All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
45:39
Ep. 280 - The Insanity Of Reparations

Today on the show, the Democrats conducted a hearing yesterday on reparations. But there are a lot of serious problems with the reparations idea: namely it’s immoral, impractical, and insane. Also, amazing advancements in medical technology continue to render abortion obsolete. Finally, I'll answer your emails. Date: 06-20-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Democrats conducted a hearing yesterday on the topic of reparations.
But I think there are a lot of very serious problems with the reparations idea.
Namely, it's immoral and extremely impractical and simply crazy.
So we'll talk about that today.
Also, amazing advancements in medical technology are continuing to render abortion obsolete.
Though pro-abortion people have not noticed that yet.
And so we'll talk about that today as well.
And I'll answer your emails on The Matt Walsh Show.
Democrats want to discuss the possibility of reparations of a system where presumably black people would be paid by white people for the sin of slavery.
Actually, to be more specific, this hearing was meant to discuss a bill which would form a commission which would conduct a study Which would look at the possibility of reparations.
So that's the way everything has to work in a bureaucracy.
Now, on the one hand, there is nothing but... There's really nothing going on.
There's nothing going on here but just Democrats throwing red meat to their far-left constituents.
The Democrat Party is drifting.
Well, rather, I should say, I guess, sprinting to the left as fast as they possibly can.
Ever further to the left, so that today, even the mainstream figures in the party today pretend at least to be in favor of reparations.
Like the Democrat presidential candidates, most of them, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren and others, have come out in favor of it.
Now, remember that it was only a few years ago that Barack Obama, when he was president, came out against reparations.
Because all the way back then, back just a few years ago, That would have, even to liberals, that would have seemed like a crazy radical idea, but as everything drifts left, things that are crazy and radical start to seem more normal.
And so it's, but it's probably not going to happen because it is, it is just throwing red meat.
And, uh, I think they know that because it's not, it's not a feasible idea.
It's crazy.
Uh, it's incredibly unpopular.
Rasmussen, Rasmussen did a poll and they found that I think it was like 20 or 21% of people are in favor of it.
Uh, only 20 or 21%.
And so it's not a popular idea, so it probably won't happen, and this is a political stunt by the Democrats.
On the other hand, though, if the Democrats ever have the power to do something like this, the ability to enact something like this, I think that there's a good chance that they probably would try to do it.
And besides, even if this isn't something that will happen right away, it's still worth confronting, I think, and debunking, because Democrats have a lot of bad ideas.
It's what they're known for.
And I think we should spend our time.
We shouldn't ignore them.
We should expose those bad ideas and explain why they are so bad.
So I want to do that with reparations today.
I want to talk about why it's a crazy, horrible, stupid, impractical, immoral idea.
I want to go into detail explaining that.
But first, before we get into that, let's take a look at this hearing briefly because there are a few things that a few clips worth looking at, I think.
The hearing was overall, as you might expect, a joke, a disgrace, an embarrassment.
And I'm gonna play a few clips for you that show that.
We'll start with Danny Glover.
Now, the Dems brought Danny Glover in to testify in favor of reparations.
And they could not have possibly picked a worse spokesman for the issue.
Glover is, of course, a famous Hollywood actor who's worth about $40 million.
His net worth then is 400 times greater than the national median,
which is a little bit less than $100,000.
And even that is pretty high because that's swayed by the people in the upper income brackets.
But if you wanna look at the average income of somebody in the middle class, for instance,
50 or 60,000, well, Danny Glover's worth $40 million.
But his distant relative was a slave.
So under reparations, Danny Glover, a man in the top half percent of all income earners,
would be paid, and the money paid to him would be extracted from white people,
most of whom are quite a bit poorer than he is.
Um you
That, of course, would be a travesty.
That would literally be the rich taking from the poor.
That would mean that a poor white guy living in a trailer park somewhere would have his money taken from him and given to Danny Glover.
Not just Danny Glover, but Danny Glover will be one of the people who gets that money.
