All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 30, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
43:18
Ep. 360 - Ilhan's Fake 'Moral Outrage'

Ilhan Omar says she's morally outraged that Walmart's CEO makes more than the cashiers. We'll talk about why that's insane. Also, Barack Obama becomes a far right idealogue, and the NCAA finally allows athletes to profit off of their own names and images. But a "conservative" Republican wants to punish athletes who engage in free market enterprise. Date: 10-30-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, the media, the poor media, still has not gotten over this Katie Hill thing.
They just can't.
Every two hours, there's another long think piece by some publication about how Hill was only forced to resign for sexual misconduct because she's a woman.
And, you know, these people are really trying—they really think that we've forgotten about the Me Too movement.
They really think that we've—they want to pretend it never happened, and now we're living in a world where that never happened.
The Washington Post just published an op-ed titled, Revenge Porn Drove Katie Hill Out of Congress.
Would that have happened to a man?
Would it have happened to a man?
I don't know.
I mean, maybe ask Anthony Weiner?
Does that ring a bell?
But even forget about him, because he deserved to have his career destroyed.
What about all the men who didn't commit any crimes, and were not members of Congress committing ethics violations, but still had their careers and reputations destroyed?
Aziz Ansari, okay?
There weren't any pictures published, but there was a graphic description of a sexual encounter that was entirely consensual.
But the woman felt like it was awkward, and she kind of regretted it later, so they put this entire... Now, how is that not a form of revenge porn?
Fine, no pictures, but there's a graphic description of this private thing, consensual, published, and that was reason enough to humiliate him in front of the entire world.
The idea that women face more scrutiny for sexual misconduct is just so divorced from reality, so disconnected from the real world, that you have to wonder what planet these people are living on.
Just as another example, during the height of the Me Too movement, When we especially were focused on sexual harassment and sexual misdeeds in Hollywood and among celebrities and so on, multiple people came forward and accused Mariah Carey of sexual harassment in graphic detail.
Now, you probably didn't even hear about that because when those accusations come out, everybody was just sort of like, eh, whatever.
And then they moved on.
She's a pretty big name, so you'd think maybe it would make some headlines, but it didn't because people just don't care that much about sexual misconduct when women are the culprits.
But what the media is trying to do now is they're trying to flip it around and claim that actually, no, people care more when it's women.
Which, again, is absolutely ludicrous.
It is the exact opposite of the case, and we all know that.
We all know it.
Okay, several things to discuss today.
We're going to talk about Ilhan Omar complaining that Walmart's CEO makes more than Walmart
cashiers.
Is that actually, she calls that a moral outrage, but is it really a moral outrage?
We'll talk about that.
And the NCAA is finally allowing athletes to make some money on their own name, but
a Republican senator is not a fan of that.
And he wants to punish the students who dare to make any money whatsoever on their own
We'll talk about that also.
Barack Obama has come out as a far right ideologue.
Big development there I would say.
But before we get to any of that, a word from Kettlebell Kitchen.
Nutrition is, you know, on everybody's minds.
It's what, when, and how much to eat.
It can be really difficult to sort through that, especially if you just try to go in, if you try to go in cold to Google and just figure out, okay, what am I supposed to be doing exactly?
And the information seems to change.
It's a mess of conflicting information that can confuse anyone and derail your fitness journey.
There are so many diet and meal plans out there, but chances are they don't take your specific needs into account.
Kettlebell Kitchen knows that meal planning isn't a one-size-fits-all, which is why they offer personalized solutions.
Whether you're slimming down, or you're trying to bulk up, or you're just looking for fuel for the day, whatever it is, there's a plan for you.
All their meals are free of dairy, soy, and artificial sweeteners, and they're made from ingredients that are naturally free of gluten.
So you can even filter your choices by calorie, protein, fat, Carb limits, whatever your specific, again this is all about your specific needs and that's what makes this so, not just convenient, although it is that, but it makes it so effective because every single person, this is one of the problems when you're trying to figure out a diet plan.
Well, many of the diet plans or whatever fitness regimes, they're kind of talking about a hypothetical generalized person.
But no, you need something that is specific for you and that's what you can do with Kettlebell Kitchen.
Feed the champion in you with Kettlebell Kitchen.
Go to kettlebellkitchen.com.
That's kettlebellkitchen.com and enter code WALSH for $25 off your first two orders for new customers.
