Ep. 166 skewers modern political correctness, mocking Smith College’s ban on "crazy" and euphemisms like "non-disabled," then pivots to the 2016 election, framing Trump as "sociopathic" yet resilient against media attacks while praising Pence’s decorum. Clinton’s email scandal is dissected as a pattern of lies, with her campaign blaming State Department staff for classified leaks. The episode warns conservatives against sacrificing truth for victory, then contrasts violent media—like Bonnie and Clyde—with moral frameworks, urging engagement over outright rejection to preserve principled discourse amid cultural decay. [Automatically generated summary]
More and more universities are signing on to speech codes to make sure college is a safe place where people can hear new ideas without ever hearing any new ideas.
Students have to be able to learn how to have free and open discussions without discussing things in a free and open way.
In this manner, we can educate our young to get to the truth without ever saying anything that would offend anyone, like the truth.
For instance, one visiting assistant professor at a Mercer University Journalism School says we should stop using the word terrorism because it might imply that an act of violence that just happened to be committed by a Muslim in the name of Allah, in the cause of jihad, was somehow connected to any particular religion.
Using the T-word might make M-word students feel they were no longer welcome to walk into the local pizzeria and relax with friends by shouting A-word, A-word, and then blowing themselves to F-word, H-word.
According to a handout from the University of California, you should be careful not to say to an Asian student, why are you so quiet?
This is tantamount to demanding that the Asian student assimilate to the dominant culture.
You might have hurt the Asian person's feelings, and yet you would never know it because he won't tell you because he's so damn quiet.
It's almost impossible to figure out what those people are thinking.
They're just inscrutable.
So be careful what you say to them.
Also, don't turn your back on them.
A guidebook from the University of New Hampshire says students should not describe someone as healthy, but should instead say that he's a non-disabled individual.
In the same way, you might refer to people who can see as non-blind, and to tall people as non-short.
This way, non-disabled individuals won't offend any gimpy midgets who accidentally bump into them because they're not non-blind.
The same guidebook also advises students to avoid, quote, gendering a non-gender activity.
For example, and this is a real example, they should not refer to their parents as mother and father because that suggests one of them impregnated the other and the other carried the child to term for nine months in his or her womb and then delivered it through his or her vagina.
In the future, students should simply refer to their parents as people being ripped off for too much tuition to have their children turned into idiots.
At Smith College, the student newspaper decided it should no longer use the word crazy because it privileged people who didn't happen to think that their breakfast cereal formed a face that was secretly laughing at them every time they turned away to drink their orange juice, which it obviously was doing.
The newspaper staff agreed it would no longer use crazy or any other word or phrase that would represent the world as it actually is.
From now on, the newspaper staff decided it will only use phrasing intended to deceive their audience into believing the editor's personal political opinions represent reality.
Crazy Campus Conversations00:09:56
After making this decision, the staff was immediately hired by ABC News.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Non-short.
Non-short.
Exactly.
Non-disabled.
I mean, that's a thing now?
Oh, the world has gone mad.
And I have to say that, you know, well, we're going to talk about this.
We're going to talk about the craziness of the left today.
And tomorrow's mailbag day.
So after you have your 15 minutes of Facebook time, come to the Daily Wire and then watch.
And as you're listening to us, subscribe.
And as you subscribe, you can then put your questions in the mailbag and we will get through them.
Unfortunately, this week, you can't flirt with Lindsay in the mailbag.
She isn't here.
She did put out a tweet last night asking people to pray for her.
She's down in Texas with her mother who's very ill and she was asking for prayers for her mother.
We love Lindsay.
She is a genuine friend.
We get around with her a lot, but she's a genuine friend who takes care of a lot of stuff here, most importantly me, I think.
And then we miss her and we want her back soon.
So if you have a prayer to spare for her mom, please send it up there.
All right, so a guy wrote a piece a few days ago, a guy named George Freeman in geopoliticalfutures.com.
It was called Not Much Is New in This Election.
And he says, as usual, each candidate and their partisans are predicting total catastrophe if the other wins.
There are also claims that there has never been an election like this in history.
As is normally the case, the candidate of the party out of power is claiming that the United States has reached a catastrophic point because of the current government.
The other candidate is saying that the country is not collapsing, but that it will collapse if the opposition's candidate is elected.
This is pretty normal stuff, including the belief by much of the public that there has never been such an election before.
But that is wrong.
There have been others with much more at stake.