Now, this is something that Democrats pretend to oppose, the idea of taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
Every time there's a tax cut for rich people, they say, oh, you're taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, which of course is not taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
That's just allowing the rich to keep more of their own money.
This would literally be, in many cases, taking money from The poor and giving it to people who are more well-off.
So here's a little bit of what Danny Glover had to say.
A national reparations policy is a moral, democratic, and economic imperative.
I sit here as the great-grandson of a former slave, Mary Brown, who was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.
Despite much progress over the centuries, this hearing is yet another important step in the long and heroic struggle of African Americans to secure reparations for the damages inflicted by enslavement and post emancipation and racial exclusionary policies.
Now, the writer Coleman Hughes, also a black man, came out against reparations, and he made the point that this issue is distracting from the real and current issues of today.
Nothing I'm about to say is meant to minimize the horror and brutality of slavery and Jim Crow.
Racism is a bloody stain on this country's history, and I consider our failure to pay reparations directly to freed slaves after the Civil War To be one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated by the U.S.
government.
But I worry that our desire to fix the past compromises our ability to fix the present.
Think about what we're doing today.
We're spending our time debating a bill that mentions slavery 25 times, but incarceration only once, in an era with no black slaves, but nearly a million black prisoners.
A bill that doesn't mention homicide once at a time when the Center for Disease Control reports homicide as the number one cause of death for young black men.
I'm not saying that acknowledging history doesn't matter.
It does.
I'm saying there's a difference between acknowledging history and allowing history to distract us from the problems we face today.
In 2008, the House of Representatives formally apologized for slavery and Jim Crow.
In 2009, the Senate did the same.
Black people don't need another apology.
We need safer neighborhoods and better schools.
We need a less punitive criminal justice system.
We need affordable health care.
And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery.
Nearly everyone close to me told me not to testify today.
They told me that even though I've only ever voted for Democrats, I'd be perceived as a Republican and therefore hated by half the country.
Others told me that by distancing myself from Republicans, I would end up angering the other half of the country.
And the sad truth is that they were both right.
That's how suspicious we've become of one another.
That's how divided we are as a nation.
If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today.
We would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors.
And we would turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction.
From a union between citizens into a lawsuit between plaintiffs and defendants.
What we should do is pay reparations to black Americans who actually grew up under Jim Crow and were directly harmed by second-class citizenship.
People like my grandparents.
But paying reparations to all descendants of slaves is a mistake.
Take me, for example.
I was born three decades after the end of Jim Crow into a privileged household in the suburbs.
I attend an Ivy League school, yet I'm also descended from slaves who worked on Thomas Jefferson's Monticello plantation.
So reparations for slavery would allocate federal resources to me, but not to an American with the wrong ancestry, even if that person is living paycheck to paycheck and working multiple jobs to support a family.
You might call that justice, I call it justice for the dead at the price of justice for the living.
I understand that reparations are about what people are owed, regardless of how well they're doing.
I understand that.
But the people who are owed for slavery are no longer here, and we're not entitled to collect on their debts.
Reparations, by definition, are only given to victims.
So the moment you give me reparations, you've made me into a victim without my consent.
Not just that, you've made one-third of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent.
And black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner.
The question is not what America owes me by virtue of my ancestry.
The question is what all Americans owe each other by virtue of being citizens of the same nation.
And the obligation of citizenship is not transactional.
It's not contingent on ancestry.
It never expires, and it can't be paid off.
For all these reasons, Bill H.R.
40 is a moral and political mistake.
Thank you.
Yeah, so that sounds like he's making a good point there, but Sheila Jackson Lee says that the issues of today that Hughes mentions, the ones that he says we need to be focused on, well, she says that they're all the fault of slavery anyway.
So you got to talk about slavery because that all can be traced back to slavery.
All the problems in the black community can be pinned on slavery, she says.
One million African-Americans are incarcerated.
That is a continuing impact.
The black employment rate is 6.6%.
In spite of what is being said currently, more than double the national unemployment rate.