That's $25 off your first two orders at kettlebellkitchen.com.
Code WALSH.
Okay, so CNBC recently published a report claiming that it would take a hundred years for the average employee to earn what their CEO makes in a year.
A hundred years versus a year.
And this is supposed to highlight the extreme inequality, as they put it, that is out there in the working world.
Obviously, though, there's a problem here.
Maybe you've already noticed it.
That it assumes that the low-wage employees we're talking about will maintain that same wage for 100 years, okay?
And I have to say, if you have not gotten a raise in a century, Then that's probably a reflection on you.
I mean, either you should have gotten a new job by now, or you just suck so much at your job that after a hundred years, you're still getting paid minimum wage or something.
So that should be a sign.
Now, on one hand, it's impressive that you're still working at your age, but I have to say, you probably should have climbed a few steps of that ladder by now.
Ilhan Omar responded to this report in a tweet, and here it is.
She says, Walmart CEO's salary last year, $23,618,233.
A Walmart worker's median pay last year, $21,952.
$18,233.
A Walmart workers median pay last year, $21,952.
So you got 23 million verse about 22,000.
And then Omar continues, the issue isn't that these employees
aren't working hard enough, it's that our system doesn't value workers
and it's a moral outrage.
Moral outrage, she says.
Now, she should know something about that, considering she commits a new moral outrage every week, but this particular example she picked is actually very good.
Very good, I mean, in demonstrating why she's wrong and stupid.
In fact, to make her point, she could not have picked a worse example than the CEO of Walmart.
The CEO of Walmart, Doug McMillan, is not a trust fund baby.
He wasn't born rich.
He started at Walmart as a teenager unloading trucks in the back of the store.
He worked his way up from unloading trucks to running the whole damn company.
This is the quintessential rags-to-riches kind of story in America.
This is the quintessential American dream story, or at least what it used to be, before we all became a bunch of whiny, envious babies who, rather than working hard, we sit there and say, but he has more than me!
This isn't fair!
Um, he went from loading trucks to being assistant manager after he got his college degree.
Then he became a buyer at, uh, at the corporate headquarters.
And then, and then he ran Sam's club and then he moved over and ran a Walmart international.
And then he became back in 2014, he became the CEO of Walmart.
His first Walmart job was in 1984.
He became CEO in 2014.
That's 30 years.
It took him 30 years to make it all the way from the very bottom of the Walmart hierarchy to the very top.
He started at Walmart two years before I was born, and he only became CEO five years ago.
So this is a very long time.
Now, what does this prove?
Well, it proves a few things, I think.
First of all, where Walmart is concerned, and this is not equally true of every company.
It kind of depends on the company.
But especially with Walmart, there is upward mobility.
You don't have to stay in that $21,000 range for your whole career.
Especially, you don't have to stay there for 100 years.
You can work your way up.
It is possible to do that at Walmart.
If a stock boy working in the back can become CEO, that's pretty good evidence that it's possible to be promoted internally.
Second, it would also seem to indicate that Doug McMillan actually has worked harder than most other people in the company.
Think about what Omar is doing with this comparison.
These people in Walmart who are making that $21,000-$22,000 a year amount, the vast majority of them are probably going to be people who have only been in the company for a few months.
Uh, now the turnover rate in a place like Walmart, I don't know exactly what it is for Walmart.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but it's, it's pretty high in these big box retailers or fast food because people come in and they, the people who work there don't plan on being there for very long.
This is just a temporary thing they're doing, whether it's for a few months or a couple of years.
Um, and that's, so that's what it is going to be for, for most of these people at a place like Walmart, the majority of employees are there temporarily.
And they have no intention of staying for the long haul.
Macmillan, on the other hand, got into his head the idea that he wanted to be a buyer for the company, and he worked his way to that goal.
He actually called Walmart.
He went and got his college degree, then he called Walmart up, got in touch with an executive, and asked how he could train to gain that position.
Now, I ask you, how many of these people Making 21 grand at Walmart, or even thinking about what their next move in the company is.
How many of them are thinking about they want to become a buyer?
Or how many are trying to track down an executive they could talk to about, you know, how can I get training to... How many are doing that?
I'm not saying none have, but I would submit to you that the employees at Walmart Who are thinking like that and are doing things like that, trying to track down the people who are above them and asking about, okay, what are training courses I can take?
What can I do?
People who are willing to, you know, McMillan went to different stores in different places, willing to move around, willing to do whatever it takes.
