Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 6, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

50:17

The Bear Market Arrives | Ep. 469

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The stock market dropped precipitously yesterday.
	We will give you all of the analysis.
	Plus, Quentin Tarantino is now under fire for apparently choking Uma Thurman or something.
	We'll discuss that.
	And Justin Trudeau proved that he is basically a human mop.
	I am Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	I have so many fantastic insults lined up for Justin Trudeau today, and I cannot wait to use them.
	I mean, I just have a whole pile of them just lined up before me.
	You can't actually see them, they're just off screen, but they are spectacular.
	We'll get to Justin Trudeau, the Me Too movement, maybe losing some of its luster.
	But first, we're going to say thank you to our sponsors over at Birch Gold.
	If you look at the stock market today, and yesterday, and Friday, you might be thinking, now is a good time for me to be a little diversified.
	Now, I have most of my assets in the stock market, but I do have a significant portion of my assets in precious metals.
	The reason being that you never know when the government is going to inflate the currency.
	You don't know when the stock market is going to crash.
	You don't know.
	And that means that you ought to be hedging your bets at least a little bit.
	And that's where my friends at Birchgold come in.
	Birchgold Group has a longstanding track record of continued success with thousands of satisfied clients, countless five-star reviews, and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	Contact Birchgold's group right now.
	You'll receive a free information kit on physical precious metals.
	This comprehensive 16-page kit shows how gold and silver can protect your savings and how you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA.
	To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit, go to birchgold.com slash ben.
	That's birchgold.com slash ben.
	Again, they're the folks that I trust with precious metals investing.
	birchgold.com slash ben.
	Use that slash ben so that they know that we sent you.
	I mean, when the economy's this volatile, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have some of your money in precious metals.
	Birchgold.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so speaking...
	of the economy.
	The stock market dropped 1,000 points yesterday.
	It had gone all the way down 1,600 points yesterday.
	That followed a 666-point drop on Friday.
	Today, the stock market is basically bouncing around.
	Last I checked, it's up by 56 points or so.
	But you never know.
	On days like this, you really don't know until about 3 p.m.
	Late in the afternoon, you're going to find out when the stock market basically gets close to closing, and people decide where they want to finish their portfolio for the day, if there's a major sell-off at the end of the day.
	Now, everyone is going nuts about this.
	Oh my God, it's the single largest stock market drop in the history of the United States in terms of pure points.
	Well, who cares about pure points?
	That's stupid.
	That's like saying that the GDP every year in the United States goes up in pure dollar amounts.
	That's true.
	In terms of percentage amounts, that's not necessarily the case in any significant order.
	And that's the case with regard to the stock market drop just because the stock market dropped 1500 points at one point.
	It was about a 3%, 4% drop yesterday.
	That is not even close to the top 25 stock market drops of all time.
	So people who are saying that this is the end of the world are stupid.
	By the same token, now President Trump, I've been saying this for literally his entire presidency.
	The President of the United States, when he goes out and he uses the stock market increase as an indicator of economic health.
	I said this while Obama was president.
	I've been consistent in saying it while Trump was president.
	The stock market is not a good reflection of the underlying economic fundamentals.
	Plus, the stock market is not the responsibility of any one president.
	So the idea that President Trump came into office and therefore he is responsible solely for stock market increases and decreases is stupid.
	I said the same thing about President Obama, so I've been entirely consistent on this point.
	Another thing to know.
	When you see headlines saying that trillions of dollars wiped out in wealth, billions of dollars wiped out in wealth, not unless you're one of the people who actually sold.
	So if you have a 401k, your 401k is worth less than it was yesterday at the beginning of the day.
	Sure, that's true.
	If you tried to sell it, it would be worth less.
	But are you selling your 401k today?
	Do you have to cash out today?
	If you're not cashing out today, the answer is you lost zero money.
	This is why Warren Buffett was famous for saying things like, during the 2008 crash, people would say, well, your entire portfolio, you lost billions and billions of dollars.
	And Buffett would say, well, no, I didn't.
	I didn't sell.
	I didn't lose anything.
	Now, when the real estate market goes down, if you don't sell your house, you don't lose any money.
	The value of your house may have gone down, meaning if you sold your house, what would it be worth today?
	But if you're not selling your house today, what do you care?
	And consequently, when the stock market rises, when they say Jeff Bezos made a billion dollars in a day.
	No, he didn't.
	He didn't sell any of his stock.
	I mean, the value of his stock went up.
	So presumably, if he tried to sell his stock, the value would be higher.
	But if you're not buying and you're not selling, then you're not losing money or gaining money.
	And it's just the facts of life there, folks.
	The only people who may have lost money yesterday without actively selling are people who are on what are called margin calls, people who have margin accounts of the brokerage firm where they're basically borrowing money from their stock broker in order to buy stock.
	And if the stock market goes down too much, then the stock broker goes back to the person with the margin account and forces them to pay up some more money to buy more stock to keep the margins up to shape.
	But that's relatively rare unless you're a professional investor.
	Most people do not have margin accounts.
	So is it the end of the world?
	No, it's not the end of the world.
	And it's not just me saying this.
	The New York Times is saying this.
	The New York Times, which has an interest in putting forward the notion that Donald Trump is leading to economic collapse, Neil Irwin over at the New York Times says, ignore the stock market, the underlying economy looks fine.
	He says, what is the stock market telling us with its precipitous drop over the last several days?
	In all likelihood, not much of anything.
	That's because the stock market, though crucial in the long run for individuals accumulating wealth and companies raising capital, is so erratic as to be useless in providing information about the short run.
	The 8.5% drop in the S&P 500 could signify the onset of a global recession.
	It could also mean that some trading algorithms at a big hedge fund collided in weird ways.
	For what really matters, the well-being of the economy.
	Look first to fundamental economic data.
	Second, look to bond market and other financial market indicators that are more reliable measures of investor expectations than stock prices.
	Basically, there's a theory going around over the last few days that the reason the stock market had a drop is because, number one, the wage data was good, meaning the wage data went up.
	And so that meant that profit margins of companies were going down, so people sold some stock.
	That's possibility number one.
	Possibility number two is there were some signals from the Fed that the interest rates were going to rise, and that would make the lines of credit a little bit harder to get, and that means that the stock market is going to drop a little bit.
	Bond yields, I guess, were up, and so the stock market went down.
	Sometimes when bond yields go up, the stock market goes up.
	In any case, here's what Neil Irwin says.
	He says, there's good news on both fronts, as both point to a global economy that will continue growing steadily in the months and years ahead, perhaps with inflation that is a bit higher than in the recent past.