31% of black children live in poverty compared to 11% of white children.
The national average is 18% which suggests the percentage of black children living in poverty is more than 150%.
Even in spite of the glorious overcoming of the talent that is part of our community, the scrapping together of making sure our children received education, They're putting together something out of nothing.
We still have been impacted, and only 57% of black students have access to a full range of math and science classes today.
Black children were vaccinated at rates lower than white children.
Education mobility has been limited.
Black children represent 19% of the nation's preschool population, yet 47% of those receiving more than one out-of-school suspension.
Black students are 2.3 times as likely to receive a referral to law enforcement.
So she mentions a whole list of grievances in there, but one, just to highlight one for a minute here, one of the grievances she mentions is that black children are not vaccinated as much as white children, and this is supposed to be because of slavery?
Except that if you want your kid to be vaccinated, And you bring him to the doctor, he'll be vaccinated.
Nobody's being refused vaccination based on their race.
That's not happening.
If black kids aren't getting vaccinated, it's because their parents aren't taking them in to be vaccinated.
How in God's name could that be the fault of slavery?
If you, as an individual parent, make a choice not to bring your kid to the doctor, what does slavery have?
You could have, but you just didn't.
And so that's your own choice.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, and there is no denying it of course, that obviously the black community has been profoundly impacted in a negative way by the history of slavery and then even more so, because it's much more recent, Jim Crow.
So there's no denying that.
So we could have that conversation.
That's a valuable conversation to have.
The only problem is that anytime Democrats have that conversation, they do two things.
They want the conversation to lead to taking money, redistributing money, because that's what they're obsessed with.
So it always has to go there, to the redistribution of wealth, as if that's somehow going to fix the problem, when it has not fixed the problem at all.
The welfare state, which has been going strong now, if we can call it strong, for many decades, has not fixed this problem.
It's only made it worse.
So that's the first problem.
It's always redistribution of wealth.
And then the other problem is that they cast the net.
It's just way too big of a net they cast.
They go way too far with it.
To the point where, rather than talking in a sort of general sense about the situation in the black community, they try to get into the specifics, things that are clearly just the result of individual choices, like the fatherless problem in the black community.
Well, I guess Sheila Jackson Lee would tell us that that also is the fault of slavery, except that no, what happens there, you have individual men, black men in this case, Who choose to impregnate women and then not stick around to raise them.
That's a choice that they make.
They didn't have to make that choice, but they do.
Same for... There's also an increasing fatherless problem in the white community too.
This is a cultural problem.
Statistically, it's much worse in the black community, but it's a big problem in the white community too.
In all communities.
And there, it's the same thing.
It doesn't matter what race you are.
You choose to make kids and not stick around for them.
That's your choice.
You didn't have to choose that.
You did.
So, you know, the history of your race or your culture has nothing to do with your own personal choice in that case.
All right.
Now, for a dose of sanity in these proceedings, Representative Mike Johnson tried to explain why the idea of reparations is illegal and unconstitutional, but notice As he lays out his reasonable fact-based case, he gets booed by the crowd.
Watch this.
Barack Obama opposed reparations when he ran for president in 2008, and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did as well eight years later.
In addition to all this, here in the Judiciary Committee, we have an obligation to acknowledge that any monetary reparations that might be recommended by the commission created by H.R.
40 would almost certainly be unconstitutional on their face.
The reason for that – listen, wait a minute.
The reason for that is a legal question.
See, the legal question is, the federal government can't constitutionally provide compensation today to a specific racial group because other members of that group, maybe several generations ago, were discriminated against and treated inhumanely.
According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, they would refer to that as an unconstitutional racial preference.
See, the holding of the 1995 case, Richmond v. G.A.
Cross and Company, is that racial set-asides and other entitlements are only constitutionally permissible to remedy the present effects of the government's own widespread and recent discrimination.
And the federal government is not allowed to provide race-based remedies that are, quote, ageless in their reach into the past and timeless in their ability to affect the future, unquote.
Okay, so there you go.
