Ep. 326 - Drew Brees Promotes The Bible, Gets Attacked As Anti-Gay
Drew Brees is being attacked by the outrage mob for recording an "anti-gay" video. In reality, the video promotes the Bible and says nothing at all about gays. We'll discuss how "anti-gay" and "Christian" have been synonymous terms in our culture. Also, more stores are banning open carry. My opinion on the subject may put me at odds with most conservatives. Date: 09-06-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
So the NFL season kicked off last night with an absolute nail-biter of a game.
Extremely exciting start to finish.
Final score 10-3.
It was as exciting as watching a soccer game.
So that's about the level it was at.
Packers won the game.
But the real NFL-related drama yesterday was happening off the field.
And it had to do with Saints quarterback Drew Brees.
Now, Drew Brees, if you don't follow the NFL, Drew Brees is not only one of the best quarterbacks in the league, one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the league, really, but he's also just one of the best all-around dudes in the league.
He's just a good, decent guy.
And there are, you know, despite what maybe some people would say or the impression some people have of the league, there are a lot of good, decent Men in professional football.
There are also a lot of unhinged narcissists and violent abusers in the league, too, unfortunately.
If you follow the league, then you know about Antonio Brown.
Now he's in Oakland.
He was in Pittsburgh before, and he's definitely in the unhinged narcissist camp.
The guy cares about nothing but himself.
He causes problems everywhere he goes.
Everything's about him.
Breeze is not like that.
He's a good team player.
He's a good guy in general.
And, you know, I think that people who are star athletes and have been star athletes, if you, you know, someone like Drew Brees, a star quarterback, he's been in the league for, I don't know, 15 years or something.
But that means he's really been a star quarterback probably since he was like five years old.
He's pretty much his entire life, he's been a star athlete everywhere he goes.
To be in that position, to be able to retain some humility and still just be sort of normal, that is a huge feat, really.
That is a huge feat of virtue, just to be able to pull that off.
I think lesser people, if you're given that kind of attention, and you're treated that way all the time throughout your entire life, it's very difficult for it not to go to your head.
So, when I see athletes like this who are just decent guys, to me, I'm very impressed with that.
But, not everybody is impressed.
And the fact that he's a decent guy, that's not gonna save him from the woke mob, which have now descended on Breeze, because... Well, let me read... Let me read some of the headlines to you, to give you the woke mob's version.
what Breeze has done wrong. Okay, let me read some headlines. First, this is a
headline from a website called Black Sports Online, and I think this is the
garbage site that really kicked off the controversy. And here's how they phrased
things. It was, Drew Breeze created a PSA video for an anti-gay religious cult
that believes in conversion therapy and fights against any anti-discrimination
wants kids to bring Bible to school to convert other kids.
Okay, so that's how Black Sports Online phrased it.
He made a PSA video for an anti-gay religious cult.
Um, Deadspin put it this way, Drew Brees appears in video for gay conversion therapy sickos, doesn't understand what the big deal is.
And then Big Easy Magazine put it this way, they said, uh, Drew Brees records video for anti-LGBT religious organization.
Okay, so this sounds pretty bad, right?
If you don't know any better, which you should at this point, but if you don't know any better, you hear those headlines and you think, oh, that's bad.
I mean, he's aligned himself with a cult and he's recording anti-gay PSAs.
Why would he do this?
This is Drew Brees we're talking about.
Why would you even?
This is crazy.
Well, let's play the controversial video.
And I want you to get ready for this, because it's pretty disturbing.
Remember, this is an anti-gay religious cult.
He's doing a PSA.
Who knows what he's about to say?
This is pretty disturbing stuff, so I have to warn you.
If there's any kids listening right now, maybe you should cover their ears, because this is pretty dark stuff.
Listen to this.
Hey guys, Drew Brees here.
One of my favorite verses in the Bible is 2 Corinthians 5.7.
For we live by faith, not by sight.
So I want to encourage you to live out your faith on Bring Your Bible to School Day and share God's love with friends.
You're not alone.
Yeah.
So that's it.
That's the whole thing.
That's the video that created the backlash.
The anti-gay religious cult, PSA, that's just what you saw right there, that's it.
He recorded that for the group Focus on the Family as a way to promote Bring your Bible to school day, which is a thing.
I didn't know that was a thing.
I'm glad it's a thing.
And so on that day, you bring your Bible to school.
And so he did a video saying, bring your Bible to school.
And that really is it.
There isn't like an additional part of the video that I'm not showing where he advocates the death penalty for homosexuals or something.
No, even though that's what you would expect based on the headlines, that's not what happens.