I would submit that almost everybody at Walmart with that attitude and that willingness And who also has the basic competency and the basic skill sets required.
Almost everyone in that camp.
And who wants Walmart to be a career.
So now we've really whittled it down here.
That's my point.
Now we're talking about a relatively small group of people in Walmart.
And I would say that almost all of them in that group are moving up the chain and are making more than $21,000 a year.
But As I said, almost everyone is outside of that.
And I don't blame.
I'm not blaming it.
If you work at a big box retailer or something, and you don't want this to be your career, and you're doing the bare minimum, basically.
You're going in, taking your paycheck, doing the bare minimum, and just praying for the day when you can leave.
I don't blame you.
I work these retail jobs.
That's exactly how I approached it, because I didn't want this.
I have no desire to retail and do it.
That's not what I want to do.
So if that's not what you want to do either and you're just there to make the paycheck and that's all you're interested in, fine.
I don't blame you.
I was the same way.
I totally get it.
But then you can't very well be upset that you're not making as much as the CEO.
Okay?
You can't be upset that you're not making as much as the guy who has made this his career for 30 years.
Obviously.
Now, so find me someone who has been at Walmart for let's say five years Wants it to be a career, has been working hard and is reliable, is basically good at their job, yet still is just a cashier and hasn't moved up at all in position or salary in those five years.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to find an example.
I think it'd be very difficult to find an example of someone like that.
Because I think almost everyone in that category has moved up and is now at least You know, is an assistant manager or something.
They've moved on to a different kind of position by now.
My point is this.
Ilhan Omar is absurdly comparing the salary of someone who's been there only a few months and doesn't want it to be a career and wants to leave to the salary of someone who worked there for 30 years and has been career-minded the whole time.
That is idiotic.
That is flat out idiotic.
Income inequality, speaking of idiotic, is an idiotic, not just an idiotic phrase, it is a useless phrase.
It is a phrase that tells us nothing and that you can't do anything with.
Of course income inequality, of course they're unequal.
Of course incomes are unequal.
That's because you get paid based on the job you're doing, the industry you're in, And all of that.
People do different jobs in different industries.
They have different skill sets.
They have varying degrees of competency.
They put in varying amounts of effort.
They have been working for different amounts of time, etc., etc., etc.
There are 100 different variables that affect this.
So to demand income equality is to suggest either that none of these variables matter, Which would be crazy.
And that our salary shouldn't be based on that.
Or that maybe these variables don't exist.
I don't know how else you can go with it.
But then the question is, okay, if income is not going to be based on all of these variables, of which I only gave a few examples, How long you've been doing the job, how good you are at it, how much effort you put in, how reliable you are, what industry you're in, all of that.
If that's not what your income is based on, then what the hell would it be based on?
I don't know how else to have an income that isn't based on that stuff.
It doesn't make any sense.
So as long as there are, as everyone in the working world, is in vastly different sorts of situations, you're going to find vastly different incomes.
And that makes sense.
It would only be a moral outrage if it were impossible for someone in the lower tier to work their way up to the upper tiers.
But it's not impossible.
And especially in Walmart, Again, we have to keep going back to this.
The guy who runs the joint started in the back of a store unloading trucks.
So that tells you, it doesn't mean that everyone can become CEO.
Obviously there can only be one, like Highlander, but it does tell you that it is possible.
You don't have to stay there.
And if you don't want to be in the back unloading trucks, you don't have to stay there forever.
Alright, before we move on, let's check in with our friends at Honey.
You ever buy something online, and then after you've already bought it, you realize that you could have gotten it for less?
This is kind of like, it's almost as bad as when you're in an airport, and you're hungry, and you're walking through Terminal A.
and you just settle for some food you don't really want, and then you get to your terminal, terminal B,
and you find a much better food option, but you've already eaten, that's a tragedy.
And this is almost as much of a tragedy.
Not to mention that once that happens, you know, you feel like you could be overpaying
every time you shop, which maybe you are, unless you have Honey, the free browser extension
that saves you time and money when shopping online.
Honey scans the internet for coupon codes and other discounts.
Then, like magic, it automatically applies the one with the biggest savings to your cart at checkout.
It knows about every coupon code, sale or discount at over 20,000 sites like Amazon, Macy's, J.Crew,
Domino's, Sephora, Target, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I can tell you that we needed a new video baby monitor because we have a new baby in the house
and we save like 35 bucks with Honey and there's just no downside here.
