All Episodes
Previous Next
March 13, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:37
The College Scam | Ep. 736
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A college scam ensnares two famous actresses, corruption at the Obama Department of Justice rears its ugly head, and AOC battles for the commanding heights of the economy.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
I know what you're asking.
You're saying to yourself, how is it that you're ready to do a podcast the next morning after flying back from Michigan?
I'll tell you how.
We don't need sleep here.
All we need is the intellectual energy of a fervent, believing movement.
We'll get to the actual news in just one second.
But before we get to that, let me remind you, in 2008, the U.S.
national debt was $10 trillion.
Today, the debt is nearly $22 trillion.
It is rising like a hockey stick.
If you don't think we're sitting on a house of cards, you're living with your head in the sand.
But since you're listening to my podcast, You are clearly smarter than the average bear.
So what exactly is your plan?
Can you afford another hit to your retirement like the last downturn when the S&P dropped 50%?
Hedge against inflation, hedge against uncertainty and instability with precious metals.
Gold is a safe haven against uncertainty.
My savings plan is diversified and yours should be too.
The company I trust With precious metal purchases is Birch Gold Group.
Right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move that IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver, which is something you might want to consider.
Look back historically.
When the bottom falls out of everything else, gold does tend to safeguard savings.
Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Contact Birchgold Group.
Get a free information kit on physical precious metals right now.
See if diversifying into gold and silver makes sense for you.
Ask all your questions and then talk to my friends over at Birchgold Group.
All you have to do to get that no cost, no obligation kit, text Ben to 474747.
Again, text Ben, my name, to 474747.
4747.
Again, text Ben, my name, to 474747.
That's text Ben to 474747.
We begin today with one of the greatest scams in modern American history.
I'm talking, of course, about the university system.
Now, personally, I am a beneficiary of America's university system.
I went to the University of California at Los Angeles, which is the superior school in Los Angeles.
I went to UCLA.
And then for law school, I went to Harvard Law School.
So I know a fair bit about higher education since I've spent an awful lot of time there.
Well, I will explain to you why it is that so much of college education is a scam.
What college education is actually designed to do, why what colleges are designed to do, does not mesh with the proposals of the left for paying for tuition for everyone.
And we can do all of this through the prism of what is a shocking and somewhat amusing story.
This is a story about a bunch of rich people who apparently bribed their kids' way into top and also mid-tier colleges, according to the New York Times.
A teenage girl who did not play soccer magically became a soccer star recruit at Yale.
Cost to her parents, $1.2 million.
A high school boy eager to enroll at the University of Southern California was falsely deemed to have a learning disability so he could take his standardized test with a complicit proctor who would make sure he got the right score.
Cost to his parents, at least $50,000.
A student with no experience rowing won a spot on the USC crew team after a photograph of another person in a boat was submitted as evidence of her prowess.
Her parents wired $200,000 into a special account.
Now, okay, let's be straight about this for a second.
I hear the $1.2 million for Yale.
Yale's pretty exclusive.
I do not hear the $200,000 for admission to USC.
I mean, that is really, really overpaying for that Happy Meal right there.
In a major college admissions scandal that laid bare the elaborate lengths some wealthy parents will go to get their children into competitive American universities, federal prosecutors charged 50 people on Tuesday in a brazen scheme to buy spots in the freshman classes at Yale, Stanford, and other big-name schools.
33 well-heeled parents were charged in the case, including Hollywood celebrities and prominent business leaders.
Prosecutors said there could be additional indictments to come.
Also implicated, top college athletic coaches, who were accused of accepting millions of dollars to help admit undeserving students to a wide variety of colleges, from the University of Texas at Austin to Wake Forest and Georgetown, by suggesting that they were top athletes.
By the way, we should get rid of college athletics.
I know, unpopular viewpoint.
A lot of folks love to watch their college athletics.
Yeah, well, I like to watch Broadway theater.
I don't think that schools should give scholarships based on your ability to do a play that the school raises money off of.
If you want to go to school to learn about theater, that is one thing.
But you don't go to school to learn about sports.
You go to school, and you join an athletic team so that the school can make money off of you, which is why they should pay their student-athletes, or they should have associated teams that don't actually get college scholarships.
But that's a side point.
The parents included the television star Lori Loughlin and her husband, the fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, the actress Felicity Huffman, and William E. McGlasson Jr., a partner at a private equity firm TPG, according to officials.
The scheme unveiled Tuesday was stunning in its breadth and audacity.
It was the Justice Department's largest-ever college admissions prosecution.
A sprawling investigation that involved 200 agents nationwide and resulted in charges against 50 people in six states.
The charges also underscored how college admissions have become so cutthroat and competitive that some have sought to break the rules.
The authorities say the parents of some of the nation's wealthiest and most privileged students sought to buy spots for their children at top universities, not only cheating the system, but potentially cheating other hardworking students out of a chance at a college education.
The parents are the prime movers in this fraud, said Andrew Lelling, the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.
He said those parents used their wealth to create a separate unfair admissions process for their children.
Okay, quick note.
That separate unfair admissions process for kids has existed in a couple of different ways in the United States for quite a while.
Way number one is through legacy admissions.
The idea, my dad went to a school, therefore I should get into the school.
Or my parents gave a building to the school, therefore I should get into the school.
In fact, this even comes up in the show The Sopranos.
Where a meadow soprano gets into Columbia, and then her parents are hit up for a donation to the building.
So this sort of stuff has been going on in American public life for a very long time.
And then there's a second corrupt way that people get into schools, and that is the soft bigotry of low expectation way that we get people into schools through writing stories in their essays about how tough they have it in life, and then we allow people with lower scores and lower GPA to take the spots of people with higher scores and higher GPAs, predominantly Asian in the cases of places like Harvard.
The real victims in this case, says Andrew Lelling, the U.S.
attorney, were the hard-working students displaced in the admission process by far less qualified students and their families who simply bought their way in.
At the center of the sweeping financial and fraud case was William Singer.
He's the founder of a college prep business called the Edge College and Career Network, also known as The Key.
Apparently, Mr. Singer used The Key and its nonprofit arm, Key Worldwide Foundation, based in Newport, California, to help students cheat on their standardized tests and to pay bribes to coaches who could get them into college with fake athletic credentials.
Parents paid Mr. Singer about $25 million from 2011 until February 2019 to bribe coaches and university administrators to designate their kids as recruited athletes, which effectively ensured their admission, according to the indictment.