It's really the entire video, just him saying, hey kids, Bibles are cool.
Thumbs up, and I'm Drew Brees.
Go Saints.
I mean, that's the entire thing.
Well, but I gave you just a few headlines, some of the more unhinged headlines, but there were a ton of others, all accusing him of being anti-gay and so on and so forth, and then there was the backlash online, and it was trending, and so you know the whole rigmarole.
In response to the ridiculous, fake, dishonest outrage, Breeze made another video last night addressing it.
And when I saw the little thumbnail of his video, I was afraid that he was about to apologize.
And I was relieved to see that he does not apologize.
Here's what he does say.
Hello everyone.
There's been a lot of negativity spread about me in the LGBTQ community recently based upon an article that someone wrote with a very negative headline that I think led people to believe that somehow I was aligned with an organization that was anti-LGBTQ and so on and so forth.
I'd like to set the record straight.
I live by two very simple Christian fundamentals, and that is love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.
No matter your race, your color, your religious preference, your sexual orientation, Your political beliefs, it doesn't matter.
So the fact that these rumors have been spread about me are completely untrue.
What I did was I filmed a video recently that was encouraging kids to bring their Bibles to school for National Bring Your Bible to School Day.
To bring your Bibles to school, to be able to live out your faith with confidence.
And I even gave one of my favorite Bible verses.
It was as simple as that.
So I'm not sure why the negativity spread or why people tried to rope me into certain negativity.
I do not support any groups that discriminate or that have their own agendas that are trying to promote inequality.
Okay?
So, hopefully that has set the record straight, and we can all move on, because that's not what I stand for.
Have a great day.
Okay, good for him for not apologizing.
I'm glad he didn't.
Drew Brees is... It's kind of like we talked about Walmart earlier in the week, where Walmart caved to the left-wing mob, and there was no reason for them to cave, because it's Walmart we're talking about.
The left can't touch them.
They're Walmart.
So they could take a position of, I don't care what you people think.
We're going to do what we want to do.
I mean, yeah, go ahead.
Go ahead and boycott.
Oh, I'm so scared.
Drew Brees could take a similar approach.
And if I were Drew Brees, that's probably what I would have done.
I probably would have made a video saying, look, I'm Drew Brees.
Oh, you're mad at me?
Okay, good.
Well, that's good for you.
I'm Drew Brees.
This is me we're talking about, folks.
I mean, there's no way that Drew Brees is getting fired by the Saints, especially for that video.
But even if he did record an actual anti-gay video, he probably still wouldn't get fired because he's Drew Brees.
They'd have a riot on their hands in New Orleans if they did.
So, he just doesn't have to worry about them.
Yet, he has probably too much class, I guess.
That's why he's Drew Brees and I'm not.
I mean, he has too much class to get up there.
So, he tries to explain himself a little bit.
Yet, even Brees' Response to the original fake outrage is mischaracterized by the media.
ESPN, this is their headline talking about his response, and their headline is, Breeze irate over backlash from promotional video.
Irate?
Did that seem irate to you?
Okay, that's not irate.
I can show you what irate is.
I'm irate all the time about everything.
So you want to see irate, then fine.
But Drew Brees probably has never been irate about anything.
That was not irate.
He wasn't screaming.
He wasn't frothing at the mouth.
He was just explaining, I think in very reasonable, calm terms, what actually happened.
By the way, this claim that Focus on the Family supports gay conversion therapy, even if it were true, it's irrelevant.
Because Brees didn't mention anything about it.
So even if Focus on the Family did support gay conversion therapy, whatever that's supposed to be, that's not what Drew Brees was talking about.
He was just saying, bring your Bibles to school.
And I doubt, whatever focus on the family's position is on gay conversion therapy, I really doubt that Drew Brees knows or cares or has, he just would have no idea.
I don't think gay conversion therapy is the kind of issue that someone like Drew Brees is really tuned into and worried about, right?
And I don't claim to be an expert on focus on the family's position on the subject either, but from what I understand, They have basically taken the stance that if a Christian with a homosexual orientation wants to seek counseling from his church or from his Christian counselor related to his sexual orientation, then he should be able to do that.
From what I understand, that's focused on the family's position.
I don't think Focus on the Family has ever said that gays should be forced into gay conversion camps, like they should all be rounded up and brought to a camp, or they're brainwashed.
I don't think they've ever taken that position.
I think their position is, look, if somebody wants counseling, they should be able to get it.
Which to me seems perfectly reasonable, if that is their position.
But anyway, it's irrelevant.
Because, like I said, Brees didn't go anywhere near the subject.