The point I am making is that the impression that there has never been an election like this one is common in every election cycle.
And charges that one of the candidates is a criminal and the other is psychotic have been standard fair in American elections.
My standard is whether electing either candidate will cause a civil war.
Short of that, it is safe to conclude that the Republic will survive either of them, and the one elected, whoever it is, might surprise us.
Now, you know, that's a really interesting take, and it's actually my take through most of history.
Most of my life, I sit and think, you know, this has happened before, we'll get through it.
And I think, and I definitely think we'll get through this.
I don't think this is the end necessarily of the Republic.
I do think, however, that it is true that these two people are a criminal and a psychotic.
I mean, I think these are the two worst people that I've ever seen.
I mean, I've seen a lot of elections, and I've never seen two people like this who are truly damaged individuals.
And it says something about the country and the state of the country, that they're the nominees, and it says something about the process.
It says something about us that we would nominate them.
But there was a piece in the New York Times yesterday, I think, just saying that 9% of the people had a voice in this.
9% of the people had nominated these two people.
Maybe that's what it comes down to.
It really comes down to the fact that somehow we've developed this process where so few people are participating.
And it's funny, conservatives are fond of pointing out that this is not supposed to be a democracy.
It's supposed to be a republic.
There's supposed to be a lot of checkpoints between the people and power.
And that logic fell apart almost immediately.
That fell apart really when the founding fathers passed, as they started to pass from the scene, Andrew Jackson was elected.
And Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams looked at that, or Samuel Adams, sorry, the early John Adams son looked at that and said, This is insane.
This guy is a lout.
This is a terrible thing to elevate this guy.
And a lot of people have compared him to Donald Trump, which I find absurd, because Andrew Jackson was, in fact, a guy who basically won the Indian Wars at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and fought off the British, of course, in the Battle of New Orleans.
And so he had actually accomplished a lot of heroic stuff.
And the people, there was a reason for the people to elevate him to the point that they did.
These people are nuts.
These two people, I got to say, the stuff that happened over the weekend and that is still going on is frankly appalling.
So this thing with Trump is still reverberating.
The media now think they've got him.
There's been all these moments in the Trump campaign when the media said, ah, this is it.
He called a judge a Mexican.
We've got him.
He made fun of a reporter for being handicapped.
We've got him now.
And he keeps, you know, he keeps slipping away.
He's like the guy in the cartoon, you know, with one leap, a dirk was free.
You know, and Trump has been like that.
He keeps getting out of these coils.
But this time, see, he's not dealing with 9% of the people.
He's now dealing with everybody.
And people are starting to pay attention.
And what he did was pretty bad.
Now, he's blaming the press.
So Trump comes out and he talks about how the press has mistreated him.
This is the first Trump cut.
The biggest problem we have is we have a very dishonest media.
We have a media that is so dishonest that no matter what, makes no difference.
But these are among the most dishonest people you'll ever, ever meet.
These people.
You know, I've had days where I said, boy, this was a great day.
I look forward to seeing it tonight or tomorrow, and it's brutal.
I say, what happened?
But we're going to punch through the media.
We have to.
The New York Times is totally dishonest.
Totally dishonest.
Washington Post has been a little bit better lately, but not good.
By the way, New York Times, which is failing, really failing badly, which I call it the failing New York Times.
Every story they write is a hit job.
I could do the greatest thing in the history of the world.
I could come up with a cure for the most horrible disease in the world.
And they'd give me a front page, horrible, horrible story.
The New York Times is very dishonest, but it'll be out of business soon, I hope.
All right, fact check, true.
The New York Times has become a terrible newspaper.
When I call them a former newspaper, I'm not kidding.
They used to be a great paper.
I mean, conservatives always complained about the New York Times, but whenever they did a real study, you know, back in the old days, we're talking about the 60s and 70s, you know, whenever they did a real study of their bias, it came out pretty fairly.
This is not the op-ed page.
This is the front page.
Now, Trump is absolutely right.
I mean, it's almost comic.
It's like a broadsheet that some lefty is handing out anti-Trump.
So that's one thing he said that was true.
And the other one was this.
He was talking about Bernie Sanders conceding to Hillary Clinton.
He made this comment.
If he would have just not done anything, just go home, go to sleep, relax, he would have been a hero.
But he made a deal with the devil.
She's the devil.
He made a deal with the devil.
True.
Fact check, true.
That's all.
But here's the thing.