Singer went to court on Thursday afternoon and described how he arranged for students S.A.T.
and A.C.T.
results to be falsified by sending them to take the exams in Houston or L.A.
where he'd bribed the test administrators.
He described the students as believing they were taking the test legitimately, but he said the test proctor would correct their answers afterward.
He said he would tell the proctor the exact score he wanted the student to get, and then that proctor was great at this and would achieve the score exactly.
So there are a bunch of celebrities who have been caught up in the middle of this, obviously, and that is why it's drawing so much fire and so much media scrutiny at this point.
Some of the celebrities who have been caught up in the middle of this, of course, Felicity Huffman of Desperate Housewives fame and Lori Loughlin of Full House.
Loughlin and her husband have allegedly spent $500,000 in bribes to get their two daughters designated recruits for the USC crew team.
The two daughters were then admitted on that basis.
As I say, that's a lot of money to just get into USC.
Huffman paid $15,000 as a faux charitable donation to the Key Worldwide Foundation so her daughter could be admitted to a top college.
The money actually went toward paying a third party to correct her daughter's SAT scores, boosting it to a 1420 from the mid-1000s where she had been scoring on her practice SAT a year earlier.
So we do have a rather hilarious bit of audio from Lori Loughlin's daughter.
So her daughter is an Instagram model, Olivia Jade.
She's an Instagram model.
She has something like 1.5 million Instagram followers.
She has another 2 million YouTube followers, which does raise the question as to why she cares about going to college in the first place.
She's making more money off of all of that than she will ever make By majoring in some random marketing class at USC.
In any case, here is Lori Loughlin's daughter talking about what she expected out of college.
And then the whole college thing.
Yep, I'm going.
I'm living in a dorm with a roommate who's so sweet.
With work, it's going to be hard.
Like my first week of school, I'm leaving to go to Fiji for work.
And then I'll be in New York a bunch this year for work.
And traveling to a different country because I'm creating something with this country and that's her work.
So I don't know how much of school I'm gonna attend but I'm gonna go in and talk to my deans and everyone and hope that I can try and balance it all.
But I do want the experience of like game days, partying.
I don't really care about school.
Okay, so everybody is laughing at this.
She doesn't really care about school.
So why do her parents care so much about getting her into school?
The answer is that Olivia Jade is right and y'all are wrong.
Okay, Olivia Jade is correct and you all are wrong.
What do I mean by that?
What I mean by that is that what people think college is for, what people think university is for, is not what college and universities are for.
Whenever I speak at colleges and universities, and I speak at these universities regularly, I mean, I was at University of Michigan yesterday, I always say, There is a vast difference between people who are going to colleges and universities to learn a skill set and people who are going there to not learn a skill set.
So in other words, the people who are generally in the humanities and the people who are generally in the sciences, if you want to put a label on it.
At UCLA, that was the North Campus majors versus the South Campus majors.
South Campus majors, that was all the pre-med folks.
South Campus majors, We're all the engineering students, all the mathematics students, all the geology students, you know, people who are going to learn a skill set they were then going to apply in a job.
All the North Campus majors were the political science majors, and the history majors, and the English majors, the people who are prepping for a career, maybe in academia or teaching.
And possibly in going to law school, or business school, or in marketing, or something.
All those North Campus majors were not there to learn a skill set.
Because the reality is, the skill sets that you learn being a lawyer are not the same as the skill sets that you learn in a poli-sci class.
You don't learn a skill set in a poli-sci class.
If you don't know how to write by the time you get to college, very low chance you're actually going to learn to write once you do get to college.
So then what exactly are colleges and universities about?
And this answers a couple of other questions.
The question I'm asking right now is about to answer a couple of other questions.
So, to answer the question, what are colleges and universities about?
We have to answer two other questions specific to this scandal.
One, why are rich, famous parents shelling out legitimately millions of dollars to get their kids into these prestigious schools?
They don't need to.
They're rich and famous.
They could just give their kid a million bucks and say, go start a business.
Or they could put it in a trust fund.
Their kid wouldn't have to worry.
So why are they so intense on getting their kids into these top-notch schools?
That's question number one we have to answer.
And question number two.
Let's say all these kids get in.
Let's say that Lori Loughlin's kid gets in.
And she gets in on the basis of crappy SAT scores and bad grades and all the rest.
Wouldn't she fail out?
And if not, why not?
If I got admitted to the MIT mathematics program on the basis of bad scores, I would fail out.
But if I got into MIT on the basis of crew, being an MIT crew, and then I majored in history, there's a good shot that I would not fail out.
Which says something about the quality of these universities and what they are intending to do.
What these universities, particularly in the humanities, are designed to do.
Because they are not career building exercises.
They are not skill set building exercises.
I'll explain in a second what people are getting wrong about college and why this scandal Could rip the lid off of what basically is a university scheme in just one second.
First, let's talk about your genes.
23andMe allows you to go beyond ancestry and to access more personalized insights about you based on your DNA.
With more than 125 genetic reports, you can even gain insights about your health, traits, and more.
Receiving your personalized genetic reports is just the beginning.
You can take the next steps by talking to your healthcare provider or considering lifestyle changes like adjusting your sleep habits or caffeine consumption.
I'll give you a deep sleep report.
If you've always suspected you feel more sleepy than others after you miss out on a night of sleep, maybe that is genetics.
There's the alcohol flush reaction report.
Does alcohol turn your cheeks pink after a glass of rosé?
Well, you may have an alcohol flush reaction.
There could be genetic factors that contribute to that.
Your saturated fat and weight report, telling you how your genetics could impact your body's response to your diet.
You can learn if you're likely to weigh more on a diet high in saturated fat, even if you consume the same number of calories.
All sorts of great information.
Plus, you can find out whether you're more Native American than Elizabeth Warren.
See what your genes can say about your health traits and more.
Buy your Health and Ancestry Service Kit today at 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
That is the number 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Again, 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
It's super easy.
You spit into a tube, and then you send it off.
They send you back all your results.
It's super cool.
23andme.com slash Shapiro.
23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Okay, so as I say, There are these two questions that need to be answered.
Why are rich parents paying for their kids to get into these schools?
And two, even if they did get these kids into the schools, why aren't the kids failing out?
Why aren't the kids failing out?
Because, presumably, they're unqualified.
And what we have seen from many affirmative action programs all over the country is that when people who are not generally qualified to get into a university get into that university, dropout rates tend to be much higher than the general population.