He just encouraged kids to bring their Bibles to school.
That's all.
And you can disagree with that if you want.
Okay?
I mean, if you want to disagree with that, that's fine.
But whatever happened to just disagreeing?
Why can't you just say, No, Drew Brees, I disagree.
I don't think kids should bring their Bibles to school.
Here's why.
And then explain.
Personally, I can't imagine what your problem with it would be, but whatever it is, just explain it.
No big deal.
Why does it have to be automatically, oh my gosh, Drew Brees wants to kill all gays.
Why do you have to go there?
Why, just, if, we know what your real problem is.
You don't like Christians, you don't like the Bible, you don't think Bibles belong in school.
That's really what you're upset about, so just say that.
Just say it.
Why does it automatically have to go?
Well, I know why.
You know, it's a rhetorical question and the answer is we live in very, very stupid times.
Very stupid times.
And dishonest times too.
Where people, there are a lot of people who just seem to be incapable of honestly and directly engaging with an argument or a position.
I think there are a lot of people in our country who really are intellectually incapable of it at this point.
And I have to say this as well.
I know that if you're in the LGBT camp, you probably aren't going to take advice from me.
Maybe I don't blame you for that, but I'm going to give some advice anyway.
Okay?
Take it or leave it, you'll probably leave it.
Fine.
But if you're in that, Especially if you're a gay activist.
If you're a left-wing gay activist, especially.
Then, I'll say this.
You really don't do yourself any favors with this kind of stuff.
When you go and attack a guy as being anti-gay, when he didn't even say anything about gay people, when you attack someone as anti-gay simply for their religious views, Or for, you know, promoting the Bible or whatever, then you just come off as vindictive extremists.
And it turns people against you.
There's no advantage for you.
And it's not a smart strategy.
Especially because you've already won.
And this is what I say to feminists, too, all the time.
It's like, for feminists, you already won.
You've got all the rights in the world.
You've got more rights than men, legally speaking.
So you've won.
That's it.
You won.
Congrats.
Go live your life now.
All you're doing now is undermining everything you achieve by coming off like crazy people and finding stupid things to complain about.
All you're doing, you know, you were in a position, and I'm still talking to feminists here, but where almost everyone was saying, yeah, okay, the feminists were right about that.
Women should vote.
Okay.
Everyone was agreeing.
And now, but for the last like 20 years, now all you're doing is making people turn against you.
When there's no reason for it.
It's the same thing with gay rights activists.
If you're a gay person in this country, you can do whatever you want.
You can get married.
You can do whatever you want.
You can be involved with whoever you want.
You can live with whoever you want.
You can love whoever you want.
You can do whatever you want.
And the general feeling of most people in this country, if you look at any survey, any poll, I mean, if you look at anything, If you just take the general temperature of society on this issue, most people are libertarian now on issues of sexuality.
They just don't care what you do.
You can do what you want.
They don't care.
Just do what you want.
Whatever.
You don't need to tell us about it.
Just do it.
That's how most people feel.
So what does that mean?
It means you won.
You won.
That's it.
You got what you want.
Rather than just sitting back and saying, okay, we achieved that.
Um, now when you become vindictive and you, you go out looking for revenge, because that's, it seems to me, that's what the gay rights movement now has become.
It's now become, well, you've already, you got all the rights now, so that's, that's done.
That's over.
Um, and in fact, even though the gay rights movement, the quote-unquote gay rights movement still exists, these are the same people who will tell us that it's a settled issue.
Gay, you know, gay marriage, settled issue, which we're not talking about.
Okay, if it's a settled issue, then what is the gay rights movement anymore?
Well, I'll tell you what it's become.
It's become a movement of vengeance.
Now it's about circling back around and finding those people, or at least those kinds of people, who opposed you and punishing them.
And that is, not only is that morally wrong, but it is just a really stupid strategy.
Because you're going to turn people against you.
Whereas, five, ten years ago, most people in the country were saying, yeah, gay rights movement, good, good stuff guys.
Now there are a lot of people who are against you now.
They may not be against gay rights in and of itself, but they're against you.
Because of this kind of thing.
It's just really stupid.
Really stupid.
But hey, don't take it from me.
What do I know?
Alright, let's move on to something else.
Reading from a report in the Daily Wire now.
This is, it says Wegmans, Walgreens, and CVS all banned open carry in their stores on Thursday following the same gun policy change from Walmart and Kroger the other day.
Unlike the other retailers that only called for a ban on open carry, CVS advised all customers except for authorized law enforcement officers to totally refrain from carrying at all in their stores.
