Ep. 193 - "The Democrat Party Experiences Cosmic Justice"
On the Matt Walsh Show today, the Virginia Democrat Party is self-destructing before our eyes. But let’s remember where this all started -- with their push for infanticide. Also, Panera bread’s experiment with socialism was an abysmal failure. And I’ll answer your emails, including an email from a guy who claims that real men don’t wear beads. I will spend some time debunking that hateful and insane notion. Date: 02-07-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Virginia Democrat Party is self-destructing before our eyes.
So we'll look at the latest with that whole saga, but let's remember where this all started and why it started, because it seems to me that what we're seeing is an example of cosmic justice.
And we'll talk about that.
Also, Panera Bread's experiment with socialism was an abysmal failure.
No big surprise there.
And I'll answer your emails, including an email from a guy who claims that real men don't wear beards.
And so we need to spend some time debunking that dangerous and hateful notion.
We'll do that today on The Matt Wall Show.
Thanks for being here.
Thanks for tuning in and listening.
Remember to subscribe on iTunes to get the entire show or become a premium member of The Daily Wire.
So this situation in Virginia is pretty remarkable.
We've got the governor with his blackface photo, the lieutenant governor accused of sexual assault, and now the attorney general who's third in line, in the line of succession.
Mark Herring is admitting that he also wore blackface when he was a teenager.
He dressed as a rapper for Halloween when he was 19 and he wore brown makeup, as he put it.
Or as one of the newspapers, one of the great and very honest, I think it was the New York Times, their headline was that Herring wore dark makeup.
And then they had to change it to blackface.
They were trying to get around having to say that he wore blackface.
So what makes...
What makes this revelation about Herring so incredible is that Herring had called on Northam to resign only a few days ago.
I think it was on Sunday that he was saying Northam should resign for wearing blackface.
And he knew while he was saying that that he had done the same thing and that there's probably a photo of it somewhere, which would be the only reason why he's admitting it now, is if there's a photo.
And actually, we have a fourth Democrat caught up in a scandal as well.
Virginia Democratic Congressman Bobby Scott reportedly was told about the sexual assault accusations about Justin Fairbanks.
He was told by the accuser herself more than a year ago, but he said nothing and he did nothing.
Which, you may recall, when all this information first came out, also about Northam, it seems clear to me that there's no way, the photo of Northam, there's no way that nobody knew about that.
It seems unlikely that the media had never run across that photo before.
And with these accusations about Fairfax, it also seems unlikely that Bobby Scott, is the only person who knew beforehand.
I think we're going to find out that a lot of people knew about it, but just decided not to say anything.
By the way, according to other reports, Justin Fairfax, when discussing these accusations with his aides, said, in reference to the alleged victim, he said, F that B word.
Only he used the actual words.
And I don't know if he said that or not.
These are, according to people close to him that he said this to, you know, one of them has turned around and told the media.
Can you imagine if there was a report of Kavanaugh using that language about Christine Ford?
Can you imagine?
And as for the accusations, the accuser, Vanessa Tyson, has gone public over the last few days.
She's given more details about the alleged attack.
And her story hasn't changed.
She remembers everything vividly.
She remembers the date, the location, everything else.
Now, I'm not, you know, I still am not prepared to say that Fairfax is guilty.
I'm not saying that.
And we could never really say that for sure, unless, you know, there are only two human beings on earth who will really ever know exactly what actually happened in that hotel room.
So we can never say for sure, but we can look at these stories, and based on the information available, we can decide if the accusations seem reasonably credible, Or not.
That's about as far as we can really go.
We can never disprove or prove it or know for sure.
But we can decide this seems credible, this does not seem credible.
So with Kavanaugh, again for that comparison, I felt that the accusations were not credible because of the lack of details.
She didn't know the date or location, her story kept changing.
She claimed she had evidence and proof that she refused to actually offer up for people to see, such as her therapist notes, which is kind of suspicious.