	This contrasts with market sell-offs with drops in 2011, 2015 and 2016, which coincided with pessimistic signals in both economic data and the bond market.
	The stock market can, when looked at in concert with these other indicators, provide some useful insight.
	Right now, it appears to be more noise than signal.
	And he says the economic data has been solid in recent weeks.
	On Friday, the Labor Department reported the U.S.
	added 200,000 jobs.
	In January, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta says they are looking at a 4 percent annual increase of economic expansion, which is a major number.
	That was the number that Trump promised, and people were skeptical he was going to get.
	Of course, there's plenty of statistical errors built into these numbers.
	They may turn out to be incorrect, but the bond market is looking optimistic about the future.
	Prices suggest that continued growth without inflationary overheating is the most likely future.
	The stock market has lost some ground since the start of the year because of the sell-off on Monday, but the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds is up in that span from 2.4% to 2.75%, which thinks that bond investors think steady recovery will allow the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates gradually.
	So, in other words, This is just a market correction.
	Now, it may take a few months for the stock market to go back up to what it was, but the idea that we are in a full-scale economic collapse is really stupid.
	There's no evidence to that effect.
	Now, maybe that's what it turns out to be, but we haven't seen that, and we haven't seen any underlying fundamentals that would suggest that at this point.
	This is why it's so dumb for commentators to blame or credit the stock market for a particular president.
	So Sean Hannity, he's a good guy, but this is so dumb.
	Yesterday, he blamed the plunge in the Dow on Barack Obama, who has not been president since last I checked, January of 2017.
	It is now, for those who missed it, February 2018.
	But I guess that if Obama can blame Bush, then Hannity can blame Obama.
	Here's Sean going after Barack Obama for the Dow plunging a year and a half after he left office.
	Because the Obama economy was so weak all of these years, we had just artificially cheap money.
	Now what's cheap money?
	Cheap money is when you can borrow at ridiculously low rates, the era of cheap money at some point has to come to an end.
	Okay, so he's not completely—Sean isn't completely wrong about this, but it's not quite that simple.
	The fact is that they're not looking at tremendous inflation rates right now.
	I agree with his analysis of the stock market under Obama, but that wouldn't explain why the stock market has continued to rise under President Trump, even as the money supply tightens, because the Fed has been raising rates gradually.
	In any case, you know, the stock market It has very little to do with politics in the end.
	It has a lot more to do with confidence in particular companies.
	People don't buy... I mean, you buy indices if you're in a 401k, but most people don't buy indices.
	Most people buy certain stocks.
	They're picking a certain bundle of stocks, high-risk stocks, low-risk stocks.
	Here's the deal, folks.
	You want to make money in the stock market, take a little bit of money, invest in the stock market every month, and just leave it there.
	Just leave it there.
	Forever.
	Until you need it.
	If you did this and you've been doing this for your entire life, then when the stock market goes down, like this month, I'm excited.
	I do this every month.
	This month I'm excited.
	I just got a discount on stocks.
	I get to buy a bunch of them.
	Next month, presumably when the stock market goes up, I will buy again.
	And this is a good way to incrementally increase your portfolio whether the stock market goes up or whether the stock market goes down.
	But everybody who's panicked when the stock market takes a dip like this and, oh, we must need major government intervention, unless there is a serious underlying economic problem like there was in 2008, government intervention is usually unnecessary and even more so counterproductive.
	Okay, so in just a second, I'm going to talk about Quentin Tarantino and Justin Trudeau and the insanity of the feminist left and the Me Too movement and what they're doing, because it really is getting kind of crazy out there.
	First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Thrive Market.
	So, you want to eat healthy, but you don't want to go over to Whole Foods and deal with all the schmucks in the Ford Priuses, in the Toyota Priuses, who are driving around with their bumper stickers that say, Save the Whales, and clogging up the parking lot because they don't know how to drive with their silent killer Priuses.
	You don't want to do that, right?
	You don't want to go to one of these overpriced organic food markets.
	Instead, what you want to do is go to Thrive Market.
	It's an online grocer with a mission to make healthy living affordable and accessible to everybody.
	They cut out the middleman.
	For the first time in history, you can purchase premium, non-GMO organic products at wholesale prices.
	It's all delivered to your door.
	Plus, you can organize the products by a high number of certain indicators that you're looking for.
	So, they have a kosher thing for me.
	So that's great.
	I can get a bunch of products that I know are kosher from Thrive Market.
	In one click of a button, you can sort Thrive Market's catalog by 90 values based on your dietary needs, from vegan to gluten-free, from paleo to non-GMO, and more.
	And they have a hyper-curated catalog.
	So you might find 15 almond butters at your local health store, and they'll all be really expensive.
	But at Thrive, they've narrowed it down to three or four almond butters.
	They are the best.
	And you know they're sourced from the best of the best.
	It's not just foods, by the way.
	It's supplements, protein powders, all the stuff that you're going to use if you're working out.
	And you can get them at 50% off retail.
	So everything is a lot less expensive than if you were to go to that organic food market, bull your way through all of the people with seven nose rings, and suddenly make your way to the counter with your protein powder that's 50% overpriced.
	Instead, you can go to Thrive Market.
	For my listeners, my friends at Thrive Market are offering you $60 of free groceries.
	Pretty awesome deal.
	Plus free shipping and a 30-day free trial.
	That is an incredible deal.
	Keep in mind, Thrive Market's prices are already 25% to 50% off retail, and now they're offering an extra $60 of free groceries.
	So again, $60 of free groceries plus free shipping and a 30-day free trial, which is an amazing deal.
	When you go to thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro, thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro, and you get your instant $60 off of free groceries, which is, again, that's a lot of money that they're giving you right off the top.
	Thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro.
	Eat healthy, eat fresh, and do it from the comfort of your own home without having to go to one of these organic food markets that's filled with obnoxious people.
	If I have not made that clear, I hate going to Whole Foods.
	This is why Thrive Market is great.
	ThriveMarket.com slash Shapiro.
	Check it out.
	Get your instant 60 bucks of free groceries and that 30-day free trial.
	When you use slash Shapiro, you let them know as well that we sent you.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, the feminist movement, the Me Too movement, there was talk about whether they were going off the rails.
	Apparently, they have gone full-scale off the rails.
	We begin today with Justin Trudeau.
	Suffice it to say that Justin Trudeau is Owen Wilson from Meet the Parents, except without the woodworking skill.
	Justin Trudeau is one of the more obnoxious, sycophantic, ridiculous, idiotic, Teenage girls in a boy's body that I've ever seen.
	I mean, it's just, it's insane.
	The guy's only famous because his dad was Gary Trudeau.
	His previous life, what did he do in his previous career?
