All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
51:06
The Media Goes Hogg Wild | Ep. 506
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Parkland survivor David Hogg gets the royal treatment from CNN, social media stocks take a tumble, and President Trump attacks Amazon.com.
So that's awesome.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
We have a lot to get to today.
But before we get to any of it, first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Birch Gold.
So by now, you know, the stock market's up and down and up and down and up and down and all around.
And that's why you should at least have part of your portfolio in precious metals.
I know I certainly do.
And the folks that I trust with precious metals investing are the folks over at Birch Gold Group.
They have a longstanding track record of continued success, thousands of satisfied clients, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Right now, you can contact Birch Gold Group and request a free information kit on physical precious metals.
It's a comprehensive 16 page kit that 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.
This is great for a hedge against inflation.
It's great for a hedge against stock market volatility.
To get your no cost, no obligation kit, go to birchgold.com slash ben.
That's birchgold.com slash ben.
Again, when it comes to my own investment strategy, I do have a lot of money in the stock market.
I do have some money in bonds, but I also have some money in precious metals And the folks over at Birchgold, they are top of the industry for a reason.
And the reason is people trust them.
Again, they have all those five-star ratings from people.
I've worked with them.
They're folks that I trust.
Check out birchgold.com slash ben.
Birchgold.com slash ben.
Get that comprehensive free 16-page kit on gold and silver.
Ask all your questions and then invest with my friends over at Birchgold when you're ready to do some precious metals investing.
Okay.
The fallout over the Parkland shooting continues, and the fallout from the media continues.
So, we've been told this story, which is that all the Parkland survivors have innate moral authority and can speak on any issue without any criticism.
Now, I have said over and over and over on this program, listen to every episode since Parkland, I've said these kids have a right to speak out.
Of course they have a right to speak out.
This is America.
When I was 17 years old, I had a syndicated columnist.
But this comes with a caveat.
The caveat is you will get criticized.
People will criticize you.
People will pick apart what you are saying publicly, especially when you're the type of person who goes on national television and suggests that all those who disagree with you are actually akin to child murderers.
If you do that, it turns out people get pissed off.
But the media have decided that any criticism of these kids whatsoever Not their right to speak, not their expertise, right?
If you criticize the stuff they are saying, if you say what they are saying is wrong, or if you say, I don't think that they are conducting themselves properly publicly, if you say that sort of stuff, then you are a hater, then you are brutal, then you are doing something terrible.
I don't understand why this should be the case.
Really, in public life, everyone gets criticized.
It's part of the way this works.
And when you're speaking on issues of deep public importance, fundamental issues to American liberty, and frankly, human liberty, like should you have the right to keep and bear arms, then passions are going to run high.
And not only are passions going to run high, people have not only every right, but every responsibility to speak out against perspectives that they think are bad.
And I think a lot of what these kids have been saying is wrong, non-factual.
I think some of what they've been saying is immoral when they suggest that Marco Rubio is akin to the shooter in Parkland.
And when they say that Dana Lash is a murderer with blood on her hands, this stuff is disgusting.
And I have, not only do I have every right, I have every moral obligation to speak up against it because it's gross.
But that's not how the media have treated this.
So CNN tweeted this out about David Hogg.
David Hogg is, of course, the guy who's probably become the most famous of these Parkland survivors.
Emma Gonzales is the other one who's really gained a lot of credibility.
She's very good at media.
Emma Gonzales, I think, really knows how to handle herself.
David Hogg, not so much.
He thinks that the sort of Che Guevara attitude, the fist in the air thing that you're seeing here, is what's going to win the day, that anger wins the day.
Emma Gonzales understands that anger doesn't win the day.
She's much better at this than David Hogg, just from a purely political point of view.
If you're going to pick one of those two people to run for office, there's no doubt in my mind you run Emma Gonzales, not David Hogg.
The media have decided that David Hogg's voice is deeply important and that he should be booked on every show.
So he's been on CNN a thousand times at this point.
And this is what CNN tweeted out yesterday, quote, a brief history of how Parkland survivor David Hogg keeps schooling lawmakers on social media.
Yeah, that sounds like objective journalism to me.
We here at The Daily Wire, we're not objective.
So when we say that somebody is schooling somebody else, you can assume that we're conservative.
And we're saying that a conservative is schooling a leftist.
Why?
Because we are a conservative website.
And we make that obvious and known.
But CNN is supposed to be objective.
Does that sound like an objective headline to you?
A brief history of how Parkland survivor David Hogg keeps schooling lawmakers on social media?
Of course not.
Well, the big controversy that's broken out over David Hogg in the last 24 hours concerns Laura Ingraham.
So, Laura retweeted a piece that was on our website.
The piece that was on our website about David Hogg being rejected by certain colleges originally appeared at TMZ.
So, the story did not originate with us, and it really only originated with David Hogg because he was interviewed by TMZ somewhere, and he started discussing which colleges he had gotten into.
So, we begin with what David Hogg actually said about not getting into colleges.
And there are a couple ways of reading this, and I want to be fair to him.
So, here's what the clip said.
It's not been too great for me and some of the other members of the movement, like Ryan Deitch.
We got rejected from Cal State.
Sorry.
We got rejected from UCLA and I got rejected from UCLA and UCSD.
So it's been kind of annoying having to deal with that and everything else that's been going on.
But at this point, I was, you know, we're changing the world.
We're too busy.
Right now it's too hard to focus on that.
It is.
It is absolutely disappointing.
But at this point, We're already changing the world.
If colleges want to support us in that grade, if they don't, it doesn't matter.
We're still going to change the world.
Okay, so his comments here could have been read in a couple of different ways.
The part that you see the slash through, the part that's cut out there, is where David Hogg says, listen, a lot of people don't actually get into colleges, right?
It's not super unpredictable.
A lot of people in my class didn't get into a lot of colleges.
There are a lot of people who can't afford to go to college.
All of that is true, and for the first two-thirds of this comment, I'm actually in agreement David Hogg is handling this with class.
That last comment there where he says that if colleges want to help us in our crusade, great.
If not, then we're still changing the world.
This is where I have a bit of trouble, because the implication is where he—and listen, he's speaking off the cuff, so maybe it's just a mistake.
But the implication of what he's saying is the reason that colleges are not letting him in is not because he wasn't qualified.
They're not letting him in because of his activism.
Which, of course, would be incredibly silly.