And everything you said there is true, but he gets booed for it because you're not allowed to make any reasonable points.
at a hearing like this. Now I'm going to try to break down why this is such a terrible and absurd
idea, but first, before we get to that, let's check in with Dinatrap. You know, it's summer,
and the only thing more annoying than pointless hearings on Capitol Hill are flies and other
insects inside your home. And who knows where those flies were last? You know, they could have
landed on a pile of dung somewhere, and now they're landing on your sandwich. We've got a
problem in this house because our kids, and anyone who has little kids in the house, you know that
there are two things they're incapable of doing, little kids. They're incapable of keeping their
shoes on. They will take their shoes off no matter where they are. You arrive at a location 30,000
30 seconds later, their shoes are off and lost too.
That's irrelevant.
Second thing they're incapable of doing is keeping the door shut.
The outside door.
Anytime they walk outside, they're incapable of just shutting it.
So our doors in our house are always open, and then flies are coming in, so this is a problem for us.
Which is why I would like to thank our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and insect traps, and now they've come up with a solution for indoor pests, the Dynatrap Flylight.
The Dynatrap Flylight works day and night to attract and trap flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes, other pesky insects, and it really works.
I've been using Dynatrap Flylight myself for a few weeks now, and it has definitely Been controlling the ongoing problem that my kids keep creating when they leave the door open, but fortunately the Dynatrap Flylight takes care of it.
And it's a lot better, by the way, than those crude, primitive contraptions with the sticky tape that the fly goes on.
This is a lot better than that.
You can get yours today at Dynatrap.com.
That's D-Y-N-A-T-R-A-P.com.
Enter the promo code Walsh and receive 15% off any of their products.
Dynatrap, the safe, silent, simple solution to household insect control.
All right, so there are basically two categories of wrongness when it comes to reparations in my mind.
Reparations are morally wrong and also practically impossible.
So let me explain both.
Morally wrong.
This is really the main point, I think.
We can begin and end the conversation right here.
It is simply a moral abomination to punish people for the sins of their distant relatives.
This is a basic principle that all civilized societies must affirm if they want to be civilized society.
You cannot reward or punish people based on events that took place generations ago.
It's a very basic thing.
Events that did not directly involve anyone who's alive today.
If I broke into your house, Let's say, and stole cash out of your sock drawer, where everybody keeps their cash for some reason.
And then you broke into my house to steal it back.
Well, you probably still would be breaking the law, but morally speaking, I think you're entirely justified.
You're taking back what is yours.
You are righting the wrong.
And I certainly have no room.
I can't complain about that, can I?
But if my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather broke into your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's house and stole his money out of his sock drawer, then obviously you would be nothing but a thief if you broke into my house and stole money out of my sock drawer in restitution for the simple reason that I didn't do it, okay?
That's a very basic concept here.
I'm not the one who did it.
The fact that I'm related in a very distant way to the guy who did, so what?
It's the same reason that if somebody goes out and kills another person, if John goes out and kills Bob, we don't put John's brother in jail for it unless John's brother was an accomplice.
But if he was just out across the country minding his business, we don't punish him.
He didn't do it.
Yeah, he might be related to the guy, but he didn't do it.
That money in this analogy, that money is mine.
It's not yours.
I didn't take it from you.
I wasn't the perpetrator.
You were not the victim.
But you now are the perpetrator and I'm the victim.
In an effort to right the past wrong, you have just created a new wrong that must now be righted.
Okay, but what if you could demonstrate that my great-great-great-great-grandfather's thieving behavior caused such a devastating Effect on your great-great-great-great-grandfather that it's reverberated through the ages and now your family is in a much worse spot today than they would have been had that that theft never took place and that's that's possible you know the the butterfly effect the butterfly flaps his wings and in New York and there's a there's a tsunami you know in the Pacific Ocean which I don't think it really works that way but that's the whole idea certainly generationally there is something like a butterfly effect that takes place
But even so, that doesn't justify this what-if game of, well, if that hadn't happened, okay, well, maybe if my great-great-great-great-grandfather had never stolen the money, maybe things would be different.