	I can't remember.
	It was something ridiculous.
	It was like he was a grocery checker or something dumb.
	Not that grocery checkers are dumb, but it's not really a qualification for being Prime Minister of Canada.
	His career before that, let's see.
	In 2009, he was appointed to the Liberal Party's Critic for Youth and Multiculturalism.
	In 2011, he was appointed as Critic for Secondary Education.
	He worked as a teacher in Vancouver.
	He completed one year of an engineering program.
	One year!
	And then one year of a master's program in environmental geography.
	And he worked and he was an athlete or something.
	So there's a bunch of pictures of the shirt off and apparently this makes the lady swoon or some such nonsense.
	In any case, Justin Trudeau was on camera and he said several silly things on camera.
	Here is one of the silly things that he said on camera.
	Someone wanted to ask him a question about mankind.
	The person asking the question happened to be a female student, like a woman.
	So Justin Trudeau mansplains to her that she shouldn't use the word mankind.
	Oh my goodness, just watch this.
	Watch this moron.
	Maternal love is the love that's going to change the future of mankind.
	So we'd like you to... We'd like to say people-kind, not necessarily mankind.
	What the F is wrong with this guy?
	People-kind?
	Do you mean human-kind, like an actual word?
	People-kind?
	As Jack Handy once said, mankind is made up of two words, mank and ind.
	You don't know what either of them means, and that's why mankind is so mysterious.
	But still, Justin Trudeau, the man is, if the song Imagine could take human form and then eat a Tide Pod, that would be Justin Trudeau.
	Do you understand the stupidity of this?
	First of all, the word mankind comes from humankind.
	It is just a shortened version of humankind.
	Is there any woman on Earth who is serious about feeling offended when people say mankind?
	Of course mankind includes women.
	We are the species of man.
	It doesn't mean we are a species only of men.
	Oh, the levels of stupidity.
	But this is supposed to be empowering for women.
	Honestly, if you're a woman and you feel empowered because a man just explained, mansplained to a woman that she can't use the word mankind.
	If that makes you feel more feminist because Justin Trudeau just told a female student who was talking about the power of motherly love that she shouldn't use the word mankind, that makes you feel like a real feminist, let me suggest that something is wrong with you in the head.
	That wasn't the only dumb thing that Justin Trudeau said yesterday.
	Justin Trudeau also compared ISIS terrorists, apparently, to immigrants from Vietnam, Greece, and Italy, which makes perfect sense.
	First of all, the fact that one of the reasons Canada is successful as a country is because we have been open to people fleeing persecution, fleeing war zones, looking for a better life for themselves and their kids.
	When we welcomed in waves of refugees, whether it was the Ismaili refugees in the early 70s, whether it was the Vietnamese boat people in the early 80s, whether it was people fleeing the devastation of the Second World War from Southern Europe, Europe in the 50s and 60s, the Italian communities, the Greek communities, the Portuguese communities OK, so here's the problem with this.
	The question that he was asked here, the question that led to him saying all of this was a question about letting in people who could be affiliated with ISIS.
	Right?
	So the guy asked him a question and it said, how are you going to protect future Canadians like my young daughter 10, 15, 20 years from now when you're letting in people with an ideology that just does not conform to what we're doing here?
	And then Trudeau immediately lumped in a bunch of people who may be sympathetic to terrorists With all the other refugees coming in from all the other countries.
	He doesn't say we're going to ideologically screen people, which would be the proper answer.
	Instead he says this, because Justin Trudeau must have been dropped on his head as a baby, but it's okay because he comes from a famous family.
	Lest it be said that America is stupid for electing President Trump or for electing George W. Bush or for electing Kennedys or legacy families.
	Canadians, before you get on your high horse about this, this is your Prime Minister, guys.
	Eh?
	Good call, good call.
	OK, so if this is the new feminist movement, Justin Trudeau lecturing women about using the word mankind, that was not the end of the stupidity.
	The New York Times ran a piece yesterday that included a song.
	OK, the person who did this song, and then they ran the entire lyric as an op-ed.
	And then the name of the woman is Emily Lynn.
	She voices Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Karen Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and Betsy DeVos on Stephen Colbert's Our Cartoon President.
	Of course she does.
	And she did a song about how hard it is to date.
	Okay, I just want to play some of this because if you want to date this woman, you are out of your mind.
	Maybe it's hard for her to date because she's a crazy person.
	Because here's what she, here's her stupid song.
	Hey!
	Hey!
	Have you been reading the news?
	Yeesh!
	Maybe let's order some booze.
	Well, I'd really like to hear about your views.
	This movement's gotten just a touch out of hand.
	Uh, well, change only happens after taking a stand.
	Hey!
	Would you ever wanna come see my band?
	What did you say?
	Ah!
	That's not okay.
	I'm feeling triggered and you've ruined my day.
	Hey, hey, ho, ho.
	Donald Trump's gotta go.
	Join the resistance, you tone-deaf Joe Schmo.
	Why wouldn't you want to date this?
	I don't understand.
	Why can't she get a date, guys?
	Like, all the guy said there was, I think maybe the movement's gotten a touch out of hand, and then she goes crazy and says she's been triggered and you need to join the resistance.
	And she says, have you been reading the news?
	He says, maybe I can order a drink.
	Because you're at a bar!
	Okay, what's wrong with these people?
	And then you wonder why you can't—my goodness.
	I love this.
	It continued along these lines, by the way.
	This crazy lady playing her ukulele, like Michael Mowles.
	And it continues.
	She says, this guy's garbage.
	He's clearly a foe.
	Why?
	Because he said he wanted to order a drink.
	Maybe she'd want to come see his band.
	Yeah, that's sexual predation now.
	It continued along these lines, by the way.
	She says, you see, we're victims of systemic oppression.
	And the guy says, yeah, but thank God we're in a time of progression.
	And then she says, your deflection is a microaggression.
	And the guy says, I didn't mean it, please don't be mad.
	And she said, aw buddy, do you have more to add?
	And he said, hashtag not all men are that bad.
	And then she says, what did you say?
	That's not okay, I'm feeling triggered in every which way.
	Doesn't that plant look great?
	Go ahead, masturbate while I call Ronan Farrow to break up this date.
	Singing, ooh men are toxic, ooh why on earth am I straight?
	Why on earth are you not in an insane asylum?
	I mean, my goodness.
	The guy legitimately says, in your little made-up mind, right?
	This conversation never happened.
	This is in your little made-up mind, right?
	That we're in a time of progress for women.
	True!
	But that's a microaggression.
	Then he says he didn't mean it.
	He backs off.
	And then he says that not all men are bad.