Wegmans posted on Twitter saying, there's nothing more important than the safety of our customers and employees.
The sight of someone with a gun can be alarming and we don't want anyone to feel that way at Wegmans.
For this reason, we prefer that customers not openly carry firearms in our stores.
I mean, frankly, I'm shocked that this is the first time Wegmans I'm shocked that up until now you could open carry in Wegmans of all places.
Walgreens tagged anti-gun rights activist Shannon Watts and thanked her for her advocacy on gun control and linked to their statement regarding open carry policy.
The statement said, we are joining other retailers and asking our customers to no longer openly carry firearms into our stores other than authorized law enforcement officials.
And CVS also with a similar statement.
All right, so we've got Walmart was first saying don't open carry, then Wegmans, Walgreens, CVS, Kroger, all in the span of a week.
I'm going to maybe depart from the standard conservative line on this issue.
Maybe.
Because I don't really, maybe, I don't know, maybe my opinion on this is actually in the majority.
I'm not actually totally sure.
But I will say that.
Well, remember with the Walmart announcement, I criticized the move back on Monday or Tuesday, whenever it was, because to me it represented an unnecessary cave to the left.
Though in that case, Walmart had also said that it's going to stop selling ammunition for semi-autos.
And that was the main thing that, from my perspective, is worthy of criticism.
I thought, and I still think, that it's just an absurd political move.
It's totally unnecessary to stop selling this ammunition because of a mass shooting.
But on the issue of open carry in stores, yes, they're all making these changes largely for political reasons, from political pressure.
I'm not crazy about that.
But putting that to the side for a moment, putting to the side the catalyst of these moves, Just looking at Open Carry itself, I don't blame stores for not wanting it.
Okay?
I don't know if that makes me, you know, that calls into question my gun rights bona fides, but I don't blame.
If a store says, we'd prefer if you not visibly traipse around our stores with a gun, that to me is reasonable.
I don't see that as an unreasonable request.
I think, in general, it's perfectly rational for a store to not want customers to visibly bring guns into their establishments.
I don't see any issue with that.
Open carry, in general, to me, is pretty stupid.
And I can tell you that I've lived in two different states that allowed open carry, and in those seven or eight years across those two states, I saw maybe five people doing it.
Maybe five.
I get off the top of my head, I can think of four or five occasions where I actually saw someone open carry.
And the reason I remember it is because it was unusual, even in a state that allows open carry.
But I can remember those few occasions where I saw someone, you know, with the gun, in the holster, on the hip, out in the open.
Like a Clint Eastwood movie or something.
And in all five cases, it seemed pretty apparent to me that these folks were just showing off.
That there didn't appear, in the context, there didn't appear to be any reason at all for someone to visibly have a gun out.
And so I could only conclude that this was just a fashion statement.
Right?
They just felt cool having it.
And that is, look, most gun owners, I'm a gun owner myself, Most of us, I think, are mature, responsible, we care about gun safety, we see the gun as a tool, right?
It's not a toy.
But there are some people who just think guns are cool, they do treat them as toys, they like taking pictures with them and putting the pictures online, and it's just really silly.
Now, those people themselves aren't necessarily dangerous.
It doesn't mean that they're mass killers.
But it does mean that they're not the kind of mature, responsible gun owners that they ought to be.
Now, look, there may be some legitimate reasons to open carry.
I can't think of what those reasons would be, aside from professional reasons, like you're a police officer or you're in professional security or something.
Although even there, if you're in security, probably it's going to be more of a concealed carry situation.
But in any case, I think for the most part it's a fashion statement.
Responsible, mature gun owners aren't interested in flashing their guns to people.
If they carry, they do it discreetly because, by the way, there really is no advantage to showing off the fact that
you have a gun, to advertising the fact ahead of time.
You just make yourself a target.
If somebody walks in, okay, if somebody walks into an establishment, they want to do a mass shooting, and they
see that you visibly have a gun, Well, that means they're just going to kill you first before you have a chance to respond.
This isn't like the Wild West where you've got, you know, where you've got the quick draw and, you know, you can, in point zero seconds, you can pull out the gun.
No, it's not going to be like that.
They're just going to take you down because you've advertised the fact that you're the threat, and then they're going to proceed to kill everybody else.
If you're not advertising the gun, well, then that's going to be a different story.
In a store setting, yeah, there are some customers who are uncomfortable seeing people openly carrying guns.
Now, you might not feel that way.
You might not understand why somebody would be uncomfortable around a gun.
But that's how some people feel.
That's how a lot of people feel.