And the circumstances under which these accusations came to light were also suspicious.
This was a liberal Democrat woman accusing a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice.
So that doesn't mean that she was lying, but we do have to factor in that there would be, we have to admit, an incentive, a political ideological incentive to lie or exaggerate or whatever, or maybe half intentionally misremember or whatever the case.
Now, on the other end of the spectrum, I've always thought that the accusations against Bill Clinton, there's an example, perfect example of what Again, although we don't know for sure, this perfect example of what very credible allegations look like.
Because in that case, based on the information we have, very credible, the accuser, Juanita Broderick, accused Bill Clinton of raping her back in, I think, the late 70s.
She knew the exact date, the exact location of the attack.
She was found bloodied and crying Moments after this supposed attack occurred, she told people about it back then, and she is, or she was anyway, I don't know if she still is, a Democrat.
So there's no political incentive to make this up.
All of the details in that case lined up in her corner, every single one.
There was really none, there was no, there's no detail of that.
So with the Fairfax stuff, we have to ask, is it more on the Kavanaugh end of the spectrum or is it more on the Clinton end of the spectrum?
And I would say it's sort of in between.
It maybe leans a little bit more towards Clinton.
Because, after all, the accuser not only has all these details, but she has no obvious incentive to lie.
She's a Democrat herself.
She met Fairfax at the Democratic Convention.
So, she's not only a Democrat, but she apparently is or was a politically involved Democrat.
Not to mention she told people about this a year ago, before this stuff with the governor was happening, before Fairfax was in the news.
So why would she make up this story a year ago about a member of her own party?
And why would she report it to members of the Virginia congressional delegation if it weren't true?
We have to ask, is it more likely that she made this up?
This lie about a Democratic politician as a Democrat herself, or is it more likely that it happened?
Well, I don't know.
But I think maybe it leans a little bit in that direction.
So overall, it's a mess in Virginia.
And let's remember, this is the important thing, let's remember where this all started, okay?
And let's not lose sight of this.
This all began, this all happened, because the Democrats in that state tried to legalize late-term abortion.
And her bill legalizing abortion up to birth, that's why this is happening.
If it weren't for that, this would not have happened.
If she doesn't push that bill, then she isn't on video defending third trimester abortions, and then Northam isn't asked about it on air, and then he doesn't go off on this whole disgusting thing about killing babies after birth, and then the rest of this stuff doesn't happen.
So, this is a, what we're seeing right now, this is a rare instance Of swift and clear and cosmic justice unfolding right in front of us.
These people tried to legalize infanticide and now they are self-destructing because of it.
So we should appreciate that, what we're seeing.
Because they richly, richly deserve this.
Not just because of the infanticide support, although that's enough in and of itself, but also because of the hypocrisy and the double standard.
Because that's the thing with this.
All things being equal, as I've been saying, I don't think a person should be forced to resign in disgrace because of an inappropriate costume they wore 30 years ago.
You know, but in this case, I think Northam needs to resign anyway because he supports killing babies after birth, so that's enough reason for him to resign.
So I'm happy with that if he resigns because of that.
Or if he resigns for another reason, then as far as I'm concerned, that's justice anyway.
And so if the blackface thing is what takes him down, then fine.
And then Herring, the Attorney General, if he had just kept his mouth shut over the weekend, or if he had come out and defended Northam and said, you know, you know what, maybe we should, then it would be one thing.
But he came out and called for Northam to resign.
So it seems to me, although usually I would say, okay, he wore this costume when he was 19, he was dressing up as a rapper back in whatever, the 70s or 80s.
You know, who cares?
Let's move on.
But this is the standard that he set.
He's the one who apparently thinks this is what he said over the weekend.
If you do that, then you should resign.
So he should be held to that same standard.
So that's all.
You know, and it's a little bit of a it's a little bit of a precarious thing because, you know, I'm afraid what we're going to end up with here is it's going to be basically we're entering into something.
It's going to be like the Me Too movement, except with blackface.