	And then she says that that's a microaggression.
	He's just like Harvey Weinstein.
	And then there's another one where she says, so I assume you've roofied my beer.
	And the guy says, man, that joke is way too severe.
	And she said, well, we've had a terrible year.
	And he says, I swear I sympathize with your plight.
	And she said, Hal, you're a straight cisgendered man who is white.
	And the man says, wow, can I say anything right?
	And she says, what did you say?
	That's not OK.
	My cat person doesn't exist anyway.
	Unless it's my cat, that's it.
	I'll marry my cat.
	He wouldn't hurt me because he's not like that.
	And then the cat says, I can't consent.
	She says, fair enough.
	OK, maybe the problem here is that, oh my goodness.
	OK.
	There are no more words.
	There are no more words.
	This was on the op-ed page of the New York Times.
	So maybe she's joking, but it's not clear that she's completely joking about herself.
	It seems like she's just treating men like men are all crazy.
	So that's just awesome.
	It was called the Dating Blues Hashtag Me Too.
	That's what the actual name of the piece was.
	So well done, New York Times.
	Okay, that wasn't the end of stupidity.
	You want to talk about where Me Too should be useful?
	So, Quentin Tarantino was caught on audio years ago saying to Howard Stern that he thought Roman Polanski had not raped a 13-year-old girl.
	It is impossible for a 13-year-old girl to consent.
	The girl was roofied, and she was drugged, and then she was given alcohol, and then she was anally raped, apparently, by Roman Polanski back when she was 13 years old, back in the 1970s.
	Now, to be fair, Whoopi Goldberg said the same thing you're about to hear Quentin Tarantino say, and she has a spot on The View.
	But she's a lady, so I guess she's allowed to say that.
	Here's Quentin Tarantino saying something truly awful.
	But that's not why he's in trouble today.
	Guilty of having sex with a minor.
	That she didn't want to have.
	No, that was not the case at all.
	She wanted to have it.
	And dated the guy.
	She was 13!
	And found out.
	By the way, we're talking about America's morals.
	We're not talking about the morals in Europe and everything.
	Wait a second.
	You have sex with a 13 year old girl and you're a grown man.
	You know that that's wrong.
	You're giving her booze and pills.
	Look, she was down with it.
	Oh, you're crazy!
	And she's talked about it!
	She's talked about it!
	Now she's an adult!
	Oh, you are so crazy!
	Okay, so this is not what he's in trouble for, right?
	If he'd been in trouble for this, that would have made sense, like, years ago, when he actually said it.
	But that's not actually why Quentin Tarantino's in trouble.
	Quentin Tarantino is in trouble because there is an article from Mooring Dowd in which Huma Thurman accuses Quentin Tarantino of making her drive a car.
	Yes, really.
	In America, we're so sexist, we force women to drive cars, as opposed to Saudi Arabia, where men don't let women drive cars.
	So I want to tell you the whole story, because I'm not a Quentin Tarantino fan.
	I'm not a Quentin Tarantino defender.
	I mean, you can hear from that clip.
	I think Quentin Tarantino's kind of trash.
	And when I say kind of trash, I mean I think that he's actually trash.
	But the extension of the Me Too movement out to things that the Me Too movement was not meant to cover grows apace and is pretty nuts.
	And I'm going to talk about that in just a second.
	First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at, oh yes, ManCrates.
	So I'm always very excited to talk about ManCrates because ManCrates.com, they get you the best gifts.
	It's the only place to find awesome gifts that guys love.
	So Valentine's Day is coming up.
	Ladies, I've talked a lot about what men should get for you, right?
	That's why we talk about 1-800-Flowers.
	Here's what you can get for your man.
	You can get him a man crate, because mancrates.com makes the perfect gift.
	We're talking about classics, like the NFL Barware Crate, the Whiskey Appreciation Crate, the Jerky Heart, or the Salami Bouquet.
	Right?
	And the man brings you flowers.
	Ladies, you can get your man a salami bouquet.
	In return, and he'll appreciate it a lot more than flowers.
	They have all of these curated gifts, and they come in the crate with a crowbar, with an engraved crowbar, and you actually take the crowbar and you pry open the crate, or it comes in an ammo box.
	That's how I got my poker chips.
	They also have some pretty new gifts that are pretty awesome.
	I just got a guitar with my name engraved on it from mancrates.com.
	Now, do I play guitar?
	Absolutely not.
	Of course I don't play guitar, but I'm going to carry it around and look really brooding, and then my wife is going to be totally into it.
	That is the plan.
	That's why men love man crates, because the gifts are just incredible.
	They have thousands of 5-star reviews.
	Every gift comes with a complete satisfaction guarantee.
	Go to mancrates.com slash ben.
	You get 5% off.
	That discount is only available here, so get 5% off right now at mancrates.com slash ben.
	That is mancrates.com slash ben.
	It is spectacular.
	Again, you probably open that wooden crate with the included crowbar.
	All the gifts are just great.
	I've had a couple of them, and they're always fun.
	And I promise you, your guy's going to enjoy it.
	So mancrates.com slash Ben.
	Pretty fantastic.
	Okay, so back to Quentin Tarantino.
	So Quentin Tarantino is not under fire.
	For having made the grave mistake of defending Roman Polanski raping a 13-year-old girl like 10 years ago.
	If he were under fire for that, then Whoopi Goldberg would also have to lose her job because she would not be part of the MeToo movement.
	Instead, he's under fire because there was a New York Times article about Uma Thurman and her assault at the hands of Harvey Weinstein.
	And this article was not just about Uma Thurman.
	It was also about Quentin Tarantino.
	So, in the article, Tarantino is accused of a disturbing car crash.
	So basically, in the making of Kill Bill, there's a scene where Uma Thurman is driving, and apparently Uma Thurman is a bad driver, and he wanted her to drive the car, and she did not want to drive the car, and they'd set up the whole shoot to drive the car, and finally he said to her, listen, it's an easy drive, you can drive the car, and naturally she swerved and crashed into a tree, and she was hurt, and she had to go to the hospital.
	And Tarantino talks about it.
	He says, listen, you know, it was not—it was not a hard drive.
	I didn't bully her into it.
	She's a fully capable woman of saying no.
	You know, I was annoyed, but it wasn't like I was forcing her to do it.
	I had driven it myself.
	It was a mistake, right?
	And then he released the tape, and the tape was included in the New York Times piece.
	OK, so he's getting ripped up for that, for saying to his actress, maybe you should drive this car, when that was part of the script, when that's not exactly a stunt, driving a car like 30 miles an hour.
	It's so funny.
	They say, like, oh, he made her drive 30 to 40 miles an hour.
