Andrew Clavin’s Ep. 147 brands feminism a "misery-inducing" ideology, mocking Everyday Feminism’s extreme non-monogamy proposals as self-destructive while skewering Hillary Clinton’s VP pick, Elizabeth Warren, for attacking Trump’s populist slogan—only for Trump to retaliate with "Pocahontas" slurs. The episode pivots to the Supreme Court’s 5-3 abortion ruling gutting Texas clinic laws, calling it judicial overreach that mirrors Europe’s stricter stance while ignoring Kermit Gosnell’s atrocities. Clavin ties this to bioethicist Peter Singer’s infanticide defense, warning of moral collapse unless a constitutional amendment curbs the Court’s power. [Automatically generated summary]
It's that time of month when we like to visit the website Everyday Feminism, where it's always that time of month.
You know, some people think that feminism is destructive because it guides women and men away from the natural life paths that give them the most joy and browbeats them into hostile and unhappy behaviors in order to serve a twisted idea of fairness that really only interests a few loudmouthed neurotics who think they can override their own self-hatred by imposing their demented standards on the world at large.
Other people think other things that aren't true.
But the writers at Everyday Feminism are so fully committed to their philosophy that they want to squeeze every drop of human misery they can out of it and make you drink those drops down one by one until even the faintest memory of pleasure or contentment is extinguished from your mind, your relationships, and your life.
Isn't that feminist?
Let's take a look at a post on the site today called Five Radical Ways That People Do Non-Monogamy That You Need to Know About.
This is a real post.
Now, non-monogamy, sometimes known as cheating or adultery or violating one of God's Ten Commandments, is a wonderfully feminist lifestyle because it's guaranteed to suck the trust and love out of any relationship and send it into a downward spiral of jealousy, heartache, and disease.
But you may not realize that even if you open up your marriage to having meaningless and destructive sex with outsiders, you still may not be fully feminist.
So, everyday feminism recommends five styles of non-monogamy with, quote, feminist principles at their core.
I am not making these up.
One, styles of non-monogamy that center queer love.
This is when your husband's boyfriend is just as primary to your marriage as you are.
This is a fun one because it includes a big surprise, namely that your husband's boyfriend is actually a lot more primary than you are, because if your husband has a boyfriend, he's gay.
Two, styles that challenge gender norms.
This is where the man is the homemaker, his lesbian wife works to support him, and someone who no one knows what he is sleeps with everybody until, you know, the murder happens.
Three, styles of monogamy that don't police sexual or romantic desire.
This is where the guy doesn't care who his wife falls in love with, and the wife falls in love with a woman, but they don't have sex, and some girl in a wheelchair doesn't want to have sex with anyone, but just won't go away, and everyone's unhappy.
Four, styles that allow alternatives to the nuclear family.
I'm not sure what this one is, but I know it involves a lot of psychotherapy for the children.
And five, everyday feminism encourages you to explore styles of non-monogamy that encourage autonomy.
This is where you love someone, but you want them to feel free to leave you for someone else.
If they come back, they're yours forever.
If they don't, you stand outside their door in the rain, holding down the buzzer and screaming, you ruined my life until the police take you away.
These are the styles of non-monogamy that everyday feminism feels you need to know about to be happy.
Although if you're in a hurry, you can achieve the exact same level of happiness by driving a nail into your eyeball.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
It's a site that just never stops giving, isn't it?
We're live on Facebook.
I promised it would happen.
I lied, but now it's true, so I didn't lie.
It's all good.
We will only be here for 15 minutes.
You only get the first 15 minutes, and then there will be a loud flash.
Suddenly, you'll be unconscious.
When you wake up, you'll have to subscribe.
When you subscribe, you get 30 days of us for free, right?
And then you can watch for eight bucks a month, and you can participate in the mailbag, which is tomorrow.
The mailbag is tomorrow.
Yes, you have to get your questions in, or we can't answer, we can't read minds.