You see, but from a business perspective, the fact that you, maybe as a gun rights activist, don't understand why people feel uncomfortable around guns or you think it's silly, that doesn't matter.
The fact is a lot of people are uncomfortable with it.
That's just a fact.
So from a business perspective, okay, you've got a large number of people who reasonably or unreasonably are uncomfortable around guns.
And then you've got a very small handful of people who would like to visibly bring their guns into the store to show off.
So, from a business perspective, which of those groups are you going to be more willing to alienate?
If you have to choose between those groups, if you have to choose between the hundreds of people who aren't really comfortable with open carry versus the, like, two or three idiots who would like to open carry in your store, Who are you going to get rid of?
The hundreds or the two or three?
It's just, it's a, it's, it's a very obvious business calculation.
And, um, if we are free market capitalists, we should be in support of that.
It's, it makes sense to do that.
Also, if I'm a business owner, my own comfort level with someone open, open, uh, you know, with open carry is, is going to be very situationally based.
Okay, so if I'm running, let's say, a mom-and-pop hardware store in Waco, Texas or somewhere in eastern Kentucky, then yeah, probably I'm not going to be too worried about someone bringing their guns in.
It's because it's just a cultural thing and it probably isn't good.
But even, although even in those places, even in Texas or in Kentucky, most people aren't open carrying.
Even if they can, they don't.
But there, in that situation, probably I won't mind.
But if I'm running a convenience store in Maryland, or like a gas station in Los Angeles, or a liquor store in Philadelphia or something, yeah, I'm gonna be uncomfortable with people bringing guns in.
Now, those states don't have open carry, but you get my point.
It's situational.
In general, my own comfort level around guns, not as a business owner, but just as a person, My comfort level is also going to be situationally dependent, and it depends really entirely on who the gun is attached to and why, right?
So, the gun rights people Who act like they can't understand why anyone would ever be uncomfortable around a gun.
That, to me, is really silly.
Of course there are situations where you're going to be uncomfortable.
It depends.
Now, for me, if I know that the gun owner is mature, reasonable, responsible, puts safety first, and all of that, then I'm not going to have any problem with the gun.
And, in fact, a person like that carrying a gun, I'm probably going to be more comfortable being around them.
But if I have reason to believe that the person is immature, irresponsible, flaky, whatever, they think the gun is a toy, you know, then I'm going to be uncomfortable too around the gun.
Even as a gun owner, even as a gun rights activist, I'm going to be uncomfortable with that.
Because I'm going to think to myself, this is a very powerful and potentially dangerous tool that it seems to me this person is not equipped to be wielding.
And the thing is, it seems to me, if someone is wearing a gun as a fashion statement, they're probably more in the latter category.
Doesn't mean that they're killers.
It doesn't mean that they're going to commit a mass shooting.
It does probably at least mean that they're not very mature.
And so, yeah, I'm not going to be crazy about being around that either.
Which is why, even as a gun rights supporter and a gun owner myself, I don't like open carry.
I think it's dumb.
I'm not in favor of it.
One other point here, and I think that this would be obvious, but I actually found, as I was talking about this, debating this issue on social media, I found some people who really disagreed with me on this, as obvious as it seems to me, that whether or not you agree with businesses banning open carry, and these businesses, they're not even banning it, they're just saying, will you please not do it?
Will you please, we would prefer if you don't, will you respect our wishes?
Um, and I've seen, I've seen there are some people responding to that by saying, well, I don't care.
I'm doing it anyway.
That's just stupid.
You know, you don't own the place.
It's not your property.
Have respect, have just some, just be a, be a grownup and have some respect for what this, what they want.
It's not your property.
But I've also heard people say that, oh, this is a rights issue and I have a right to bring a gun wherever I want.
No, you don't.
Yeah.
You have second amendment rights.
I would basically consider myself an absolutist on Second Amendment rights, just like I am on all the, you know, on the entire Bill of Rights, in that I think you have those rights, but that doesn't mean that you can bring a gun wherever you want.
Because there's also something else that exists, and that is very fundamental, and I think even more fundamental than gun rights, and that is property rights.
I am definitely an absolutist on property rights.
I believe in property rights 100%, and I think that is one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings.
It's one of the things that sets us apart as human beings, is that we can own property.
And if that right is not respected and protected and enforced, then we can't have freedom.
And so, it's a property rights issue.
If I own the property, whether it's my business or it's my home, and I say, I don't want guns in here, then you can't bring your guns in.
Don't bring them in.
It doesn't matter.
You don't have to agree.
It doesn't matter.
Makes no difference how you feel about it.
This is my property.
I own it.
I don't want it.