But here's the thing.
Those dropout rates are not universal.
Those dropout rates are still relatively low.
So why aren't these kids getting kicked out for not being up to snuff?
And two, why are parents who are already uber-wealthy, already uber-privileged, why are they spending $500,000 to get their kid into USC?
And the answer is that colleges are not about training kids for the real world.
Colleges are not about teaching them significant modes of thinking or examining timeless truths.
This is not what universities are about anymore.
They're not what they were about 150 years ago or 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.
Universities are not about skill sets, at least not in the humanities.
They're about two things and two things only.
Credentialism and social connections.
That is it.
That is what universities are.
They are a big social club.
Now, credential.
So let's discuss each of these in turn, because this really does have a pretty vast impact on American society and on the bifurcation of American society into these sort of Intellectual contingent, the white collar contingent and those dummies who didn't go to college.
You know, that's the attitude of the intelligentsia.
And it's a wrong attitude.
It's not correct.
It's a foolish attitude.
But it's an attitude reinforced by the colleges themselves.
So in our society, let's talk about credentialism first.
In our society, there's an easy way to be perceived as intellectually meritorious.
There's a way of being perceived as smart.
You point to your degree.
People don't take out their IQ scores or their SAT scores and hit each other with that, but they will take out their degree and do it all the time.
In fact, when I was at Harvard Law, this was literally, we had a name for this, it was called dropping the H-bomb.
In the middle of a conversation, you would say, you would drop the H-bomb.
You'd say, oh yeah, I went to Harvard.
Even today, when people ask where he went to law school, there's like a puff of pride and go, oh, I went to Harvard Law School.
It's like, oh wow, he must be very smart.
He went to Harvard Law School.
That's the way everybody thinks of college these days.
My business partner, Jeremy Boren, went to a music school.
He dropped out after a couple of years.
Jeremy now makes a lot of money.
He's a very successful guy.
He runs a business that has a hundred employees.
Well, just a few years ago, he was in a conversation with a very well-known right-wing figure who is not a good human being.
And this well-known right-wing figure had never met Jeremy before, and they were in a bit of a conflict over an option for a film.
And this right-wing figure called up Jeremy and started asking him about his background.
And when Jeremy said he didn't go to college, this person, who is a jerk, who I know, this person said to Jeremy, You mean you didn't even go to effing college?
You didn't even go to college?
Why should I respect you?
You didn't even go to college?
That's the attitude among a lot of people who go to college.
Why?
Because they feel like colleges are basically filtration systems.
That all they are, are a way of filtering out smart people and then stamping the imprimatur of a university upon them.
Credentialism is the most important thing.
And we all do this, right?
We all do this on the basis of where people went to school.
So if you meet two people, one went to Yale, the other went to junior college, you're immediately going to assume the person who went to Yale is smarter than the person who went to junior college, which in many cases is true because Yale does have high admission standards and junior college does not.
It is not universally true, nor does it translate over into life success.
Just as IQ is, in fact, an effective measurement of innate levels of intelligence in certain areas, but it does not necessarily translate over into a level of life success.
I know this because I went to a highly gifted magnet school when I was in junior high, and you had to have the quote-unquote genius level IQ to get in.
I got in, but not by a huge amount.
There were people there who had IQs 20 points higher than I did.
Many of them are teaching gym.
Some are in jail.
In other words, innate ability does not always translate over into life success or skill set.
That's one of the beautiful things about capitalism.
Your innate intelligence does not mean that you have provided a good or service to somebody else.
It just means that you have the capacity to do certain things.
So, in any case, colleges are designed for, thing number one, credentialism, so you can brag about where you went to school.
And then thing number two they're designed for is social connections.
Social institutions in the United States have been fading over time.
It used to be that most of us had our social connections with other people through a couple of different institutions.
Church and work.
Most of the people at my office who hang out with each other in their spare time, their social connections, their social fabric is created by the fact that they work with others.
But before that, predating that, going back to when they were a teenager, most people's social connections came from school or came from their church.
Well, as churches declined and as schools became less and less of a binding commitment, particularly public schools, As parents became less and less involved, as the federal government became more and more involved, social fabric tended to disappear.
And so, in essence, what has happened is that colleges have become a rebuilt social fabric.
So, Tim Carney has a very good book called Alienated America that is out in the last couple of weeks, in which he specifically talks about how it is that there is strong social fabric in left-wing, white-collar, upper-class communities on the coasts, and that social institutional fabric is created in large part by colleges, people who went to college with each other, and they still go out for drinks, and they still get jobs from one another.
He says that in many cases, College social fabric has become a substitute for church social fabric.
In the rest of the country, we still connect with people we go to church with.
The beautiful thing about going to church with people, or synagogue with people, is that there's no IQ requirement to get in, there's no testing requirement to get in, there's a values requirement to get in.
And those connections seem to be far more durable and far more meaningful than simply, we have the same IQ level so we went to the same college.
But, for a group of white-collar people, Who are not ensconced in other social institutions, your connections are created by the college that you went to.
J.D.
Vance, who went to Yale Law School, wrote a huge bestseller called Hillbilly Elegy about growing up in, in essence, sort of a broken Appalachian community in Kentucky.
And he says that admission to Yale Law School granted him social capital.
He said, quote, the networks of people and institutions around us have real economic value.
They also have social value, obviously.
We get jobs from friends or from friends of friends.
The social circles in which we travel matter.
That is true for people who are born rich as well as those born poor.
In fact, if you look at the areas of the country suffering most, those tend to be the areas of the country where there are no effective social institutions, where the churches have fallen apart, where there are no PTA meetings, and where people are not going to the same college.
Here is the problem.
Neither of these two things, credentialism Or social institutions.
Neither of these two things, credentialism and social fabric, actually demands that universities teach anything.
None of that has to do with actual education.
The credentialism occurs the minute that you get in.
And the social fabric is created simply by virtue of your presence at these universities.
And that's why parents are willing to pay through the nose to get their kids in.
Because Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin want to be able to say about their kids that they went to a prominent university and they want their kids to be able to call on the resources of the people they went to school with so that they can have friends later in life and social connections.
That's what this is all about.
They want to be able to point at their daughter's school and say, look, she's smart.
She's at USC.
She's smart.
She's at Yale.
Right.
That is the goal here.
And the kids want to do the same.
They never want to be questioned about their intelligence.
They wanted to listen.
This applies across the aisle.