	Okay, 30 to 40 miles an hour is like what you're driving in a school zone, basically.
	I guess you're not supposed to drive that fast in a school zone.
	It's how fast you're not supposed to drive in a school zone.
	But it is for commercial districts.
	That is the speed limit.
	So we're not talking about gunning it to 80 miles an hour and him making it with them and do it.
	And then Uma Thurman complained because in one scene apparently, Quentin Tarantino personally choked her while the camera was on.
	And another, he spit on her while the camera was on.
	And so he explains why all of that happened.
	And what he says is, listen, this was part of the movie, right?
	Part of the movie.
	Have you ever seen Kill Bill?
	Kill Bill is an insanely violent movie.
	It's one of the most violent movies ever made.
	The whole thing is a revenge flick, a revenge fantasy flick, in which people have limbs cut off, in which blood is everywhere.
	There's a scene where Uma Thurman takes out like 50 guys.
	There's another scene where she kills a mother.
	She has a baby carved out of her.
	It's really egregious, the movie.
	It's a violent...
	porn flick.
	And that's what Tarantino does.
	Tarantino is a director I've always disliked.
	I've always thought that Quentin Tarantino is basically a snuff film director who makes a few scenes that are really great.
	Like the opening scene in Glorious Bastards is fantastic, but he can't sustain anything longer than 12 minutes of interest.
	But here is what he says about the spitting and the choking.
	So in the article, this Deadline Hollywood interview with Quentin Tarantino, in this article, Uma complains about being choked by you in a scene.
	He says, let me address that.
	According to Uma, you know there are not quotes around that.
	Uma didn't share that with Maureen Dowd.
	Maureen Dowd interviewed other people on the set who mentioned it to her.
	If you notice, all that choking and spitting stuff is not in quotes from Uma.
	It's part of Maureen Dowd's prose.
	For some reason, there's a lot of hay being made out of this, which I don't understand at all.
	You've seen movies where somebody spits in somebody's face.
	And Deadline Hollywood has many.
	He says, well, that's what that was, a scene where somebody spits in somebody's face.
	I can't explain why I did it exactly, but my question is, what's the effing problem?
	And he's sort of right.
	It's in the script that she is spit on.
	And then he explains why he personally spit on her.
	Right.
	So he said, he says, we've all seen movies where people get spit in the face.
	I'm assuming if it was a two shot and Michael Madsen spat in her face, that probably wouldn't be an issue.
	But that wasn't the shot.
	The shot was Michael Madsen had snuff juice and he seemed spit out a stream of snuff juice.
	Got to Uma's face on the ground and you see it hit her.
	Naturally, I did it.
	Who else should do it?
	A grip?
	One, I didn't trust Michael Madsen because I didn't know where the spit's going to go if Michael Madsen does it.
	I talked to Uma and I said, look, I've got to commit to doing this to you.
	We even had a thing there.
	We were going to try and do it with a plunger and some water.
	But if you add snuff juice to water, it didn't look right.
	It didn't look like spit when I hit her when we tried that.
	It needed to be a mix of saliva and the brown juice.
	So I asked Uma, I said, I think I need to do it.
	I'll only do it twice at the most, three times.
	But I can't have you laying here getting spit on again and again because someone else is messing it up by missing.
	It's hard to spit on people as it turns out.
	So apparently, Quentin Tarantino fancies himself a spit expert.
	Right?
	He's especially good at expectorating toy!
	Gaston from Beauty and the Beast.
	But in any case, he says that he didn't trust Michael Madsen with this kind of intricate work of spitting in Uma Thurman's face, so he did it himself.
	And he says, I'm not going to have a grip do it, because the grip's going to be intimidated, so he'll screw it up.
	So they did three takes, and Uma said, if you really need a fourth one, go ahead and do a fourth one.
	So in other words, Uma consented to this because she's an actress, and actresses do all sorts of stuff in films.
	She did many things in these movies that would probably not be pleasant to experience.
	How about the choking?
	So here's what Tarantino says.
	He says, in the case of the choking, when Gogo, who is Chiaka Kuriyama, throws her chain ball at the bride, and the chain wraps around her neck, and then she's getting choked by it, frankly, I wasn't sure how we were going to shoot that scene.
	Wrap a chain around the neck, you gotta see the choking.
	I was assuming that when we did it, we would maybe have a pole behind Uma that the chain would be wrapped around so it wouldn't be seen by the camera, at least for the wide shot.
	But then it was Uma's suggestion to just wrap the thing around her neck and choke her.
	Not forever, not for a long time, but it's not going to look right.
	I can act all strangly, but if you want to get my face red and the tears to come to my eye, then you kind of need to choke me, right?
	So it was Uma Thurman's suggestion.
	And so he did it again with Diane Kruger because it worked so well in Kill Bill.
	He says that when he did Inglourious Bastards, He went to Diane Kruger and said, look, I've got to strangle you.
	It was just a guy with his hands on your neck not putting any kind of pressure.
	And you're doing this wiggling death rattle.
	It looks like a normal movie strangulation.
	It looks movie-ish.
	But you're not going to get the blood vessels bulging or the eyes filling it with tears.
	You're not going to get the sense of panic that happens when your hair is cut off.
	What I would like to do with your permission is just commit to choking you with my hands in a close-up.
	We'll do it for 30 seconds or so, and then I stop.
	If we need to do it a second time, we will.
	After that, that's it.
	Are you down to committing to it so we can get a really good look?
	It'll be twice, and only for this amount of time, and the stunt guy was monitoring the whole thing.
	Diane said, yeah, sure.
	She even said on film, on an interview, it was a strange request.
	By that point, I trusted Quentin Tarantino so much that, sure, we did our two times.
	And then, like Uma with the spitting thing, Diane said, OK, if you need it, do it once more.
	You can.
	This is an issue of me asking the actress, can we do this to get a realistic effect?
	She agreed with it.
	She knew it would look good.
	She trusted me to do it.
	I would ask the same thing with a guy.
	In fact, I'd probably be more insistent with a guy.
	So everybody's all over Quentin Tarantino because he asked actresses and they said yes.
	If they didn't want to do it, they could say no.
	If they wanted to do it a different way, they could say no.
	They all have agents.
	These are all actresses who make millions of dollars.
	Okay, so there are lots of reasons to dislike Quentin Tarantino.
	There are lots of reasons to think that his films are fetishistic and violent and nasty toward women.
	I think that a huge percentage of them are.
	I don't like Quentin Tarantino's work.
	I think The Hateful Eight is one of the worst movies ever made.
	I think there's plenty about Quentin Tarantino.
	I think Pulp Fiction is wildly overrated.