Don't bring it.
So, as gun rights advocates, We should just stick to that.
We should be gun rights advocates.
We shouldn't be worshippers.
We shouldn't turn them into idols.
Where they become these supernatural things and, you know, your ability to carry a gun can never be infringed in any circumstance ever, no matter what, anywhere.
Like, that is not a reasonable position.
That is a crazy position.
And when gun rights people take that position, it makes us all seem like unreasonable, perpetually aggrieved clowns.
Who are always looking for a reason to martyr ourselves and complain.
We don't want to do that.
So let's focus on efforts by the government to infringe on gun rights.
That's a real thing that's happening.
But when a private business says, please don't bring your guns in.
Other customers aren't comfortable with it.
It's not, it's hurting our business.
Don't bring them in.
The correct response from us is okay.
All right.
You know, I respect that.
And if we want to go and shop somewhere else, then we can.
All right.
Before... Let's see.
I guess we'll get to emails.
matwalshowatgmail.com.
matwalshowatgmail.com is the email address.
This is from Adam, says, Hi Matt, Adam here.
I'm a 36-year-old bearded R&D machinist.
I like scotch and love my wife and four kids aged 7 to 12.
I've never been soft, but I've noticed that lately I'll start crying pretty easily when I think back to how awesome my kids were when they were young, ages 2 to 5, and how I'll never be able to go back and have a conversation with them and hear the goofy things they said and how they said them.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore my kids today, but they're becoming young adults now and our relationships have evolved.
I still pee standing up, so I'm not terribly worried that I'm becoming a leftist.
I just wanted to ask if what I'm experiencing is something you've experienced.
Should I be concerned about my recent orbital leakage?
I appreciate all that you do.
Adam, I will put your fears at rest.
Fear not.
Orbital leakage among men is usually unseemly and inappropriate, and frankly immoral, I would even say, and unethical, and should be illegal.
But there are extremely limited numbers of circumstances where it is appropriate for a man to cry, although I will Stipulate that even in those situations, in the appropriate situations, it can be okay for a man to emit up to five dignified manly tears.
But even then, do it privately, okay?
Don't be an exhibitionist.
Keep it at five tears and then cut yourself off and move on with your day.
But those circumstances are the end of the movie Rudy, at the funeral of a close friend or relative, After being shot in the stomach, not in the leg or the arm, okay?
Don't be a wimp.
But if shot in the stomach, fine.
And then finally, when thinking about your kids.
That can be an acceptable time for a man to cry.
But just, as I said, don't go overboard with it.
And I understand your feelings.
My kids are still in that age range that you're reminiscing about.
And I often think to myself how sad it's going to be when they're older and they've moved past this stage.
And that is kind of a perfect example is we over the weekend, we went to the aquarium over the past weekend.
We went to the aquarium and my kid, the twins just turned six, our youngest is almost three, and they absolutely love the aquarium.
They were just...
They just couldn't get enough of it.
They were running from exhibit to exhibit, and, oh, daddy, look at this one!
Oh, this is amazing!
Wow, look at this!
They were just so excited, and so much exuberance and joy and innocence, and I couldn't help but think to myself, it's going to be really sad, because one of these days, you know, they're going to be at that age where we go to the aquarium or something, and they're walking around, hands in pockets, rolling their eyes.
Just want to go home.
I know that day is coming and it makes me sad to think about.
So I get how you're feeling.
But then the thing about being a human being is that I know where I'm at right now as a parent with my kids.
I know intellectually that eventually I'm going to look back on this and be nostalgic for it.
And so I do appreciate this phase, but I can't appreciate it fully because I still get there are things about little kids that can be very annoying, of course, and taxing and draining.
And so I often can be way too focused on those things.
find myself thinking, I can't wait till they're older, we don't have to deal with this anymore.
Even though I know that those things are so small in comparison to the kinds of problems that are probably
coming down the road as they get older.
And I also know that once I'm older, I'm gonna look back on these moments, and I'm gonna see it as just
pure joy, great across the board.
I'm going to think to myself, why did you ever worry about those small little things?
Oh, so the kid woke up too early or they whined a little bit.
Why did you ever care about that?
It's such a small, stupid thing to care about.
It doesn't matter.
How could you have ever let that overshadow all of the great things?
And so I know that down the line that realization is coming, yet I still can't fully get myself out of that mentality.
Part of being a human, I guess.
This is from Maggie, says, Dear Matt, you have a great show and both my husband and I really enjoy your views and agree with many things you say.
I always believed the moon landing happened until about a year ago and would like to share with you the reasons why I think it is unlikely that we went to the moon.