There's no reason not to use Honey unless you like paying more.
If you're some sort of weird, if you have some sort of weird thing where you enjoy,
you feel like you enjoy paying as much as you possibly can for consumer items,
then maybe in that case you won't like Honey.
But everyone else, all the sane, rational people who are financially responsible, there's no reason not to get it.
Honey is the way to go.
It's free to use and install on your computer in just two clicks.
You get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
That's joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
Go there now, you're not going to regret it.
Okay, this is pretty shocking.
Barack Obama came out as a far-right ideologue.
I don't think anyone expected that to happen.
But speaking yesterday, he was talking about cancel culture and saying that cancel culture is a bad thing.
And that you shouldn't criticize people for small mistakes and try to destroy them just in an effort to seem woke yourself.
Well, listen to what he had to say.
You know, this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff.
You should get over that quickly.
The world is messy.
There are ambiguities.
People who do really good stuff Have flaws.
Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right, or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself.
Because, man, you see how awoke I was?
I called you out.
Let me get on TV.
Watch my show.
Watch Grown-ish.
You know, that's not...
That's not activism.
That's not bringing about change.
Wow, the guy's an absolute right-wing extremist.
This is... Anyway, this is what qualifies as right-wing extremism these days.
Basically, any rational statement of any kind puts you at odds with the far left.
If you say anything rational on any subject, you, by default now, are a conservative.
And that's not the system that conservatives have set up.
This is how leftists have decided that it should be.
So I would say welcome to Barack Obama to the far right.
We meet Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8pm.
Do bring a dish.
It's usually a potluck type of thing.
And in fact, one thing I'll say is that, you know, with the cancel culture thing, When more and more celebrities and prominent people, even people who seem to be on the left, are coming out against cancel culture, it's, yeah, we appreciate the fact that they're saying this, but it also is self-preservation.
I think more people are realizing, that's why there are a lot of people who participated in cancel culture and were at the forefront of it, Barack Obama being one of them, I mean, you want to talk about cancel culture.
How about Barack Obama basically intentionally stirring up race mobs against, you know, an anti-police hysteria over things like, you know, the Michael Brown shooting, which turned out to be entirely justified by the police officer.
So, but I think you have people like Barack Obama who are now coming out against it.
And you can't give them too much credit because what they're realizing is that everybody is susceptible to this.
That this is a parasite that can infect anybody.
As mobs often do, the mob has become uncontrollable.
And so you thought that you could whip it up and send it against other people and what you're realizing is that no, they'll get bored eventually and turn around and come after you.
And as more and more people realize that, they say that, oh, you know what, maybe this isn't such a good idea.
And to that I say, yes, you're right, but I'm sorry, I really can't give you credit for that.
You should have realized this a long time ago.
So, the NCAA finally decided that it will allow college athletes to make money off of their own names and images.
They're only doing this because, speaking of self-preservation, they're realizing that Well, they're basically forced into it.
States are forcing their hand, and they're trying to avoid a court battle over it, which the chairman of the NCAA Board of Governors was very open about, and he admitted that that's why they're doing this.
But they are making the right call, even if only for reasons of self-preservation.
Now, to be clear about this, this is not athletes getting paid a salary.
This is Well, the details haven't been completely worked out yet, but the basic idea is that an athlete can make money on his own image and his own name.
So maybe, for example, if people wanted his jersey signed, they wanted a signed jersey of his, he could profit off of that.
It is his name, after all.
Why shouldn't he?
It is his name.
Why should there ever be a situation Where you are not allowed... If somebody wants to pay you money to put your name on something, why should there ever be a situation where you are not allowed to do it?
Okay, unless you're in prison or something.
Maybe with exception of that.
Outside of prison.
Doesn't matter who you are.
It really doesn't matter who you are or what you're doing.
If somebody wants to pay you money to put your name on something, you should be able to take the money.
Of course you should.
And it's just, if you want to talk about free market, you cannot pretend to be a free market advocate if you're saying that there should ever be a situation outside of prison where a person shouldn't be allowed to make money or to accept money from someone who wants to pay them for their name.
Because if that's not included in free market, that is the essence of the free market.
I can't think of a better example of what the free market looks like than that.
And if you're saying no to that, then you are not a free market advocate.
You don't believe in the free markets and stop pretending that you do.