I mean, not only do they hate Trump, but they also cover for Hillary Clinton.
I mean, only all the coverage this stuff is getting.
Put the chart up about how much coverage, this is how much coverage Patricia Smith speech got about her son who died at Benghazi versus how much coverage, you know, Kaiser Khan got for his son who died in Iraq.
And it's obvious the difference.
I mean, this media is incredibly dishonest.
But the problem is just because the media is dishonest doesn't mean that Trump is not a skunk.
I mean, this was a horrible thing to say.
And this thing that he said, you know, let me read to you a little bit of Brett Stevens' column this morning.
And Stevens is making what we'll call the Shapiro case, that basically this guy is so bad that to sign on with him at all, even if it means beating Hillary Clinton, is basically to condemn yourself and the Republican Party to perdition forever.
And here's Stevens making this argument.
He says, there's an old saying that in politics, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats.
Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964, but the ideas that animated his candidacy found new life in the Reagan Revolution of 1980.
Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over in 1996, and 14 years later, we got Obamacare.
The inevitable turning of the policy wheel should comfort conservatives unnerved by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Liberals overreach.
Statist solutions fail.
Voters tire of one-party rule.
To govern is to own, and the next president will own the next recession, the next foreign policy fiasco, the next Veterans Affairs scandal.
If Mrs. Clinton is everything Republicans say she is, an opportunistic, dishonest, incompetent left-wing ideologue, they can at least look forward to a one-term presidency.
I know I do.
And I know many people, by the way, who say that she won't even make it through one term, that if the Republicans hold on to Congress, they will impeach her, they'll get rid of her, and the press will actually turn on her.
They will not do what they did for Barack Obama because of this pathology we have about race, that the first black president had to be a saint, even if he was a scandal-ridden demagogue.
He had to be a saint because he was black.
They will not do that with the first female president because it's just not the same thing.
Women have not been treated in this country the way blacks were, in fact, treated.
And so she's not going to have that kind of cover, and they don't like her personally.
Stevens goes on to say, but to say there are no permanent victories or defeats in politics doesn't mean there is no permanent dishonor.
Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Alger Hiss, Joe McCarthy, and Bull Conner are the foul names of America's 20th century and always will be.
And those who supported and excused them will always be tainted by association.
Why Trump Disrespects Our Military00:10:36
And he goes on to talk about what it meant when Trump, in that obvious tick, he obviously couldn't stop himself, went after Mrs. Kahn for not saying anything.
He was suggesting, I thought very obviously, that because she was Muslim, she was being silenced.
And that ugly little thing he did where he said, you know, a lot of people have said this.
It's not just me.
I'd like a list.
I'd like a list of names, you know.
And so you do get polluted.
I mean, we've talked about this a lot, that one of the reasons I was so desperate for Trump not to be nominated is because he is what the MSM says we are.
He is what Democrats always say we are.
He is a blundering, you know, kind of bigoted demagogue.
He is that guy that they always say that they said Mitt Romney was.
And we keep saying, well, yeah, you said the same thing about Mitt Romney.
Right.
But even in the story of the boy who cries wolf, the wolf does show up.
And that's the problem with Donald Trump.
You know, take a look for a minute.
This is what happens to people when they attach themselves to a human being instead of principal.
Okay, especially if it's a bad human being like Donald Trump.
Mike Pence, vice presidential candidate, gives a, he has a campaign event, and a military mom stands up to speak, and she asks a question.
My name is Catherine, and I am a military mom.
My son is currently serving in the U.S. Air Force.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
You, Mr. Pence, is time and time again, Trump has disrespected our nation's armed forces and veterans, and his disrespect for Mr. Khan and his family is just an example of that.
Will there ever be a point when you're able to look at Trump in the eye and tell him that that was enough?
You have a son in the military.
It's okay.
How do you tell us?
See, here's this woman who got up at a public event, a campaign event, and she asked a question.
She asked it in a civilized way.
She's obviously not a Trump supporter.
She's a military mom.
And now are these guys booing her like she's a villain in a pantomime, you know?
That's how you get, that's what it looks like to be corrupted by following a person instead of a principal.
And listen to Pence respond with genuine decency.
His disrespect.
Well, I thank you for the question.
It's all right.
It's all right.
Folks, that's what freedom looks like, and that's what freedom sounds like.
Okay?
Let me just say first, I want to honor your son's service to the country and your family's service to the country.
I truly do.
Let me say, I know this has been much in the news of late, in the last few days.
