Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 28, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:38

The Democratic Platform | Ep. 612

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Nancy Pelosi talks race.
	Paul Krugman talks fascism.
	And President Trump talks NAFTA.
	So, a lot of talking.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	I have a lot to get to today.
	I have a crazy story out of Brown University that really is indicative of where the left is intellectually, and it is not a good place.
	But first, I want to talk to you about your wireless provider.
	The big in big wireless provider stands for a lot of things.
	Big contracts, big bills, big fees.
	AT&T has a new $800 million administrative fee increase.
	What big wireless doesn't actually want you to know is that there's a way to cut your wireless bill all the way down to 15 bucks a month.
	Which is where Mint Mobile comes in.
	They're the game-changing company that's taken everything wrong with big wireless and they've made it right.
	You can save probably a thousand dollars a year with Mint Mobile without sacrificing quality of service.
	They work with other companies to ensure that your coverage is the best there is.
	It's just terrific.
	Mint Mobile makes it really easy to cut your wireless bill down to just 15 bucks a month.
	Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
	You can keep your old number along with all your existing contacts.
	You can choose between two, five, or ten gigabyte 4G LTE plans.
	No more paying for unlimited data that you're never going to use.
	Every plan comes with unlimited text and talk.
	And if you're not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their seven-day money-back guarantee.
	They save you money by cutting out the middleman and also they're not going to sell you data packages you're never going to use.
	Ditch your old wireless bill.
	Start saving with Mint Mobile to get your new Mint wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month plus free shipping on your Mint Mobile SIM card.
	Go to mintmobile.com slash ben.
	That's M-I-N-T mobile dot com slash ben.
	Mintmobile.com slash ben.
	Cut your wireless bill down to 15 bucks a month.
	Get free shipping on that SIM card at mintmobile.com slash ben.
	Use that slash ben to let them know that we sent you.
	Okay, so.
	Well, the media keep proclaiming that Donald Trump is the scariest person who ever was.
	President Trump continues to bash the mainstream media, continues to suggest that they are indeed fake news.
	He continued that this morning when he woke up at 5.30 in the morning and decided to re-watch Lou Dobbs.
	Yes, that's actually what happened.
	He woke up at 5.30 in the morning, and he TiVos a lot of the shows on Fox News and Fox Business, and he decided to watch Lou Dobbs' show.
	Lou Dobbs is talking about the search results over in Google, and President Trump decided to tweet this out.
	This is 14.
	Google search results for Trump news shows only the viewing reporting of fake new media.
	In other words, they have it rigged for me and others so that almost all stories and news is bad.
	Fake CNN is prominent.
	Republican, conservative, and fair media is shut out.
	Illegal.
	96% of results on Trump news are from national left-wing media.
	Very dangerous.
	Google and others are suppressing voices of conservatives and hiding information and news that is good.
	They're controlling what we can and cannot see.
	This is a very serious situation.
	Will be addressed.
	Well, I don't think the president actually Googles things.
	He apparently doesn't use a computer, really.
	So where he got this information is that Lou Dobbs was talking about search results when it comes to Google News.
	And it's true that the Google News bias in favor of large media organizations is pretty severe.
	And that does have an actual impact on the kind of news that people consume.
	And it does mean that they actually consume a fair bit of misinformation that is put out by the mainstream media.
	Now, it's important to remember that when President Trump says things like fake news and means just any news he doesn't like, He was not the originator of the phrase fake news.
	The originator of the phrase fake news, Trump says that he made it up.
	He didn't make it up.
	It was made up by the left.
	The left suggested that Hillary Clinton had lost the election, if you recall, due to fake news.
	There were a bunch of false stories put out on Facebook.
	People believed those false stories.
	And then they voted for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton.
	President Trump said the actual fake news are the members of the mainstream media.
	And unfortunately, members of the mainstream media seem intent on proving his point Almost every day, the latest example comes courtesy of CNN.
	So, President Trump has focused on CNN incessantly, and there's a reason for that.
	Here's the latest example.
	CNN absolutely botched a story.
	...claiming that President Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian-backed lawyer supposedly offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.
	You know there's been a lot of focus on this particular meeting, obviously, because in the run-up to the meeting, Donald Trump Jr.
	was emailing with an associate of his from Russia, who's basically saying that the Russian government wants to supply the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary, so why don't you meet with this lawyer?
	And Trump Jr.
	was like, sounds great.
	And then they had the meeting.
	Well, one of the big questions has been, did Trump know in advance about the meeting?
	Well, CNN reported July 26, 2018, claiming that Trump did know in advance about the meeting.
	Well, it turns out the person who supplied that information was Lanny Davis, who is the Clinton Associated Lawyer for Michael Cohen, who at the time was attempting to show the Mueller investigation that Michael Cohen had something valuable to offer.
	CNN says it stands by the story, but Davis told the Washington Post this week, quote, I should have been more clear, including with you, that I could not independently confirm what happened.
	I regret my error.
	Davis also told Anderson Cooper of CNN, I think the reporting of the story got mixed up in the course of a criminal investigation.
	We were not the source of the story.
	The CNN story originally said Davis offered no comment.
	It turns out that on background, he'd actually provided virtually all of the story.
	CNN said, quote, we stand by our story.
	We are confident in our reporting of it.
	That story rocketed around the media.
	It was echoed by NBC News and the Washington Post.
	According to BuzzFeed News, Davis was the confirming source for all of that.
	Those admissions follow another admission from Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's lawyer, regarding a claim that President Trump knew beforehand about the hacking of Democratic emails by the Russians.
	Now Davis says, quote, I am not sure.
	There's a possibility that is the case, but I am not sure.
	So the source for half of the media's news regarding Russian collusion and Trump Tower and all the rest of it is Lanny Davis, the lawyer for Michael Cohen, who has now gone on record admitting that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
	CNN stands by the story anyway.
	According to Buzzfeed News, quote, In other words, the story reports claim that Cohen had said he was willing to make, not the underlying truth of those claims.
	carefully worded to hedge against those in the Cohen camp changing their tune.
	In other words, the story reports claim that Cohen had said he was willing to make, not the underlying truth of those claims.
	So in other words, CNN says, listen, we didn't report that Cohen knew that Trump had known about the Trump Tower meeting in advance.
	No, the CNN story reported that Cohen was willing to tell prosecutors that he might have known about that stuff.
	So we had carefully caveated this.
	The decision from CNN to continue to stand by the story suggests it believes the strength of its other sources outweighs any waffling from Davis, according to BuzzFeed, or that the network believes Davis was telling the truth then and not now.