Unlike many deniers, my belief is not based on photos at all. 1.
Although the moon landing is widely associated with President Kennedy, all six moon landings happened during the presidency of Nixon from 1969 to 1972, who was a liar.
Two, never has exploration happened without any other country following suit.
How is it that the U.S.
landed on the moon more than 15 years before you were born, yet no other country has succeeded?
This to me seems very unlikely.
Three, how is it that NASA has conveniently lost all the data to make a moon landing possible again?
And even after 40 plus years, we have not been able to rediscover the data.
Anyway, for the record, I'm not a crazy person.
I hate thinking that the moon landing is unlikely, but unfortunately I cannot help thinking about the politics of that time and the deception the US government took part of.
Kind regards, Maggie.
Well, Maggie, I appreciate the email.
You, The evidence that you provided for the moon landing being fake, none of that is evidence of anything.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
The fact that President Nixon lied about some stuff, as all politicians do, is not even close to being evidence that the moon landing didn't happen.
For a number of reasons, not the least of which being for the moon landing to be faked, it would require not just the president to be a liar, but lots of other people.
Hundreds, thousands of other people would have to be in on it.
Not only liars, but capable of coordinating this lie and keeping it a secret for all of these many years.
You're talking about a conspiracy on an enormous scale.
Not just the president.
So the ethical issues of President Nixon, that to me is completely irrelevant.
You say exploration hasn't happened with other countries.
You cite the fact that other countries haven't landed on the moon as evidence that it didn't happen.
No, that's actually evidence that it did happen.
Okay, because you're right that this was during the Cold War, it was during the competition between the Americans and the Soviets.
If the Americans didn't actually land on the moon, then the Soviets would have continued to try to get there and eventually they would have gotten there so that they could be the first ones to go.
So the fact that after the Americans went a few times, countries stopped trying to go, at least stopped trying to land people on the moon, that's just evidence that we actually got there.
And so now other countries are saying to themselves, is it worth the enormous cost and the danger to human life to go land on the moon when someone's already done it?
Because if you want to go and study the moon, then you can send landers there, and you can send probes and landers, and several other countries have done that, including the Russians.
But actually stepping foot on the moon, for the most part, that was just a statement.
That was just being able to say we did it.
And so once it's been done, it's just not worth it.
But if it hadn't been done, Then other countries would be going and some other country by now would have landed, probably the Russians.
So again, the fact that they didn't, that's just more evidence that we actually did land on the moon.
And then NASA has lost all the data to make a moon landing possible.
Well, that's just not true.
It's not that they've lost the data to make a moon landing possible.
It's that they've lost, number one, the funding.
Okay, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars it would require to put a man on the moon again.
And that requires a certain political willpower and also public support that just doesn't exist and hasn't existed for decades now.
The main thing that pushed us towards landing on the moon back when we did was the Cold War.
It wasn't really, at least among most Americans, and certainly in the political class, it was not a desire for scientific exploration.
It was a desire to beat the Soviets.
Well, we don't really have that anymore.
So there just isn't that willpower.
That's why we haven't landed.
And also because there isn't a specific particular reason to put people on the moon when we can just send a robot there and we can do all the soil samples and everything else that we've already done.
Now the focus is, okay, let's put a man on Mars.
And so I think, you know, in the next 10, 15 years, we're going to do that.
It's just, there's no reason to keep going back and putting people on the moon once it's been done.
So I think everything you've cited, none of that amounts to evidence of anything.
And all of the evidence is in favor of the moon landing.
All of it is extremely in favor of the moon landing.
By the way, one other thing.
We planted a flag on the moon, right?
There is physical evidence on the moon right now that we were there.
Other countries, as I said, have sent probes to the moon, they've orbited the moon, they've sent landers on the moon, or robots on the moon.
If there was no real physical evidence that we'd ever been there, the other countries would have discovered that by now.
Because they can go to the spot where we claim we put a flag and they can go and see, oh look, there's no flag there.
And what, do you think they just keep that a secret because they don't want to embarrass us?
You think the Russians would keep it a secret?
What are they going to say?
Oh, it's water under the bridge.
Let's not cause any problems for them.
No, that's the problem.
The moon landing conspiracy requires not just for almost the entire U.S.
government to be in on it, but it requires other world governments to be in on it, too, because they would know by now we never went.
And yet, for some reason, they're not saying it.
And it would be really easy for them to prove.
All they'd have to say is, hey everybody, the Americans say they planted a flag at this and that coordinate.
Well, here's a picture.
No flag.
All right, let's see here.