It's not like that Johnny Carson routine where I hold things up to my head.
You have to send in your questions, and then I'll know.
All right, we're going to talk about the abortion decision, so that should be a lot of fun.
We'll do a survey of the political world.
But first, I just have to say that every time I do that website, Everyday Feminism, I am torn between my sense of humor because it is so incredibly hilarious, but also this kind of tragic sense of how unhappy they must be and how unhappy they're making everybody else.
You know, I mean, it's like feminism, it's just like this terrible, terrible thing.
They never concentrate on saying to you, you can be excellent by doing this, or you can be more yourself by doing this.
It's always trying to make you feel nervous about what other people are doing and not offending everybody.
You know, it reminds me, it reminds me of that line in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the novel, where the guy says that the bad, if you're in a fist fight, a bad man will kick you in the groin, but a good man will pick up a chair.
Because a good man tries to make himself stronger, and a bad man tries to make you weaker.
And all the left ever does is try to make the opposition weaker.
They don't say like, oh, women can be better.
They say men have to be more like women.
Men have to be worse.
They have to do less.
They don't say like blacks can be better.
They say whites have to check their privilege and do less.
It's just a recipe for misery.
You know, there was an article on the site Acculturated, which is a good site about pop culture from looking at it from the right, by a guy named Mark Judge.
It was called Why Are Modern Women So Angry?
And he starts out quoting the same study that I quoted last week about the fact that women have become less happy since feminism, since the war.
And he says there's also overwhelming anecdotal evidence for anyone who bothers to make basic observations, talk to women from the greatest generation or from the 50s and early 1960s, and they generally seem rosier than their young feminist counterparts.
These are people who went through the Depression and the war, but they're secure in themselves and happy about who they are.
By contrast, many modern women seem quick to express anger about their lives.
Living in a world of unlimited choices and constant affirmation, they nonetheless seem resentful.
American women live in the freest, most open-minded country on earth, yet they seem bitter and disappointed.
And then he goes on to talk about this comedian, Casey Wilson, who wrote this article about these savage anger issues.
She wrote it in Lena Dunham's website, perfect place to write about how angry and unhappy you are.
And it's about, you know, just raging and throwing things and all this.
And Casey Wilson says, My mom was the president of the National Women's Political Caucus, an organization devoted to getting women elected for the first several years of my life.
I wonder if growing up with a mother who was so angry at the state of things she wore a pro-choice sticker while eight months pregnant with me played a role in my being angry.
Let me tell you, Casey, yes, it did.
It certainly did.
It's just a bad.
Anyway, I just laugh at everyday feminism because their ideas are so goofy, but it is, I just think somewhere someone is reading that and becoming less happy.
All right, we're going to come back to this when we talk about the SCOTUS decision because one of the things we love to talk about on the Andrew Claven Show is ideas and the way they affect people.
Growing Up Anger-Inspired00:13:15
And Obama has been selling this notion that ideas don't matter.
It doesn't matter.
You know, remember he was in Cuba and he said, well, you want some capitalism, some socialism, pick what works.
It doesn't matter if you want to be free.
It doesn't matter what the philosophies behind those two systems are.
Just pick what works.
But how do you know what works if you don't know what you're trying to achieve?
And then, of course, with Islam, this whole idea that, you know, there's no difference between one religion and another.
One person believes love your neighbor, the other person believes killer the infidel.
What possible difference could that make in people's lives?
It's all one.
All right, so let's take a quick look at politics before we get to the Supreme Court.
Hillary Clinton was out on the campaign trail road testing a VP candidate, one of the people on her shortlist, Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts, a darling of the left.
And so Elizabeth Warren was auditioning for the vice president with this attack on what's his name.
Oh yeah, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump says Donald Trump says he'll make America great again.
It's right there.
No, it's stamped on the front of his goofy hat.
You want to see Poofy?