	But Davis' new statement that he was the source for a story he now refutes raised questions about what action, if any, the network might take.
	Now, I have some personal experience with stories like this.
	I remember back in 2013, Chuck Hagel was nominated for Secretary of Defense by the Obama administration.
	Chuck Hagel was, in my opinion, radically anti-Israel.
	He was a An isolationist on foreign policy.
	And there was a big push from the right to stop Chuck Hagel's nomination.
	Well, I was supplied information by top sources in the Senate that Chuck Hagel had spoken to some group called Friends of Hamas.
	It was just a rumor.
	And we reported it on Breitbart News as a rumor.
	The actual title of the piece said, we called up the White House, the White House basically hung up on us.
	And the title of the piece was something like, White House spokesperson hangs up based on rumors of Friends of Hamas, something like that.
	It was pretty clear in the piece that it was a rumor.
	Now, that was a correctly reported rumor because it turns out that the rumor was not true.
	But, should we have reported it in the first place?
	The answer is no, and I've said this multiple times since.
	It was a mistake not to retract the story.
	It was a mistake to report the story in the first place.
	CNN basically did the same thing here, but they're not backing off the story.
	The same mainstream media that suggested that story was bad, and was largely right, is now suggesting that this story by CNN is kind of okay.
	And then President Trump complaining about fake news is labeled crazy.
	You have folks in the media claiming that the news media are the reliable sources in all of this.
	It's hard to give a lot of credibility to news sources that hold a double standard when it comes to people on the right.
	They would never hold for people on the left.
	And the levels to which the media will go in order to disparage and slander the Trump administration are pretty astonishing.
	It's mostly astonishing because if they would just be accurate about the Trump administration, it's not like they would have nothing to report.
	But the opinions of the left are so out of the realm of normalcy that it's almost impossible to defend.
	Take, for example, this column from Jill Filipovich.
	This is not an objective news piece.
	This is a column.
	But Jill Filipovich is a feminist author, and she is the author of a book called The H-Spot, The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.
	The book is completely blank.
	There is no feminist pursuit of happiness.
	It's just like Michael Knowles' book.
	So Jill Filipovich writes a piece called Stormy Daniels' Feminist Hero.
	This is how far the left is willing to go.
	Stormy Daniels, a porn star who spends her entire career legitimately catering to the worst in men, is now a feminist hero for having sex with a married man once in order to get on The Apprentice, and then taking money to shut up about it, and then reneging on the taking of the money to shut up about it to make a big deal about it.
	She's a feminist hero.
	Here's Jill Filipovich, quote, Let's take a moment for Stormy Daniels.
	On Tuesday, Michael Cohen pled guilty to breaking campaign finance laws, charges stemming from payments he made to two women, one of them Ms. Daniels, with whom Donald Trump is said to have had an affair.
	Mr. Cohen, a former lawyer for Mr. Trump, says he made the payments at the direction of the president in an effort to influence the 2016 election.
	It's an extraordinary admission and an extraordinary political moment, not just because of what it means for Mr. Trump.
	It marks an unanticipated feminist turning point.
	Ms.
	Daniels is an adult film star and, like the president, an unapologetic self-promoter.
	Hers is not a female archetype that has historically garnered much respect, trust, or sympathy.
	Well, yeah, because she legitimately gets paid to have sex on film so that other men can masturbate to it.
	That is legitimately her career.
	So, yeah, I wouldn't go with feminist archetype there.
	Yet here she is, an imperfect, entirely self-possessed woman, telling her story with clarity and without shame.
	And here we are actually listening to her.
	And let's be clear, the only reason anybody's listening to her is because, one, prurient interest, and two, she's saying crap about a president that the left hates.
	This is why there's so much power in the fact that Ms.
	Daniels does not believe her job or her involvement with Mr. Trump or the payoff is her shame to carry.
	She wants him held accountable and the justice system is actually stepping in.
	She's refusing to slink away despite being paid to do exactly that in a pattern we've seen too many times from influential men seeking to maintain their dominance and avoid responsibility.
	Did I miss something here?
	I thought Stormy Daniels was paid to voluntarily go away and signed a contract to that effect.
	Was she forced into anything here?
	I missed that part.
	So, just to be clear, when you violate a contract, that's good and feminist, so long as it hurts Donald Trump.
	Jill Philip-Hovich writes, Ms.
	Daniels is a sex worker, making her the kind of bad woman scorned for her work, who is often not believed when she indicts a powerful man.
	Well, her work is garbage.
	And when she, quote, indicts a powerful man, we sort of have to decide whether or not she is credible.
	Her credibility is not really called into question by the fact that she's a porn star.
	She's not even claiming she was sexually assaulted or harassed.
	She's claiming that she had sex with a guy once and then won't shut up about it before an election, right?
	That's legitimately her entire claim.
	But this makes her a feminist hero.
	In a second, we will talk about the feminist heroism of a woman who does girl-on-girl scenes for pay.
	But first, let's talk about life insurance.
	So if all of this makes you want to kill yourself, then probably you should get some life insurance because, well, life insurance isn't going to cover suicide.
	But in any case.
	A better transition would probably be you should need life insurance because if you die, your family's gonna want money, right?
	I mean, let's be real about this.
	We're all gonna plot, and when we do, it would be a mistake for you not to have life insurance.
	Life insurance is really important.
	It's also really confusing, which is why 4 out of 10 people don't have it.
	Maybe you're one of those folks.
	Maybe you've been holding off because you're procrastinating, but now is the time to get life insurance because the rates are the lowest they've been in 20 years.
	The best time to buy is now.
	The best place to buy is policygenius.com.
	PolicyGenius is the easy way to compare life insurance online in just five minutes.
	You can compare quotes from the top insurers to find the best policy for you.
	And when you compare quotes, you save money.
	It is indeed that simple.
	PolicyGenius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance, placed over $20 billion in coverage.
	They don't just make life insurance easy.
	They also compare disability insurance and renter's insurance and health insurance.
	If you care about it, they can cover it.
	So if you've been putting off getting life insurance, there's no reason to put it off any longer.
	Go to PolicyGenius.com.
	Get quotes, apply in minutes.
	It's that easy.
	Rates are the lowest in 20 years.
	Policygenius.com, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	Go check out Policygenius right now.
	So, as Joe Filipovich says, the left is celebrating Stormy Daniels as a hero.