There is no question that the top leaders of this movement will end up going to fantastic graduate schools, specifically because they are top leaders of this movement.
Political activism on the left is not going to come back and bite you.
It's the ultimate extracurricular activity for most college administrators.
My guess is that if he had sent in his applications right now, as opposed to six months ago, then he would be admitted to a lot of these schools.
But he's getting these rejections now, or two weeks ago, in the middle of all of this.
It's not like they were considering him five minutes ago.
They were considering him four months ago.
They probably don't even remember seeing his application, because places like UCLA get tens of thousands of applications every year.
So in any case, Laura Ingraham tweets out this story, and we covered it pretty straight.
It was pretty objective coverage, or at least it wasn't politically charged.
And Laura tweeted this out.
"You tweeted, 'David Hogg rejected by four colleges "to which he applied and whines about it, "dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA, "totally predictable given acceptance rates.'" Hey, I don't think that this is particularly awful, Anything that Laura says here is particularly awful.
Do I think that it's fair to say that he's whining about it?
Eh, I think it's maybe half-fair or a quarter-fair.
I don't totally agree with Laura's take on David Hogg's comments here, but the way David Hogg responds is what's really important here.
So David Hogg responds to this relatively mild critique by saying that they should boycott Laura Ingraham.
Right, so he stopped, he starts immediately, immediately, like within minutes, tweeting out Laura Ingraham's advertisers and saying that all these places should drop Laura Ingraham.
Why?
For the great sin of having suggested that he whined about not getting into college.
She didn't say anything racist.
She didn't say anything sexist.
She didn't say David Hogg is a piece of crap.
She didn't insult him personally.
Like really, she was insulting his comments, right?
The things that he said.
He is part of the public discourse.
And this is demonstrative of exactly how this game is being played now by the left.
They've tried out a bunch of kids.
The kids have every right to speak again for the 1,000th time.
The kids have every right to speak.
They tried out a bunch of kids, and then if you disagree with the kids, they suggest you are attacking the kids personally, and then based on that, they say you shouldn't be on the air.
And this is what David Hogg is now doing.
David Hogg does not have, I'm sorry, any sort of moral impetus to call for a full boycott of Laura Ingraham based on that tweet.
She got ratioed pretty hard on Twitter, meaning that more people replied to her tweet than actually retweeted it, which is very often taken on Twitter as a sign of it was a bad tweet or something.
Okay, that's fine.
But boycotts?
Really?
And if we're really at the point in this country where you say something that's even mildly controversial and there are calls for boycotts, then we're not going to have a common culture anymore.
We really aren't.
Because I promise you, the right is just as capable of this as the left.
A lot of the right has stayed away from it.
In fact, I used to run an organization called Truth Revolt.
It was a branch of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
And when I ran Truth Revolt, one of our goals was to provide a mutually assured destruction.
The idea was if the left was going to use boycott tactics in order to knock conservatives off the air, Then we would use boycott tactics to knock leftists off the air.
And then everybody would learn that boycott tactics are bad.
That boycott tactics end up knocking voices off the air or destroying the profit margins for shows that are controversial.
I think David Hogg should be able to speak out however he wants.
I don't think that advertisers should be boycotted for praising David Hogg.
I don't think any of those things, but there's this attempt to use market forces to club people with whom you politically disagree, not because they're racist or brutal or horrible, but just because you disagree.
And if that becomes our politics, the entire market basis for political discourse in the country goes away, and that is going to have a significant weakening impact on the kind of voices that you're allowed to hear.
And meanwhile, the media continues to portray David Hogg as some sort of apolitical, above-the-fray figure.
He's been anything but apolitical.
He's been anything but above-the-fray.
So do I think that Laura's tweet was completely correct?
No.
Do I think it's boycott-worthy?
You've got to be kidding me.
You've got to be kidding me.
And the Washington Post, I'm on their email list, and the Washington Post emailed this out as their lead today.
Legitimately, as their lead, they emailed out the Laura Ingraham story, that this was some sort of brutal, terrible thing that had just happened, that Laura Ingraham is deserving of all of this.
It's just silliness.
But again, it's not particularly shocking because they've done this against virtually every major talk show host.
Speaking of which, big announcement for the show, and I might as well make it now.
So, you listen to the show on podcast.
That means that you're listening to it probably on your phone or on your computer.
But a lot of older Americans, a lot of people who don't know how podcasts work, They listen to talk radio just disproportionately with regards to how the numbers work.
Well, now they can actually listen to the podcast, which is really exciting.
Westwood One is partnering with us on this project, so this is really cool.
And Westwood One is going to be putting this podcast on air, WABC in New York.
It's going to be putting it on air in Chicago, in KBC Los Angeles.
It's going to be putting us on in Atlanta.
It's going to be putting us on in Seattle.
It's going to be putting us on WMAL in Washington, DC.
A bunch of stations that are going to be putting this show on the air in Salt Lake City.
It's just fantastic.
It's just fantastic.
And I cannot wait to bring this message that we promote every day to a broader audience.
That's really cool.
So tell your parents that if they haven't heard of the show, All they're going to have to do is turn on their radio, and they'll be able to hear the show every evening, every afternoon, on their local radio station pretty soon.
So that's pretty exciting stuff, and we are really excited to announce it, and we're thankful to Westwood One for giving us the opportunity, because it really is pretty awesome.
Well, in just a second, I want to tell you about something else that the media has tweeted out that is just inane and demonstrates, again, that they don't know anything about how statistics work.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Helix Sleep.
There's nobody on the planet who's built like you or sleeps like you, and that's why you need a mattress that is customized to your specific height, weight, and sleep preferences.
The way it works, you go over to HelixSleep.com, and when you go to HelixSleep.com, you take a sleep quiz.
They ask you how you like to sleep.
Is it on your side?
Is it on your back?
What's your weight?
What's your body type?
Do you like the mattress to be firm or soft?
Do you like it to be heat absorbent, or do you like it to be very cool?
And then they send you a personalized mattress in the mail.
It comes in the mail, you unwrap the box, it inflates right in front of you, you pop it right on your bed frame, and you're ready to go.
It's just fantastic, and the quality is fantastic.
You can have the best sleep of your life on a Helix Sleep mattress.
Go to helixsleep.com, fill out that two-minute sleep quiz, and they will design your custom mattress.