	By the way, the idea that men are abused in violence here also in his movies is obviously true.
	I mean, men get the worst of it in his movies.
	But the idea that Tarantino did something truly terrible by asking these actresses if he could do it himself because he wanted it to be exactly right, you know, directors are weird.
	Maybe this is a fetish of his, but if the actress said yes, I don't really see the major problem.
	Call me crazy, but I don't see the problem.
	There are lots of... In a movie, Jimmy Cagney smashes a woman in the face with a grapefruit.
	It's one of the most famous scenes in movie history.
	He does it as a gangster.
	Is that female abuse?
	Jessica Chastain seems to think yes, by the way.
	Jessica Chastain, the actress, she came forward and she said, do we really need more movies where a woman is shown being harmed to show that she's strong and overcoming that harm?
	It's like, well...
	Yeah, sort of, because that's every movie ever made, whether it's with a girl or a guy.
	There's not a movie that is made, particularly an action flick, where a man or a woman doesn't undergo some kind of trauma and then have to overcome that trauma.
	That's called the hero's journey.
	It's part of every single story ever.
	So, yes.
	Now, does that mean that we have to be graphic about it?
	I think not, right?
	I'm a fan of movies where we weren't graphic about these things.
	Does it have to be something over the top?
	I don't think so.
	That's why I don't like Tarantino's films.
	But, the idea that we have to change the entire storytelling mechanism, when a woman consents to be in a movie for millions of dollars, and then makes her celebrity and her fame off of doing these movies, with her consent, again, I'm failing to understand how it is that consent is the final value, if you consent to something, and then a third party doesn't like it.
	It's kind of weird how this works now.
	Okay, so as we continue, we're gonna talk about more on MemoGate.
	We're gonna talk about what looks like an admission against interest from Devin Nunes.
	We're also going to talk about, you know, what, is there really a there there, and the malfeasance of the media, and also about the Mueller investigation.
	First, I wanna say thank you to our sponsors over at the Business Wars podcast.
	So, this is a brand new podcast, and it is fantastic.
	It's from Wondery.
	The basic premise of the Business Wars podcast is that everyday businesses at war Blue Chips vs. Disruptors, American Giants vs. Chinese Competition, Founders vs. Corporate Raiders, sometimes the prize is your wallet, sometimes it's your attention, and sometimes it's just the fun of beating the other guy.
	So this podcast about these battles between corporations, how some businesses beat other businesses, IBM vs. Mac, McDonald's vs. Burger King, right?
	This is Business Wars.
	It's hosted by David Brown.
	He's an economics reporter, managing editor of the Texas Standard.
	So whether you're talking about Coke versus Pepsi, two rivals in small businesses across the country.
	These are stories that are like dramatic thrillers about businesses struggling to survive in a cutthroat world.
	You know, business is pretty exciting when you're involved in it on a daily level, but if you don't know the stories of major businesses going at it, this is the best place to find out about it.
	The episodes are really well done.
	I've listened to a couple of them.
	They're fantastic.
	Go subscribe.
	Listen to Business Wars on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening to this.
	Subscribe right now.
	Business Wars on Apple Podcasts.
	If you like it, leave them a review as well.
	Business Wars.
	Definitely worth the listen.
	Again, really enjoyable stuff.
	Okay, so, the latest on MemoGate.
	So, the House has now voted to release the Democratic memo.
	So, as you recall, there is the memo from Devin Nunes.
	Then, there is the House Intelligence Democrat memo that is supposed to rebut the memo from Devin Nunes.
	So, on Monday night, according to Adam Schiff, they have voted to release a new memo that will supposedly rebuke the earlier memo released by Republicans last week.
	So, as I mentioned, I don't think that the memo is a complete nothing burger from Devin Nunes.
	I also don't think that it's a huge something burger.
	I don't think it's the end of the world.
	It is unclear to me that the memo, for example, establishes what it seeks to do, which is the notion the FBI was out to get Trump and was getting Carter Page on bad grounds in order to nail Trump.
	I think that's a little bit of a conclusory finish to the memo.
	I'm going to discuss all that in just a second.
	For the rest of this, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you get a subscription to Daily Wire.
	That means you get the rest of our show.
	The rest of Michael Knowles' mediocre show.
	You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show.
	All of those glories you get.
	Plus on Fridays, you get to be part of our mailbag.
	When you get the annual subscription, you get this.
	The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	The leftist tiers.
	Hot or cold tumbler.
	Unsurpassed.
	No one can compete with it.
	You may have heard other hosts talk about their mugs.
	No, this.
	This is the Tumblr of the gods.
	The leftist tier is hot or cold Tumblr.
	Check it out right now and get the annual subscription for $99 a year, which is cheaper than the monthly.
	Also, if you want to listen later for free, go to iTunes, SoundCloud, leave us a review.
	We always appreciate it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So the centerpiece of the Devin Nunes memo was essentially the argument that the FISA judge who granted a warrant on Carter Page was not informed that the centerpiece of the application, the Steele dossier, was funded by the Democrats.
	That is not true.
	Super clear, right?
	Really, it's not clear.
	So that's in the memo that makes that accusation, but we haven't seen the underlying application, so we don't know.
	Nunes seems to acknowledge that a footnote to the FBI application suggests that the SEAL dossier was in fact a political document.
	Here is Nunes sort of admitting that.
	They've continued to leak out bits and pieces of information to create narratives that, quite frankly, have one thing in common.
	They're always false.
	So a footnote saying that something might be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats in the Hillary campaign paid for dirt.
	That the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign.
	And it's a very dangerous precedent that was set.
	And what we're trying to do is just get the American public to understand.
	Okay, so that's sort of an admission there.
	I mean, buried in that verbiage is the admission that in a footnote they said this is a political document.
	Adam Schiff says he doesn't know whether the FISA judge knew the dossier was backed by the DNC, but the judge certainly knew that it was a political document because it was mentioned.
	If it was mentioned in a footnote as a political document, is it necessary that the FBI mention that it was the Democrats who funded it?
	Or is it possible that, you know, as long as the judge knows that it's politicized, then it's politicized, right?
	I mean, then we know that this is coming from a political place.
	Here's what Schiff had to say.
	What Schiff said is he said he can't go into details until they're made public, but he said that the FBI and DOJ did disclose the dossier was likely supported by a political act.
	So, here's what I've been saying all along.
	All that has to happen here is the president of the United States declassifying the application.
	And then we can finish all of this nonsense.
	Meanwhile, there are going to be more memos that come out.
	Representative Jim Jordan, a guy who I think has his heart in the right place and is a quite good representative from Ohio, he says the FBI did not tell the FISA court who paid for the dossier.