	And the reason that I cite this is because, while the opinion pages in the New York Times objective news pages are separate, The reality is that they're not quite all that separate.
	The same media sensibility that informs an editorial page that thinks Jill Filipovich has relevant things to say about Stormy Daniels being a feminist hero, they're the same folks who are pushing bad news over at CNN.
	The hard distinction between opinion and journalism doesn't really exist.
	It's why we over at The Daily Wire admit what our biases are.
	But the objective news media at places like CNN will not admit that bias.
	Instead, they claim they're objective truth-tellers, when in reality, most of them feel like Joe Filippovich does.
	Anyway, Filippovich continues.
	She says, Ms.
	Daniels' lack of shame about her line of work has led to a right-wing escalation, with conservative media outlets hounding her as a prostitute once they realized she would meet Pornstar with a shrug.
	Well, I mean, no.
	People were calling her kind of a prostitute because she was kind of a prostitute.
	Like, I mean, just...
	Like, having sex on film for pay is not markedly better than having sex not on film for pay.
	Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr. Trump's lawyers, said in June, although he respects all human beings, Ms.
	Daniels is apparently one exception.
	He said, I don't respect a porn star the way I respect a career woman or a woman of substance or a woman who has great respect for herself as a woman and as a person, he said, and isn't going to sell her potty for sexual exploitation.
	So, Stormy, you want to bring a case?
	Let me cross-examine you.
	The threat is that Mr. Giuliani would do to Miss Daniels what lawyers have done for centuries to imperfect women and, in particular, rape victims.
	Okay, how is a feminist equating a woman who has sex for money on film for the pleasure of men with a rape victim?
	How is that even a possibility?
	You want to know the most anti-feminist thing that I've heard today?
	It is this, okay?
	It is not anything that Rudy Giuliani said.
	It's something I'm saying right now.
	The most anti-feminist thing you can say is that Stormy Daniels is akin to a rape victim in any way.
	She is not a rape victim.
	She's a woman who voluntarily has sex for money.
	Again, none of this is to let President Trump off the hook for stooping women who have sex for money, which he does apparently on a fairly regular basis.
	But the left attempts to paint everyone who is anti-Trump as some sort of great hero in the struggle.
	I don't think it's going to redound to their benefit in the long run.
	Well, no.
	Women can be flawed.
	Mr. Giuliani contrasted Ms. Daniels with three beautiful women, classy women, women of great substance, whom Mr. Trump has married, perfectly encapsulating the profoundly misogynist virgin whore dichotomy imposed on women where we can only be perfectly good or entirely bad.
	Well, no, women can be flawed.
	But if you choose to do what Stormy Daniels does, that comes along with some character consequences.
	It's pretty insane that this article was considered brilliant enough to make the pages of The New York Times.
	But this is where we are.
	This is where we are.
	So this is just great stuff.
	Stormy Daniels, heroin.
	That's not the only element of stupidity in the pages of the New York Times.
	The New York Times also features today a piece by Paul Krugman.
	Who is one of the one of the appointed idiots over at the New York Times.
	Krugman knows something about international currency.
	He knows nothing about virtually anything else.
	He has a piece today in the New York Times talking about how Donald Trump is ushering in the era of fascism.
	He says, why it can happen here.
	We are very close to becoming another Poland or Hungary.
	He says, As of 2018, it hardly seems like a joke at all.
	a friend of mine, an expert on international relations, made a joke.
	Now that Eastern Europe is free from the alien ideology of communism, it can return to its true historical path, fascism.
	Even at the time, his quip had a real edge.
	As of 2018, it hardly seems like a joke at all.
	What Freedom House calls illiberalism is on the rise across Eastern Europe.
	This includes Poland and Hungary, both still members of the EU, in which democracy as we normally understand it In both countries, the ruling parties, Law and Justice in Poland, Fidesz in Hungary, have established regimes that maintain the forms of popular elections, but have destroyed the independence of the judiciary, suppressed freedom of the press, institutionalized large-scale corruption, and effectively delegitimized dissent.
	The result seems likely to be one-party rule for the foreseeable future.
	This is correct, by the way.
	The situation in Hungary and Poland is not a good one.
	A lot of the moves toward liberalism in the aftermath of the communist collapse has been replaced by a move toward one-party rule in quasi-fascist mode.
	Jamie Kerchick has a great book on this called The End of Europe that I've recommended on the show before, and he talks specifically about the situations in places like Poland and Hungary.
	But here's where Krugman goes wrong.
	It says, it could all too easily happen here.
	There was a time not long ago when people used to say our democratic norms, our proud history of freedom, would protect us from such a slide into tyranny.
	In fact, some people still say that.
	But believing such a thing today requires willful blindness.
	The fact is that the Republican Party is ready, even eager, to become an American version of law and justice, or FIDEJ, exploiting its current political power to lock in permanent rule.
	This column is gonna look really stupid when and if the Democrats win back the House in 2018, the Senate in 2020, and the presidency in 2020.
	This idea that one party rule is on the horizon here, that that's the next thing that's happening, is just utterly baseless.
	There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
	And Krugman tries to cite a few A few situations in which Republicans have moved to strip particular public officials of power.
	For example, North Carolina, where after a Democrat won the governorship, Republicans passed legislation stripping the governor's office of power.
	Okay, that's why they still have a legislature in North Carolina.
	But in any case, He suggests that what's happened is that the Republicans have moved toward fascism.
	They've moved toward the Hungary-Poland model.
	Now, I will acknowledge that the populism of Donald Trump is a lot more akin to right-wing nationalist parties in Europe than it is to traditional Republican principles in many ways.
	In terms of his actual governance, however, his actual governance has been small government conservatism, except when it comes to a lot of spending proposals.
	So Trump talks like a right-wing European nationalist.
	There's no question about that.
	When it comes to policy, that's not quite the same thing.
	We have a system of checks and balances in the United States that directly cuts against this sort of assumption of power.
	Also, Krugman goes out of his way to ignore a lot of the conditions that led to the rise of those right-wing parties in Europe.
	Kerchik talks about, in that book, End of Europe, why it is that all these right-wing parties have risen.
	And there are a couple of reasons.
	One of those reasons is the politically correct attempt to rewrite history in certain ways that led to a severe backlash in a lot of these countries.
	And the second is a forcible attempt to impose bars on discussion about things like immigration.
	So one of the reasons that you've seen, for example, the Swedish Democrats, which is a more right-wing party in Sweden, start to gain all sorts of power is because there was a forcible attempt in Sweden to quash any serious discussion about the influx of immigrants from the Middle East into Sweden.