And I tell you right now, we all know what journalists are doing.
There is an army of journalists right now.
Who are scouring yearbooks and the internet and they're probably rifling through garbage cans and trash dumps, searching desperately for blackface photos of Republicans.
That's what they really want.
And you know something?
They'll probably find some.
And so now we're going to have this whole blackface crisis where anyone who's ever worn blackface is going to be thrown out there and then we're going to have this whole thing.
And I don't think it should turn out, it should turn into that.
I think that would be kind of ridiculous.
Obviously wearing blackface is a bad thing.
You shouldn't do it.
Everyone agrees with that.
No one's defending it.
No one thinks it's okay.
There are many other kinds of inappropriate costumes people could wear.
There are many other obnoxious and wrong and despicable things people can do when they're young and have done.
And as far as ranking the kind of like bad things people might do when they're in their teenage years or their early 20s, wearing blackface is, well, certainly not the worst thing.
We'll put it that way.
It's not necessarily at the top of that list, right?
So I don't think it should turn into a whole hysteria or crisis.
But just, so I'm trying to balance that with the fact that I do think that these Virginia Democrats deserve everything that's coming to them.
Because of the infanticide, but also because of their own double standards.
Herring is now getting lumped on top of that, but he's getting lumped in with this.
That's his fault.
He's the one who came out and said, well, he needs to resign over this.
Speaking of double standards, let's take a look at this.
Here is Joy Behar of The View in 2016.
Watch this clip right here.
What do you mean?
Is that you, Joy?
Oh, you know this picture?
Joy, is that you?
Joy, that is you?
Joy, are you black?
No, I know.
Joy!
I was so cute!
Joy!
It was a Halloween party.
I went as a beautiful African woman.
Oh, yes, you ain't black.
But that's my hair!
That's my hair!
You can be, yeah, but... Why are you upset with me now?
Because I thought that was... That is me.
Did you have tanning lotion on?
A little.
I had makeup that was a little bit darker than my skin.
He's going to fix it.
But that's my actual hair though.
So, okay, so now we have another Democrat in blackface.
It really is, I mean, these people just can't help themselves, can they?
It's pretty incredible.
So there she is, admitting to wearing blackface.
And once again, it's the double standard.
Because taking that in isolation, and you look at that, you see the photo, and you think, okay, whatever.
So she wore that costume a long time ago.
Who cares?
Except, Wasn't Megyn?
Megyn Kelly was fired from her job because she asked a question about Blackface hypothetically.
Let's remember that.
Megyn Kelly.
Now, so, Ralph Northam wore blackface.
He has not resigned yet.
He still has his job.
The Attorney General still has his job as of right now, even though he wore blackface.
Joy Behar wore blackface.
Has her job.
Megyn Kelly asked a question about blackface.
She said, remember she said on her show, Well, what if somebody wore a black face and they meant it to pay tribute to... I think the example she gave hypothetically is what if somebody went out for Halloween dressed as Diana Ross and they darkened their skin, but they meant it as a tribute.
It was not mocking.
And so it was a hypothetical question she was raising.
And she lost her job over that.
Meanwhile, you have these liberal Democrats who actually wore blackface, and they all still have their jobs.
That double standard is a little bit hard to stomach.
Speaking of double standards, we should mention this as well.
Double standards and hypocrisy and blackface, in effect.
Elizabeth Warren, it turns out, claimed that she was Native American.
She claimed she was—well, we know that she's been claiming she's Native American.
But she also put it down on a 1986 registration card for the Texas State Bar.
So now this becomes more serious.
This isn't just some claim that she's been making verbally as a politician.
trying to play the identity politics game.
No, she's been putting it down on documentation.
She claimed on this registration card for the Texas State Bar that she was Native American.
Now she's again trying to explain herself and here she is answering questions
about this latest revelation.
Here it is.
I am not a tribal citizen.