But as I said last night, as Donald Trump said on Saturday night, Captain Kahn is an American hero, and we honor him and honor his family as we do all the families in this country.
We can stop it there, and he basically comes around.
Talks about the heroic death of Captain Connor, which apparently was genuinely heroic, chasing people away from a car or a cab before it blew up.
What's so sad about this?
I mean, you see Pence bringing people back to their better selves, you know, reminding them that this is discourse.
This is what freedom looks like.
It looks like people asking questions that are uncomfortable.
We don't have to boo them down.
We don't have to shout them down.
He's perfectly capable of answering the question for himself.
And he goes on to talk about Trump's dedication to the military and do the vice presidential thing that he does.
What's really disturbing about this is this used to be normal discourse.
This used to be what we expected.
When I say used to be, I'm talking about four years ago.
This used to be what we expected of our politicians.
Is it phony?
Is it hypocritical?
Who cares?
This is the way civilized people behave with one another.
You know, part of hypocrisy is, what do they call it, the tribute that vice pays to virtue?
You know, it's the thing that you do because you're showing people how we are supposed to behave.
And that's what Pence is doing, and good on him.
But Trump isn't capable of doing that.
And that was just an example of how people get corrupted by following a person instead of a principal.
It happened on the other side as well.
You know, Robbie Mook, the camp.
Oh, I forgot to say goodbye to Facebook.
So farewell, Facebook.
Come to Daily Wire and hear the rest.
So, you know, Robbie Mook, who's the campaign director of the Clinton campaign, he's dealing with the fact that Hillary Clinton lied again when asked about her emails.
And just the same, it was the same thing, just in the same way that Trump, because he's got this sociopathic need to fight back against his critics.
She lies by nature.
She cannot help herself.
She just does it.
And here's Mook being corrupted by that because he now has to follow those lies.
He can't go out and say his boss was lying, that was stupid.
What a dope.
He's talking to Chuck Scarborough here, and he's humiliated, basically.
What Director Comey said was that he believes there was no basis for her to believe that the emails in question that you're referring to, that she had any reason to believe that they were classified.
I think he said just the opposite.
He said a reasonable person in her position should have known they were classified, even if they weren't marked.
Well, but that's leaving out the fact that these emails were coming from hundreds of State Department employees.
These are longtime tenured State Department professionals work for different administrations.
These folks are not partisan.
They were the ones sending her the emails.
In his mind, she had no reason to think they were classified.
To be in that position, though, because they had no other outlet to communicate with her.
So you can't really put the blame on State Department professionals if the leader of their organization is saying, email us at this address.
This is the only option you have.
Well, classified information is sent over a completely separate system.
So it was their decision to send it to.
Oh, yeah, I know that.
I worked at the State Department too.
Well, there you go.
That makes it even worse, though.
She was forcing everybody that wanted to communicate with her to move out of the classified realm where you send classified information and then put it on their own servers and send it to her.
Well, so isn't that even worse?
Well, and you'd understand this.
That's simply not true.
You just don't send classified information over the unclassified system.
And they know that.
You would understand this.
The FBI director said she did.
I mean, it really is despicable not just to continue the lie, but to blame the people at the State Department, most of whom are just civil service workers, you know, to blame them for sending the email.
She first, and now he is blaming them for sending the emails to the only address they had to send them to.
You know, they had to send them to her private emails.
Now she's blaming them for doing that.
How could they be so stupid as to send those secret classified documents to my private email, which was the only way they could reach me?
You know, not as if she was Secretary of State at the time.
She was.
You know, this is, it's awful.
And now this guy is political.
So here is Ron Fernier, who's a Clinton supporter, and he wrote a piece called, Why Can't Hillary Stop Lying in the Atlantic.
Because I see a lot of people doing this with Trump, too.
A lot of people are saying, gee, you know, what's her name?
Oh, I can't remember her name offhand, but like many Trump supporters are saying, why won't he just concentrate?
Laura Ingram, Laura Ingram was saying, why can't he just concentrate on Hillary's record?
If he could just stick to her record and stop these personal, stupid attacks, he would win.
Why can't he?
And here's Ron Fernier wondering the same thing about Hillary Clinton.
She did violate policy.
We know that.
She did expose U.S. secrets on a rogue server.
Ron, why did she do it?
Why do it?
No, no, wait, wait, wait.
Why did she lie when she knew she was lying and she knew that everybody knew that she was lying?