	That led to a serious backlash and small fringe parties suddenly gaining a lot of prominence.
	You've seen that happen across Europe.
	In other words, the left-wing attempt to stifle discussion has actually led to a move toward a more authoritarian form of government in various areas of Europe.
	And yet that's exactly what the left seeks to do on a routine basis here in the United States.
	Krugman says that all the principles of the Republican Party are gone, and it's just because they lost their principles.
	He says, why is America the birthplace of democracy so close to following the lead of other countries that have recently destroyed it?
	Don't tell me about economic anxiety.
	That's not what happened in Poland, which grew steadily through the financial crisis and its aftermath.
	And it's not what happened here in 2016.
	Study after study has found that racial resentment, not economic distress, drove Trump voters.
	No, what those studies actually found is that resentment at a left that castigated people on the right as cultural outsiders is what drove Trump to victory.
	This idea that it was purely issues of race is nonsense.
	What it really was Was cultural anxiety about a left that was championing the idea that America was changing for the better because all of the people in the middle of the country were being marginalized.
	The white blue collar workers in Ohio were being marginalized and the press was cheering that on as a grand victory of the leftist vision.
	That has driven a lot of people into the arms of a sort of toxic populism that is quite bad in rhetoric.
	But the United States is a lot more robust in its defenses against those sort of things than Europe is, number one.
	And number two, the left refuses to acknowledge its own culpability in helping to bring about the rise of exactly that sort of populism, which, by the way, is mirrored by a populism on the left from people like Bernie Sanders.
	I'll give you an example of the sort of political correctness that is taking over the left.
	This is an amazing example.
	Over at Brown University, there was a study.
	There's a news story about a study, rather.
	And that study focused in on what we'll talk about.
	Sorry, hold on.
	We'll talk about the study in just one second.
	First, we need to talk about you upgrading your business.
	Okay, so if you need to upgrade your business, you need better employees.
	Let's be real about this.
	The people you have working for you, they're mediocre at best.
	You need to get some new people in there.
	New blood, fresh blood.
	ZipRecruiter is for you.
	ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
	They don't stop there.
	With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and invite them to apply to your job.
	As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes everyone in a spotlight, the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that 80% of employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day.
	With results like that, it is no wonder that ZipRecruiter is the highest rated hiring site in the United States.
	And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	That's ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	We use it here at the Daily Wire offices.
	It's great.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	And again, you can try it out for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Okay, so I'm arguing here that political correctness has helped drive a populist backlash that is not good for the country.
	I don't think the populist backlash is great for the country, but I think the political correctness is even worse for the country.
	And so what we've seen is a toxicity in politics that is led by an attempt to quash debate, not just about Terrible, horrible, no good, very bad ideas.
	But about mainstream ideas.
	I'm talking about mainstream scientific investigation is being forcibly quashed by the forces of political correctness on the left.
	Today's example is particularly insane.
	It comes courtesy of Brown University.
	So Brown University has now pulled down a news story on a study conducted by one of its own researchers.
	The study focused on what it described as rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
	Gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, transgenderism, that was not present in early youth.
	This wasn't a kid who was three and said, I'm a little boy when I was a little girl.
	Instead, it was gender dysphoria that manifested within days or weeks in teens and young adults.
	In other words, it's become trendy in some areas of the world.
	For people to declare themselves transgender.
	And you've seen this in the statistics.
	The number of people in Britain who have reported themselves to, basically, institutes that help deal with transgenderism has doubled in the course of one year.
	Don't tell me that evolution radically shifted in the course of one year, or that there were this many people who are transgender who just realized it in the last year.
	That they'd felt this way since they were three, but now that they watched it on TV, they finally, finally realized that this was happening.
	As I say, when it comes to human behavior, a large component of human behavior is indeed biological, and a huge component of human behavior is biological responses to environment.
	Environment does matter when it comes to all sorts of behavior.
	It's so funny, the left will acknowledge this when it comes to things like IQ.
	That IQ is indeed responsive, to a certain extent, to environment.
	They'll deny that IQ even exists with regard to biology, which is bizarre.
	Or at least they'll make the case that biological studies with regard to IQ should not be done, because we can't look at the biology of IQ, but we certainly should pretend that all sexual behavior is innately biological, and therefore, if you have a drive toward a sexual behavior, this means that you were born this way, right?
	This is the Lady Gaga case about biology.
	The reality is that human behavior is quite malleable, particularly in the sexual arena.
	And one of the things that has happened with regard to transgenderism is as it becomes more prominent in the media, there are more and more people who are being confused.
	There are more and more people who believe that because they feel like outsiders, this must mean that they actually are outsiders in their own body.
	And that's essentially what this study was positing.
	The study author is a woman named Lisa Littman.
	I assume that she's on the left because she works at Brown.
	I can't imagine that she's not.
	She's an assistant professor of the practice of behavioral and social sciences at Brown's School of Public Health.
	And she stated, quote, One of the main conclusions is that more research needs to be done.
	You can tell, by the way, that she doesn't like the conclusions of her own study when she keeps saying more research needs to be done.
	Just descriptive studies.
	Aren't randomized controlled trials.
	You can't tell cause and effect.
	You can't tell prevalence.
	It's going to take more studies to bring in more information, but this is a start.
	So what exactly was the study?
	Here's what the study found.
	Lipman talked to 250 parents of children who suffered from rapid onset gender dysphoria.
	According to Science Daily, among the noteworthy patterns, Lipman found in the survey data, 21% of parents reported their child had one or more friends become transgender identified at around the same time.
	20% reported an increase in their child's social media use around the same time as experiencing gender dysphoria symptoms.
	45% reported both.
	So in other words, a large, large minority of parents who were surveyed about kids who, you know, when they're 13, suddenly realize that they are, quote unquote, of the opposite gender.
	A huge percentage of those kids were being influenced by their peers.
	A huge percentage of them were having peers who decided they were transgender.
	And now, okay, my best friend is transgender.
	So maybe that means I'm transgender.
	And a huge percentage of them were on social media more, reveling, presumably in transgender media coverage.
	The pattern of clusters of teens in friend groups becoming transgender-identified, the group dynamics of these friend groups, and the types of advice viewed online led Littman to the hypothesis that friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs, which is common sense, and which is something that folks on the right have been saying, that when you have a society that pushes certain messages about sexuality, it actually has an impact on how people behave sexually.
	Which we have known forever.
	Okay, it's true with regard to porn habits.