That's true.
But that doesn't justify you victimizing me to add more injustice We'll not right that injustice.
Now, if we were today, to bring it back to what we're talking about, reparations for slavery, if we were today only five years removed from the abolition of slavery, or 10 years, or even 30 years removed, and we were talking about reparations, I would say, yeah, absolutely.
But 150 years?
Six generations?
No.
But there are many practical problems here as well.
And so that's the moral issue, that you're punishing someone for something they didn't do.
Pretty simple.
And that's wrong.
But there are practical problems as well, which also you could begin and end the conversation here, because it's just impossible to sort through these.
I'm going to try to highlight those practical problems with just some questions.
Some questions that I don't think were covered in the hearing, and that the advocates for reparations never seem to address.
But here are my questions, alright?
Number one.
What about black Americans whose families came to America after abolition?
Do they get paid?
What about white Americans whose families came here after abolition?
Do they have to pay?
What about Native Americans who own slaves?
What about black people who own slaves?
Do their descendants pay or get paid?
Now, it was, of course, much, much rarer for a black person to own slaves, but there were some black people who owned slaves.
Don't we need to figure out who they're related to so we can, we certainly can't pay them restitution, can we?
Number four, what about black people who descend from the tribal chieftains in Africa who sold the slaves to white traders?
Do they pay or get paid?
It seems to me we'd have to sort that out and figure that out.
Because, remember, slavery, first of all, was a worldwide and universal institution for thousands of years.
The North American slave trade, specifically, was something that was, obviously, we had the interactions, the transactions that happened in North America, but there were also transactions that happened in Africa.
And in many of those cases, you had Africans selling other Africans into slavery, which is an abominable evil as well, clearly.
What about non-black people?
What about any non-blacks whose ancestors were slaves in other countries?
Think about Jews in Egypt, whites on the Barbary Coast, for example.
Do they still have to pay?
Now, I know you could say, well, but they were slaves somewhere else, and so it doesn't... Well, so what?
Who cares if they were slaves somewhere else?
They still were... It still happened.
You could still argue that their families are affected by it.
You could argue that their culture, their race, their ethnicity has been affected by it, the reverberations of it.
And if we're reaching back 150 years, Then I don't see a problem with reaching across into a different country.
What's the difference?
I mean, either way, we're dealing with stuff that didn't happen recently and isn't happening now.
So if we're doing that, then why don't we bring these other things into play?
Or what about people whose families were persecuted and victimized in other ways?
Think about how the Irish were persecuted by the British.
Think about, again, Jews.
Think about Jewish people whose grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust.
Do you think the situation of Jews today would be different if not for the Holocaust?
I think so.
Six, what about someone whose great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was a slave owner and great-great-great-great-grandmother a slave?
There are plenty of examples of that.
Is that someone who has to pay himself?
Number seven, how do we know exactly who is descended from who?
How are we going to figure this out?
Mandatory DNA tests?
I guess we'd have to.
There'd have to be a national initiative Forcing everyone to get a DNA test so we can figure out who is descended from who.
Eight, even if we could know, what about slave descendants who are wealthy today, like Danny Glover, and slave owner descendants who are in poverty?
Would the poor have to pay the rich?
And number nine, weren't things like affirmative action already supposed to address this issue?
Would someone who got into college from affirmative action still get paid?
So they end up getting reparations twice?
Affirmative action was supposed to address the supposed institutional biases that's still happening in our society.
So now we're going to have double reparations.
So those are just a few questions, and those are questions that I think are Those are questions that are unanswerable and problems that cannot be solved.
There's no way you could sort through all of that in order to make this happen.
So it's just practically impossible and absurd.
All right.
I want to mention this.
The Cleveland Clinic announced yesterday that it's successfully completed its first in utero operation to repair spina bifida in an unborn child.
And the surgery is just, I mean, I was reading a description of it.
It involves a spectacular combination of advanced technology and surgical skill.