I had a good conversation last week with Chief Baker, who is chief of the Cherokee tribes, and I told Chief Baker that I am sorry that I extended confusion about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty and for harm caused.
I am also sorry for not being more mindful of this I had a good conversation with Chief Baker.
and only tribes determine tribal citizenship.
I had a good conversation with Chief Baker.
He was very gracious.
And we continue to talk about issues and continue to work on issues that matter deeply
to Indian country and continue to work on things that we both care a lot about.
Nothing about my background ever had anything to do with any job I got in any place.
It's been fully documented and there's no evidence.
This was about 30 years ago and I am not a tribal citizen.
Tribes and only tribes determine citizenship.
When I was growing up in Oklahoma, I learned about my family the same way most people do.
My brothers and I learned from our mom and our dad and our brothers and our sisters, and those were our family stories.
But that said, There really is an important distinction of tribal citizenship.
I am not a member of a tribe.
And I have apologized for not being more sensitive to that distinction.
It's an important distinction.
Okay, so you know your campaign for president is not going well when you have to make statements like, I am not a tribal citizen.
When you have to clarify that repeatedly in the same interview and say that you're not a tribal citizen, that, you know, it's not a good sign.
Once again, with this though, all things being equal, I would almost be tempted to say, well, okay, maybe she was told by her parents that she's Native American and she believed them.
She put it down on this documentation.
Maybe she wasn't trying to commit any kind of fraud.
It was really just a mistake or she didn't know.
Maybe I'd be tempted to have some leniency and to be understanding.
But the problem is that Elizabeth Warren is a promoter of, spreader of, disciple of identity politics.
And if anyone else, any Republican, had done this, she would eat them alive, and we all know that.
Cultural appropriation is a cardinal sin on the left, and Warren would happily destroy anyone else's life over it.
So now she's being hoisted on her own petard, as they say.
And are we supposed to swoop in and say, no, no, no.
Don't let her take that dose of her own medicine.
Don't let her standards, don't, you know, let's not force her to live up to her own standards.
No, I'm not going to say that.
You should have to live up to the standards you set.
All right.
So there's a, it's just a big mess for the, for the Democrat party.
And, you know, one other thing, going back to the Virginia thing, I meant to say this before, but as we see the Virginia Democrat Party self-destructing over, you know, and how it all began with their push for late-term abortion, and then we think about the State of the Union address, yes, two nights ago, President Trump talking about late-term abortion, and it was a big applause line.
This just goes to show something that I've been saying for years.
I've been saying this forever, which is that abortion is a winning issue for Republicans.
If they just had the gumption to make the case, it is a winning issue.
Especially when you talk about later term abortion, after 20 weeks, that kind of thing.
That is a winning issue for Republicans, but they just have to have the guts to talk about it and bring it up.
And, you know, if you look at the surveys and the polls, you might find that, you know, maybe it looks like it's split, or maybe there are a slight majority of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice or whatever.
But you also have to keep in mind that a lot of those people, they've never had the pro-life case articulated to them.
They don't know what it is.
They really don't know anything about abortion.
They're completely ignorant.
So if you just make the case and you explain, this is what abortion is, this is what the Democrats want to do, here's what's happening, I think that's a winning issue, and maybe Republicans are finally starting to learn that, I hope.
All right, let's look at a story in the Daily Wire reported by Paul Blois.
It says, according to Eater, after nine years of being in business, Panera Bread's socialist pay-what-you-want restaurant, Panera Cares, will officially be closing shop on February 15th due to the business model's unsustainability.
While Panera Cares built itself as a non-profit restaurant designed to feed low-income people, the business model was anything but.
Rather than create a charitable organization that distributes food to needy families, or a discount outlet, or even a $1 menu like fast food restaurants, Panera tried to create a socialist system in which meals were offered at a suggested donation price.
So basically, you could go into this Panera Cares restaurant and you could just pay whatever you want.
You could pay more or you could pay nothing.
And it's sort of like an honor system set up.
And now it's going out of business.