	It is true with regard to homosexuality.
	It is true with regard to transgenderism.
	It is true with regard to every sort of type of sexual experimentation.
	The more exposure a certain practice gets in the media, the more people are going to try it out.
	And that's not saying there's not a biological component to transgenderism.
	Perhaps there is.
	I assume that there probably is, particularly in young kids.
	It's not, even assuming there's not a biological component to, it's certainly not assuming there's not a biological component to homosexuality.
	Particularly when it comes to twin studies, it shows there is a biological component, although the idea that it's completely biological is belied by the fact that even in twin studies, about 50% of twins are disparate, meaning if you have genetically identical twins, only about 50% of them are both gay.
	Right, if one's gay and the other one half the time is straight, which would suggest it's not completely biological since they have the same DNA.
	Examples, so what are these beliefs that are being promulgated by media?
	Examples include the belief that non-specific symptoms such as feeling uncomfortable in their own skins or feeling like they don't fit in Which could be part of normal puberty or associated with trauma should be perceived as gender dysphoria.
	In other words, the media and friends constantly saying you feel uncomfortable in your own skin or you are, God forbid, raped, something terrible happened to you, and now you feel uncomfortable sexually.
	Maybe it's because you're actually a member of the opposite gender.
	What other beliefs?
	The belief that the only path to happiness is transition, which is something that the media push non-stop.
	Non-stop the media push this idea that if you are uncomfortable in your own skin, the only possible solution is hormone treatment and to mutilate your genitals.
	The belief that anyone who disagrees with the teen is transphobic and should be cut out of their life.
	This is another one of the areas that if you are a teen and you go to your parents and you say, Mom, I'm actually a boy and you're a girl.
	And your parents say, No, sweetheart, you know, I know that you're having a tough time right now.
	Let's go talk to a psychologist.
	That this means your parents is transphobic and hates you.
	And it's something that's being pushed also.
	This is what the study says.
	Of the parents who provided information about their child's friendship group, about a third responded and more than half of the kids in the friendship group became transgender identified.
	More than half the kids in a particular transgender group became transgender identified.
	In other words, there's a certain psychological contagion that pertains to sexual experimentation and gender experimentation.
	Which is exactly what you would figure, because cliques have existed in schools for a very long time.
	Any trend, any trend that exists in a public school, in any school setting, is going to bring people within that clique.
	Hey, how is it that you get kids to dress like idiot goths?
	All you have to do is get a couple of kids to dress like idiot goths and then all the friends dress like idiot goths.
	The same thing holds true when you have a media that is glorifying Caitlyn Jenner as Woman of the Year.
	A group with 50% of its members becoming transgender-identified represents a rate that is 70 times the expected prevalence for young adults.
	70 times, according to Litman.
	This is the Brown University researcher.
	Additionally, 62% of parents reported their teen or young adults had one or more diagnoses of a psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability before the onset of gender dysphoria.
	So in other words, we already know about comorbidity between depression and gender dysphoria.
	The idea here is that it's possible that other mental conditions are translating themselves over to gender dysphoria, thanks to peers in the group who are suggesting that this is probably the solution to whatever difficulty that you're having in life.
	48% reported their child had experienced a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of gender dysphoria, including being bullied, sexually assaulted, or having their parents get divorced.
	So, in other words, when you have troubled kids, they are more likely to experience what this researcher calls rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
	So what did the left do with this study?
	Did they say, okay, well let's look at the data, maybe we should drill down, maybe we should go ahead and do further research on this, maybe we should take a look at the fact that rates of gender dysphoria are rapidly multiplying across the West.
	Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, it's happening everywhere.
	Why is this happening?
	Is it because there's a sudden biological shift in human genomes?
	Or is it possible that environmental and social conditions actually make a difference with regard to sexual behavior and identification?
	Instead of doing that, Brown University had a different solution.
	A different solution.
	I'm going to tell you about that solution in just one second.
	First, you're going to have to go over to Daily Wire.
	So, Daily Wire, you get $9.99 a month.
	You get the rest of the show.
	You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show.
	You get the rest of Michael Moll's show.
	You get all of those things for $9.99 a month.
	You also get the wonderful mug, right?
	This here mug right here.
	This leftist here is hot or cold tumbler for $99 a year.
	That's with the annual subscription.
	Also, please go and subscribe over at YouTube or iTunes.
	That means that you will get Our Sunday special.
	This Sunday we have on a fantastic guest who I don't know who it is yet, but it will be fantastic because they're all great.
	We only have on good guests.
	So go check that out as well.
	as well, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay, so what did Brown University do with all of this?
	What did Brown do with all this?
	Well, what Brown did with all of this is they buried the study.
	They buried the study.
	And they decided that the study had to be pulled down.
	So Brown University couldn't stand the actual study.
	They caved.
	The university pulled down a news article about the study.
	Realistically, Brown and the journal in which the original comment was published, PLOS One, turned against the study because it offended politically correct sensibilities about transgenderism.
	Brown School of Public Health Dean Bess Marcus even issued a letter to the entire community.
	Here is what the letter said, quote, Independent of the university's removal of the article because of concerns about research methodology, the School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.
	You reading me here?
	Brown University, a research university, pulled down one of its own studies because they said that it could hurt people they don't want to hurt.
	How insane is that?
	Okay, basically they're saying that science is now taking, they're openly saying this, right?
	They are saying that science is taking a backseat.
	That science is taking a backseat to the realities of political correctness.
	I'm gonna read that sentence again because this is insane.
	The School of Public Health has heard from the Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.
	Could be used, not is being used, is not, is not, Not is used, could be used.
	Okay, so if the scientific data doesn't back your preferred political position, we're just going to pull down the study.
	And then Brown just dissembles.
	They say, The merits of all research should be debated vigorously because that is the process by which knowledge ultimately advances, often through tentative findings that are often overridden or corrected in subsequent higher quality research.
	This is them saying, We really, really hope this study isn't true.
	It would be really bad if this study were true.
	Because it might suggest that not everybody who identifies as transgender is suffering from a biological disorder like gender identity disorder.
	It's possible that they're just mistaking their own feelings.
	We can't say that.
	So let's hope that this study is debunked.
	In the meantime, we'll pull down the study because we're a bunch of cowards.
	They say the spirit of free inquiry and scholarly debate is central to academic excellence.
	At the same time.
	Mm-hmm.
	Here it is.
	At the same time, we believe firmly it is incumbent on public health researchers to listen to multiple perspectives and to recognize and articulate the limitations of their work.