Why didn't she just brush it off and say, I made mistakes.
I'm terribly sorry.
I've been chastened by the FBI director.
I didn't break any laws.
But sometimes I have to hold myself to a higher standard.
I won't make the same mistake.
And why can't she say that?
Her own supporters are asking that question.
I don't know.
That's been the mystery now for what has been 18 months.
I think she'd put the selection away a long time ago if she had come clean on email.
Now all she's got to do, especially after last week, look, she had a great convention, a very aspirational message, and nicely tucking in the argument that Trump is not fit to be president, an argument that I really agree with, that a lot of Democrats, a lot of independents, even a lot of Republicans agree with.
He would be a bad man to be president.
So all she's got to do now is get out of her own way.
Why underscore what the one thing is that's holding her back from being president, which is how dishonest she's been about the scandal?
It's because that's who she is.
She can't do it any more than Trump can stop doing it.
These are two pathological people.
And despite what the fellow was saying, that we've had these people and there's always one who's being called a criminal and one who's being called a psychotic, these people are actually pathologically criminal and pathologically sociopathic.
I mean, they really are these people.
And I'm not saying it's the end of the Republic, but I will say this.
I will say this to my fellow conservatives and to my fellow Republicans.
You know, all these years, all these years, people have been saying to me, they lie.
The mainstream media lies.
Our university professors lie.
Our entertainment media lie.
They do, and they do.
And why do we let them, why don't we lie back?
They fight.
Why don't we fight back?
And the reason is because we're the good guys.
You can't beat the bad guys by lying.
The bad guys lie because they're the bad guys.
You know, we have to win with the truth.
We have to win with the truth because it's all we've got.
It's all we've got.
And yes, does that mean, you know, does truth get kicked around?
Does it get beaten up?
Does it get crucified?
Yes, it does.
But it always comes back and it does occasionally win.
And when it wins, you can have, like when Reagan won, you can have like 25 good years just by turning the ship in that direction.
It took him a long time.
It took him several presidencies to turn the ship back around in this destructive direction.
All you need is to win with the truth.
You know, if we win with Trump, we haven't won.
We haven't won anything.
You'll say, oh, we've saved the Supreme Court.
Maybe, maybe we have.
But as Stephen says, these victories don't last as long.
Fighting with the Truth00:07:31
Things can surprise you.
We have to fight with the truth and win with the truth or die with it.
We have nothing else on our side.
So let's talk about the culture some more.
I want to talk more about the culture because I feel that that's where the, I feel that Hillary Clinton's going to win at this point.
This is the way it looks.
Our polls are really good.
I don't see how Trump comes back from this.
I could be wrong.
I'm not predicting anything.
I'm just saying that's the way it looks right now.
That means that our fight is in the culture.
And actually, that's true whether Hillary wins or not, because even if Trump wins, the fight for conservatism, by which I mean freedom, by which I mean freedom and small government, limited government to let the individual be free, is going to take place in the culture.
So I want to talk about the thing.
One of the things that conservatives do is they're always condemning movies that people love because they have bad things in them and they sell bad values.
And I was talking yesterday about Bonnie and Clyde, a movie that romanticizes violence and takes these two hideous, murderous thugs and turns them into beautiful romantic characters.
And what do you do?
How do you respond to a work of art that is a work of art, that is a beautiful movie that does certain bad things?
And I was talking about the fact that in my journey to becoming a Christian, one of the things that turned me away from atheism was reading the Marquis de Saad, this hideous, pornographic, sadistic philosopher of genius who put forward an argument for atheism that I thought was the only argument for atheism I had ever heard that actually held together.
Now, somebody on the comment section of the podcast was attacking me for saying, he says, I use this one crazy dude as the spokesman for all atheist ideals.
And I didn't do that at all.
It was in the course of reading a lot of atheist philosophers and picking them apart because their theories didn't hold together that I came upon Saad and realized, oh, yeah, this guy holds together and he's evil, you know, and this atheistic philosophy journeys into evil if you follow it logically.
By the way, when people put comments saying that I say stupid, somebody said you keep saying stupid things, and then he says something that I didn't actually say, I just think you're hearing stupid things, and that's a very different problem.
But that experience, which I outline in my memoir, The Great Good Thing, that experience has given me a lot of patience with great works that seem evil to us.
And that's why I don't condemn things and call for censorship and all this stuff, because I feel that if something is a great work of art, even if it's a good work of art, there is a path to truth in it, but you are responsible for finding it, because the artist may be a jackass.