Look at him in that hat.
But when Donald Trump says great, I ask, great for who exactly?
Yeah.
For millions of kids struggling to pay for an education?
For millions of seniors barely surviving on Social Security?
For families that don't fly to Scotland to play golf?
When Donald Trump says he'll make America great, he means make it even greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump.
Great for the guys who don't care how much they've already squeezed from everyone else.
Great for the guys who always want more.
Because that's who Donald Trump is.
The guy who wants it all for himself.
And watch out, because he will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants.
All right.
So Trump, before I comment on that, Trump hit back in a phone conversation with NBC's Hallie Jackson.
She describes that.
A couple of highlights here from that conversation, Peter, and I want to read you a few quotes from our conversation in which Donald Trump said Elizabeth Warren acted in a racist manner.
He called her a fraud.
And he again re-upped that nickname that many find offensive, Pocahontas, adding, as he said before, that he believes that nickname is in fact an insult to Pocahontas herself.
He said that he hopes that Elizabeth Warren is selected as Hillary Clinton's presidential running mate, indicating his campaign is turned both barrels on Warren if that is the case.
Trump telling me that his campaign has ready, essentially in the can, comments that Warren has made about Hillary Clinton in the past, things that Trump believes Democrats will find, quote, devastating.
Trump said, Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud.
He talked about claims that she exaggerated her Native American heritage, saying she made up her heritage, which I think is racist.
He said, I think she's a racist, actually, because what she did was very racist.
When pressed on this, he said she's been totally unable to prove she's Native American and yet used that to advance her career.
He said, I hope she is the one chosen by crooked Hillary.
He also earlier called her a fraud, essentially.
So some very harsh words from Donald Trump going after Elizabeth Warren.
So they're really going back and forth.
Now, I've stopped making predictions about this election because really, at some point, I expect like chariots of fire to descend from the sky.
It's all been so unpredictable.
If the sky just opens and like blood pours down, like in Carrie, like blood pours down on people's heads and they start moving objects with their mind, it'll be like, oh, it's 2016 elections.
It's just like the way it goes.
But I have to say, you're looking at those two women.
If you couldn't see it, if you haven't subscribed and you're still clinging to your lousy eight bucks, you couldn't see it.
But they're dressed exactly alike.
They're both wearing these blue suits and they look a lot alike.
They both have the frosted hair and they're standing together.
And Elizabeth Warren is so dynamic and so eloquent and so good at this political game of cut and thrust that Trump likes to play.
She's good at it.
I mean, there's just no putting it aside.
I cannot imagine Hillary is going to let her into her campaign full time.
She makes her look like a stiff.
You know, it's like if you've ever seen the Shakespeare play Romeo and Juliet, there's that character, Mercutio, who's so full of charm and delight.
Shakespeare had to kill him.
You had to kill him because you have to make Romeo look like a boar.
You know, so this is the same kind of thing.
How could you let that woman, there'd be a lot of the press would love the two women meme, and they would go after that in a big way.
But how can you let this woman who just makes you look like such a bore, you know, stand next to you?
I just don't think that's going to happen.
So, meanwhile, another part of this thing, this hasn't caught on yet, but it's obviously, it's obviously got a little bit of a little bit of momentum, is this Secret Service guy, Gary Byrne.
And he has put out this book called Crisis of Character, where he is saying the Clinton White House was a drug den, that people were on coke, that women were being shepherded in and out, and that Hillary was a monster.
That she was beating, there was domestic violence, she was beating Clinton up, that they didn't know what to do about it because they're supposed to defend the president.
But how do you defend the president against his wife?
And he says basically, she would go into these rages.
Well, here he is talking to Hannity.
She would go into these unbelievable rages.
He's talking to Hannity here.
I feel so strongly that people need to know the real Hillary Clinton and how dangerous she is in her behavior.
She is not a leader.
She is not a leader.
She doesn't have the temperament.