	And by the way, as I say, the author of the study specifically said this is a descriptive study requiring further research.
	But that wasn't good enough.
	Brown pulled it down.
	This process includes acknowledging and considering the perspectives of those who criticize our research methods and conclusions and working to improve future research to address these limitations and better serve public health.
	And then I love this.
	This is the best part.
	There's an added obligation for vigilance in research design and analysis anytime there are implications for the health of the communities at the center of research and study.
	So in other words, we need to be rigorous, but we need to be super duper rigorous if we are talking about stuff the left doesn't like.
	Well, no, that's actually not the requirement of science.
	The requirement of science is that you are supposed to be super duper rigorous all the way through.
	The requirement of science is not dependent on whether the left likes the result.
	And then you wonder why folks on the right don't trust a lot of the scientific results that seem to be pushed by the left.
	Honestly, I think that global warming is taking place because the data suggests that global warming is taking place.
	I accept the reality that a certain percentage of that global warming is created by man-driven activities.
	But for folks on the right who look at the way that the left punishes people for straying from the established consensus, And sometimes, how left punishes people for straying from a consensus that is not even scientifically established, that is politically established.
	Do you wonder why folks on the right don't trust folks on the left when it comes to their scientific research?
	That's not an excuse for people ignoring science.
	And there are people on right and left who ignore science about vaccines, for example, because it benefits their own position.
	It creates a confirmation bias.
	But that's not what this is.
	What we are watching here is a reverse confirmation bias.
	You don't like the results of a study, so Brown will pull it down because it might offend people.
	It's just insane.
	The commitment of the school to diversity and inclusion is central to our mission, says Brown, and we pride ourselves on building a community that fully recognizes and affirms the full diversity of gender and sexual identity in its members.
	These commitments are an unshakable part of our core values as a community.
	So here's what they're going to do.
	In an effort to support robust research and constructive dialogue on gender identity in adolescents and youth, the school will be organizing a panel of experts Ah, panel of experts.
	We can't actually just present the study and then have critiques of the methodology of the study.
	We will present a panel of experts, namely a bunch of people who agree with the prevailing politically correct view of gender identity disorder, and then we will silence everybody else and we will get Lisa Lippman, a non-tenured professor, fired.
	That's what's going to happen to her, okay?
	Lisa Lippman will never work again at a major research university.
	That's what's going to happen to Lisa Lippman.
	She's going to go exactly the same way as Brett Weinstein, who is a biologist over at a socialist over at Evergreen University.
	Heather Hying, who is his wife.
	They will go after anyone.
	They will go after anyone who does not follow the basic leftist consensus on politics.
	They will destroy science in order to do so, and they will censor people.
	This is what creates the anti-political correctness backlash on the right.
	Jussie Singel of New York Magazine, who is no right winger, he says, the honesty here is noteworthy.
	Researchers can publish findings that support the born this way storyline all day long with no problems.
	Anything else will be carefully picked apart for signs of harmfulness.
	He says this could be used as justification to discredit just about any interesting social science study.
	And that is exactly right.
	But that is what the left is dedicated to.
	Because the left is dedicated to one way of thinking, and it is the only way of thinking, and there will be no other ways of thinking.
	Speaking of which, the left is also cracking down on Catholic charity, so that's awesome.
	So it's not just important to screw up kids when it comes to issues like transgenderism by failing to acknowledge there is an environmental component to how kids feel about their own gender and sexuality, and instead pushing forward with a leftist social agenda.
	It's deeply, deeply important that they shut down Catholic charities that are involved in adoption.
	In the latest blow against religious Americans, the Catholic charities Buffalo were forced to shut down their adoption and foster services thanks to state rules that prohibit any adoption or foster agency from refusing to send kids to same-sex partners.
	So, let's say I'm a single mom and I give up my kid to a Catholic charity because I'm also Catholic and I'd like my kid to be raised Catholic.
	The state of New York says that that Catholic charity cannot participate in foster care or adoption services anymore.
	They have to shut down because the Catholic charity will not hand the kid over to a gay couple.
	Instead, they want to give preference to straight couples.
	Not allowed to do that under New York state law.
	And so Catholic Charities, instead, will send those kids, presumably, back into the state system.
	So well done left.
	Well done left.
	We'll make sure that those kids get stuck in some sort of foster home, as opposed to with straight parents, because we have to make sure that gay parents are privileged in the same way that straight parents are, even though a child needs a mother and a father.
	That's not a religious argument, by the way.
	That is a natural law, reason-based argument.
	Mommies and daddies are different.
	Anyone who tells you different is a liar.
	Mommies and daddies are different.
	And if you don't believe me, think about your own mommy and daddy, and ask which one of them you would replace with a member of the opposite sex, and how much that would change your life.
	To pretend otherwise is idiotic.
	The same left that talks about the value of diversity when it comes to race, and talks about the special value of women when it comes to feminism, and considers people like Stormy Daniels evidence of feminism, says that motherhood is not an integral component of a child's life.
	Instead, two fathers can do the exact same job as a father and a mother.
	It's absolute crap, and now they will embed it in law and shut down Catholic charities who simply maintain that a child deserves a mother and a father.
	The Catholic Charities of Buffalo is just the latest.
	This has already happened in Boston.
	It also happened in Illinois in 2011.
	But it doesn't matter because the left gets what it wants, which is the ability to preside over a hard left move in all of social areas.
	Zach Ford, who's an exorable, exorable human being, over at ThinkProgress, he writes, No, the kids lost.
	The kids lost because these kids might have been able to get a home through a Catholic charity and be raised in the way that their parents wanted them to be raised.
	And instead, they're going to be shunted back into whatever state system the left wants them shunted into.
	And you wonder why people are not Dumping Trump?
	The reason why people aren't dumping Trump is because the left is so insane.
	Because this is the agenda the left is pushing.
	The agenda the left is pushing is Stormy Daniels is a heroine, and Stormy Daniels is a hero, and sex work is exactly the same as a woman working as a partner at a law firm.
	Or that Stormy Daniels is equivalent, that talking badly about Stormy Daniels is equivalent to making her a rape victim.
	This is Jill Filipovic's perspective.
	The left is suggesting that scientific research studies be shut down if they don't reach the proper conclusions.
	And they're suggesting that Catholic charities be shut down because we have to make sure that kids can be adopted by gay couples at the same rate as straight couples because mommies and daddies are unnecessary.
	You can have two mommies or two daddies.
	They're exactly the same thing.
