’s 31 years when you said you’d been a father for 31 years, because if there had been a difference in the numbers…

CALLER: Yeah, yeah, I’m pretty good at math, but when I got divorced back around 1980, and I got custody of my four kids —

RUSH: Well, we all know what that means.

CALLER: My son at the time was five, around five, and I had twin daughters that were about a year old, and when we went to court I told the judge I did not want child support. I’d do this on my own. I had a job. I’ve been doing the same job about 30 years. I’ve got legal guardianship of one of my grandsons, since he’s been through months old and he’s ten now. So I’ve gone out of my way to try to be a good father. My father, you know, he was around my entire life ’til he passed away about five years ago, and I think, you know, to be a father, you have to put yourself secondary to your kids’ needs. I think some men have a problem with that, and that’s what’s wrong with certain families.

RUSH: Look, there’s no question we can get into anecdotal stories and get examples of all kinds, good fathers, half decent fathers, rotten fathers, and, of course, fathers that abandon their families and so forth. The point of this story, though, was generalized.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: It was to present the picture. When your premise is that Father’s Day may not be justified anymore because not enough fathers around who deserve it, ah, you can tell there’s an agenda behind this — and, of course, the story mentions nothing about mothers that screw up.

CALLER: Right, and there’s plenty of those, too.

RUSH: Well, yeah. Yes. Human beings are what they are. We all have our flaws, and there are a lot of people that have kids that really have no business doing it. They just do it for, well, any number of reasons, the worst reason being it’s the next stage in the relationship; we think we should, blah, blah, blah, blah, then don’t stop and think about what they’re getting into.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: People plan it, make sure that they understand: okay, once you start having a family, you have to — especially once you get to ten or 12 I think you… I shouldn’t even say this because I’ve not been one. I’m just an uncle, but I know this. I know enough to know that the reason I’ve not done it is because to be honest. I was not willing to make myself second. I was too focused on what I wanted to accomplish and achieve professionally, and I came of age in the era of feminism, where that was considered uncool. Fathers and so forth were defined as good fathers by they stay home and help raise the kids during weekdays, change the diapers at three o’clock in the morning. I’m sorry, I think the kids I didn’t have are the luckiest non-kids ever.

CALLER: (Laughing.) Well, I’ve got six kids, and I’ve got eight grandkids, and I love ’em all, and I do what I can for them, and I don’t hold ’em 90% of the time during the daylight hours, but when you have a job, you can’t do that.

RUSH: See, that’s a great point. What he’s talking about is, let me read the passage in this story about that. ‘Anthropologists are trying to figure out why fathers don’t spend nearly enough time with their kids. Humans produce the most slowly maturing young of all mammals. Among foraging humans, children need 19…’ What is this, foraging humans? I’ll get to that later. ‘[C]hildren need 19 years and consume 13 million calories before producing more food for their community than they take from it.’ What? Food for their community? Well, anyway, this according to research by an anthropologist. ‘Now, you would think fathers would be hardwired to provide for such needy offspring who can’t go out and provide for themselves until they’re 19,’ and I know many of you have 19-year-olds who wish they’d start thinking about that pretty soon. ‘But there’s more variation in fathering styles across human cultures than among all other species of primates combined. Many of our primate kin are far better fathers….’ Now, get this. ‘Many of our primate kin are far better fathers than we are. Investigators at the California Primate Center discovered that baby titi monkeys are in the arms of their fathers for as much as 90% of daylight hours. Many are far worse, but all are at least consistent with their species. Why does paternal care in our species vary so much?’ Because we’re not primates, and that titi monkey father has no clue. It’s not an active decision that he’s making. This is whatever you want to call it. It’s instinct, whatever you want to attach to animals. But he and the wife didn’t get together and discuss this, and he agreed to hold the baby for 90% of the daylight hours.

CALLER: It generalizes that, too, because there’s as many various parenting styles among primates, the different types of primates as there are humans.

RUSH: Right, the titi… You think the male gorilla is going to sit around and hold Baby Koko for 90% of the daylight hours?

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: It’s not going to happen. So they find one example where this idiot monkey goes out and holds his baby for 90% of the time and we get compared to that, and of course we’re going to fail! What man who’s worth his salt has that kind of time?

CALLER: Right. I know I’m too busy. I coach Little League for my kids. I get involved with their extracurricular —

RUSH: Oh, I’m not talking about that occasion. It’s called work. It’s called producing for the family. It’s called generating an income. It’s called providing for the kid! This is a derelict father, if you ask me. He’s leaving it up to the woman to go out there and provide the food or whatever these titi monkey families eat, but to be called worse than a monkey, folks, by TIME Magazine.