They can even make the mattress so that it has two different sides that feel different for the different halves of the couple.
In 2018, they've even taken the customized sleep to the next level with the Helix Pillow.
These all new pillows are fully adjustable, so you can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type.
You know, you've never really appreciated a good pillow until you've spent a lot of time at hotels.
I know why it is that hotel pillows are always made of just fluff.
As you put your head on it, it goes directly down to the mattress, and then you feel like you're suffocating.
Well, Helix Sleep pillows are the opposite.
They are fantastic.
They have thousands of five-star reviews.
And right now, if you go to helixsleep.com slash ben, you get $125 toward your mattress order.
That's helixsleep.com slash ben for $125 off your mattress order.
Again, helixsleep.com slash ben.
Use that slash ben to get $125 off your mattress order and let them know that we sent you.
It really is fantastic.
OK, so speaking of stupidity in the media, and again, just a quick final note on the Laura Ingraham boycott tactic here.
The same media that's promoting that tactic is vulnerable to that tactic should they step out of line in any particular way.
You're living in a very dangerous era for the future of the media when audiences are being pushed to boycott particular outlets because of the viewpoints of those outlets.
They're full-on Nazis.
They're full-on racists.
I think that we all ought to take a step back and just say, listen, people ought to be able to watch what they want to watch.
Even if you want to watch Nazi crap, you should be able to watch it.
I just won't patronize your advertisers.
But Laura Ingraham is not a Nazi.
And the attempt to lump all political speech into one bag that, I don't like it, therefore it's Nazi-esque, is really quite ridiculous.
Speaking of quite ridiculous, I just had to comment on this Jezebel tweet.
So Jezebel is a feminist outlet.
And a couple of days ago, there was a tweet that came out from Planned Parenthood.
in some podunk town in which Planned Parenthood tweeted, we need a Disney princess who is transgender.
We need a Disney princess who has had an abortion.
Okay.
And I said, well, what we really need is a Disney princess who uses her royal authority to defund Planned Parenthood.
I Let's start with that.
But Jezebel has to defend that, of course, because we do need—you know what we need?
We need to indoctrinate children about abortion and transgenderism and same-sex marriage.
We need a Disney princess who's a lesbian—this is the new push, by the way, for Ilsa in Frozen, is that in the sequel, they should give Ilsa a girlfriend.
Because there's nothing better than teaching three-year-old children who like the movie Frozen because they like Olaf.
That lesbianism is on equal moral par and societal value with heterosexuality.
It's perfect, because kids at three should know all about sex.
That's really important.
So Jezebel tweeted something out that was even stupider yesterday.
It tweeted out, statistically, at least two Disney princesses have had abortions.
And the reason that Jezebel says this, of course, is because they say that statistically speaking, a certain percentage of people in the United States, a certain percentage of women, have had abortions.
And that means that a certain percentage of Disney princesses, by extension, must have had abortions.
Here's what the piece says.
They said, we need many kinds of Disney princesses, according to an extremely fun meme whooshing around the net.
We need a Disney princess who jewels.
I don't even know what that is.
We need a Disney princess who is falling asleep, calling a cab, having a smoke, taking a drag.
We need a Disney princess with chronic UTIs.
We also, according to Planned Parenthood affiliate, need a Disney princess who has gotten an abortion.
Statistically, like two and a half already have.
So then they say, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 23.7% of women in the United States will have had an abortion by age 45.
According to the official Disney Princess website, there are 11 official Disney princesses.
Belle, Rapunzel, Ariel, Tiana, Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Merida, Pocahontas, Jasmine, and Mulan.
That means statistically around two and a half of these strong women have gotten abortions and aren't telling you about it because of a national culture of shame and misogyny.
Let me just say something to Planned Parenthood and Jezebel.
You people are so unbelievably dumb.
This is not how statistics work.
If 23.7% of women in the United States will have had an abortion by age 45, a number that I think is probably very high.
But let's say that that's true.
If that number is true, that still would not suggest that Disney princesses, were they real people and not fictional characters, would have had abortions.
First of all, they're fake.
I know I have to keep emphasizing this for folks on the left.
Certain things are real.
Certain things are pretend.
Certain things that are pretend have certain cultural significance.
It's why we talked about Roseanne, because people were saying the cultural significance of Roseanne is something.
It's why we talked about Black Panther.
People saying Black Panther had cultural significance.
OK, fair enough.
But you want to argue that Disney princesses have had abortions.
Disney princesses don't exist in real life.
They're not real people.
And even if they did exist in real life, two and a half of them, two of them would not have had abortions.
Because statistically speaking, Disney princesses are incredibly wealthy.
Many of them lived hundreds of years ago in a different universe.
So, that's like saying that 23.7% of women in the U.S.
will have had an abortion.
That means that in our office, there are probably 10 women who work in our office, in this office.
That means that two of them have had an abortion.
That's not how statistics work, gang.
It is the equivalent of saying that every family in America has an average of 2.4 children.
That means that every family in America has two whole children and a .4 of a child.
Statistically, an average does not mean that each individual is a member of the average.
So stupid.
So stupid.
But again, stupid rules the day.
Okay, so now I want to get into some tech news.
So the reason I'm getting tech news is because there's a lot going on on this score.
Tech stocks have been dumping.
I mean, they've really been dropping pretty precipitously in the last few days.
A lot of that is specifically because of all of the hubbub surrounding Facebook and social media, which I'm going to get to in just a second.
According to Reuters, fund managers have begun to ditch so-called FANG stocks that powered the U.S.
stock market to record highs in January and are slowly rotating into commodity-related shares and other value stocks which typically outperform in late-cycle recoveries.
Portfolio managers holding shares of Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google Parent Alphabet, Inc., that's Google, say they are increasingly concerned that the data scandal that has sent shares of Facebook down nearly 15% to date, year to date, will spill over into all of FAANG stocks, imperiling the broad market's momentum at a time when there are no clear companies or sectors to take their place.
On Tuesday, an index which tracks the FAANG stocks, along with six other mega cap technology stocks, tumbled 6.3%, the biggest decline since September 2014.
Google was slightly positive.
Amazon dropped 4%.
Netflix fell 5%.
A portfolio manager said, there are legitimate concerns over the business models of these companies, and I expect that they will be ironed out in legislation.
So this, of course, is talking specifically about Facebook.