Talent is blind.
The artist may be evil, as De Saad was an evil guy.
So I was thinking about this idea of violence.
And I love violent stories.
I write violent stories.
I mean, I'm the thriller writer.
I write stories with tough guys and bad women who do terrible things to one another, and they're exciting and all this stuff.
And it's how to react to violence as a metaphor.
Because we see this, you know, one of, I worked in the tough guy genre.
I still work kind of in the tough guy genre.
And it started, the tough guy genre that started with like Sam Spade, Dashel Hammett's detective Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, and Raymond Chandler's great novels about Philip Marlowe, was really an attempt to rebuild the moral logic of the West after World War I. After World War I, it seemed like, what was this culture about that would just wipe out a generation of men over nothing?
And Christianity came into disrepute at that point, and the entire ideas of the West came in.
And that's when the left really started its destructive rise because they were filling in this gap.
There was this continent in ruins, this generation laid waste for nothing.
And so some of these writers were trying to rebuild a moral framework which the left had had through Christianity and which was now gone.
And Sam Spade was an existentialist who brought justice because it was just kind of the thing to do.
But Raymond Chandler was different.
Raymond Chandler had within himself the ideal of the night, the chivalrous idea of the night that he contained within himself, even in the corrupt Los Angeles in which he worked.
And that was the idea of the tough guy.
But since all ideas become more themselves over time, the tough guy ultimately became a really violent justice bringer in the form of, this is the stuff I like, Mickey Spillane, who wrote the famous Mike Hammer novels, which were among the biggest bestsellers of their time.
I think at one point he had seven novels on the bestseller list.
And his hero was Mike Hammer, and his first novel was I the Jury.
And it's a brilliant, brilliant tough guy novel, but extremely violent.
And Mike Hammer is not like a gentleman like Philip Marlowe.
He's not even a thinking man like Sam Spade.
He is just a brute.
And he comes in and he questions a guy.
And if the guy doesn't give him an answer, he grabs him by the crotch.
And he doesn't like send, he doesn't send people to prison.
He just blows them away.
And we know this character.
We know him.
We've seen him in Deathwish, women love them and Thelma and Louise.
And that violence, you think about Thelma and Louise, if you ever go back and watch that, they kill a rapist in that movie who's already put his hands up.
He's unarmed.
He's put his hands up, and they blow him away, and women cheer.
Women cheer.
Well, are they really cheering for that?
Would they cheer for it if it happened in real life?
Some of them would, probably, but not all of them, not a lot of them.
I think most civilized people would say, no, the guy puts his hand up.
You got to arrest him.
You got to bring him in.
So the violence becomes a metaphor.
And what does it become a metaphor?
It becomes a metaphor for justice.
It becomes a metaphor for morality.
And that is the point of the Mike Hammer stories.
He has a lot of stories where he acts as the judge, jury, and executioner.
So the titles are things like, I the jury, vengeance is mine, my gun is quick.
Those were the titles of them.
And it was about the fact that, no, he was not going to live in the world as if there was no moral order.
He was going to bring moral order to the world that he lived in, the post-war world that he lived in.
And now it was post-World War II by that time.
Ayn Rand was a big fan of Mike Hammer, of Mickey Spillane.
And in one of her cruelest acts, I think, she published a comparison of a paragraph of Mickey Spillane, who was despised.
The left hated Mickey Spillane, the intelligentsia, they hated him.
And so she published a paragraph of his next to their famous, their favorite writer, who had this very florid style, and they both were describing New York and the rain, and she just published the two of them together.
And Spillane was obviously the better writer.
He was obviously the better writer.
So I the jury, take a look at it.
It's a violent, tough, mean story, but it uses violence as a metaphor.
And a lot of times when people do that, there's a lot of argument in the newspapers and the press about, are we supporting vigilantism?
No, we're supporting morality.
And the violence in the story is a metaphor.
And they have to read it that way in order to understand what the guy is talking about.
And if we don't approach the arts that way, then we wind up always as what I call Grampus McFutty dud.
We always wind up going, I'm not going to watch that.
I'm going to watch the movies on Turner Classics.
Doris Day and John Wayne.
Those were movie stars.
And you just make yourself irrelevant to the culture as it is.
And there's some great work being produced in the culture.
All right, we're going to talk more about that tomorrow and more about this insane situation we're in.
The ship is sinking, but we're going to walk on water.