She does not have the temperament.
She didn't have the temperament to handle the social office when she was first lady.
She does not have the temperament.
She's dishonest.
She's dishonest.
She habitually lies.
Anybody that can separate themselves from their politics and review her behavior over the last year.
You're going to be accused of this being political.
Absolutely.
I'm sure I will be.
I have been already.
And what's your answer?
It's not.
It's got nothing to do with politics.
It's love of country.
It is love of country.
And I hope someday that it does make a difference.
I mean, if Mrs. Clinton ends up being the president of the United States, then she's our president and she's the commander-in-chief.
And it is what it is.
But if she did become the president without me speaking the truth, I'm not sure I could deal with that.
People need to know this is serious.
And her behavior is appalling.
She's two different people.
So just to pause for a minute and let you know, we're going to go off the live feed in a minute, and we will disappear, vanish.
But you can follow us if you subscribe on the Daily Wire.
You can listen for free.
You can listen for free, but you can only see this beautiful, beautiful face if you subscribe.
That should be worth $8 in and of itself.
People pay me $8 just to come and look at me anyway, so I think you should be there.
All right, so that's, you know, that doesn't have obviously the power yet of the Swift boat guys because the Swift boat guys, there were so many of them that nobody could ignore them.
Remember when the Swift boat guys went after Kerry for his Vietnam service, they had served with him.
This is one guy.
Anybody can say anything about anyone.
You know, you don't know what it is.
But obviously, Hillary Clinton does know that her character isn't an issue.
Here she is trying to, you know, fight back against the accusations that she's dishonest.
I personally know I have work to do on this front.
A lot of people tell pollsters they don't trust me.
Now, I don't like hearing that.
And I've thought a lot about what's behind it.
And, you know, you hear 25 years' worth of wild accusations.
Anyone would start to wonder.
And it certainly is true.
I've made mistakes.
I don't know anyone who hasn't.
So I understand people having questions.
Now, maybe we can persuade people to change their minds by marshaling facts and making arguments to rebut negative attacks.
But that doesn't work for everyone.
You can't just talk someone into trusting you.
You've got to earn it.
So yes, I could say that the reason I sometimes sound careful with my words is not that I'm hiding something.
It's just that I'm careful with my words.
I believe what you say actually matters.
I think that's true in life.
And it's especially true if you're president.
Okay.
It's all the things that we've been saying that make her people think she's dishonest.
It's not the fact that she's dishonest.
You know, she keeps lying.
I mean, they have the tapes of her lying and lying and lying.
So anyway, so we say farewell to our Facebook friends, but come to the Daily Wire and you can hear the rest of the show.
And if you subscribe, you can watch the rest of the show.
Yeah, woo-hoo, exactly.
And be on the mailbag tomorrow, which is the most important thing.
All right, let's move on to this Supreme Court decision.
This is a big decision on abortion that came down yesterday, 5-3.
I'll read the description, very succinct description from the Wall Street Journal.
In 2013, the Texas legislature passed a law that doctors doing abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.
If something went wrong, you had to be able to get somebody into a real hospital.
It also said the clinics had to equal the health and safety rules of ambulatory surgical centers.
So they were holding abortion clinics to high medical standards.
The court's majority struck down the entire law as a violation of the Constitution because its provisions impose a, quote, undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.
It suggested that the law's hospital admission rules for abortion doctors would harm women in rural counties.
The phrase undue burden is the famous legal test of state regulatory authority as defined in the 1992 abortion case Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
The point of Casey was to establish that states had the right to regulate abortion absent an undue burden on women.
The point of Monday's Texas decision is to tell the states to forget, Casey, that the legal path is so narrow as to make state regulation of abortion a fiction.
In other words, they just made it so hard to regulate abortion that there's really nothing the state can do.
Nancy Northrop of the Center for Reproductive Rights called the decision a complete and total win and a game changer.
She's right.