So I want to talk about a couple of things that are great about technology, and then I want to talk about a thing that is very bad about the future of technology in the United States, particularly with regard to the distribution of our news.
So we begin with President Trump ripping on Amazon today.
So President Trump decided to go after Amazon today.
Amazon has been his bugaboo for a couple of reasons.
One is because it's owned by Jeff Bezos.
Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post.
The Washington Post has not been friendly to Trump.
Therefore, Trump says, the Amazon Washington Post.
His suggestion is that Amazon uses its profits to subsidize the Washington Post.
There is no statistical truth to this.
This is something that is made up in Trump's mind.
It is just not true.
It's not factually true.
Now, you may think Jeff Bezos is a schmuck.
That's fine.
But Amazon is a phenomenal company.
Amazon is the best company in America.
Amazon is just unbelievable.
It's running other companies out of business, not because it's evil and brutal, but because they are incredibly good at what they do.
You never have to worry about what to remember for the grocery store.
You just order stuff.
I use Amazon nearly every day.
I believe I was one of their first 1,000 prime users, because it started off as a used book company, and so I used to buy used books from there all the time.
I still do.
Amazon is just a phenomenal company.
So Trump decides to rip them on the web.
So here's what he says.
He says, I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the election.
Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state and local governments, use our postal system as their delivery boy, causing tremendous loss to the U.S. and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business.
So Amazon shares were up about 2 percent before the president's tweet, and then it fell about 2.6 percent after the market opened.
I'm sure it will recover pretty quickly.
OK, this is a really stupid tweet.
I'm going to just be frank about this.
This is economically illiterate.
First of all, Amazon does pay sales tax in states that require it to pay sales tax.
So in California, I pay a sales tax on my Amazon products.
I wish I didn't.
But states do require that if you buy a product in California from Amazon, that you are going to pay the sales tax that is equivalent to what you would pay at the store.
So I pay a sales tax on products that are shipped to me in California.
And I'm not sure why Trump is complaining about Amazon using the postal system.
You know what is keeping the postal system existent?
Amazon.
No one uses the post office anymore because everyone uses email.
Bulk mail has gone down.
When people send packages and they want to make sure that it gets there, they use FedEx.
So Amazon is using the post office because the post office is subsidized and because the post office is cheap, and it is because they are doing that that the post office has any business at all.
In fact, little known fact about Amazon.
Have you ever gotten an Amazon package where it's like you ordered a thing of toothpaste and it comes in a box that's like half the size of your house?
And you're always wondering why is it that the box is totally out of proportion to the item that is inside the box?
That is because Amazon has come up with such a science of this thing that when they deliver stuff to you, they actually have slotted every box into the truck in the most efficient possible way.
So they know that they need to fill up every piece of space in the truck so that the things aren't bouncing around back there.
So they will ship you things with weird sized boxes because it is most efficient to ship it that way.
Several states, according to CNBC, say that online retailers should have to collect sales tax, even in those states where companies don't have a physical presence.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that states couldn't collect sales taxes gathered by mail-order catalog companies unless the firms had a physical presence in the state.
Obviously, Amazon does collect sales—I mean, listen to this.
Amazon collects sales tax from consumers in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
So what is Trump even talking about here?
What is he even talking about here?
There are certain economists who say that if Amazon started to—I mean, the truth is, what Amazon is eventually going to do here is they are just going to substitute their own shipping for the post office, and the post office will have no business.
So the fact that Amazon is using the post office right now is really a temporary measure.
People think that Amazon is going to become the largest single shipper in the United States and become a shipping company, basically.
So Axios is reporting that Trump wants to go after Amazon.
It's really dumb.
According to this report from Axios, people have explained to them that Trump's view of the post office is not even accurate.
The U.S.
Postal Service is not owned or operated by the government.
It's an establishment of the executive branch, so it's controlled by presidential appointees and acts as a government agency.
And again, Amazon's business is the only thing keeping the post office afloat.
So, again, Amazon is a great piece of technology.
Why are we attacking that?
I'm going to tell you another great piece of technology that people are ignoring, and it's being attacked by leftists and some people who don't understand economics as well.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Ring.com.
Speaking of fantastic technology, Ring.com is a fantastic technology.
It ensures that you and your family stay safe.
Over a million people use the amazing Ring Video Doorbell to help protect their homes.
Ring knows home security begins at the front door.
It does not end there.
So they have their Ring Floodlight Cam as well, extending security to the rest of your house.
The Floodlight Cam is a motion-activated camera and floodlight.
It connects right to your phone with HD video, two-way audio, and lets you know the moment anyone steps on your property.
So what's really awesome about this is that it rings directly to your phone no matter where you are.
I can be across the country and know who's at my front door at my house.
You can see and speak to visitors, even set off an alarm right from your phone.
All right, so I can actually set off the alarm, scare off the intruders from my phone.
Ring Floodlight offers the ultimate in in-home security with high visibility floodlights, a powerful HD camera.
It puts security directly in your hands.
And right now, you save up to $150 off a Ring of Security Kit when you go to ring.com slash Ben.
That's ring.com slash Ben.
Again, ring.com slash Ben.
Use that slash Ben so they know that we sent you.
Ring helps keep my house safe.
I've recommended it for months and years here.
There's a reason for that, and it's not just because they're an advertiser.
Ring is fantastic.
People always ask me, do you actually?
Yes, we use ring at our house.
It is on our front door.
It is tremendous.
Ring.com slash Ben to get $150 off that ring of security kit.
Ensure that your house, your family is safe, even when you yourself are not at home or out of town.
OK, now speaking of great technology, That is being ripped by the left.
Right now, there's an effort underway by a lot of folks on the left to go after Uber and Lyft.
This has happened particularly in leftist jurisdictions.
So in California, for a long time, there was a rule that ride-sharing apps could not actually go to the airport because they wanted you to use cabs instead.
It was basically a government-guaranteed monopoly.
In the city of New York, there are heavy restrictions on Uber and Lyft.
In the city of Seattle, there are heavy restrictions on Uber and Lyft.
But there is an upside, and this demonstrates a point that I've been making about the free market for a long time.
The great thing about the free market is that the free market actually cuts against racism.
It cuts against discrimination in virtually all forms, because the only color that the free market cares about is the color green.
So there's a tweet from a guy named Matthew Cherry, who is a black filmmaker for the NFL, And he was tweeting about a New York Post story.