When President Trump points to his Wharton degree, that is what he is doing.
You never hear President Trump talk about what he learned at Wharton.
He says everything that he learned, he learned actually running a real estate business.
But he points at Wharton so that he can say, this is why I am smart, right?
Don't question my intellect.
I went to Wharton.
This sort of credentialism is very important in American life.
It is, however, not the role of a university.
It's why universities are a giant, giant scam.
In a second, I'm going to tell you a story about my first day at Harvard Law School that sort of underscores a lot of these points, and then we'll talk about what universities ought to be and what we ought to do to fight all of this, because this is indicative of a broader problem in the university system.
First, let us talk about that watch you're wearing.
You know, that clunky old thing.
Or, I know, you're wearing one of these watches that tells you not only the time but how many calories you've burned, and it tells you The angle of the moon at night and all the rest of this.
Here's what you need.
You need a nice, minimalist, clean-looking watch for an affordable price.
And this is where movement comes in.
This is where movement comes in.
Movement is founded on the belief that style should not break the bank.
They've sold almost 2 million watches worldwide by bringing quality designs at fair prices.
You guys know that I'm all about supporting ground-up entrepreneurs who work hard for what they want.
That's why I love MVMT.
They are a true success story.
It makes wearing their products that much more meaningful.
They came up, made a name for themselves in one of the most established markets in the world, and they've reached exponential growth.
MVMT watches are all about looking good while keeping it simple.
They're not going to tell you how many calories you burn.
They're just going to look nice and tell you the time.
MVMT watches start at just $95.
They're a great gift.
I've gotten them for pretty much every member of my family.
You're looking at $400 for the same quality from a traditional brand.
Clean design, minimal, quality products.
Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
Movement's launching new styles all the times on their website.
Check out their latest at MVMT.com.
That's MVMT.com slash Shapiro for 15% off today.
Join the movement.
Go check it out.
Okay, so...
As I say, colleges and universities no longer about teaching a skill set.
They're about credentialism and about social fabric.
The first day I went to Harvard Law School, I attended orientation.
And listen, I loved my experience at Harvard Law School.
I really did feel that the first year taught me a certain way of thinking about the world, a certain skill set in looking at the world through a legal lens.
That's great.
Harvard Law School is three years long.
years are effectively a waste of time and a way to drive up a way to drive up the amount of student debt you are in so that you have to work for a big law firm in any case our very first day at harvard law school we were gathered in memorial hall in historic sanders theater so sanders theater is this beautiful hall all mahogany fits about a thousand people and each class at harvard is pretty big for law school about 500 person strong class
So we were gathered in historic Sanders Theater, and Dean Elena Kagan, who is now Supreme Court Justice, she strides onto stage, and she tells us that the competition is over.
There is no more competition.
It's over.
We were in.
I remember this vividly.
She said, listen, you think this is going to be like the paper chase, very famous movie about Harvard Law School from the 1970s, where one Professor Kingsfield really harasses his students using the Socratic method and makes them feel terrible about themselves.
And there's competition and people drop out and all the rest.
She said, that's not real.
Harvard Law, the game is over.
You won.
You're here.
She said that basically we were destined to leave with a degree, with a job, and not only that, we were destined to rule the universe.
She told us how many alumni of Harvard Law School were in the Senate, how many were in Congress, how many were on the Supreme Court.
Basically, your life's battle was over upon acceptance to Harvard Law.
What happened next did not matter at all.
What is that?
That's credentialism and social fabric.
That's it.
That's the only two things she was promising.
Right there.
Now, this has significant social ramifications.
It means that our meritocracy does not actually begin in college.
The meritocracy begins long before college.
In fact, meritocracy very often ends upon admission to college.
That is why, by the way, you can be admitted to one of these schools and never be kicked out, even if you're not meritorious.
Once you get through the gates, the meritocracy is done.
You're in.
This is heaven.
It is also one of the reasons why the failures of the lower education system ought to loom larger than inability to get into a good school.
Because if you failed in high school, the chances that you're going to get into this privileged estate are very, very low.
This also has significant political ramifications for campus.
It means that these places are cush places where students expect to be treated with kid gloves.
Because after all, you're there, as Olivia Jade said, to party and have game night.
You're not actually, you're there to build social fabric.
You're not there to learn things.
Professor Harvey Mansfield at Harvard University He famously graded people as he thought they ought to be graded.
So a lot of his students got C's, some of them got D's.
And then he was chided by the administration and the students because he was told, you're ruining these kids' college experiences and you're driving kids from your classes by giving them legitimate grades.
Instead, you should be participating in grade inflation so you don't harm these kids' future careers.
And pressured by the administration, by the students, Mansfield started giving out two grades.
One for merit, he would actually give kids their real grade, and then the one that he would send to the registrar, which was their fake grade, their ironic grade, is one of the things he called it.
It also means politically, students expect not to be challenged.
They expect to go to college campuses and be ensconced in a safe space, in a bubble, where they are never microaggressed and where everyone treats them well.
Because after all, when you go to church, you don't expect to be microaggressed.
When you go to a PTA meeting, you don't expect to be challenged with new ideas.
You expect that it's all going to be very friendly and very nice.
This is a social fabric building institution.
What this means is that if somebody like me is brought to a campus like Berkeley, all hell may break loose because I have now threatened the social fabric.
Discomfort, which used to be the hallmark of educational institutions.
Discomfort because you didn't know things and you had to learn things.
That discomfort has been outed.
No more discomfort.
It must be thrown away.
Discomfort used to be a feature of higher education.
Now it is a bug.
So what does this mean for the Bernie Sanders College for All routine?
Well, it means that it's completely misguided.
If college were really a place where you learned a skill set, then College for All would sound a lot better.
If we're talking about stipends, frankly, for people who are going to a trade school, that would sound better than what Bernie Sanders is talking about.
But if the idea is that we have to pay for everybody to get into They're local universities.
They can major in women's studies and build a social fabric.
That actually isn't going to work.
Why?
Well, once you start admitting everyone's universities, then both of the things, both of the things that colleges actually do right now are undercut.
Credentialism is undercut as soon as you have a broad admissions policy.
Credentialism only works so long as there's exclusivity.
If it's hard to get into a school, the credential still holds.
If it's very easy to get into a school, if it's just your local community college, no one brags about going to JUCO.
Okay, so credentialism doesn't work if everybody gets in.
And when it comes to building the social fabric, the same thing holds true.