But there are people that remain steadfastly opposed to college athletes making any money at all in relation to the sport that they play.
And there are people who feel very strongly, they feel very strongly that college athletes should be broke.
It's very important.
Now, it's really weird to me.
It's really weird that if you feel so strongly that college athletes should be broke, it's very important to you personally that the people you're watching on TV aren't making money.
You just feel, you really hate the idea of them making money.
That, at a minimum to me, that makes you kind of a weirdo.
That's a very weird conviction to have.
One of those weirdos is Senator Burr from North Carolina who said, this is quoting from him on Twitter, he says, if college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarship should be treated like income.
I'll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to cash in to income taxes.
To reiterate, he wants to impose An expressly punitive tax on the scholarships, not on the money they make from their names and likenesses, if they're selling jerseys or whatever.
That's already, of course that's going to be taxed.
If that's all on the up and up, then yeah, you're going to be taxed on that.
I don't think anyone has an issue with that.
He wants to tax also the scholarship as a punishment for them engaging in the free market.
So this isn't him saying that, you know, I've thought about it and I really think that in general scholarship should be taxed, which they already are in some circumstances.
I think most of the time they're not, but it's all kind of complicated.
Like everything is with the IRS these days.
But what he wants to do is he wants to treat the scholarship as income only if the athlete has committed the sin of accepting money for his own name and likeness.
So this is punitive.
And it is treating a scholarship as income.
And this is a conservative Republican, quote unquote.
So, the NCAA might let these kids make a bit of money on their own names and images.
They're not going to become millionaires.
So if you're so worried about the integrity of, oh my gosh, the integrity of amateur sports, Okay, well, it has no integrity, so maybe open your eyes and pay attention.
I don't know where you've been for the last several decades.
But amateur sports doesn't exist.
It is a billion-dollar industry, and the people involved in it already make millions.
The only difference is we make an exception for the players, and they don't make anything.
But, oh, well, they get the scholarship.
I'll get to that in a second.
The idea that the scholarship is some great treat, you know, some great honor they'd be given a scholarship, so it means they shouldn't make any other money.
I'll get to that in a second.
But, you know, coaches and administrators, executives, They make millions already.
It is a billion-dollar industry and people are making millions on it, so it is not an amateur sport.
To call that amateur is ridiculous.
The NCAA also is incredibly, absurdly corrupt, which is why they're embroiled in a new scandal every year.
So it is already corrupt.
It is not amateur.
It's worth a billion dollars.
People are making millions.
So if you're worried about protecting the integrity of this amateur organization, you obviously have not paid attention for about 50 years because that went away a long time ago.
But if it really would upset you, the idea that you've got coaches making $10 million a year, if it would upset you that players made that amount too, I don't know why it would upset you.
But don't worry, that's not what would happen here.
I don't think anyone's going to make $10 million selling their jersey or whatever else they would sell.
And it's not specific yet, so we don't know exactly.
We can't really talk about numbers.
But I think it would be safe to estimate That maybe some of these kids could make, yeah, I don't know, 30, 40, 50,000 a year, something like that, maybe, I don't know.
It's not gonna be a lot.
So Burr's response to that, to the fact that some of these kids might make a little bit of money, is to confiscate it.
He wants to come in and just take it.
He's saying, oh, you think you can make money on your own name?
Nope, I'm taking it.
It's going to go into my coffers, not yours.
And amazingly, just from what I've seen on Twitter anyway, some people are supporting this.
People who call themselves conservatives are saying, yeah, take that money.
You take it, politician.
It's yours, not his.
How dare he?
He thinks he can make money on his own name.
Well, if I can't, he can't.
I really think it is jealousy.
I think people are just jealous that, you know, no one's going to pay you for your name because no one cares.
So you're jealous and you're like, well, if I can't have it, he can't.
And if I think that is part of it, because I've also heard talking about the scholarship thing for a minute, you'll hear people say, well, you know, they're getting a full ride scholarship just to play a sport.
I didn't get a full ride scholarship, so they should be happy with that.
All right, let's talk about the scholarship for a minute.
The reason why, and I'm trying to be delicate here, but the reason why you didn't get a full ride scholarship is because when you were going to college, you weren't good at anything.
No one was going to offer you a scholarship because you really didn't bring anything to the table.
Again, I'm trying to be delicate.
I don't mean it as an insult, but the reason why One of these days I'll remember to turn my phone down when I do this.