So the New York Post story said, This was another one of these lamentation pieces about how all these new technologies are hurting people who are already in business, and what are we going to do about the cabbies, and all the rest of this nonsense.
The New York Post says,
Two livery drivers killed themselves in recent months, one of whom, Danilo Castillo, pointedly wrote his suicide note on the back of a taxi and limousine commission summons.
I'm by review to say is the executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance and wrote that we've seen this building over the past three years.
In particular, the financial crisis is crushing enough, but it's the political silence that's destroying people.
The number of four higher cars in circulation is swell to about 100,000.
About two thirds of those are Uber drivers.
The number of yellow cabs is capped by the city at 13,587.
Once again, demonstrating the government guaranteed monopolies are garbage.
And the minute that those monopolies end, those companies go out of business.
It's not the fault of these cab drivers.
I feel terrible for the cab drivers who spent their years investing in a product that the government had basically guaranteed, only to have the government pull the rug out from under them.
But that's not enough for me to say that we should get rid of a technology that's helping lots of people.
And here's the point.
point so matthew cherry tweets out quote never had an uber or lyft drive right past me and refused to pick me up because i was black right this is this is accurate okay this is accurate there's an article by rob george in the new york post just a couple of years ago saying exactly this that one of the things that's amazing about uber and lyft is that there is no driver discrimination so this has been a serious problem in new york city for a very long time is that taxi cabs don't Do not go to outlying areas.
It's almost impossible to get a taxi cab out there.
And if they go into heavily black or Hispanic neighborhoods, they just won't pick people up because they're afraid that they'll pick somebody up who will attempt to rob the cab.
Right?
This has been a serious problem for a long time.
It is true of before they've done studies.
It's true for drivers of all colors.
So it has nothing to do with white drivers avoiding black areas.
Black drivers also avoid black areas.
And what this demonstrates—and here's the amazing thing.
OK, so what kind of discrimination is that?
So, as I discussed last week with regard to a New York Times article in which there was a claim that America was widely and terribly racist, Thomas Sowell has a model of how to think about discrimination that's really useful.
He thinks about discrimination in three ways.
There's open discrimination, like, I'm a racist, I hate black people, and therefore I'm not going to pick up a black guy if I'm driving a cab.
That's open racism.
Obviously morally wrong.
Then there is discrimination type number one.
He calls that discrimination two, like the clearest form of discrimination.
Then there is discrimination one, 1A.
That is, I discriminate amongst the people I choose to date.
I discriminate amongst the people I choose to hire.
I look at behavior and then I make a decision on an individualized basis.
That's the kind of discrimination we all like and we all use every day.
Then there is something in between.
It's what Sowell calls Discrimination 1B.
Discrimination 1B is I don't have any data other than the group data.
The only data I have as a taxi driver in New York City is that if I go into this particular area and I pick up a person of this particular race, I am more likely to be robbed.
And because the crime rates in New York are racially disproportionate.
And so if I have a choice between driving into a middle of a high crime black area and picking up a black guy or driving down to the Wall Street district and picking up a white guy in a suit and pick up the white guy in the suit.
Now, is that a form of racism?
Kind of and kind of not.
It's a form of making individual judgment based on group data.
But that's not quite the same thing as, I think all black people are incapable of being picked up for a ride, right?
That's people using data as a substitute for lack of individual data.
Now here's where Uber solves this problem.
It's not that Uber drivers are better people.
It's not that Lyft drivers are better people.
Okay, the reason that drivers were not picking up black folks in New York is because, one, there was a guaranteed monopoly, which meant that you wouldn't lose your job if you did this.
Two, that everybody in the monopoly had the same rules and pay.
So it wasn't like you gained money by going out of your way to pick up the black guy in the black neighborhood.
There was no competitive advantage to that.
You were already a member of an exclusive club and you were going to make a certain amount of money per year.
Then the market opened things up.
And what does Uber and Lyft do?
Have you ever used Uber and Lyft?
When you use Uber and Lyft, one of the things they do for drivers is the same thing that you do when you are a passenger.
If you get a notice from Uber or Lyft that somebody is going to pick you up, two things pop up.
A picture of the person and a number of stars.
The stars rate whether this person is a good driver or a bad driver.
And drivers rate customers.
So it rates whether a customer is a good customer or a bad customer.
This does what Seoul talks about.
It overcomes the burden of data.
So, if the only data that you had as a taxi driver in New York is that certain races are statistically more likely to be involved in crime than other races, And then you may not be making an individual judgment on this particular black guy, that this particular black guy is going to rob me, but you make a group judgment based on the only data that's available to you.
Uber makes it individual, right?
Uber individualizes.
So, number one, it creates a competitive advantage for you to go into what would be higher risk crime areas, because if nobody else is doing it, you can pick up a lot of money by going into those areas, right?
You can now out-compete the cabbies.
That's number one.
And number two, you have user-specific data.
So if I look and I see that there's a one-star rating on a guy because last time he was in a car, he crapped in the backseat, I'm not going to pick that guy up.
But if I see there are a bunch of five-star ratings, I can pretty well guarantee that the guy actually isn't a criminal.
This is why the market is fantastic.
So what's hilarious is that a lot of people on the left don't understand why it is that Uber and Lyft don't discriminate against black folks in New York.
The answer is not, again, that cab drivers in New York are evil, terrible racists, and Uber drivers are wonderful people.
That is not what, or that Lyft drivers are wonderful people, right?
That is not the case.
Here is the case.
The case is that the incentive structure changes.
The amount of data has changed.
And this is what technology does.
This is what technology is good for.
Technology is good for providing you additional data so you can make better decisions.
And with those better decisions, you can now go out and live a better, less discriminatory life.
That's where tech really comes in.
And that's what makes tech great.
It is value neutral, but it gives you more data.
Hey, remember those two things, right?
Value neutral and gives you more data.
Because in one second, we're going to get to the problem with some of our social media with regards to the news.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live, the rest of Clayton's show live, the rest of Noel's show live.
You get to be part of the mailbag, which we are doing tomorrow.
Just before Passover and Easter.
So, very exciting mailbag.
Subscribe now, ask us a question.
And you can log in tomorrow, and while you're watching the show, ask us questions live that we will answer for you, which is pretty awesome.
Also, if you get the annual subscription, you get this.
The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
I have praised this to the skies because it is of the heavens.
It is magnificent.