If you, if everybody gets in, all that happens is that now you have new social cliques that are formed inside this broader pool.
Basically, you turn college into high school.
People don't build social fabric in high school.
They do build social fabric in college because they are sort of lined up like with like, is the idea.
So the College for All plan kind of withers under the scrutiny of why this sort of scandal would happen in the first place.
But it does speak to what universities ought to be and how we ought to see them.
How ought we to see universities?
We should have... Credentialism I don't think has to go away.
I think credentialism is a somewhat useful phenomenon in the sense that is an intellectual shortcut for us to decide whether somebody has innate ability or not.
Although it should not be used as the only indicator.
But when it comes to building social fabric, our social fabric has to be built outside of colleges, and colleges should be places where we learn skill sets, and are educated, and are challenged, not places where we go for game nights and partying.
The inconvenient thing about what Olivia Jade said there is that every word of it is true.
People largely go to college, at least for North Campus majors, as I say, they largely go to college in order to party it up, build social fabric, and not learn anything.
And in that way, colleges are succeeding at their task.
They're doing what they need to do.
So, you shouldn't be surprised when you see rich people doing this sort of thing.
Even rich people doing this sort of thing to sort of buy their kids into the institutional social fabric and credentialism they feel their kids will need.
Okay, in just a second, I'm gonna get to Tucker Carlson being beat over the head by Media Matters and why I now have proof positive that the people who are largely leading this drive against Tucker Carlson are massive hypocrites.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about an organization to which you should belong.
I'm talking about the USCCA.
If you want to win one of the most popular and advanced 1911s on the market, listen up.
I've teamed up with my good friends over at the USCCA to give you seven chances to win $1,123.
That is the exact amount you need to buy this very special gun.
Which 1911 is it?
Here are some hints to start.
It is lightweight.
It is easy to shoot.
It makes it one of the most popular 1911s to carry concealed.
It boasts night sights, G10 grips, and it comes in a beautiful, flat, dark earth finish.
You want to see for yourself?
Simply text WIN to 87222 right now to reveal the gun, and instantly lock in your 7 free chances to win it all.
Law-abiding citizens who know what to do with a gun should have a gun.
Text WIN to 87222.
It is simple, quick, 100% free, but your opportunity is slipping away because the giveaway does end Friday, March 22nd.
So, text the word WIN to 87222 right now for the official rules.
Lock in your 7 entries before it is too late.
Text WIN to 87222.
That's W-I-N to 87222.
You should be a member of the USCCA.
In any case, it's a wonderful organization providing you all sorts of educational and legal resources as a gun owner.
Text WIN to 87222 for your chance to win.
Okay, we are going to get to Tucker Carlson.
We're going to get to AOC just destroying herself.
She played herself.
We'll get to that in just a second.
First, you're going to have to go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live.
You get two additional hours of us every single day.
I mean, we are working hard for the money, man.
We are bringing you in here and we are bringing you behind the scenes.
You get to ask questions during the breaks.
You have a Daily Wire backstage later today.
It's going to be like an hour and a half of us just sitting around answering your questions.
Join us.
It is the March Madness edition.
Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring, me, Andrew Clavin.
I don't know why, but they always bring Michael Knowles.
And Elisha Krauss.
We'll be here to cover the ever-growing cultural and political insanity of today.
And of course, only Daily Wire subscribers get to ask the questions.
So make sure that you go subscribe today.
$9.99 every month or 99 bucks a year.
And you get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels.
Cast your eyes upon it.
Oh wait, you can't?
That's because you don't own it.
If you did, then you would actually be Here it is.
Check that out.
I'm a little tired.
Go check this out.
Fine.
It's a great mug, whatever.
OK, so YouTuber iTunes to subscribe.
You can also check out our Sunday special, which becomes a Saturday special when you actually when you actually become a subscriber this Sunday.
Our Sunday special features the fantastic Dr. Phil.
Dr. Phil, I'm on The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday special.
Need to tune in, because we're going to talk about everything from family to almost politics, but not quite.
And Dr. Phil's a great guy, and you're really going to enjoy the talk, I think, so go check that out right now.
Subscribe at YouTube, subscribe at iTunes, leave us a review, we always appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
All right.
So let's talk for a second about the proof positive that this bad faith effort to get Tucker Carlson is just that, a bad faith effort to get Tucker Carlson.
So, yesterday, there was an attempt to put together a protest over at the Fox News headquarters by Media Matters.
Media Matters put out a notice.
They wanted people to show up at Fox News and protest outside the headquarters because Fox News is meeting with its advertisers in preparation for the ad buying for the next year.
And they want to show with a crowd how much people hate Fox News.
So a bunch of non-Fox News watchers will go tell advertisers how much they do not like to watch Fox News.
And it's Media Matters putting this together.
First of all, let's not pretend that Media Matters gives two craps about stuff that Tucker Carlson said 13 years ago.
They do not care in the slightest.
And yet the pretended offense is so egregious, it's so over the top, that it's actually kind of shocking.
So let's take, for example, and the mainstream media are complicit in this because they don't care either.
I mean, let's be absolutely frank about this.
Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon do not care at all about anything Tucker Carlson said.
They're not offended by it.
They're not shocked by it.
They don't like Tucker Carlson.
And so they see this as a convenient club to beat Tucker Carlson with.
I am more offended by what Tucker Carlson said than they are.
Because I've never been in favor of this stuff.
I hate shock jock radio and I think it's yuck.
So I'm more offended by it than Don Lemon and Tucker and Chris Cuomo.
Nonetheless, you're seeing these mainstream news anchors saying that these old comments resurfaced by Media Matters specifically to destroy Tucker Carlson from 13 years ago.
It's the end of the world.
I thought the most humorous clip about this last night came courtesy of Anderson Cooper.
Anderson Cooper, who, like, goes on every New Year's Eve on CNN and made, like, oral sex jokes with Kathy Griffin, was very deeply offended by Tucker Carlson being on a shock jock radio show, and he brought in Sam Donaldson, presumably from the crypt, To come and talk with him about how offended Sam Donaldson is about all of this.
Can you think of Matt Lauer or any of the other people, Charlie Rose, saying, well, wait a moment.
It was just in jest.
It was in fun.
I mean, this is something that wasn't that important, was it?
Yes, it was important.
It happened long ago, but yes, it's still important.
Your character's important.
And what's happening today is a revolution when it comes to the way men treat women.
Well, you say, but this is not that.