Let's listen to Dawn Lagan of Planned Parenthood outside the court as the decision comes down.
She tells you exactly what the decision means.
Today, this victory gives us the opportunity to march state by state, legislature by legislature, rule by rule, bill by bill, and reclaim women's health and rights across this country 100%.
No burdens on any woman anywhere.
And that's what we're going to do.
That's what they're going to do.
So anytime they try and impose some kind of medical standards on an abortion clinic, it's going to get struck down.
This is what the court seems to be saying.
Now, let me just take for one minute, let me finish a little bit of that Wall Street Journal piece about the political effects that these kinds of decisions have.
It says, an important persistent question of our times is how to account for the wide political and social polarization between liberals and conservatives.
Monday's 5-3 Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas abortion law reveals what's beneath these divisions.
The reason that this country is so divided.
I agree with this 100%, by the way.
The reason this country is so divided.
At least one half of the county's polarized electorate now thinks that liberal legal jurisprudence simply means judges will do whatever they must to get a desired result.
About that, Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent is explicit.
He says the court should abandon the pretense that anything other than policy preferences underlies its balancing of constitutional rights and interests in any given case.
Justice Thomas pointed out that the court's liberals identified new impossible-to-meet tests for allowable state abortion regulation only a week after they waved through college racial preferences with little more justification than asserting aspirational educational goals.
Thomas is now, Thomas says the court, that American justice is now riddled with special exceptions for special rights.
That's why we're so divided.
It really goes back to Roe v. Wade.
It was true also of the gay marriage decision.
The court has taken our decisions, our political decisions, out of our own hands, so we don't have a chance to work these things through and come to compromises.
Two people come to a compromise, no matter how far apart they are, they both can feel a little bit dissatisfied, but feel that they got something of what they want.
Roe V. Wade Consequences00:09:46
But when we are crushed by five people in Washington who have no other authority but to basically make these random decisions since they're no longer following the Constitution, you know, then we just stay hate, we just keep hating each other.
The hatred just gets worse and worse because we have no redress.
We have no way to, there's no reason to debate.
Why would we debate when there's no way we can make a law?
Why not just shout insults across the aisle at one another?
That is what the court has condemned us to.
And by the way, you know, just so you know, our laws are the most lax, our abortion laws are the most lax in the world.
You go to Europe, the left is always pointing to Europe and saying, oh, how wonderful they are, their health care and all that stuff.
You know, it's very, very hard to get an abortion in Europe after the first trimester.
There's a lot of notification rules, different for each country, but really, really different than here where basically there are no limits.
Now, these laws that Texas passed, these laws to ensure that the health care in abortion clinics was up to standard, these came out of the Kermit Gosnell case in 2013.
And I know a little about this case because I wrote a screenplay for a movie that is still, I believe, in the works about the Kermit Gosnell case.
The guy was the worst serial killer in American history.
But nobody knows about him because the people he killed were babies.
And so that, and that's why.
For 30 years, okay, 30 years, Gosnell ran a clinic in Philadelphia that was a disgrace.
He had cats running around.
The cats were crapping all over the place.
There was garbage in the place.
He was doing abortions way, way past the sell-by date for abortions, which I think at the time was 24 weeks, which, by the way, is six months.
I mean, it was a long time.
A six-month-year-old baby is a baby.
But that's what it was.
And what he would say, it was 24 and a half weeks.
He would write on his file.
But people come in eight months.
He would, because he didn't know what he was doing, he would deliver the babies and then kill them.
And many of them were alive.
And he was finally convicted.
But after 30 years, and the shocking, I'm not going to go into all the details because they were apps.
I had nightmares every day I wrote this screenplay.
Every day I wrote the screenplay.
Michael Ramirez, the great cartoonist, heard I was doing this, and he sent me a copy of his cartoon about this of babies in Auschwitz, basically, in the Gosnell clinic.