In fact, here's a description provided by the Cleveland Clinic of how this works, because I find it very fascinating.
It says, during the fetal repair surgery, a cesarean section-like incision is made and the mother's uterus is exposed.
An ultrasound is then used to locate the placenta and fetus.
The uterus is opened 4.5 centimeters and the back of the fetus is exposed, showing a spina bifida lesion.
The surgeons then carefully suture several individual layers of tissue in order to cover the defect.
After the uterus is closed back up, the fetus remains in the womb for the remainder of the pregnancy and is ultimately born by cesarean section.
I mean, this is... It's...
Amazing that they can do that.
It really is amazing.
And this procedure is not unprecedented.
Now, this is a first.
I saw this on social media yesterday.
It's the first I'd ever heard of.
I didn't know that they could do this, that they could treat spina bifida in the womb.
Now, it's not a cure, right?
So they're not at the point yet where they can cure it, where a baby who has this defect
will be born and will have no signs of it whatsoever.
But they can drastically reduce the effects, and they can hopefully make it so that, for
instance, the child will eventually be able to walk on his own and that sort of thing,
whereas otherwise he wouldn't be able to.
But this is not entirely unprecedented.
The Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh had its own first surgery of this kind a couple of months ago, and it's all part of a relatively new and burgeoning branch of medicine, fetal surgery.
The first example of that was back in the 80s, but it's expanded a lot, especially recently, and it's become more common in recent years as the technology has just rapidly improved.
And today I was looking at a list on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's website, and they've got a list of a whole host of conditions that I won't read because I can't pronounce a lot of them, but a whole host of conditions that can be treated by fetal surgery, spina bifida just being one of them, and more added to the list every year.
Meanwhile, when you consider, you think about this, and then think about how the technological advancements have also precipitously lowered The age of, quote, viability for an unborn child.
A couple of years ago, a baby was born at 21 weeks and survived.
And today, she's a healthy toddler running around and having no problems.
An extremely premature birth used to be a death sentence.
But today, babies born before the third trimester routinely survive.
A baby born the 23rd, 24th, 25th week Most of those babies will survive now.
And there's no reason to think we've reached our limit.
I think eventually we're going to get to a point where there will not be a non-viable gestational age.
I think eventually we get to a point where a human life can be extracted from the womb at any point and put into essentially an artificial womb, which is basically what they do if you've ever been to a NICU.
The intensive care unit for, uh, the natal intensive care unit for babies that are born very prematurely.
My, my own, our children, uh, the twins were born premature.
They weren't born that premature.
They were born, um, just a few weeks before, before term, but they spent 24 hours in the, uh, in the NICU and you go up there and it's, it's, uh, just, It's not something you ever forget, being in a NICU of a hospital.
But anyway, what you see is that they essentially put these babies in kind of an artificial womb, in a way, so that they can continue to grow and develop and get to a healthy point where they can breathe on their own and all that kind of stuff.
I think that technology to create these artificial womb-like conditions We'll continue to develop, and who knows, 20 years from now or whatever, we'll be at a point where, at five weeks, you could take the baby out and put it into, and it will still survive.
Now, this is all quite awe-inspiring and wonderful and incredible, unless, right, you're pro-abortion.
Um, these revolutions in medical technology are rendering the case for abortion more and more obsolete by the minute.
And things have been trending that way for a long time, ever since they did the first ultrasound back in the 50s, and you could actually see now for the first time It's hard for us even to sort of imagine this, but of course, up until that point, when a woman was pregnant, there was, you know, for thousands of years, women were getting pregnant, and there was no way to see what was happening inside there, or to know exactly what a baby looks like at that age, at any particular point.
Well, with ultrasound technology, you can look in, it's a window into the womb, and you can see that, yes, these little humans in the womb are indeed little humans, and they look like it, too.
So, ever since then, The case for abortion is becoming more and more obsolete, and that process is just increasing rapidly in recent years, as we've seen this technology take off.