So on one hand, you look at that and you think, well, it was a noble effort.
Nice try.
You want to give Panera some credit for giving it a shot.
But I think this also shows You know, when you try to take a kind of socialist mentality and apply it to, and this is, you know, a very isolated controlled environment.
It's just one Panera Bread location, right?
Or maybe there were a few of them.
I don't know.
But if that system could work, you think it would work in that very kind of small contained environment.
And if it doesn't work there, how in the world would it work across an entire country of 300 plus million people?
Well, it won't.
And part of this is, you have to have, and this is something that people on the left lack, they don't have this, but you need to have an understanding of human nature.
And if you understand, it's not about being cynical, it's just about understanding how people are.
And if you have an understanding of human nature, you're going to realize, well, that a system like that doesn't work.
You can't have a restaurant, people pay whatever they want, because most people, if you give them a choice, they're going to pay nothing.
If you get most people, a lot of people anyway, if you give them the option of taking a free ride, they're going to take the free ride.
That's just human nature.
It's not about hating people or thinking the worst of people.
Just about understanding how people work.
So, that's that.
One other thing before I get to a couple of emails.
I want you to watch this report.
This was on CBS this morning.
A report about climate change.
Pretty typical kind of, you know, fear-mongering over climate change that you see.
But I want you to watch this.
And look for some obvious flaws in the reporting, okay?
Watch this.
New figures from two government agencies show 2018 was the Earth's fourth warmest year on record.
NOAA, the government's weather agency, says global temperatures were 1.4 degrees higher than the average in the 20th century.
NASA scientists say the rising temperature trend is driven by increased greenhouse gas emissions from humans.
The past five years were the five warmest ever recorded.
NOAA researchers say 14 weather and climate disasters last year cost the U.S.
more than $1 billion each.
Hurricanes Michael and Florence caused about $49 billion in combined damage.
Western wildfires cost $24 billion.
All right, so, did you get that?
Every time you hear, warmest year on record, so you're meant to be impressed by that.
Oh, it's the warmest year on record.
Warmest year.
Warmest year ever.
And that's kind of what you're meant to take as a well.
It's the warmest year ever That the earth has ever seen in fact sometimes you'll see it reported with exactly that language warmest year ever Now, the problem is that our records only go back to the 1880s, okay?
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Our records go back to the 1880s.
So the sample size is so minuscule and so tiny in comparison to the age of the Earth that it's just meaningless.
You can't possibly extrapolate anything from it.
Think about 130 years, however many years versus 4.5 billion years.
It's just how could you possibly take anything from that?
You You need a much, much, much larger sample size before you could justify some sort of, you know, arguing that there's some sort of crisis going on.
The other problem, and this is more of a general thing, but the next time somebody frets over temperatures rising, All you have to do, just ask them this and see if they have an answer for it.
Ask them, what do you think the temperature is supposed to do?
Okay, so you're worried that the temperatures are going up, supposedly.
Well, okay, what do you think the global temperatures are?
Do you think they're just going to stay exactly the same forever?
Do you expect to see global temperatures not move an inch or a degree over the course of a century?
Is that what you expect?
Or should they always go down?
Well, if they go down, then you're going to tell us about an ice age.
And I'm old enough to remember when they were fretting about an ice age.
And then it was global warming, and now it's just climate change in general.
You see how they've changed it?
So now it's just, if the climate changes at all one direction or another, we're told that that is apocalyptic.
Well, what do you expect the climate to do?
Of course it's going to change from year to year, century to century.
It always has.
That's why I'm saying you need the larger sample size.
Look at 4.5 billion years of Earth history, not just since the 1880s, and you're going to find that the temperatures are going up and down drastically all over the place.
That's just what temperatures do.
That's what climate does.
So in order to justify this apocalyptic attitude, You're going to have to tell us what do you think the temperatures are supposed to do.
And if you tell me that you think they're supposed to stay static forever, then I'm going to tell you that you just... I don't think you understand how climate works.