Speaking of amateur, the reason why you didn't get a scholarship is because when you went to college you just weren't really good at anything and the colleges didn't need to offer it to you because they could take or leave you.
It was really more of a privilege for you, at least from the college's perspective, You're the one.
You have to go and beg them for admission, and then when you do come, you have to pay them.
Because as far as they're concerned, if you don't come, who cares?
Somebody else will.
Now, a really good athlete, especially one who plays in a popular sport like football or basketball, it's a totally different scenario.
Because number one, this is someone who is very, very good at something.
Now you can say all you want that, wow, they're good at a skill, it doesn't matter.
You say it doesn't matter.
They're good at a skill that is very profitable, that people are really interested in, and they're great athletes.
I don't think that's a worthless skill.
I don't think that athletes do some worthless, dumb thing.
I mean, think about what most of us do for a living.
You sit in an office all day.
You think what you do is more significant than what an athlete does?
I don't think so, necessarily.
Now, maybe if you're a surgeon or something like that, then yes.
But they're very good at what they do.
And the reason why the school's offering scholarship is because the school really wants this person who's really good at this thing to come to their school.
So they, the school, can make money off of the student.
And so of course they say, oh yeah, come for free.
Because if they don't let the student come for free, then some other school will come in and offer the free ride, and they'll lose out.
So it's not out of the generosity of their hearts that they offered us scholarship.
They did it because they want to profit off of this person who is really good and has a profitable, marketable skill that you didn't have when you went to college.
They do.
So that's why they get the free ride scholarship.
It is not charity, and they did earn it.
Because they've been working hard since they were like five years old.
It's the only thing they've been focused on.
They put in thousands of hours of practice at whatever sport they play, and that's how that worked out for them.
Now, the idea that, you know, that should be enough, and it's somehow a scandal if they make any other money, it to me is completely ridiculous.
I would hope we could agree, at a minimum, That the government has no right to just come in punitively and take the money.
Because this is really what it's about.
These kids have a marketable skill.
People are making money off of them.
The question is, should they be allowed to make a little bit of the money as well?
There's a lot of money flying around based on what these kids are doing.
The only question is, that money's already out there.
That's my point with, oh, it's amateur.
It's not.
The money's there, and it's being spent, and it's going back and forth, and there are many transactions happening.
The only question is, should the kids get any of that?
I say, well, of course they should.
Why shouldn't they?
Who should get the money?
Should it be only the coaches and administrators, or should the athletes get a little bit of it, too?
Or should the government get it?
Now, I would hope, especially if you call yourself a conservative, you would agree that the government shouldn't get any of it.
Why should Burr get any of it?
Why does he have a say?
How about butt out?
Mind your own business.
Got nothing to do with you.
But certainly, there's no reason.
I mean, what if, forget about athletes for a minute, what if What if somebody was in school, in med school, going to school for medicine and for some reason, someone came up to them and said, I want to pay you 50 bucks for an autograph.
Should that med school student be allowed to accept the money?
Of course, no one would deny it.
So why should it be different for an athlete?
Okay, let's, uh, Go to emails, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Vinay, I hope I'm pronouncing it right, Vinay, Vinay, maybe.
I love your show, listen to you every day.
You mentioned that venting is a bad thing.
My wife vents after work sometimes, expressing her frustration at work.
I listen to her and just say things like it's supposed to get better or it's going to get better, giving her hope and a positive look ahead.
I think venting is okay as long as it's not directed towards each other.
I think we have to be there for each other when things are not going that great.
Yeah, well, there's nothing wrong with telling your spouse about your stresses at work.
It's good to talk about those things.
I think the problem arises when you're constantly dumping your negativity on your spouse, constantly complaining about every little stress you have, never choosing to keep any of your negative emotions to yourself.
And that was my point yesterday.
I think obviously within reason we share, we are supposed to share with our spouse, but I think what ends up happening with this idea that, well, you should never keep anything from your spouse, that becomes an excuse to constantly be vomiting out all of the negativity and all of the complaints and everything.
And I do think that sometimes in a relationship, you got to keep some of that to yourself.
Because the other thing to keep in mind is, okay, you come home, you've been stressed out.
Your spouse probably also has been stressed out.
So as soon as you see them, as soon as they walk in the door, you walk in the door, and you just unload and do this every day, what about them?
You think they look forward to coming home and listening to you whine every single day?
No.
So that's what I think we have to look out for in a marriage.