And the introduction of fetal surgery yet again affirms this truth that those are little human beings in the womb, not clumps of cells.
Doctors would not be able to treat spina bifida in a clump of cells.
They would not be able to repair a birth defect in an inhuman mass of material.
They could only conduct these delicate and complicated procedures because the patients are living human beings.
And the claim that abortion is necessary has also suffered devastating blows recently.
Of course, even without these medical marvels, abortion could never be considered actually necessary.
It's never necessary to directly kill an innocent human life.
But that's all the more the case now that any number of fetal defects and abnormalities can be treated.
And also the health of the mother justifications don't really work as well as they used to.
Not that they ever really worked.
Because at any point from the middle of the second trimester on, if the woman suffers a cataclysmic complication, she can deliver the baby and the baby will still survive.
There's no reason to kill the baby.
This is the position in which pro-aborts find themselves, rooting against life-saving scientific advancements.
And this from the compassionate pro-science crowd, right?
Right.
Alright, we will... I have one other video clip I wanted to play, but I think I'll...
Save that for tomorrow.
And we'll go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Hannah.
Says, I heard you reading all the positive reviews for your scrambled eggs recipe and felt it necessary to chime in.
I really did want it to work.
I wanted to enjoy fluffy scrambled eggs.
But I just couldn't handle them.
I'll concede that maybe being eight weeks pregnant and fighting morning sickness had something to do with it.
So for future reference, perhaps you should give a disclaimer with your recipes.
Not recommended for nauseous pregnant ladies.
Maybe I'll find the courage to try them again in a few months.
My husband and I enjoy your show.
Thanks for all that you do.
Well, I'll have you know, Hannah, that my wife is pregnant and I have made her my delicious scrambled eggs and she enjoys them.
So, uh, How dare you try to use pregnancy as an excuse for not liking my scrambled eggs recipe.
How dare you.
Alright, this is from...
Reverend Larry says, Exalted Mr. Walsh, I exhort you to augment your lexicon with the more accurate label of birth supremacist when referring to pro-abortionists.
Since they frequently lump conservatives and Christians in with white supremacist bigots, their being on the receiving end of the supremacist label will serve as an annoying rhetorical barrier to their denial of their own murderous bigotry, something of which I believe we have a moral obligation to habitually remind them.
P.S.
In my never-to-be-humble and non-hyperbolic opinion, the most clever article ever written in the history of mankind is yours, is your please-stop-killing-undocumented-infants-who-are-trying-to-cross-the-border-of-the-birth-canal article.
Sincerely, Reverend Larry."
Well, I appreciate that.
And speaking of clever, I think birth supremacist is good.
I like that.
I might take that and run with it.
I am, as I've said many times, the left Their most commonly used tool in their toolbox is the manipulation of language.
Rather than making an argument, they just come up with a different label, a different term, or whatever it is they're trying to justify or fight against.
And they do that in lieu of making arguments.
Well, I do believe also we should give them a dose of their own medicine.
We should use that against them.
And so that's a great idea.
I like that.
This is from Jeffrey.
Says you spent five to ten minutes talking about how the culture is bad because people want to follow OJ Simpson on
Twitter and see All the crazy the day before you literally subjected your
entire audience to one of Taylor Swift's most atrocious songs
She's crazy and her songs are trash that you played this abomination for us
I admit that I enjoyed agreeing with you about how she only makes the same boring anti-hater songs over and over, but the very next day, you come out and talk about how people shouldn't be going looking for more crazy and stupid.
Seriously?
And you actually followed up the don't go looking for stupid and crazy segment with a segment about some crazy, stupid, egotistical psychopath who has to make up words because of how much better than everyone else she is by being an LGBTQ woke scold.
I was honestly waiting for you to drop a sarcastic punchline somewhere connecting the two segments because I thought that level of hypocrisy was reserved for comedy.
If we can't follow or pay attention to stupid and crazy, then AOC is clearly no longer a potential topic.
Hardly any Democrats are.
Probably not the president either.
Everyone has different opinions on what is acceptable, crazy, and stupid to pay attention to.