All right, let's look at a couple of emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
If you have any comments, questions, concerns, and I try to answer a few at the end of every show.
So this is from Jerry.
He says, hi, Matt.
I heard that you're not a fan of the KJV.
I've always thought that the KJV was the best translation available.
What is your problem with it, and what translation do you prefer?
Hi, Jerry.
Yes, the King James version.
We were talking about this on Twitter yesterday, which I assume is why you're bringing it up.
In case you didn't know, there is a group of Christians, rather vocal Christians, who feel that the KJV, the King James Bible, is the best translation, the only good translation available.
There are KJV-only Christians, is how they're referred to.
And most of them will say that, well, it's the best English translation available.
There are some KJV-onlyists Who will actually tell you it's the best translation, period, that exists.
Even better than, like, even better than the original Greek.
But for the most part, they'll say, well, it's the best English translation.
And everyone has their own preferences when it comes to Bible translations, and that's fine.
But to insist that the KJV is the best, even the best English translation, is absurd, I think.
It's not that I hate the KJV, I just, I don't have any grudge against it.
But the fact is that this translation is one of the only translations in English that has something called the Johannine Comma.
The Johannine Comma is an interpolation, which is in addition to the Bible, something that was not in the original text and that was added into it later, sometimes centuries later.
So, it's not biblical in that case.
So, the Johannine comma is in 1 John 5, 7-8.
1st John 5, 7 through 8, and in the KJV it says, For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.
Now, that obviously is a clear reference to the Trinity, which is a true doctrine.
The problem is that it's not an authentic verse.
That verse does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, and so pretty much any New Testament scholar,
intellectual critic that you read or listen to will tell you that that's an interpolation.
It was added into the text later by some scribe, some translator, who maybe was troubled by the fact that there isn't a verse like this in the Bible that clearly, explicitly lays out the Trinity.
Now, there are plenty of places where the Trinity is implied, but there isn't one verse that lays it out exactly like that.
And so there was some scribe who said, well, it should be in there, so we'll put it in.
Which, you can't do that.
You can't do that to the Bible.
You can't just decide on your own that it should be in there, and so I'm going to add it in.
So that's a problem.
I think the KGB also has the long ending of Mark.
Mark 16, 9 through 20 is most likely a later edition, according to most scholars.
The earliest manuscripts end... Mark's Gospel ends with 16, 8, where it says, the women ran from the tomb and told no one.
That's the end of Mark's Gospel.
And then according to most scholars, it seems as though, if you look at the early manuscripts, it seems as though somebody added in this ending, which again, you can't do that, shouldn't do that, shouldn't be in there.
So the fact that that's in the KJV, I think, really debunks the notion that it's the most accurate translation.
And then also stylistically, you know, I just, I think the KJV style is great.
When you're reading a lot of the Old Testament stuff, a lot of the prophetic books, the Psalms, okay, so that kind of poetic style, I think, is great, very beautiful in that context.
But it is totally out of place in the Gospels and the Epistles, because Jesus and the Apostles, these were plain-spoken men.
They weren't using flowery language that nobody could understand.
They were just speaking in the equivalent of Regular modern English.
Obviously, they weren't speaking in modern English, but the equivalent of it.
Just regular, plain spoken.
And so, when you add this flowery stuff into the Gospels, and you put it into Jesus' mouth, and you put it into Paul, I think you just lose so much.
That's just not how these men communicated, because they were talking to average people, and they wanted to be understood.
All right, from Mike, he says, your beard is awful.
Real men are clean-shaven.
Deal with it.
Mike, that is nonsense, of course, but I would expect nothing else from a clean-shaven man.
Saying that real men don't have beards is like saying real lions don't have manes, or like saying real lumberjacks don't wear flannel.
It just doesn't make any sense.
But if you really want to get into this, fine.
Okay?
Let's do a comparison.
Okay?
Let's do a scientific comparison.