You said this in one of the first weeks of competition.
I'm an avid follower of you and Dancing with the Stars.
This week, Sean Spicer is officially equal to Sanjaya.
You said this in one of the first weeks of competition.
I thought it was too early to say that, but there was at least one other chump that Sean
was better than, Lamar Odom.
Last week, Sean slipped by and a decent celebrity went home.
This week, Sean has no business being in the competition anymore, but the Trump Nation is voting him through like Sanjaya of old.
Sanjaya of old.
I like that.
He even got booed when he was not even named in the bottom two based on votes.
Kind of funny he got booed a day after Trump on TV.
The audience boos a lot of the judges, but I've never heard them boo a contestant for being safe from elimination.
I guess the joke must go on.
I think the only difference is that I felt Sanjaya really did think he was good enough to advance, whereas Sean is very aware That he sucks at dancing, and I believe he knows he shouldn't be dancing with the others anymore.
Thanks for making my 45-minute commute entertaining.
Yeah, thanks, Brian.
Now that you mention it, let's take a look at Sean Spicer's latest spectacle on Dancing with the Stars.
This one, it keeps getting worse, but this one might be the worst one of all.
I was working in the lab late one night when my eyes beheld an eerie sight,
for my monster from his slab began to rise and suddenly, to my surprise, he did the monster march.
It was a graveyard smash!
It caught on in a flash!
He did the monstermash!
From my laboratory in the castle east To the master bedroom where the vampires feast The fools all came from their humble abodes To get a jolt from my electrodes!
They did the monstermash!
It was a graveyard smash!
Here's what I'm talking about.
This is what I'm talking about.
His dancing is getting worse with each round.
How is that possible?
How is he not at least improving?
He's getting whiter with each round.
By the end of this thing, he's going to look like a drunk, peg-legged polar bear up there.
He kind of already was that, but I don't know how it can get worse.
It keeps getting worse.
He's getting worse at dancing as he learns dancing.
Now, I've said this a dozen times already.
This is America.
We reward greatness in this country.
Sean Spicer is not a great dancer.
He's not even satisfactory.
And he's not even a great personality, where you could say, well, he doesn't dance well, but he's got this charming personality, and so it's TV, and that's why.
He has no personality to speak of, no dancing skill.
He's known only for being the White House spokesman.
How boring.
Why are people rallying around the former White House spokesman?
Is now your rallying cry?
Why?
I couldn't think of a blander, more boring thing to rally around.
And you know what?
If this argument doesn't convince you, Then what about his dance partner?
She's a professional dancer, and she's being tied to this lumbering oath for months now.
This is not fair.
This has become forced labor.
This is enslavement.
This is unconstitutional, what's happening to this woman.
But here's the really annoying thing.
If people were just voting this guy through because it's funny and they're ruining the show just for a good laugh, then I could kind of get it.
And I would say, I think it's still un-American and it's still probably unconstitutional because of what it's doing to the woman.
But I kind of get it because, listen, as someone who enjoys trolling sometimes myself, I understand the joys of trolling.
But that's not really what's happening here.
I think there are a lot of people who really believe that they're making some sort of important stand.
They're making some sort of important cultural and political stand.
That's the impression I'm getting, at least when I've talked about this and some of the feedback.
It seems, maybe it's kind of a mix.
I think there are some people who are doing it for a laugh, but then there are a lot of other people who are saying, yeah, we're sticking it to the libs and Holly weird.
That kind of thing.
The kinds of people who say things like libs and hollyweird and oh bummer, you know those types of people?
They're the ones who are doing this.
In all earnestness, they believe that it's some important thing.
And Sean Spicer thinks that he's also, that this is a, you know, he's standing for Christ.
This is a... I think he said something like that.
I forget what the quote was, but he tied this, his awful dancing to Christ.
In a way, maybe it is.
We're all going through a passion in our own way of suffering by having to watch this, but...
That's what annoys me about it.
If I could just be convinced that this is all a joke, I'd be less annoyed.
But the fact that there's some earnestness to it makes me annoyed by it.
But not that it really matters that much.
I don't even watch Dancing with the Stars, but I have taken an interest in this plot line.
And maybe, so, you know, maybe in the end... Maybe that's really what's going on here.
The people at Dancing with the Stars, they pretend like they're upset, but, you know, it's got someone like me talking about it.
All right, we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
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, The 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.
▲
Export Selection