This is from Hayden, says, greetings fearless and bearded leader.
I am currently a senior at the University of Alabama, and I have a full-blown case of senioritis.
However, I am taking a class on argumentation, and I have been chosen to build an argument and rebuttal on the topic of athletes getting paid.
I am personally against athletes getting paid because they're already getting paid by getting their college paid for.
I think athletes are just being a bunch of brats about wanting to get paid.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of football, but I even think NFL players are getting paid way more than they deserve.
I mean, they're just playing football, not at all contributing to our society other than their ridiculous political stances.
All that being said, what is your stance on athletes getting paid, and how would you argue for and against this subject?
First of all, as far as professional football players and how much they get paid, I disagree that they're paid too much.
These people are the best in the world at what they do.
And when you're the best in the world at something, you're going to get paid a lot of money.
It doesn't matter what it is.
Okay, so you could say it's a frivolous talent playing football.
But that doesn't matter.
If you are the best in the world at anything, you're going to get paid a lot of money.
You could be the best in the world playing ping pong.
You could be the best in the world at the yo-yo.
You could be the best in the world at, I don't know, making pancakes.
I mean, if you're really the best in the world at that thing, you're going to get paid a lot of money for it, somehow.
I mean, it would not be hard to exploit that for money.
So that's the first thing.
And as far as they're not really doing anything for society, I don't agree.
I think that they are.
They're providing entertainment.
They're providing a reason.
You know, if you go to a football stadium, You go, you enjoy it.
I'm going to bring my son to a football game this year.
And you're with the community.
You provide a little bit of unity.
You provide chances for family bonding, entertainment.
Now, all that stuff, that's not the most important thing in the world.
It's not as important as maybe what a heart surgeon does or something.
But it's still important.
It's something.
I think that they're providing more for society than probably a lot of us are.
And in terms of college athletes getting paid, I have to disagree with you there as well because I think college athletes should be paid for one simple reason.
Because the NCAA is making billions upon billions upon billions of dollars off of these kids.
And yeah, they're getting a free college education.
That's worth what?
$100,000 at most?
They're worth a lot more than that to the college.
And so I think for the simple reason that they should get paid because that's what they're worth.
They're earning this money for the schools.
And the schools are happy to collect it.
And the school, the NCAA goes out of its way to exploit and to capitalize on these players.
So the idea that the players can't receive any money in return to me is crazy.
The schools are merchandising, they've got video games, and yeah, I know that they say, you know, you can't put the names on the jerseys, you can't attach the names, they have things that they do to try to pretend they're not exploiting and capitalizing, but they are.
The NCAA explores every possible avenue to make as much money as it possibly can off these kids, and where does that money go?
It doesn't go to charity, I can tell you that.
That money goes to the coaches, that money goes to the administrators.
That's where it goes.
So does it make sense to you that there should be college coaches making tens of millions of dollars off of players who get paid zero?
It's a simple question, really.
There's billions of dollars being made by college football.
The money's there.
It's in a big pot and it's there.
So the question is, should all of that money go to the administrators and the coaches who are not actually playing in the games?
Or should the players get a little bit of it?
Because when you say the players shouldn't get paid, what you're also saying is, I think all of those billions should go into the pockets of the coaches and the administrators.
I think they deserve... What you're saying is, they deserve all of it, and the kids deserve none of it.
That, to me... I can't even... I really can't even understand that perspective.
That, to me, is such a... You know, no offense, Hayden, but it's such a ridiculous perspective.
Again, when you consider the fact that the money exists, it's there, it's in a giant Scrooge McDuck vault.
Imagine it.
It's all there.
It's going to somebody.
And the idea that it should only go to the people who don't play just doesn't make sense.
If the NCAA was serious about, oh, this is amateur, this isn't about making money, okay, well then don't pay the coaches $10 million a year.
Don't pay the administrators millions.
If you're paying them millions, then clearly it's about money.
The whole amateur thing.
The amateur thing is so... It's not amateur when there's billions of dollars being made.
That's amateur?
Come on.
No.
College football is basically, and has been for a long time, professional.
It is professional.
It is a game that makes billions of dollars.
When you're playing a game and earning billions of dollars doing it, even if you're not seeing a dime of it, if it's earning billions, it's professional.
By any definition of the term.
The fact that next door to the stadium there's a building where people are reading books, that to me doesn't mean anything.
That doesn't mean that it's not professional.
It is professional because of how much money is being made.
Alright.
And okay, we'll just, you know, I'll leave it there.
Maybe I have about 20 more minutes I could do on this subject, so maybe I'll have to revisit it later.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