No, this is vulgarity.
This is hate speech.
This is homophobic speech.
This is the kind of speech that, if left unchecked, will change this country forever.
It's just as bad, and it should be punished in the way that the men were punished for what they did.
So, he's saying that Tucker Carlson should be punished like Matt Lauer, who literally locked women in his office and then sexually abused them.
And then he says that if speech like this is left unchecked, it's going to ruin the country.
Dude, it was left unchecked for 13 years.
And you know what happened?
Nothing.
Because no one cared.
It was stupid crap on a shock jock radio show.
It was vulgar.
That's true.
It was gross.
That's true.
Did it massively change the country?
Of course not.
This is all cynical nonsense.
Badly motivated cynical nonsense from a lot of these people.
I do have a great Sam Donaldson story, by the way.
At the 2012 RNC, Sam Donaldson showed up.
It was in Tampa.
Beautiful Tampa.
Great idea, Mitt Romney.
And we go to the RNC, and on Radio Row, there's Sam Donaldson.
And so I walk over to Sam Donaldson, and he is hosting, at the time, an opinion radio show.
And it's a left opinion radio show.
And so I walked up to him and I said, you know, Mr. Donaldson, nice to meet you.
I'm wondering why it is that you host an opinion radio show right now and you're very much on the left.
And he said, yes.
And I said, well, did you hold the same opinions back when you were a reporter?
And he said, yes.
And I said, well, doesn't that make you a liar?
Since you essentially portrayed yourself as an objective news journalist back then, but you held the same opinions.
And it was pretty obvious you held the same opinions.
And he said, what, you think you're better than I am?
I said, well, frankly, yes, I do, actually, because I'm pretty open about my biases and I state them front and center.
He got very angry at me.
Those eyebrows basically came at me.
It was it was it was a moment.
It was a moment.
In any case.
How do we know that these people are pathetic hypocrites?
Well, first, let me show you this.
Pod Save America.
The pod bros.
The Obama bros.
They're going after Tucker, and they were saying that they were helping out Media Matters, because this is all, again, a hit job.
It is all an attempt to drive people they don't like off the air.
Here are the guys from Pod Save America trying to drive advertisers out of the Tucker Carlson business.
Honestly, this is badly motivated nonsense.
I have said for a long time that left, right, and center advertisers should be allowed to advertise on every program.
I would never call for a boycott against Pod Save America.
I would never call for a boycott against Pod Save America's advertisers.
Advertisers should take note, by the way, that the folks at Pod Save America are willing to use them as tools.
They're willing to use them as tools to achieve their political agenda.
And maybe they should think about whether they want to be associated with that.
But I'm not calling for advertisers to disassociate from Pod Save America.
They should feel free to advertise on a wide variety of programs.
It makes the country a better place.
Pod Save America, though, has activated in defense of media matters, trying to knock Tucker Carlson off the air for stuff that does not offend the Pod Save America bros in the slightest.
They're having a protest outside of Fox News headquarters on Wednesday at 11 a.m.
in New York, because Fox is having an emergency meeting with their advertisers.
So if you want to send a message, and you want people to actually care there, let the advertisers know, because that's the only reason the Bill O'Reilly's and the Lor- like, the people actually- And the Glenn Beck's, too.
Like, yours is the only thing that's worked.
Tucker Carlson is their most popular host and their most popular time slot.
Okay, so the Pod Save America bros, very happy with going after advertisers and secondary boycotts.
Well, let me just say this.
Every show is susceptible to this.
Every show is susceptible to this.
As I've said before, this can be weaponized, and it's in bad faith.
Everybody knows it's in bad faith.
Here is evidence it's in bad faith.
Leading the charge on this is Media Matters ex-Gribble president Angelo Carasone.
Angela Carusone has a long track record of saying nasty, terrible things on social media for years.
For example, in November 2005, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation, he posted a lengthy diatribe on his website about a Bangladeshi man who was robbed by a gang of transvestites.
That is a quote from Carusone.
Carusone was so offended that the gang was described as attractive in an article.
Quote, did you notice the word attractive?
What the eff is that doing in there?
Is the writer a tranny lover too?
Is the leader of Media Matters?
Or perhaps he's trying to justify how those trannies kicked this Bangladeshi in the first place.
Look man, we don't need to know whether or not they were attractive.
The effing guy was Bangladeshi.
And while we're out, what the hell was he doing with 7,300 bucks worth of stuff?
The guy's Bangladeshi.
And that is the head of Media Matters.
Also, he chided the police for not advising the public to stay away from tranny bars.
Don't effing kiss a transvestite.
Don't bring a group of transvestites back to your room, etc.
The title of the post, Tranny Paradise.
Also, there's another post in which he uses an ethnic slur for Japanese people and another post in which he suggested that his boyfriend, who is Jewish, he said, quote, despite his jewelry, you know, he's adorable.
And he said that he would accept as a consequence.
He said that he's come to accept the different politics of his boyfriend as a as a fact of life, as a consequence of his possession of several bags of Jewish gold.
So, when does Angelo Carusone call for a boycott against Angelo Carusone?
The answer is never, because this is all cynical nonsense.
It's all garbage.
It's always been garbage.
And everybody knows that it's garbage.
But we're all supposed to pretend that it's sincere.
It is not sincere.
I'm not going to pretend good faith where bad faith is obvious.
And bad faith is perfectly obvious here.
Okay, meanwhile...
AOC, making the rounds, man.
One of the beautiful things about AOC is that when Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York and fresh face of the Democratic Party, incredibly fresh, endlessly face, when she has her hearings on Capitol Hill, With full sincerity, she plays a lawyer half well on TV.
She doesn't really know what she's talking about, and so she gets caught in these weird situations where she will ask a question, the person doesn't give an answer that she likes, and then she doesn't know what to say next.
That happened in a long exchange with the CEO of Wells Fargo.
She had called this guy on the carpet, presumably to grill him about all of these companies to which Wells Fargo has lent money in the past.
The Wells Fargo CEO is named Timothy Sloan.
There's a House Financial Services Committee hearing, and the hearing was titled, Holding Megabanks Accountable, An Examination of Wells Fargo's Pattern of Consumer Abuses.
Sloan was the first Megabank chief executive Waters summoned to appear.
By the way, it is insane, insane, that Maxine Waters presides over the House Financial Services Committee.
She's one of the most corrupt members in the history of modern Congress.