Let's make a list of bearded men and compare it to a list of non-bearded men, and then we'll decide who comes out on top.
Okay?
So this is just a scientific thing.
All right?
So I'm just pulling names randomly of bearded men.
Just totally random.
Jesus.
Socrates.
Leonardo da Vinci.
Grizzly Adams.
All of the best Civil War generals.
Grant Lee, Jackson Sherman, Paul Bunyan, Gandalf, Lincoln.
All right?
Now, again, just a random list of unbearded men.
Cory Booker, Jim Acosta, Pol Pot, Matt Damon.
All right?
So, I rest my case.
Let's see.
From John, he says, Matt, I listened to an interview you did with Matt Fradd.
If I remember correctly, Fradd said that you do not believe pornography can be addictive.
This struck me as odd as I follow your show and writing closely.
If this really is your take on pornography, can you please shed some light?
Thanks and love the show.
That's true, John.
I don't think addictive is the right word.
I think this is a mistake we make.
Compulsion is a better word, I think.
It breeds compulsion.
I think the word addiction is way overused in our culture, just like the word disease is way overused.
And the problem is when you use words like addiction and disease in the wrong context, Number one, it has the effect of diminishing the severity of actual addiction and actual disease.
And also, when you say someone has an addiction when they don't really, you're taking some of the onus off of them and some of the power away from them.
And when you say they have a disease and they don't really have a disease, then again, you're taking away the choice and the free will and the power that they actually have.
So, we need a way to distinguish, I think, compulsive behavior From something like heroin addiction.
When you use the word addiction, now keep that in mind, okay?
With heroin addiction, there is an actual chemical dependence that arises, where if you're addicted to heroin, you actually need it.
In that, if you just go cold turkey without the help of doctors, and you're not in a facility, and it's not being monitored, and you just decide, I'm gonna stop using heroin one day, you could die.
Because your body, your physiology revolts against you.
It needs the chemicals from the heroin.
So that's why you need to be weaned off of it in a controlled kind of way.
It's not like that with pornography.
I mean, you could stop watching pornography and it's not going to kill you.
Nobody's ever died from pornography withdrawal.
In fact, there is no physical withdrawal that happens where you'd be sick in bed for days because you're not looking at pornography.
Yes, it is a real compulsive thing, but it's the same thing.
Just like watching TV.
There are people who watch 8, 9, 10 hours of TV a day, even if it's not pornographic television.
They have a compulsion.
And it's a real compulsion.
It can be hard to get past.
It's very destructive.
I'm not diminishing any of that.
But to compare it to heroin addiction, or to put it in that same category, or camp, I think, is a big mistake.
Finally, last one real quick.
From someone who doesn't give a name, he says, Matt, I'm looking for bourbon recommendations.
I hear you're the expert.
What are your favorites?
Well, I'm not an expert, but I can tell you my favorites.
My go-to at any at at a kind of mid price range.
is four roses single barrel be about $40.
You can go pick that up.
Of course, Woodford Reserve is another one in that range.
Very good.
Classic.
Knob Creek is a little bit less expensive.
Very good.
Eagle Rare is a little bit more expensive.
Excellent bourbon.
Noah's Mill and Blanton's in that same range as well.
Willits, if you're looking to step up, you know, in the $60 area, you could go to Willits.
Basil Hayden is a great I think sort of entry level bourbon, not because of the
price, about 40 bucks, but it's a very smooth, unobtrusive bourbon, which I don't like as much as I used
to. But if you're not a big bourbon drinker, I would recommend that. And if you're just looking
for something cheap in the 20 to 30 dollar range, if you're looking for the plastic twist
top sort of of a.
class of bourbons, then I would say bullet. You can't go wrong with bullet bourbon. So there's
my recommendations. Don't go buy all of those at once, though. Just start. Speaking of addictions,
I would just start with one at a time. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks for watching,
everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.
I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Bolsheviks have finally released draft text of the so-called Green New Deal.