	You think that this is just a case that I'm exaggerating here?
	Here's Nancy Pelosi, the once and probably future Speaker of the House of Representatives, saying that the 2018 campaign is going to be about fear.
	We're going to have so many women, and that's why Republicans are so afraid, and that's why President Trump is so afraid.
	He's afraid of all the women, people of color, LGBTQ numbers that will be added to the ranks.
	And the Democratic coalition is based on this, right?
	The Democratic coalition is not based on fundamental principles about freedom.
	It is based on which interest groups can we cater to and allow dominance in American politics to dominate other interest groups in American politics.
	That is what the left is about.
	The same left that will declare Mike Pence a theocrat.
	is in its soul, theocratic about government itself.
	Government is God.
	They are the great moral arbiters of the planet, and therefore they get to determine what sort of science we pursue, what sort of adoption strategies are pursued by religious people, and by people of good faith around the country.
	They're the ones who get to determine our social lives, and then they turn around and suggest that we're the fascists.
	And then they wonder why people are resonating to a populist rhetoric that says that the left needs to be stopped.
	They're wondering why conservatives are moving anti-left.
	I don't think there's an excuse for conservatives to abandon their own fundamental principles about morality, decency, and limited government in order to slap the left.
	I don't think anti-left is the same thing as conservative.
	But to ignore the temptation that is being presented toward moving toward a populist right-wing anti-leftism because the left has decided that they want to challenge the Okay, time for some things that I like and then we'll do some things that I hate.
	is for the left to paint a rather self-flattering picture of exactly how politics in the United States works at this point.
	Okay, time for some things that I like, and then we'll do some things that I hate.
	So this week I'm doing some Neil Simon stuff because Neil Simon passed away over the weekend.
	Neil Simon, an incredibly talented writer.
	This is one of my favorite comedies.
	It's called The Goodbye Girl.
	I think I've recommended it on the show before, but we'll go back to it.
	It was probably two years ago or three years ago.
	In any case, Neil Simon's Goodbye Girl with Richard Dreyfuss and Marsha Mason.
	Richard Dreyfuss turns in, I think, a career-best performance in The Goodbye Girl.
	He's really funny.
	The basic plot is that this woman and her young son She gets divorced and Young's daughter, sorry.
	She gets divorced and she needs a roommate basically to stay in her apartment.
	And Richard Dreyfuss is an actor and he moves in.
	And it's very funny and very cute.
	And it's got some real moments.
	Here's some of the trailer.
	Say hello to the goodbye girl.
	Make it fast.
	Hi, I think there's been some kind of mistake.
	I sublet this apartment from this friend of mine.
	Technically, that apartment belongs to me.
	Now, kid, do I come up there now, we discuss this amicably, or do I storm the place in the morning?
	Five minutes.
	The only practical solution is that we share the apartment.
	I'll bet.
	You win.
	Get your bags.
	You get the small bedroom.
	We're in trouble, right?
	Say hello to Richard Dreyfuss.
	The best part of this is that they do a production of Richard III, and the Richard III production is hysterically funny because the director of the production, being a leftist, suggests that Richard III should be played as a homosexual, that Richard III is latently homosexual, but he also insists that Richard Dreyfuss play it as openly As possible in the production is extraordinarily funny.
	So go check out the Goodbye Girl.
	It's well worth the watch.
	It's it's quite enjoyable.
	OK, other things that I like.
	So finally, President Trump came out and issued a statement about John McCain that was fitting and useful.
	It only took him a day and a bunch of pressure.
	He issued a statement saying, Despite our differences on policy and politics, I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country, and in his honor, I have signed a proclamation to fly the flag of the United States at half mast until the day of his internment, which is sort of normal policy.
	I have asked Vice President Pence to offer an address at the ceremony honoring Senator McCain at the U.S.
	Capitol this Friday.
	At the request of the McCain family, I have also authorized military transportation of Senator McCain's remains from Arizona to Washington, D.C.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	and a horse and case in transport during the service at the U.S. Naval Academy.
	And then he asked also Kelly and Madison Bolton to represent the administration at the services.
	This is what he should have done originally, and then we could have avoided this entire silly controversy.
	But at least Trump got it right, if a little belatedly.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So the president is cutting a trade deal that he suggests is really a bilateral trade deal between the United States and Mexico.
	It is not.
	It's mostly a revision of NAFTA.
	He wants to retitle it because Trump enjoys retitling things.
	He likes rebranding.
	That's fine.
	The actual trade deal may be better.
	We have to see the details fully hashed out.
	It may not be better.
	But Trump's rhetoric is sort of disconnected from what's actually going on.
	He's suggesting that he's scrapping NAFTA altogether and renegotiating from scratch.
	That's not true.
	It's really he's negotiating changes with Mexico and Canada.
	And that's basically all that's happening.
	But if those changes are good, then fine, right?
	Here's what CNN reports.
	This is actually true.
	This is actually real CNN reporting.
	There's no formal free trade deal between the U.S.
	and Mexico, only an agreement between the two countries on how to resolve key issues in their trade relationship as part of the NAFTA talks.
	But this led the president to triumphantly state that he had fixed all of our trade problems by scrapping NAFTA.
	Again, that may not be true, but it led to this kind of funny moment when he called up Enrique Peña Nieto, who's still the president of Mexico, and tried to use a speakerphone in a moment directly from Veep.
	The president is on the phone.
	Enrique?
	Yeah, you can hook him up.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Do you want to put that on this phone, please?
	Hello?
	So, yeah, solid stuff there from the president and somebody on his team probably got a chewing out for a little bit of that.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So, I have to acknowledge that I think the bad lip-reading folks are extraordinarily hilarious.
	They're really, really funny.
	And they did a bad lip-reading of Sarah Huckabee Sanders and members of the media at a White House press conference.
	We'll show a couple seconds of it.
	It's pretty funny.
	I need a drink.
	Okay, idiots, are you ready?
	I just can't stand the faces of you people.
	Those dead, questioning eyes.
	You dummies don't matter.
	Greedo?
	What happens when I scratch a horseradish all over my face?
	Now, why would you do this?
	Well, I'm definitely gonna scrape it somewhere.
	Yeah, you don't matter.
	Angie?
	My beard itches pretty bad.
	Is this because of my bugs?
	You have literal bugs?
	Uh-huh.
	I think it's mainly bed bugs.
	Okay, you gotta go.
	Wait, is this about the bugs?
	Yeah, it is.
	Stank?
	No, all their videos are really funny.