There's fairly solid evidence that she was, as a member of the House Financial Services Committee, that she was helping to direct money to a bank associated with her husband for years.
The one United Bank.
In any case, AOC used her time to go after the Wells Fargo CEO for lending money to ICE.
And it got real awkward for her because she doesn't know what she's talking about.
Mr. Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging of children and financing the caging of children to begin with?
I don't know how to answer that question because we weren't.
So in finance, you were financing and involved in debt financing of CoreCivic and GeoGroup, correct?
For a period of time, we were involved in financing one of the firms.
We're not anymore in the other.
I'm not familiar with the specific assertion that you're making, but we weren't directly involved in that.
Okay, so these companies run private detention facilities run by ICE.
Okay, so the case that she is making is that if a bank lends to a customer, and then that customer goes and does something bad with the money, the bank is now responsible for that.
So in other words, if the bank gives you a car loan, and you go out and you buy a car, which has happened to Millions of people in the United States.
You get some sort of loan from a bank, you go out and buy a car.
Then you take that car, and you drive drunk and you crash it.
That is the bank's fault, according to AOC.
So, I guess that the people who manufactured the microphone into which AOC is speaking are responsible for her stupidity.
I guess that's the way this works now.
Anybody who is involved in the chain of events leading to a bad thing happening is now responsible for that bad thing happening because we all have magical godlike powers.
She tried the same routine with regard to the Dakota Access Pipeline.
She tried to ask the CEO of Wells Fargo if he is responsible for an oil spill by a pipeline.
Wells Fargo was also an investor, a major investor in the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipelines.
Should Wells Fargo be held responsible for the damages incurred by climate change due to the financing of fossil fuels and these projects?
I don't know how you'd calculate that, Congresswoman.
Say, from spills, or when we have to reinvest in infrastructure, building seawalls, from the erosion of infrastructure, or cleanups, wildfires, etc.?
Why shouldn't Wells Fargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?
Because we don't operate the pipeline.
Why did Wells Fargo finance this pipeline when it was widely seen to be environmentally unstable?
Because our team reviewed the environmental impact and we concluded that it was a risk that we were willing to take.
I mean, what I love about her case right here is that she is saying that Wells Fargo is responsible for every downstream effect of a business that it funds, including effects on climate change.
Yet this is a lady who just said the other day that she is living in the world, so she is not responsible for using Uber and blowing carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an exorbitant rate.
She's not responsible for that, which she does directly.
But somehow Wells Fargo is responsible for doing something lesser.
Amazing stuff.
And again, demonstrative of the fact that this is a bad faith attempt to go after big business.
This is a bad faith attempt to go after people who fund business in the United States.
I would love to see a world where AOC's logic prevailed legally.
Where people are responsible for every action downstream taken with any product that they manufacture.
All business in the United States would be immediately bankrupt.
Which might be the point.
Because the only folks who never have to be responsible for anything are the folks in the federal government.
The folks in the federal government never have to be responsible for anything.
They can promote programs that destroy the social fabric of the country.
They can promote programs that make people poorer, that destroy businesses.
They can do all of those things and they will never be held to account because the government never goes bankrupt and because no individual is individually responsible for those evils.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Meanwhile, quick update.
Quick update on the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Remember that time that the entire Democratic Party decided to wink and nod at anti-Semitism?
Well, it turns out that goes a little bit more than skin deep.
Over at the Bernie Sanders campaign, an aide was forced to apologize today for questioning American Jews' dual allegiance to Israel.
A spokeswoman for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign apologized on Tuesday after questioning whether the American Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel.
In a conversation on Facebook, I used some language that I now see was insensitive.
Issues of allegiance and loyalty to one's country come with painful histories, said Belen Sisa, Sanders' deputy national press secretary.
At a time when so many communities in our country feel under attack by the president and his allies, I absolutely recognize we need to address these issues.
Oh, oh, we don't feel under attack by you.
Or by Ilhan Omar.
Or by Bernie Sanders.
Or by the Democratic candidate who defended Ilhan Omar.
We feel under attack by Trump, and that's why you're apologizing for being a blatant anti-Semite.
Oh, got it.
Cisa's comments were flagged at 2 Politico.
Jewish political leaders criticized her remarks before Cisa deleted them.
I would totally disagree with that.
It's ridiculous and she's wrong, said Representative Lois Frankel, a Jewish Democrat from Florida.
Doesn't matter.
Is this person going to lose their job?
No, of course not.
No, because the truth is that a lot of members of the Democratic Party are fine with this sort of stuff.
They're absolutely fine with a lot of this sort of nonsense.
Solid stuff from the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Okay, time for some things I like and then we'll get to some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
I was on a plane that meant it was time to watch a movie.
The movie that I chose was Bad Times at the El Royale.
Now, this thing had mixed reviews going in.
It is not a great movie.
It is a very well-made movie.
It's fun to look at.
It's incredibly stylish and sort of an old-school 1960s charade style.
The acting is quite good across the board.
It couldn't really decide whether it wants to be sort of an Agatha Christie murder mystery or whether it wanted to be a meditation on the nature of life and redemption.
It's got moments.
That's what I'll say about it.
It's got moments.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
First time in the El Royale.
You have the option to stay in either California or Nevada.
I always wanted to stay in Honeymoon Suite, even though I'm not currently on my honeymoon.
What are you doing out here?
I got a job singing in Reno tomorrow.
Don't pay nothing, but I'm singing the singing.
This is not a place for a priest, father.
You shouldn't be here.
It's a little too quiet in here.
It gives me the willies.
Okay, so all the performances are quite good.
The performance that really stands out, just because I'd never seen her in anything before, I think it's her first major part, is Cynthia Erivo, who plays the black lady who is a singer.
And she's a terrific singer.
She sings throughout the film.
She really can sing.
The movie doesn't quite hold together.
But again, it's a movie of moments.
Jeff Bridges is terrific in it.
And Jon Hamm is quite good.
And it's got a really big cast.
Chris Hemsworth is terrific in it.
So it's worth checking.
It's worth the watch.
It's worth the rent.
I wouldn't have seen it in the theater, and I didn't.
But it's worth the rent.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Okay, so thing that I hate, number one.
There's a piece that I saw linked over at the Washington Post from a publication called The Lily.
And it says, I'm weary of dating in the church.
A devout Christian lets us into her dating life.
It's by Joy Beth Smith.
And it's an interview with this committed Christian, and the entire article is about how bad it is to date as a Christian.