Instead of Auschwitz, it was the Gosnell Clinic with the phrase never again underneath.
And I hung that up in my wall.
And I was very, very conscious every day I sat down that the spirits of these children were looking over my shoulder.
And you know, you just had to think like, you got to get this right at some level.
At some level, you've got to do the best job, whatever talent God gives you, you've got to put it into this.
But the thing about it was, and a woman died, by the way, precisely because he didn't have access to an emergency unit.
He didn't have access to the things he needed to bring her back, a crash cart.
The ambulance people couldn't get up the stairs because he was in this maze-like office thing.
But to me, the nightmare is not so much the horrific, and they truly are horrific details of this.
It was that everybody knew.
The other abortion providers knew.
The state health inspector hadn't been to inspect the place.
They inspect nail salons because you know the government wants to get its bribery from people, and so they inspect nail salons.
They did not inspect his, this place.
And when they put the state inspector on the stand at the grand jury, she was like, well, we didn't get any complaints.
It was like they had a complaint file that went up to the sky because people were complaining all the time.
They knew, they all knew.
And when he was busted and when he was arrested and when he was put on trial, the media shut the trial down.
It is very possible that you listening to this broadcast have never heard of Kermit Gosnell because they did not cover the worst serial killing case in American history.
They didn't cover it for the same reason the people in Philadelphia didn't do anything or inspect anything.
They did not want to put an undue burden on a woman to get an abortion.
Okay, that's why.
And finally, it was Kirsten, what's her name, Kirsten Powers, who is a liberal, but a liberal who found God, which I think is called the conservative.
But she was a liberal and she wrote for USA Today, and she's pro-abortion.
She wrote for USA Today, you guys, this is shameful.
This is shameful that the press is not covering this.
And sort of begrudgingly, they went out and covered the verdict and put it in the paper.
But it never really got the coverage that any other trial where so many people had been murdered would have gotten.
My point is simply this, okay?
When you have a bad idea, you know, when I hear this case, part of me thinks like, you know, a lot of people get upset and they say, well, they're getting in the way of the state's right to make health decisions.
They're getting in the right of women's rights to be taken care of properly at abortion clinics.
But part of me thinks, you know, once you say that it's all right to kill a child, what difference does it make whether you do it in a hospital or an abattoir?
You know, I mean, what difference does it make?
You know, you're going to be doing it anyway.
The problem is the idea, the underlying idea beneath this thing.
A week ago, I was talking, and I get so much flack every time I did this.
I was talking about Jesus and forgiveness.
In my sense, that sometimes some Christians go out of their way to find out loopholes through the judge knot, let he who's without sin hurl the first stone.
I feel that people are very quick to grab hold of excuses to pass judgment on people, but very quick to find loopholes in the command to not judge one another.
And I was saying as I was talking about this, that if you look into the faces of the people around you, you will see, if you look deeply into them, you will see that every one of us carries with us a burden of shame, a burden of the knowledge that we are not what we should be, every single one of us.
And if you face that, and if you go to God for forgiveness, you get to the truth.
You get to the truth about yourself.
It's painful, but it also leads you to a higher plane.
If you don't face it, you have to completely manipulate your entire moral worldview to erase the shame that you're hiding from yourself.
And we all do this in some ways.
But the Christian idea, in my opinion, is to look at the ways that we do that so that we can guide ourselves back to that North Star of true morality, even though we're far away from it.
At least we're heading in the right direction.
You know, I used to read books for the blind.
You know, it was a volunteer thing where you would go in, and I'm a professional reader, so I thought that was a good way to volunteer some time.
You go in and read books, but they just hand you the book that readers send in because they're blind, they can't read it, and it may not be available on Audible, so you're reading these technical books and all this.
And one day I was reading a book of ethical essays, and I got the essay by this guy, Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher who teaches bioethics at Princeton University.
And he basically believes in infanticide, okay?
And he says, here's a quote from him.