Okay.
So, I think Jeff...
I did actually, I did think about that, the seeming hypocrisy that you mentioned, because I was talking about how people are following OJ on Twitter because they want immediate access to the stupid and crazy that he puts out, and I was saying how unhealthy and pointless that is, and then my very next segment was about, I think it was about the trans poet who's rearranging the alphabet because the normal alphabet isn't good enough for him.
Which is both stupid and crazy, so what gives?
How can I bring up stupid and crazy stuff if I'm saying that we should pay less attention to stupid and crazy stuff?
Well, the answer is, maybe I am a hypocrite on that front.
That's perfectly possible.
So that could be it.
But I would also suggest that what I try to do with this show and with my writing is wade into the stupid and crazy.
Which is usually not an enjoyable thing for me.
And then bring it to your attention, but in order to find the point, to find the lesson that we can learn from it.
What I don't want to do is just hit you over the head with it, have you like bask in it, and then leave you there in the midst of the stupid and crazy.
I don't want to do that.
I want to get to the point.
I want to get to a conclusion.
The problem is when We do sort of just bask in the stupid and crazy just for the sake of it.
When we consume it instinctively, unthinkingly, for purposes of entertainment or distraction, that's where I think it becomes a problem.
Like when you sit down and watch three hours of reality shows where the only real attraction, the only entertainment value is just that these people are being stupid and crazy.
Well, then you're basking.
There's no point to it.
You're probably not thinking much about it.
You're not sitting there analyzing it.
You're probably not writing a thesis about it.
You're just basking in it.
You're just dwelling in it.
You're enjoying it, is the point.
And I think that's where it becomes unhealthy.
There is a balance here, because there's a lot of stupid and crazy out there, some of which has no effect on our lives.
Some of it does, though.
And so we can't ignore it.
We can't just put our blinders on and charge ahead and pretend that we're not living in the society that we are.
We can't do that.
But at the same time, we don't want to dive into it and just start doing kind of backstrokes and making ourselves comfortable, right?
So I think that's the balance.
And I try to strike that balance.
I probably don't always do a perfect job of it.
So you're right about that.
And I also think, as I said, I consider it part of my job.
Well, it is part of my job to pay attention to this stuff.
I offer cultural analysis as a job.
That's what I do for a living, right?
And so I do have to pay attention to this stuff.
I mean, I have to be on Twitter.
People think it's a joke.
I say it's part of my job.
It really is actually part of my job.
I have to be there.
I wish I didn't.
And so that's why I often say to people, if this wasn't my job, if I did something else for a living, if I worked at an office complex somewhere or anything, if I did anything else, whatever the job is, if it had nothing to do with media at all, nothing to do with offering commentary, nothing to do with forming opinions about society, if I had some other kind of job, I personally, I would not, I wouldn't be on Facebook.
I wouldn't be on Twitter.
I would spend very little time on the internet.
I probably wouldn't even have it on my phone.
I would, I would just, I would spend my free time outside.
I would, you know, I don't know, I would read more books.
I would do other things that have nothing to do with this.
Because it's exhausting, it's draining, it just sucks the life force out of you.
And so that's why I encourage people, and I'm not trying to be a hypocrite, but if you don't have to be here, if you don't have to be online all the time, if you don't have to be on social media all the time, if you don't have to be surrounded by this craziness all the time, then don't be.
Really, I think you'll be a lot happier.
You'll have a much more joyful and enjoyable life if you're not always surrounded by this stuff, if you don't have to be.
All right.
So that's my little recommendation for the day, my pro tip for the day.
And I guess we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Thank God.
Hey, everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Americans have been breaking chains for nearly 250 years.
We broke the chains of Southern slavery, the chains of Jim Crow, the chains of Nazism, the chains of Communism.
It's time for us to rise up as one and break some new chains, the mental chains of identity politics and political correctness.
That's on the last Andrew Klavan Show before the Klavan-less week.
You don't want to miss it.
▲
Export Selection