	Again, that may be the case.
	The question is, is it malfeasance if they say that the FISA warrant was—rather, that the dossier was political, but it didn't mention the DNC specifically?
	Here is Jordan making that case.
	Look, more important to me is, did top people at the FBI engage in behavior they're not supposed to engage in in the United States of America?
	Namely, did they take a disproven salacious document and make that the basis to get a warrant, a secret warrant, at a secret court on a fellow American citizen?
	And it sure looks like they did, and when they did, it looks like they didn't tell the court pertinent and important information, like who paid for it, like the fact that they discontinued their relationship with Christopher Steele, the author of that document.
	So to me, that's more important or most important when you think about fundamental liberties we're supposed to enjoy in the United States of America.
	So I agree that all of this is really troublesome, and I think that the FBI ought to be looked at, and the oversight power obviously belongs to Congress.
	With that said, how about releasing more information so that we actually know what's true and what's false?
	Because at this point, we just don't know.
	Now, one of the reasons that people are skeptical of the FBI is because the media has come to their defense.
	The media now has almost a counter effect when it defends somebody.
	When the media defends somebody, the American people tend to go, well, not sure I actually buy it.
	That's particularly true when Democrats continue to maintain that the media is unbiased in their coverage of these issues, which it certainly is not.
	Jay Rosen is a professor at NYU, and he's appeared with Brian Stelter on CNN, and he suggests that the media is unbiased.
	Don't worry.
	There's a lot of motivated media, Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, et cetera, that are pushing a dishonest narrative, frankly, that is politically motivated.
	And on the other side, we're trying to be like, well, we're not on any side.
	Here are the details.
	And I think people's eyes glaze over.
	And I'm not saying that we should go in a political direction.
	Far from it.
	But I think that's part of the problem, is that one side is very politically motivated, and the other side you and myself included, are trying to stick to the facts, and the facts get more and more complicated as, you know, with every day.
	Okay, so the idea, by the way, that the media is only biased on the right side is just insane.
	Obviously, that is not true in the slightest.
	I mean, you don't believe that?
	Then Chris Matthews is, here's what he had to say yesterday on Nancy Pelosi.
	You want to see full-on insanity.
	It's Chris Matthews suggesting that any attack on Nancy Pelosi is racist.
	Do you understand?
	I got up in the morning, brushed my hair to the show, come on in here looking all rumpled, looking like garbage, and I just get on here and I say crap about how the weightiest woman on earth, if you attack her, it's racist.
	Let me explain.
	I will reserve judgment.
	Picking out somebody from one of the coasts, usually ethnic, and making them the poster person of the Democratic Party is old business for the Republicans.
	They did it with, way back to some guy from the Bronx back in the 40s, they did it with Bella Abzug from the west side of New York City, they did it after Tip O'Neill, they did it after Teddy, now they're doing it after Teddy Kane, now they're doing it after After Nancy Pelosi, they love to get an ethnic sort of— They hate the Irish.
	The Irish and the Italians, they hate those people.
	The ethnic sort of person.
	I love that now Teddy Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, and Nancy Pelosi are the ethnic people in the United States, according to Chris Matthews.
	Yeah, I wonder why we can't trust the media.
	I just can't believe why we can't trust the media.
	Just astonishing.
	So, that is the latest on memo abuse.
	By the way, it is now clear that Trump's Lawyers are telling him the right thing.
	He had suggested earlier, a few weeks ago, that he would talk to Robert Mueller.
	The White House lawyers are telling him not to talk to Robert Mueller.
	This makes perfect sense.
	You do not want the President of the United States falling into a perjury trap just because he says stuff.
	As an example of Trump just saying stuff, the Democrats are going nuts because Trump yesterday, in a speech, he suggested that the Democratic reaction to the State of the Union was actually treason, like we should hang them.
	And everybody on the left decided to go completely berserk about this.
	Here is Trump making this ridiculous case.
	So that means they would rather see Trump do badly, okay, than our country do well.
	That's what it means.
	It's very selfish.
	And it got to a point where I really didn't even want to look too much during the speech over to that side, because honestly, it was bad energy.
	No, it's bad energy.
	You're up there.
	You've got half the room going totally crazy wild.
	They loved everything.
	They want to do something great for our country.
	And you have the other side, even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like death.
	And un-American.
	Un-American.
	Somebody said treasonous.
	I mean, yeah, I guess why not?
	Can we call that treason?
	Why not?
	Why not?
	Because it's stupid.
	It's not treason to dislike your speech, dude.
	The identification of Donald Trump with America has always bothered me.
	It bothered me when Barack Obama did it.
	The, I am America.
	And if you dislike me, it's because you dislike America.
	And I got Trump doing the same thing.
	It's stupid.
	It's ridiculous.
	Is Trump joking?
	He's clearly not joking when he says they're un-American.
	When he says that it's un-American because they're sitting there—and listen, do I think that it's a particularly American thing for them to sit when he says that we stand for the national anthem?
	Or for them to sit when he says black unemployment is low?
	I don't think it's a great thing, right?
	I think that it's particularly ridiculous.
	I don't think it's un-American because I think un-American applies to things that are actively against the United States.
	I don't think it's against the United States to not stand for the president when he's announcing something you don't want to credit him with.
	But he is clearly joking when he says it's treasonous.
	Eh, should I call it treasonous?
	Why not?
	Should I call it treasonous?
	Ah, you know, he's doing the Saturday Night Live routine, this kind of late night comedy bit, and the entire media loses their mind.
	He said that these people are treason.
	He wants to hang the Democrats.
	First of all, if I had five cents for every time a Democrat suggested that I was treasonous, I would be a very wealthy man indeed.
	The fact is, the Democrats accused Republicans of being terrorists when it was just the Tea Party protesting overspending.
	The Obama administration suggested that it was treason when Rush Limbaugh suggested that he wanted Obama to fail because he didn't like Obama's policies.
	If you had a full list—I think Dan McLaughlin over at National Review has a full list of all the different times Democrats have suggested that Republicans were involved in treason.
	How many Democrats have suggested that the Trump campaign was involved in treason based on allegations of collusion with Russia that have yet to be proved?
	Over and over again, you hear the word treason thrown out.
	No, of course it's not treason.
	Yes, the president shouldn't say it, but he is the president.
	Trump's going to say stuff like this.
	That is not a shock in any way, shape, or form.
	It's not a shock because it's just dumb, right?
	It's just dumb, and we all know that it's dumb.
	This is a problem with electing a president of the United States who has a significant lack of character, but it is not a problem in the sense that you actually— Does anyone who's actually protesting Trump today think that Trump is actually going to initiate treason charges?
	Does anyone think that he's going to go round up the Democrats and throw them in jail without habeas corpus, like Abraham Lincoln?
	Does he really think that that's going to happen?
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	So, there's another case where it's like, you don't take Trump seriously.
	You're just annoyed by the stupidity of the comment.
	It is a stupid comment.
	It is something he shouldn't have said.
	But people who are taking it seriously seem to me to be doing so selectively, simply in order to get what they want from Trump, which is the image of a crazy person.
	Okay, so now let's do some things I like, and then we shall do some things that I hate.
	So, today, things I like.
	So today's things I like comes from, again, when I go on plane rides.
	This is the only time lately I've had a chance to watch movies.
	But this movie is The Foreigner.
	This movie was really, I would say, mis-publicized.
	So it was publicized as a Jackie Chan action flick.
	It is not, in fact, a Jackie Chan action flick.
	It's actually a political thriller.
	And the main character really is not Jackie Chan.
	The main character is really Pierce Brosnan.
	So Pierce Brosnan, who plays the villain, is a former IRA guy who is now a minister for the British government in charge of sort of tamping down violent tensions in Ireland.
	And there's a bombing that kills Jackie Chan's daughter.
	And Jackie Chan is trying to pressure this guy into finding the name of somebody who is of the bombers responsible.
	The truth is that Jackie Chan is almost ancillary to the plot.
	You could almost cut Jackie Chan completely out of the plot and it could just be a political potboiler about a guy who's trying to decide whether or not to go back to his old ways of terrorism or whether he is trying to root out terrorists inside his own organization.
	Jackie Chan's just there for some cool action scenes and there are a couple of really Jackie Chan scenes that are great.
	It's not full-on kind of Jackie Chan, in his youth, was one of the great physical comedians in the history of screen.
	I mean, he's like Buster Keaton good, in terms of some of the stuff that he does in some of his earlier films, like Shanghai Noon and such.
	But in this film, he plays a really disillusioned former Viet Cong guy who has decided not to be violent anymore and has come to the UK, and he's already lost a wife and daughter, and his second daughter is killed in a bombing.
	So here's a little bit of the preview.
	Everyone's already inside.
	Bye, Dad.
	An explosion rocks the city today.
	20,000 pounds for the names of the bombs.
	That's not how we do things here.
	Hello.
	Mr. Hennessey, he's here again.
	That's five days in a row now.
	What does he want?
	His daughter was killed in the bombing.
	Mr. Hennessy, please find out the names of the bombers.
	I work for the government, not terrorists.
	You used to work for them.
	I don't know who the bombers are.
	I don't believe in you.
	It's him.
	You will tell me the names of the bombers.
	He's trained.
	Okay, so Jackie Chan, again, the main character of this film is Pierce Brosnan.
	I think he has more screen time than Jackie Chan.
	And he is quite good in the film.
	I think it's a very good film that was completely played not as a potboiler, but as an action flick, which it really is not.
	Okay, time for a couple of quick things that I hate.
	So Doritos is just being mocked insanely because they have decided to make now a Dorito flavor brand for women, designed specifically for women.
	In a recent interview with Freakonomics, the head of Doritos, he's the head of global giant PepsiCo, Indra Noori, she says that Men lick their fingers with great glee, and when they reach the bottom of the bag, they pour the little broken pieces into their mouths because they don't want to lose the taste of the flavor and the broken chips in the bottom.
	Women would love to do the same, but they don't.
	They don't like to crunch too loudly in public, and they don't like to lick their fingers generously, and they don't like to pour the little broken pieces of flavor into their mouth.
	And so, Stephen Dubner, the host of Freakonomics, asked if the company is developing a male and female version of the chips.
	She said, "It's not a male and female as much as are there snacks for women that can be designed and packaged differently.
	And yes, we're looking at it and we're getting ready to launch a bunch of them soon.
	For women, low crunch, the full taste profile, but not have so much flavor stick on the fingers.
	And how can you put it in a purse?
	Because women love to carry a snack in their purse." So, Nui plays lead guitar in an all-girl rock band.
	She's one of only 27 female CEOs.
	So, is this female empowerment?
	Because if a man had said this, this would be accused of being sexist.
	But she's a female, so I guess she's allowed to say it now.
	People were laughing at this insanely because they're calling it Lady Doritos and just mocking the Lady Doritos.
	So, yes, I guess the way that you would have to market this is by saying that Lady Doritos have 77% the crunch of male Doritos.
	They don't get—for every 100—for every dollar you get in Doritos Crunch for males, you get 77 cents of Crunch for the ladies.
	So, there is that.
	In other news, apparently Harvard is now going to ban single-sex organizations, which is totally crazy.
	According to Reason.com, as Harvard reaffirms its ban on single-sex organizations, female clubs will become gender-focused, while all male organizations will be slapped with sanctions.
	In May 2016, Harvard University banned single-sex clubs, stating such groups, quote, propagated exclusionary values and maintained forms of privilege.
	The ban, which bars members of single-sex organizations from leadership positions, athletic teams and scholarships, targets all single-sex organizations, from finals clubs to frats.
	While many at Harvard championed the new policy as an antidote to the campus' sexual assault problem, others were concerned about how the ban would impact single-sex female groups.
	So a bunch of female students were upset about it, and so Harvard reaffirmed the ban on single-sex organizations.
	But, while all male groups will be immediately punished by their choice to remain sex-exclusive, all female groups will be given up to a five-year grace period during which they could remain gender-focused while complying with the policy.
	This is all stupidity.
	It is wild stupidity.
	There should be male groups.
	There should be female groups.
	There should be Jewish groups.
	There should be Christian groups.
	There should be Muslim groups.
	You should be able to form whatever group you please to get together with people of like mind.
	There's a reason that sometimes guys want to just have a guys poker night.
	That's okay.
	Men are different than women.
	And there's a reason why women want to have just women shopping trips or women poker nights.
	Okay, women can do stuff too on their own.
	The idea that men and women have to be allowed into each other's clubs, this violates freedom of association and it's really irritating.
	One of the great aspects of freedom is I don't have to hang out with people I don't want to hang out with.
	It's one of the things I enjoy most about living in a free country.
	Once you have people suggesting that I have to have my group let in people from the opposite sex because we have to somehow show that we're tolerant, it defeats the purpose of me having freedom to associate.
	And again, the women are right when they protest and they say, if we want to have an all-female safe space, let us do that.
	Well, yeah, they should be able to do that.
	People should be able to get together with the people they want to get together with.
	Otherwise, everything is stupid.
	Okay, we will be back here tomorrow with more.
	We'll have the update on the stock market.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