Gaze upon it, and your soul shall be uplifted.
And you get to bring it home and caress it and drink from it each and every night when you get the annual subscription for 99 bucks a year.
Cheaper than the monthly subscription, so make sure that you get that.
If you just want to listen later for free, iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, please subscribe, please leave us a review, and of course, tell all of your friends who are listening to talk radio to tune into our shows, which will be syndicated on Monday, which is really exciting.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative show in the nation.
All righty.
So, as I say, what makes technology great is that it is value-neutral and provides data.
And then it's up to human beings how they want to use that data.
And if we are provided with more data, then this gives us a better ability to choose.
But value neutral is important when it comes to the platforms.
Now, value neutral isn't important when it comes to You know, you come to the Daily Y. We're not value neutral.
And we make very obvious to you we're not value neutral because we're providing you another piece of data that you can use to judge whether you think our stories are good or not.
That's fine.
What you can't do is pretend to be value neutral and then actually promote an agenda.
And this is where social media is really going to have a problem.
And it creates an actual legal problem for a lot of social media that I think is just around the corner.
It used to be that there were gatekeepers in media, rather.
That for most of the history of the United States, at least in the 20th century, there were gatekeepers at the top of the media.
There were only three major television networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, right?
And these were the news providers for you.
Everyone watched these, and so there was a monopoly.
Those gatekeepers decided what you saw when it came to the news.
The same thing was true in print, because the barriers to entry for the print media were very high.
It's very expensive to go out and hire reporters and print millions of newspapers and distribute millions of newspapers.
So that meant there was a monopoly, right?
Or an oligopoly is more accurate.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The L.A.
Times, right?
These were the newspapers that you got.
And then Fox News started to break that monopoly by providing an alternative on cable.
And then finally, the monopoly was truly broken by the internet.
The internet exploded this entire monopoly.
Now there are no gatekeepers anymore, right?
You want to visit Daily Wire?
You want to engage with my podcast?
You just do it.
I don't need your approval to put my podcast up.
I don't need your approval to put my website up.
I don't need anyone's approval to do that, because there is a neutral source that I put my stuff on, and then you get it, right?
You either get it at YouTube, or you get it at SoundCloud, or at Google Play, or at Stitcher, or at iTunes.
You get it from there, and those outlets have said to you, we are not discriminating against Shapiro's podcast.
We're just a platform.
Same thing is true of Daily Wire.
We put it up on the internet.
We have a server.
The server doesn't discriminate against us.
And now, when you search for our website, Google says they have an algorithm that's neutral.
It comes up.
And that means that you have more information, right?
That's why these technologies are great.
Social media promised they were going to be neutral.
And so, everybody started using the social media on the promise they were going to be neutral.
That if I was looking for Daily Wire, I would get Daily Wire.
That if I was on Facebook and I followed Ben Shapiro, then Ben Shapiro's posts were going to pop up in my timeline.
Or Dennis Prager's, or Stephen Crowder's, or Laura Ingram's, or anybody's, right?
You follow that person, the implicit guarantee was Facebook would not stand between you and the information you wanted to see.
It was a neutral arbiter.
Okay, but now things have changed.
So everybody started investing tons of money in Facebook, in Google, in YouTube, in SEO, in research, in marketing.
We all started investing lots of money in those things on the promise that Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, that all of these outlets were acting more like AT&T, more like they were providing a phone line, than acting like the editors of the New York Times.
They weren't actually cultivating my content.
They had no control over my content.
They were just the neutral platform on which we put material.
Then all the heads of these companies decided that they were going to lie to the public, and from now on, they were going to become gatekeepers again.
So they sucked everyone into this lie that they were just AT&T, that they were just a phone line.
And then they said, you know what?
We're not a phone line anymore.
We're the editors of The New York Times.
Even the editor of The New York Times, Ian Paquette, he came out and he said, it seems to me that people over at Facebook are acting more like we are than they're acting like a social media platform.
This is a serious problem because it means that now when you follow people like me on Facebook, my alerts may not pop up in your timeline anymore because Mark Zuckerberg has decided he doesn't want you to see my alerts.
Now, the way Facebook expresses it is, we just want better news.
But there's no standard for better news.
They say, well, better news is nonpartisan news.
Says whom?
Says whom?
That's clearly not what the public feels, because when left to their own devices, the public likes partisan news.
Which is fine.
They're allowed.
It's the United States.
Now, Facebook's a private company, but there is a lie that they engaged in, and that lie actually has some legal ramifications.
Let me explain why.
The way that free speech works in the United States, when it comes to lawsuits, for example, the way free speech works is that if you are a social media platform, a neutral social media platform, you cannot be sued for the material that is put on your platform.
You're an open source platform, like Facebook, for example, and somebody puts something up that's slanderous or libelous, In any case, somebody puts up something that is defamatory on Facebook.
Can Facebook be sued for having that stuff up on Facebook?
The answer is no.
Facebook cannot be sued for that.
Instead, only the person who posted it can be sued.
That's because Facebook is like AT&T, right?
If I say something nasty about Mathis over the phone, on a radio show, then the phone company doesn't get sued, right?
Verizon doesn't get sued every time I say something nasty about Mathis.
Okay, only I get sued if I say something nasty and untrue and defamatory about Mathis.
Okay, but what if the phone company decides that it's going to screen my calls?
And so every time I say something now, the phone company is going to intervene and mute me every time I say something they don't like.
Well, now the phone company is on the hook because the phone company has decided what it's okay for me to say and what it's not okay for me to say.
Facebook is doing that.
Facebook is deciding they are no longer a social media platform.
They are instead a publisher.
They're going to intervene as to what you can see and what you can't.
YouTube is doing the same thing.
Twitter is doing the same thing with its verification protocols.
Google is doing the same thing.
And this means they are now going to be start, I think, that in the very near future, they're really opening themselves up here.
I think that there will be lawsuits in the near future in which all of these social media platforms are sued for the content that they allowed to be put on their sites because they're acting as cultivators of content and publishers of content, not merely a social media platform.
I think there's a pretty decent legal case for all of this.
And maybe that'll encourage all of these social media companies to go back to being platforms, because fully 78% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 49 get their news from social media, right?
They use it more like a phone line.
They use it more like a search engine than they use it like the New York Times, right?
55% of 50-plus Americans get their news from social media.