	You can go check out the Bad Lip Reading folks.
	They do a pretty spectacular job.
	Okay, time for a couple of quick things that I hate.
	I don't know why she's investing herself so much in politics lately.
	She has every right to do so.
	I always say that because people take it, when I criticize a celebrity for speaking, they take it as though I'm criticizing the celebrity for speaking as opposed to what the celebrity is saying.
	Alyssa Milano did this little video for NowThis, which is just one of the dumbest sites on the internet, NowThis.
	They basically make these videos about fringe folks and then suggest they're mainstream.
	And she did a video about stopping Brett Kavanaugh, who's President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, who will be confirmed.
	And she decided that she was going to read out supposed accounts from supposed victims as though she was the victim.
	And it got real weird.
	We have the power to stop Brett Kavanaugh.
	I know we do.
	But we have to call our senators.
	It's not yet a done deal, so we have to bang down their doors and share our stories because we are all Jane Doe.
	We are all Joaquin Oliver.
	We are all Laura Packard.
	And so many more of us are vulnerable if Brett Kavanaugh is in the majority on the highest court of the land.
	Oh, the crisis mentality.
	Oh no, we can't have an originalist on the court.
	Do it!
	I just, the level of drama that Democrats bring to politics, pretty astonishing.
	Let's admit this, okay?
	We're all prone to this.
	When Obama was president, I'd get overdramatic from time to time.
	But, you know, the level of panic about somebody like Brett Kavanaugh is pretty insipid, given the fact that it is the left that has used the court as a club against legislatures across the country.
	It is the left that has used the Constitution as a weapon to wield against traditional American values over and over and over again, from Roe v. Wade to Obergefell.
	And the idea that Brett Kavanaugh, for reading the Constitution in its properly appointed judicial role, that he's the threat.
	Pretty wild.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	So, ESPN is dying in the ratings.
	I can't imagine why.
	Actually, I can imagine why.
	It's because they won't shut up about politics and just cover sports.
	So I can't get a damn baseball highlight on SportsCenter anymore, but I can certainly get half of the ESPN staff yelling at Tiger Woods, an actual black person, over his supposed racism for not ripping President Trump.
	We can have Max Kellerman, who's as white as I am, talking about the evils of Tiger Woods.
	It really bothers me.
	I'm angry at what Tiger Woods said.
	Because it is a thoughtless statement dressed up as a thoughtful statement.
	And it either holds in contempt the intelligence of the people who hear it, or else it's just a stupid thing to say.
	Oh, it's him saying, we have to respect the office of the president.
	I don't want to get into politics.
	It's a stupid thing to say.
	And Max Kellerman would know because he is actually the king of stupid things to say.
	He once was the Duke, but he's now been elevated to actual royalty, which is impressive.
	He was second in line.
	He was once a prince.
	And then the father of stupidity died at some point and made him the king.
	So the king of saying stupid things, Max Kellerman, who is just Bad at his job.
	He thinks Tiger Woods is bad.
	But he's not the only one.
	There was an entire ESPN segment about Tiger Woods in which Tiger Woods was labeled not really black, which was just excellent.
	Well, first of all, we don't know what Tiger Woods believe.
	He's Campbellanation.
	He's not black.
	When he got arrested, he was black.
	He was listed as black on the report.
	So let's understand that.
	Tiger Woods, that's the issue that the African-American community has always had because, obviously, from a historical perspective, you know, if one-third of you has a darker hue, a darker pigmentation, you know, the bottom line is you are black and it is that simple.
	And he ain't even one-third.
	I'm just throwing that out there.
	Um, so what?
	So Tiger's not black anymore?
	Weird, because it seemed to me that the entire media was very focused on his color when he was winning majors because it was actually a breakthrough for black golfers.
	I mean, I was there for that entire time.
	And that was fine.
	That's a good thing.
	But now he's not black anymore because he didn't want to say anything bad about Trump.
	So Stephen A. Smith really sounding off in the most intelligent possible way.
	I think the dumbest story of the week, however, with regard to sports wasn't even the Tiger Woods stuff.
	It was the Serena Williams' body suit.
	So she wanted to wear a catsuit, basically, at the French Open.
	And the French Open banned the catsuit because it was not in keeping with their fashion requirements.
	Their actual fashion requirements at these various places.
	That's why you don't see the players wearing, basically, like, sweatsuits out there.
	Or tracksuits.
	Anyway, Michelle Beadle says that it is racist to ban Serena Williams' catsuit because of the new dress code.
	And so she explains that racism, racism, everywhere racism... It doesn't matter, by the way, that Serena Williams is by far the most praised female tennis player of all time.
	And the best female tennis player of all time.
	And that the last thing the French Open wants to do is offend Serena Williams.
	No, it must be racism, because everybody is a racist, racist, everybody racist.
	This is not a good look for the French Open, or the French, and specifically the gentleman who said you must respect the game.
	I think there's a racial card being played here, because it is Serena Williams, the bootylicious comment.
	He sounds like the beginning of the Outnight God, like he's just offended.
	There's no reason to ban the outfit, because you're right.
	There are many other uniforms that show so much skin, and that doesn't seem to be a problem whatsoever.
	So I think she has been Marks for this, and I think the entire thing is just a bad look for all of them.
	Okay, so one of the cases that's being made for this is that she needed help with her blood clots and this helped create circulation.
	But the French tennis federation president, Bernard Giudicelli, he said, I think sometimes we've gone too far.
	He said it will no longer be accepted.
	One must respect the game and the plays.
	Well, I mean, it is a skin-tight bodysuit, and let's remember that this is not the first time that a person has been banned from wearing a skin-tight bodysuit at a major.
	There is a woman named Anne White.
	Her name might betray her color as well.
	A white woman.
	In 1985, she tried to wear a white bodysuit over to Wimbledon, and Wimbledon banned it.
	And she was wearing a white one-piece lycra bodysuit.
	It attracted a lot of attention, and the crowd, and the photographers.
	And then play was stopped for the day.
	And Ellen Mills, the umpire, told her to wear more appropriate clothing the next day.
	She did so, and she lost the third set.
	And she said she didn't know why it was controversial, but like 30 years ago, they were saying that this was an issue.
	So I guess it's not racist, but it's racist because racism, racism, and that's all ESPN cares about.
	I wonder why nobody wants to watch sports on ESPN.
	Oh, maybe it's because they don't even do sports on ESPN anymore.
	OK, we'll be back here tomorrow with all of the latest.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and 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 Ford Publishing production.

▲