RUSH: All right, I couldn’t take this any longer. I never heard of a titi monkey so I went and looked them up, and I know now know why the father holds the baby 90% of the daylight hours. In the first place, the titi monkeys live in South America, from Colombia to Brazil, Peru, and north to Paraguay. ‘They prefer dense forests near water. They usually jump from branch to branch, earning their German name, ‘the jumping monkey.’ They sleep at night but they also take a midday nap. They live in family groups, consists of parents and their offspring about three to seven animals. They defend their territory by shouting and chasing off intruders. Their grooming and communication is important for the cooperation of the group, typically be seen in pairs sitting or sleeping with tails entwined.’ Well, you know what this means? You have to hold onto the stupid little baby monkey or it will fall out of the tree! TIME Magazine presents this as a loving titi monkey dad holding the baby. If you read the whole story, you’ll see this, because that’s forming a bond, and it’s helping to raise it. No, it’s a little baby that will fall out of the tree otherwise.

Now, if you think I’m being harsh here, and you think I’m being anti-animal, you can’t possibly think that. I swoon, I’m a cream puff for animals — and I’m like you. I think it would be cool to have one of these big cats as a pet. I’m just not stupid enough to think it’s possible and try it! Let’s talk about these giant emperor penguins, not the Happy Feet penguins but the emperor penguins that live down in Antarctica. Now, this was a little documentary called March of the Penguins, and I watched March of the Penguins, and I, frankly, was amazed and I was stunned. The crux of this story is that the breeding season for these penguins is basically their lives, and the breeding results in the pairs of penguins going to this desolate part of Antarctica, cold as it can be, temperatures of 30 below. The female lays the egg, and then the father is the one who incubates the egg, and it’s cold as hell when the egg is laid. So they have to transfer the egg from female to male very quickly or the embryo can freeze to death. I mean, it’s 30 below.

Then the fathers cover these eggs, and they band together, get as tight as a group — millions of them, thousands of them — and huddle together, and they each take turns moving from the outer edges of the group, the rim, to the inside, because if you’re on the outside, you got nobody breaking the wind so you’re colder. So they do all this, and this takes months. While all this is happening, the mothers flee. They head off to feed. It’s an arduous process. It is a long trek. Nobody with any sense would live this way. So then the mothers come back, and the fathers have lost almost all their fat. Now, the reason — and this is nature, folks. But by nature, I mean, these penguins are not choosing this. Do you think if these penguins knew about, let’s say, Antigua, that they wouldn’t get the hell out of the Antarctic and move there, except they’d die because it’s too hot? They’re there for a reason. They were created and put there for a reason. Who knows what? I don’t care. The whole earth is used by all living organisms, and it’s so cold down there that these things have to have the ability to survive it, and they do. But the fathers have more fat; they’re larger so they can incubate the eggs longer than the mother could. It’s just that simple.

It’s not an agreement. It’s not in the prenup. You know, when mother and dad penguin get married, it’s not something that one is ordering to do or offering to do. It’s nature. They’re programmed to do it. I’m telling you, you don’t think if they thought about it, if they had the ability to think about this, they wouldn’t get the hell out of the Antarctic as fast as they could? You think if they knew that there were things like a Motel 6, they would head there? My point is it’s the same thing with the titi monkey, and I’m making a big deal out of this because what TIME Magazine’s done here is totally irresponsible, and this is not just something casually unimportant. This is a magazine that has an agenda, and it’s anti-male. They’re never gonna get Father’s Day canceled. That’s not what they’re trying to do, but when your premise of your whole story is that Father’s Day may not be ‘deserved’ or have been by ‘earned’ by some of these people, some fathers, you realize what’s going on here. So a titi monkey, a male titi monkey holds its baby for 90% of the daylight hours every day after it’s born, and that in this story, that’s good.

‘That’s great! Why don’t we do it that way? Why aren’t male fathers, human male fathers not thoughtful?’ They’re not ‘thoughtful’! The titi monkey is not thoughtful. Do you think that if it could find a way to not live in a tree, it would? See, we put our own context in it. We wouldn’t want to live in trees! Well, we’re not made to live in trees. They are. It’s totally natural. That’s their world. The koala bear? Well, they’re never going to move because they get high all day; they get drunk. They eat those berries in the trees and they sit there and zone out. Of course, they never have to go rehab, you know? They’re never cited for DUIs or any of this sort of thing. It’s who they are. It’s what they are. So the point is, to compare to us all these other species who are flawless, we are told, and they do it perfectly. It’s just absurd, and it’s insulting, and it goes back to what I was talking about at the top of the program: ‘Human beings intrude on nature. Every element of nature is just pristine; it’s wonderful; it’s beautiful; it’s not destructive. But we? We are intruders on nature.’ We are as much a part of nature as anything born and living on this planet.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This