This is a quote: Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time, so killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.
That is, a being who wants to go on living.
That doesn't mean that it's not almost always a terrible thing to do.
It is, but it's a terrible thing to do because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Now, I was thinking to myself, how can I read this?
How can I do this?
But then I said, no, if you're blind and you want to read this book, you have a right to read it.
I'm here as an impartial person just doing it.
But it was like being, you're in a little studio about the size of an outhouse, basically.
And I thought it was like being locked in a studio with a psychopath, you know, because the guy has, look, he says a newborn baby has no sense of its own existence over time.
That's true of you when you're asleep.
On that logic, on Peter Singer's logic, when you're asleep, I could come in and kill you.
Because you have no desires, you have no preferences, you don't know where you are, I can kill you.
But of course, the answer to that is eventually you wake up because we live in time.
We don't just, you know, man is not just who he is at that moment.
He is who he was.
If I committed a murder 20 years ago and went on to live a blameless life, I'm still guilty.
I'm still that guy.
You know, you can't erase that stuff.
And you're also who you will become.
That undifferentiated group of cells in a mother's body, what the left keeps calling, that undifferentiated group of cells, is the same person who will sing opera or bake cakes or play baseball or do all those things.
It's the same person because they live in time.
And the thing that really disturbs me about this is I'm just a barefoot teller of tales.
I'm a mystery story writer.
This guy's a bioethicist at Princeton.
I'm so right and he's so wrong.
And it's so easy to argue with him that only this polluted idea at the core that's come to be at the core of the left's philosophy could twist his mind so much that he can't see what a dumb mystery writer can see so clearly.
And this is my problem with the Supreme Court.
You know, it's not the court's fault that they are now twisted into this moral logic.
I mean, it is the Supreme Court's fault in a way, but it is the fault of this philosophy.
And I think that in order to win back our country, we really have to get an amendment over the long term to the Constitution to nullify the court's power, to say to the court, you can make decisions, but two-thirds of the states can override your decisions, or something like that.
Because otherwise, we've got these five guys perpetuating this twisted, twisted idea.
All right, from that to stuff I like.
And I've been doing, because of the Brexit, to celebrate the Brexit, I've been doing British films that are among the greatest of all time.
Can't go out without mentioning Lawrence of Arabia, just a brilliant, brilliant scene.
Brilliant Lawrence of Arabia Scene00:01:44
Here's the scene where the guy comes and tells Lawrence that he's being sent into the desert and the heat.
And Peter O'Toole playing Lawrence of Arabia, Claude Raines playing the ambassador.
This is their exchange.
Anywhere within 300 miles of Medina, there are Heshamite pedubins.
They can cross 60 miles of desert in a day.
Oh, thanks, Dryden.
This is going to be fun.
Lawrence, only two kinds of creatures get fun in the desert.
Bedouins and gods, and you're neither.
Take it from me.
For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.
Now, Dryden, it's going to be fun.
It is recognized that you have a funny so Lawrence lights this match, and he has a habit of lighting matches and holding them till they burn down to his fingers to prove that he can do it.
And somebody says, What's the trick?
And he says, The trick is not minding.
And the way the film works is he lights this match and he holds it and then he blows it out.
And the next cut takes you to this fiery sun coming up over the desert.
And remember, he says, it's going to be fun.
It's going to be fun to go.
And you realize that he is a masochist.
And that is, he's a sexual masochist, as it turns out later in the film.
And he's a masochist in other ways.
And he has this godlike sense of himself that mixes with his masochist.
Every shot in the film shows you how his personal inner life is imposing itself on world history.
And it's a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant film that's constructed both of language and of imagery.
It's worth watching on the biggest screen you can find because it's also beautiful.
All right, we have so much more to talk about, but luckily we have two more days.
Tomorrow is the mailbag, one of my favorite things.
Hooray!
So get your questions in now and subscribe and get even more questions in.