And it just says to me how corrupt our society is that we think that it is very bad to date as a religious person.
I dated as a religious person, as I have said for my entire adult life.
I think dating for marriage is the only type of dating that is worthwhile.
I think dating for fun is a waste of time.
I think it is counterproductive.
I think it prevents you from finding someone you want to spend the rest of your life with.
I'm a goal-oriented person.
I think people should be goal-oriented in relationships.
What's hilarious about this article is that it unintentionally exposes how great it is to date as a religious person.
So here's what the article says.
This is an interview.
So this woman is asked, you're a committed Christian.
What's your experience been like dating in a devout religious setting?
Exhausting.
I'm weary of dating in the church.
Growing up as a conservative Southern Baptist, I was conditioned to believe that the purpose of dating is for marriage.
You only date when you are ready and able to be married, and you only date people whom you would consider marrying.
This, of course, presents all kinds of problems.
How do you know when you're ready for marriage?
And is anyone really ready for marriage?
Okay, the answer is that yes, there comes a point in your life when you are ready to make a commitment and settle down.
And if you're not ready to do that, then you shouldn't be leading anybody else on.
We all know when this point is.
And to pretend that you don't really know when you're ready for marriage, it's like saying, do you know when you're ready to get a job?
You're ready to get a job when it's time to get a job.
You're ready to get married when it's time to get married.
Are you ready at the end of college after your brain fully develops or maybe once you're financially stable and your fertility is starting to decrease at an alarming rate?
No, it is when you are personally capable of having a fulfilling lifelong commitment.
By default, this mentality also teaches you to assess every guy as a prospective spouse before seeing him as a person.
I don't even know what that means.
I legitimately don't know what that means.
If I see somebody as a prospective spouse, do I no longer see them as a human being?
In fact, I see them as the ultimate human being, a person with whom I might want to spend the rest of my life.
How's it demeaning anyone to evaluate whether you want to spend the rest of your life with them?
That seems like maybe the best way to determine whether that person is a person worth your time.
But this lady says, this creates a culture of commodification and dehumanization that only compounds dating's inherent frustrations.
Okay, let me ask you this.
Which do you think creates more dehumanization and commodification?
Dating for sex or dating for marriage?
Which do you think is more dehumanizing?
Hey, there's a hot person.
I'd like to screw them.
Or, hey, there's a human being.
I might like to settle down and marry that person.
They seem attractive on the surface.
Maybe we should sit down and talk about their values, their aspirations, goals, and dreams.
Which one is more dehumanizing and commodifying?
This lady says, it begins to seem like you're only as valuable as you are marriageable.
Well, in the context of relationships, yes, that's exactly what it means.
It means that maybe if you're not marriageable, you should start thinking about how to make yourself more marriageable.
Because in order to be marriageable, that means that you have to be found worthwhile by another person voluntarily.
Stop railing against reality and start thinking about how you improve your life.
Anything that detracts from your marriage potential, like a quirky personality, thick thighs, or a too loud laugh, decreases your value as a person.
No, it doesn't decrease your value as a person.
It decreases your value as a marriage partner, but only to people who value those things.
Because again, it's a voluntary, lifelong commitment.
In the orbit of a church culture that highly prizes the nuclear family unit, I'm unable to fully participate or create that family structure for myself, despite my best efforts.
Listen, I know it's hard to be single.
It sucks to be single.
It's no fun to be single.
But to substitute an ersatz relationship for something real and true, to stop seeking the good in favor of the mediocre to bad, is not only a waste of your time, it is a waste of your soul.
This lady says, Again, that is true.
It is difficult to date.
Dating sucks.
It was my least favorite time of life.
I hated dating.
I thought it was terrible.
any issues, but I don't know how to be what the single men seem to be looking for.
And it's painful to continually put yourself on a market where there are no takers.
Again, that is true.
It is difficult to date.
Dating sucks.
It was my least favorite time of life.
I hated dating.
I thought it was terrible.
It's why after I found my wife and we started dating within three and a half months, we were engaged.
I remember when we got engaged.
I turned to my wife and I said, basically, I remember the dates.
It was November 15th of 2000 and, let's see, we were married in 2008.
So it would have been November 15th of 2007.
And finally, I turned to my wife and I said, I love you.
And then for a month, she did not say I love you back.
For a full month, she did not say I love you back.
And this was very troubling.
It was very difficult.
Every time I would finish a phone call, I'd say, I love you.
And she would say, okay, bye.
It was great.
Then, December 15th, she finally realized that, in fact, she did love me.
And she said, I love you, too.
And the reason she hadn't said I love you is because she knew that the minute that she said I love you, this is what was going to happen next, because it did.
I said, OK, let's get married.
You love me.
I love you.
We share the same values.
We're ready to get married.
What's the problem?
Let's do this thing.
And my wife, I remember saying, you know, why don't we just take our time and enjoy the dating?
And I said to her, because I'm not enjoying the dating.
I'm enjoying being with you.
But dating always holds over its head the possibility that we break up.
And I don't like that.
It's uncomfortable to me.
I don't want to break up with you.
I want to spend the rest of my life with you.
So why don't we just get this thing formalized and let's get this done?
And it took my wife about a week to come around and then we were engaged on December 22nd of 2017.
That's how, by the way, our first date was September 5th.
So that is the entire timeline of our dating experience.
And it was great.
Why?
Because it was always done with an attitude toward commitment, directed toward commitment.
Don't waste your time.
Don't waste your life.
And that doesn't mean that this is going to be easy.
It doesn't mean that the timeline is going to be quick.
Listen, I know a lot of single people.
A lot of them.
And it's painful.
I remember being single.
I was 24 when I was married.
It's no fun at all.
It's no fun at all.
But that does not mean that you should lower your sights or settle for, well you know it'd be better if I just randomly had sex with people or I would just have a relationship where I know it's not going anywhere but better to be together than be alone.
You're emptying your soul and depriving yourself of the possibility of something better.
Okay, you know, we'll be back here a little bit later with two more hours of Ben Shapiro Show.
You're going to want to be here.
Plus, we have Daily Wire backstage.
Also, I will remind you, my new book, The Right Side of History, comes out next week, soaring up the bestseller charts as we speak.
The audiobook is now available, or it's available next week.
I do the audio read on it, so if you love this voice, get six and a half more hours of it simply by going over and buying the audiobook.
Otherwise, we'll see you here later this afternoon or tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
▲
Export Selection