So if all of these companies decide to act like publishers and crack down on the right, which is what has happened in the last few months, right?
Virtually every right-wing site has seen its traffic plummet, except for Fox News, just because it was a legacy brand that's really large.
If that continues to happen, I think that what you will see is people begin to realize that this is a publisher.
Well, if Facebook is a publisher, Facebook has a real problem.
Just on the basis of unlicensed photos alone.
Like, we at The Daily Wire license our photos, right?
We have a contract with Getty Images.
That's how we get all of our photos that we put up on our site, and we pay for those.
How many unlicensed images are there every minute on Facebook?
Probably thousands.
Thousands every minute on Facebook.
Well, what happens when a photographer says, listen, I know that that schmuck in Iowa decided to put up my photo, but he doesn't have a lot of money.
I'm going to sue Facebook instead, because it's Facebook's job to prevent copyright infringements.
And so now I'm going to go after Facebook.
Or let's say that someone gets slandered on Twitter or on Facebook.
And they say, you know what?
Facebook, Twitter, these are now publishers.
I'm going to sue them for having allowed this stuff to be published.
It could bankrupt these companies pretty quickly.
These companies ought to get wise.
They're not in the business of publishing, nor should they be.
They should be in the business of being social media platforms.
The fact that they are not is actually restricting the kind of news you can see.
They are deciding the flow of information.
They've reestablished the media gatekeepers.
That is very, very bad for the United States.
You don't want Mark Zuckerberg deciding what news you can see.
You want you deciding what news you can see.
And Zuckerberg should figure that out pretty damn quickly or he's going to have a serious problem on his hands.
OK, well, meanwhile, in other news, the president decided to fire his VA secretary.
This was long overdue.
He, of course, tweeted it out because He's the president, and that's what the president does.
So here's what he tweeted.
He tweeted, I said, I'm pleased to announce that I intend to nominate a highly respected Admiral Ronnie L. Jackson, MD, as the new secretary of Veterans Affairs.
And he said, in the interim, Honorable Robert Wilkie of DOD will serve as acting secretary.
I'm thankful for Dr. David Shulkin's service to our country and to our great veterans.
Well, the truth is he was really ticked at Shulkin.
This was a long time in coming.
The VA has been mishandled and misrun for years, of course.
There was obviously the Veterans Affairs scandal in the latter years of the Obama administration, in which it became clear that the VA was putting people on hold, that they were making people wait for years at a time.
And those people were literally dying in line.
When Trump announced on Wednesday he was ousting David Shulkin, who was an Obama holdover, and nominating his physician to replace him.
It's a weird pick, Ronnie Jackson.
Ronnie Jackson is, by all accounts, a really good doctor.
He was a bipartisan pick in the White House to be the presidential doctor.
And he has never run a $200 million agency or $200 billion agency.
That's a very weird pick by Trump, but Trump tends to pick people that he trusts personally.
Shulkin's exit was expected, although the timing was not known, according to Politico, after he antagonized the White House with a scandal over a taxpayer-financed trip to Europe last summer and engaged in open warfare with conservatives in his agency.
And Trump made the decision on Wednesday afternoon.
The news was delivered by Chief of Staff Kelly in a short phone call to Shulkin.
The turnover in the administration right now is quite high.
Here is the good news.
The turnover has been for the better.
All of the upgrades have been upgrades, indeed.
John Bolton is an upgrade over H.R.
McMaster, over National Security Advisor Mike Pompeo is a clear upgrade over Rex Tillerson at Secretary of State.
So Trump's administration is getting better, not worse.
And getting rid of Shulkin will be quite useful.
He'd been looking at a few people, including Robert Wilkie, the guy who's the interim guy, as well as Fox News host Pete Hegseth.
He liked Hegseth on TV, but Hegseth does have a background with the Veterans Affairs Department.
And this was a surprise that Jackson was the guy.
He was recently nominated for promotion and rank.
It's unclear whether he'll remain an active duty officer if he is confirmed by the Senate.
So we will find out whether this is a, whether, you know, this improves the agency or not.
But it certainly can't make it worse.
The VA inspector general reported last year that Shulkin and his wife had improperly accepted Wimbledon tickets and used staff to arrange sightseeing visits during a business trip to Denmark and England.
Last summer, Shulkin repaid the money in question, but foes in the White House and the VA used the opportunity to press for his removal.
There is wide, wide belief on the right that Shulkin had done a really terrible job in this in this particular job and that he had to go.
So good for the president.
Late but necessary.
So that is a good thing.
And another move that, by the way, just to show you how crazy the media is, really totally crazy.
Katie Tur over at MSNBC, she decided that this was actually a distraction tactic.
She says that getting rid of Shulkin is a distraction tactic.
Sure, it had been coming for months.
Sure, no one cares all that much.
But according to the media, this is the be-all, end-all, and it's distracting from something.
This is the media's going theory.
Whenever Trump just does something, and they don't know why, it must be a distraction from his scandals.
It's not a distraction from his scandals.
He wanted to replace his VA secretary.
He got rid of him.
It's that simple.
But the media are full of crazies, and here's Katie Tour being one of them.
And let's bring back tonight's panel, Jonathan Lemire, Michelle Goldberg, Michael Steele.
It does feel like a distraction tactic to me.
Oh, totally.
Am I crazy?
No, you're not.
No, it is totally that.
You know, folks were waking up this morning having a conversation about the news that was breaking that we talked about before.
Now, all of a sudden, we're now talking about Shulkin.
And what the president's going to do, he's got the list of people that he wants to help him remake his cabinet.
And he will roll them in and out as the news cycle warrants.
OK, so no, no.
I mean, I like Michael Steele, but this is wrong.
OK, this is not correct.
This is not about, you know, Trump distracting from anything.
Again, people are going crazy over nonsense.
They're also going crazy because the president decided that he was going to ask about immigration status in the latest census, which is certainly within his purview.
But as Guy Benson writes, this is not even a thing, right?
Why is this even a question as to whether we should ask about census status?
Prior to 2010, according to Guy, which represents the historical anomaly on this question, citizenship questions had appeared on U.S.
censuses dating back to the early 1800s.
And the citizenship inquiry on the long-form version of the questionnaire from 1970 to 2000 appeared.
But people are saying this is somehow going to alienate illegal immigrants who won't get a proper census count.
So we can ask about race, we can ask about religion, but we can't ask about whether you're in the country legally?
Again, just demonstrates how crazy everyone is that this has become even an issue.
This is not an issue, but because it's Trump, everything is an issue now, no matter how stupid.
Okay, time for a couple of things I like and then some things that I hate.
So let's do it.
Things I like.
So I've started watching this documentary on Netflix about a cult that was up in Oregon.
Nobody's heard of this cult, but apparently it was linked to the largest Seriously, the largest poisoning case in United States history.
It's an amazing story.
And the documentary is really well done.
It does make you uneasy about the capacity of human beings to follow incredibly crazy ideas because they find meaning in them.
And it just demonstrates, once again, that in the absence of Judeo-Christian values, people will fall for anything.
That if you stand for nothing, you'll stand for anything.
And if you will listen to anything, then you will fall for anything.
In any case, here is a little bit of the preview for Wild Wild Country on Netflix.
Everybody felt they were there at the beginning of the great experiment.
Like we were the chosen people.
I'm here in one of the largest ranches in the Northwest.
Today, it's Rajneesh Puram, because a prominent Indian guru and his followers brought it.
Our vision was to create a community based on compassion and sharing.
Bouguin's agenda was simply to raise the consciousness of humanity.
That was his goal.
America was land of promise.
It was my conviction.
We will have no problems.
I don't think America has a place for these people.
Everyone in Antelope mistrusts Rajneesh.
I want that guru and his evil influence out of my city.
They're run by satanic power.
There is talk of vigilantes who may seek revenge on the Rajneeshies.
Okay, it's really interesting, but it is worth noting that this group was holding orgies and poisoning people, and things went pretty wild pretty quickly.
So, it's a very interesting documentary and well worth the watch.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
I really should have put this in things I like.
Sean Penn has written a novel.
And it is just as grand as you would have thought that it was.
You know, Sean Penn is a very good actor.
I like Sean Penn's acting.
I think Sean Penn is a really good actor.
I think he's great in Mystic River.
I think that he's a very compelling actor to watch on screen.
He's also an absolute crazy person.
And this comes out in his writing.
I don't know what he thought he was writing.
Jonah Goldberg thinks he was trying to do Pynchon, which giant fail.
But I'm going to read to you a couple of sections of Sean Penn's new book, OK?
It is not good.
Somebody over at Huffington Post has wasted their time reading the entire thing and provided us these samples.
Pretty amazing.
Quote, hence, his life remains incessantly infused with her identity infidelity and her abhorrent ascensions to those constant salacious sessions of sexual solitaire she'd seen as self-regard.
That's an actual thing that somebody wrote.
So, you understand, he's got a Thesaurus on his nightstand because he doesn't know any of those words, but it doesn't even make any sense.
Like, what is he even talking about?
If he's just saying that there's a woman who had an affair and then was pleasuring herself, then he should just say that.
This one is pretty spectacular.
Whenever he felt these collisions of incubus and succubus, he punched his way out of the proletariat with a purposeful inputting of covert codes, thereby drawing distraction through Scottsdale's deployments, dodging the ambush of innocents astray, evading the discount vogue of viagratic assaults on virtual vaginas or worse, falling passively into prosaic pastimes.
What in the eff-a-roo?
What in the world?
This one, I think, is my favorite.
So, Sean.
While the privileged patronized this pickle as epithet to the epigenetic inequality of equals, Bob smells a cyber-assisted assault emboldened by right-brained Hollywood narcissists.
What?
So, Sean, Sean, you're good at one thing.
The thing that you are good at is acting.
You should probably stick to that because it is not good.
Now listen, I have a lot of sympathy for people trying to write novels.
I wrote a novel.
I think it's decent.
But there are some people who hate it.
That's fine.
I don't think there's a person on earth who thinks this is good.
It's amazing to me that he even found a publisher if he did.
I don't even know if he self-published it.
But in any case, This is just bad writing, and it just demonstrates that because you're famous doesn't mean you're good at everything.
There's this weird notion among rich and famous people that they are good at lots of things.
One of the great things in life is to recognize your own limitations.
Man's gotta recognize his limitations, as Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven.
And, uh, Sean should recognize his limitations, I think.
Okay, the other thing that I hate today comes from world's most unfunny person, Samantha Bee.
Legitimately an unfunny human being.
She was asked, she was on ABC's The View.
Why can't I get on The View?
What the hell, guys?
I mean, I've been lobbying for this for years.
What do I have to do?
I'll have Samantha Bee, but you won't have me on?
Come on!
Come on, what does a man gotta do to get on The View?
Okay, in any case, Samantha Bee was asked about President Trump, and of course, here's what she had to say.
Uh, for me, from my perspective...
It's worse than I imagined.
I mean, I can't... You know, I had my own predictions, but I didn't expect it to be this fast.
I didn't expect everything to happen at this pace.
I didn't expect it to be as incoherent as I feel it to be.
I didn't expect it to be as mean-spirited as I personally find it to be.
Yeah, so it's been a grave disappointment, but... It gives you a lot of material.
Well, I'd rather have balance.
I'd rather... I prefer a slower-paced show.
Okay, so, um, let's be real about this.
There was no way she was going to say that things are going better than I expected, but things are going better than anyone expected, okay?
When it comes to President Trump's administration, okay, the economy is good, everybody's doing pretty well, there hasn't been this giant assault on civil liberties or anything remotely like that, but the left has spun itself up into such a frenzy that everything is worse than you could possibly have imagined.
Pretty much all the chaos I imagined, right?
I thought, like, if you were realistic about President Trump, you figured that this is pretty much how that part of the administration was going to go, right?
Trump was going to tweet stupid crap all the time.
And indeed, that has happened.
But even Samantha Bee should be looking at the stock market or at the economic statistics and going, well, to be honest with you, I thought that there was going to be a Great Depression three days in.
I thought we would already be in a nuclear war by now.
At a certain point, don't you get tired of being, you know, this panicked about stuff that's not going all that badly?
Apparently not.
Apparently there's still a big market for this.
So, you know, whatever.
Alright, so we'll be back here tomorrow, and we'll be back here with the mailbag.
So many things to discuss then.
That's why you should subscribe.
Again, $9.99 a month.
It helps us out.
It helps us bring you the show.
Get the annual subscription.
Get the Tumblr.
The whole deal.
And ask us all the questions that your heart desires, and we'll answer them tomorrow for you.
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 Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection