ABC tried to fire the whistleblower who revealed their Epstein cover up, but they targeted an innocent woman. As the scandal grows, the rest of the mass media remains conspicuously silent. Also, a "fact checking" site wages war against facts. And a Pew poll claims that most Americans think unmarried parents are just as good as married ones. Date: 11-11-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
And first of all, I hope you've had a blessed Veterans Day so far.
Thank you for all those who have served.
And it's unfortunate that on a day to celebrate courage, the courage of those who served, we have to begin by talking about cowardice, the cowardice of our disgraceful media, cowardice evidenced in so many ways, but especially now in its silence surrounding the ABC Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
You know, I remarked last week about the irony and hypocrisy of the fact that ABC and CBS colluded to fire a whistleblower.
So after all this time the media has spent talking about protecting whistleblowers and talking about the evils of collusion, then they would turn around and collude to fire a whistleblower.
You can't The irony can't be lost on you.
Um, after someone leaked the tape of an ABC reporter revealing how ABC covered for Epstein and spike the story about his serial sex abuse and sex trafficking, uh, ABC, then as we talked about last week, they went on a mission to track that person down and punish them.
Eventually they found the person or they thought they did working now at CBS and CBS fired her on behalf of their rival.
For the crime of blowing the whistle on corruption within ABC.
But it gets worse.
It got much worse for ABC and CBS at the end of last week on Friday.
Turns out the woman they fired for being a whistleblower wasn't even a whistleblower.
They colluded against a whistleblower, but ended up punishing an innocent woman.
So they tried to collude to fire a whistleblower, but they failed.
And it gets even worse than that.
Because we find this out from an interview with the woman who was wrongfully terminated.
The innocent woman who was blamed for being the whistleblower, but isn't.
We find this out in an interview she did with Megyn Kelly.
Megyn Kelly scooped the entire mainstream media, even though she'd been fired by a mainstream media outlet.
She came in and showed them what real reporting and real journalism looks like, embarrassing them even more in the process.
And it's a great interview, by the way.
So let's take a look at some of this.
The woman's name is Ashley Bianco, former ABC producer.
And here she is with Megyn Kelly explaining what really happened with respect to the now infamous tape.
Ashley, thank you for joining me.
Did you leak the tape?
I did not.
Not to anyone?
No.
Never.
At any time?
No.
Did you make a clip of the moment?
I did, but I saved it in the internal system.
So what was your job at ABC?
I was a crash producer.
Okay, so a producer.
Yeah.
And you were in the control room when Amy made those comments?
I wasn't in the control room but I was watching the comments while I was at my desk and I had seen what she was saying and I went to my manager and I said, you know, do you see what she's saying?
Does she know that she's on a hot mic?
The assistant said to us that Amy knew she was on a mic and that she knew she was being broadcasted to all the affiliates.
Right, so this is a moment where she's off the air, she's doing taped promos but she has a mic on and people can see and hear her.
Yeah.
So what did you do?
You clipped the moment?
You sort of marked the moment in the system?
Yeah, I just clipped it off.
I essentially marked it in the system and never left the system.
We do it all the time.
Did you tell the manager that you had clipped it?
I did not.
Did you think it was newsworthy, what she was saying?
Everyone in the office was freaked out by what she was saying and everyone was watching it.
So the purpose for clipping it was what?
To watch it back later?
Yeah, watch it back later.
You know, I did it just for office gossip, you know?
Mm-hmm.
Was there any intention to embarrass her?
No, not at all.
Or ABC?
No, I would never.
Was this the first time you had ever clipped a segment of an anchor off mic?
No, I mean, we do it all the time.
You know, part of my job is I'm like a video editor.
You know, I clip off moments all the time.
I put together, you know, funny anchor reels of, you know, them off camera doing funny stuff to use later in the show.
Did you go back and watch it later?
I didn't know.
I, I didn't even, I didn't think about it after that day.
Okay.
So her crime is that she saw the tape and she clipped it, which is that's her job to clip tape.
Never showed it to anybody.
Never sent it to anyone.
Wasn't trying to embarrass the reporter.
Wasn't trying to embarrass ABC as much as ABC deserves to be embarrassed and eventually embarrassed itself.
In fact, she said that she never even heard of Project Veritas.
And I think that was actually an interesting moment where she talks about that.
Let's watch that.
So was that the last you had to do with that clip?
Yeah, I didn't touch it.
I didn't do anything else with that.
You never went back to it?
I never went back to it.
You didn't download it?
You didn't email it?
You didn't transfer that file in any way?
No, not at all.
I didn't touch it after that.
It stayed in the system.
I hadn't even heard of Project Veritas until this.
You know what's interesting about that?
She says that she never thought about the clip or looked at it again.
She said that she'd never heard of Project Veritas.
Now, I believe her on that.
I believe that she never heard of Project Veritas.
But that alone, let's focus on that for a second.
That just reveals what kind of bubble these media companies are keeping their employees in.
I mean, the woman is a producer for a major news network, and she looks at clips and things for her job, and she doesn't even know about the existence of Project Veritas or James O'Keefe.
Which, however you might feel about James O'Keefe and his operation, Uh, they've made a lot of news over the years.
So having never heard of them is pretty stunning for someone.
And that would be like someone at Fox news, a producer at Fox news who had never heard of media matters.
Now I'm not comparing media matters to, to, uh, to project Veritas, like project Veritas is a legitimate organization.
Media matters is just a, just a bunch of lying smear artists.
But the point is it's, it's a similar in terms of the bubble you would have to be in.
That is pretty incredible, but not the point of the interview, just worth remarking on, I think.
And then Ashley Bianco starts talking about what happened when she was fired, and she describes the scene, how CBS handled it, and we'll get to that clip in a moment.
But first, a word from Lightstream.
You know, the holidays are approaching, and you may be thinking about how you're going to save some extra money.
I've got a way that you can save money that maybe you haven't thought of yet.
Consolidate your high interest credit card balances to a lower rate, and you can save that way with Lightstream.
Get a rate as low as 5.95% APR with AutoPay, which is much lower than the national average interest rate of 20%.
APR.
So that's actually an understatement to say it's lower.
You're talking about 5.95 versus 20% plus your rate is fixed.
So as the rates continue to rise, your low rate will not budge and you get that peace of mind.
Also that stability and knowing that the rate isn't going to rise for you.
Just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Walsh.
L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M.com slash Walsh.
That's LightStream.com slash Walsh.
Subject to credit approval.
Rates include 0.5%.
Auto pay discount.
Terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit LightStream.com slash Walsh for more information.
Okay, back to the interview with the falsely accused Ashley Bianco.
Here's her describing her own firing by CBS.
And then in the fall you decided to leave ABC to go where?
To CBS.
And I only left purely because CBS had offered me a good contract.
And so I, you know, I left and I was just really excited to start a new job.
And so this week you're sitting at CBS doing your job.
Yeah.
And what happens with Project Veritas?
They released the video, you know, and I was shocked, but I didn't think anything of it.
How many days had you been at CBS?
Only four days, you know.
And I, uh, I begged, I pleaded.
I didn't know what I had done wrong.
And I just, you know, I didn't, I wasn't even given the professional courtesy to defend myself.
You know, I didn't know what I had been accused of.
It was, you know, humiliating.
It was devastating.
Have you ever spoken to James O'Keefe of Project Veritas?
No, never.
I didn't even know who he was until this week.
And hadn't communicated with anybody who works there in any way, shape, or form?
No.
Yeah, I've never communicated with anyone over there.
What was your reaction when you found out ABC News had called CBS?
Devastated.
I mean, it's like I'll never get a job anywhere else.
It was devastating.
So they brought this woman over from ABC.
They offered her a contract.
Four days after she starts, they fire her because of what ABC accused her of.
And according to her, they never gave her a chance to explain herself, never gave her a chance to defend herself.
She didn't even understand what she'd done wrong.
And all of this simply because she was exposed to the clip of the reporter.
This is like some Martin Scorsese mob movie type of stuff.
ABC is just offing the witnesses.
That's what's happening here.
It's really incredible.
Meanwhile, the actual person who did leak the tape to Project Veritas is still in the company, still working, not for CBS, but for ABC, and they haven't been found yet.
They're still there.
That person, the real whistleblower, came out, well, didn't come out publicly, but published something anonymously with Project Veritas just to try to I guess realizing that someone else is being framed for the deed.
And what they published, it's worth going and checking out what they had to say, but it says in part, I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public.
I did not and do not seek any personal gain from this information, whether it be financial or otherwise, and will always decline.
When I became aware of this moment, I had the same reaction as many of you did.
Anger, confusion, and sadness.
I care not about petty political quarrels and only hope for the best.
And all of us, it goes on a little bit later, I sit here with all of you in complete shock.
I, like many, are at a loss for words on how this has been handled.
Instead of addressing this head-on like the company has in the past, it has spun into a mission of seek and destroy.
Innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with this are being hunted down as if we're all sport.
I challenge all of you to actually look inwards and remember why this company engages in journalism.
We all hold the First Amendment at the foundation of this company, yet forget its history, its purpose, and its reasoning for even coming into existence to begin with.
How lost we are, yearning to be found.
I went to Project Veritas for the sole reason that any other media outlet would have probably shelved this as well.
I thank all of them and James for seeking the truth.
So that's the real whistleblower.
I guess the hunt is still on by ABC.
They're still trying to track this person down.
By the way, in case you were wondering, The rest of media has continued their blackout of this story.
One of the most blatant blackouts of a story that I can think of Aside from the yearly blackout that they do of the March for Life every year, when there are 500,000 people walking, you know, marching down the street in Washington, D.C., literally walking through the front yard of these people, and it gets hardly any coverage by the media.
So it's sort of on that level in terms of everyone in the media being on the same page, that we're not going to talk about this thing.
Brian Stelter, CNN's media reporter, did his show on And on CNN yesterday, it's a weekly show that he does on Sundays.
And it's a show about the media.
A show all about covering media stories.
What did he have to say about this?
Nothing.
He said absolutely nothing about it.
A show about media, and it doesn't mention the biggest story in media.
Not just the biggest story in media this week, but the biggest story in media in the last several years.
CNN advertises Stelter's show, ironically named Reliable Sources, advertises it as a show that, quote, examines the media world, telling the story behind the story, and a show that tells us how the news gets made.
Well, here's a story behind the story.
Talk about a story behind the story.
Here's something showing how the news gets made or doesn't get made in this case.
And we have tape of it.
We have tape of a reporter confessing to all of this and Stelter just ignores it.
This is really like, it would be as if CNN's weather reporter ignored a cat5 hurricane bearing down on Florida.
Imagine if there was an hour-long show about the weather on CNN and it didn't even mention the hurricane, made no mention of it.
It wasn't even like they buried it, it was just they pretended it wasn't happening.
Um, and this shows again, what fake news really consists of and how it works.
What media bias really means, because the way people talk about the media, the critics of the media, the way that they, or I should say, we often talk about the media and media bias.
Uh, it's as if we're saying that the media literally invents stories out of whole cloth.
Well, not literally invent stories out of whole cloth.
I mean, no one thinks that they're actually building a story out of cloth, but anyway, um, we, we, we talk about it as, as if we're saying that the media is just making up stories.
Off the top of their head and reporting it.
Now, that might happen sometimes or something close to that might happen sometimes, but that's not generally the way media bias and fake news works.
And it's important for us to realize this so we know what we're dealing with.
In reality, the bias is much more insidious and it's more insidious because it's less glaring.
Though this time it's pretty damned glaring.
But the real bias, the most damaging kind of bias, is in how they choose which stories to ignore.
So that's how you know if they're really worried about something.
Not because they're making up stories, but if they just ignore it and pretend it's not happening.
And the good thing for them is when they do that, they can always turn around and say, oh, what do you mean?
This isn't fake news.
We didn't, you know, we didn't make anything up.
Right.
You're just, you're, you're pretending it's not happening, which is just as bad.
So Brian Stelter's media show, we could say his media show on Sunday, it was all fake news.
And not because the things he was talking about weren't true, although I'm sure a lot of it wasn't, but it's a media show.
And the implication is, okay viewer, here's all the important stuff happening in media.
Didn't mention this.
So what you're saying, without saying it, is this thing over here didn't happen.
That's fake news.
Speaking of fake news, here's the fact-checking site PolitiFact.
You know, anytime a site advertises itself as a fact checker, that's when you know that it probably does basically the opposite of that.
PolitiFact is debunking what they say is a false claim.
And here's the screenshot.
It says, a Trump ad said Democratic presidential candidates support giving illegal immigrants free health care at our expense.
We rated that mostly false.
Now a Florida GOP leader made a similar statement.
It is still mostly false.
Okay, mostly false.
Well, let's go and look at the tape.
Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.
And everybody's hands go up.
Now, what PolitiFact tries to do here, the move they pull, is to say that, well, yeah, the candidates said they would provide health care to illegals, but they never said it would be free.
That wasn't stipulated.
And it wasn't.
The word free did not appear in that question when the moderator said, would you give health care to undocumented immigrants?
It wasn't said free health care.
But all of these candidates support some version of free health care.
All of them do.
So the free part is implied.
I mean, does anyone have any doubt that if you asked any of these candidates whether a poor illegal immigrant with no money should still get coverage, does anyone have any doubt that they would all say yes?
So they don't need to say free, but this is...
Once again, it's the lie by omission.
PolitiFact says, well, they never said free.
Yeah, but you're leaving out the fact that that is implied.
When Democrats are talking about healthcare, the free part is implied.
Okay, here are some poll results that I'm seeing shared around social media that are, I think, pretty interesting.
Here's the graphic from Pew.
The question from Pew is, Can couples who are living together but not married raise children just as well as married couples?
And 60% of Americans say yes overall.
Almost half of Protestants, over half of Catholics, almost 80% of religiously unaffiliated.
All of them say, sure, you know, no need to be married to raise kids.
Now, technically there is a way to understand this question that could justify those Results.
The question was can, not is likely to.
So technically, you could say, well, what if you've got an abusive, alcoholic, married couple compared to sober, non-abusive, unmarried parents?
Couldn't the unmarried ones in that scenario do a better job of parenting or at least as good a job?
And sure, but that's... So, if the question is, can, is it logically possible?
Well, yeah, it's logically possible, but that's not really what the question seems to imply.
It seems to imply that to 60% of Americans, there isn't much of a difference between married and unmarried couples when it comes to their abilities to raise kids.
And that is just completely foolish and also pretty concerning.
When you consider that A certain portion of the people answering that question or who have that opinion haven't had kids yet themselves.
And so what they're revealing is that, you know, if I ever have kids, I don't see any reason why I have to be married first.
One of the.
If I could just.
Explain briefly for anyone who's confused on this.
One of the most important things that you can give to a child, one of the most essential needs of a child.
Besides the basics of food, water, clothing, shelter, all that.
But one of the most essential, deeper human needs of the child is security.
And I'm not just talking about physical security, although there's that, but also emotional, spiritual, psychological security.
That knowledge, that feeling that he's in a stable environment where both parents are committed to each other and to the family, and they aren't going to leave.
They aren't going to give up.
They aren't going to abandon.
They aren't going to cut and run.
When you aren't married and you're raising kids, you simply cannot provide that kind of security to the child, which is something the child needs.
In fact, you are refusing to provide it.
You are, you are clearly refusing it in principle.
You're saying to the kid, even if you're not saying it out loud, the implication is what you're saying is, yeah, I could leave anytime.
That's why I'm not getting married is because I want to have the ability to leave.
And maybe a child at a very young age can't put two and two together on that.
Doesn't really understand what marriage is versus not marriage, but as a child gets older, they're going to put that together and realize that the only reason you're not getting married is because you want to have the option of leaving.
And that is very traumatic for a child.
Just, just the possibility of that.
I mean, I can remember, um, as a kid, when I first.
My parents were married, and growing up as a very young child, before I went to school, even the idea of parents leaving and marriages falling apart, it never occurred to me.
I didn't even know that was a thing.
I never even thought of it.
But then as I go to school, and this was in the early 90s, so it was part of the divorce boom.
The divorce boom was still very much in effect.
Has never quite gone away though.
It's died down a little bit.
Um, and, and I remember going to school and with all these, and I start meeting all these kids with divorced parents.
And that was, I can very, I can remember distinctly when that realization dawned on me that that was even an option, that that was even a thing that could happen.
And that's really difficult for a child.
So I remember going home to my mom and, and bringing this up to her and saying, you know, I'm worried that you and dad are going to, are you and dad going to get divorced?
And I was saying that not because of things I'd seen in the home, but just because of things I'd heard from my friends at school.
And I remember she sat me down.
I remember it distinctly.
She sat me down and said, you know, your dad and I will never leave each other.
We will never get divorced.
You never have to worry about that.
Never.
And she was right.
And I believed her, but being able to believe her, if she had tried to say that to me, if she had tried to sit me down and say, look, your dad and I, we're never going to leave each other.
We're in this for the long haul.
We're, you know, we're, we're, we're all together.
We're a family.
If she had tried to give me that speech and they weren't even married, then I think it'd be very difficult for me to believe it.
But I did believe it and being able to believe it was really important for me.
I think for my development as a child to just know that I'm, that I'm safe when I go home and that this thing we've got going on in the house, it's not going to fall apart.
And you got to be able to give that to a kid.
Now, of course there are, you know, we're talking about divorce.
So there are children who think they have that, that kind of security and then find out they don't.
But the ideal here, the point is that we should be giving that to a child, uh, which means getting married and, and then importantly, actually staying married.
Okay.
Let's go to emails.
Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.
Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.
Um, actually, before we get to emails, I did have one other thing to say.
The, the important issue that I, I didn't want to gloss over the Popeye's chicken sandwich.
That everyone's been talking about.
I finally, I finally had a chance to try it.
And I'll tell you the truth.
This Popeye's chicken sandwich that is, it's got the whole, the whole world's talking about it.
Biggest thing going on in the world.
Um, and I, I finally tried it.
I was very skeptical as I was eating it.
I'll be honest with you.
I started to cry.
I was crying because I knew the truth that Popeye's had declared war on Chick-fil-A.
They were going for Chick-fil-A's throne.
And with this sandwich, they had succeeded.
They had crowned themselves king of the chicken sandwich.
I didn't think they'd be able to do it, but they did.
This is like the stuff of epic poetry.
It was tragic.
So as I'm eating it, and as a big Chick-fil-A fan myself, as I'm eating it, I sense the tragedy of it, yet it's also beautiful.
Because as one king falls, another takes his place.
And I thought about that and I wept.
And everybody at Popeye's was staring at me.
And then someone came up and stabbed me in the chest because, well, it's Popeye's.
That's what happens there.
If you can overlook that part of it.
So what I'll say is the experience of eating at Popeye's is Well, it's in some ways more exciting than eating at Chick-fil-A.
You never know what's going to happen at a Popeyes.
But it's not always as pleasant.
So I think that Chick-fil-A still has the one up in terms of customer service, especially customer service.
What happens at Popeyes?
I don't think you can call that customer service.
You just walk in, they scowl at you.
It's one of those places where they sneer at you for even walking in the door and they just throw the food at you.
Yeah.
What do you want?
You want chicken?
Here, take it.
Get out of here.
That's what Popeyes does.
Um, which I, I kind of appreciate it because it's honest and it's, yeah.
Hey, we don't forget about all the pleasantries.
I don't need any of that.
My pleasure.
They're not going to, they're not going to do that for you.
But, um, when it comes down to the food, it's, I think there's no denying it.
The Popeye's chicken sandwich is just better.
Um, it just is.
All right.
Let's go to emails then from Jacob says, hi, madam, big fan of the show and congrats for your new mug.
Yes.
My new mug right here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for noticing it.
Um, I really enjoyed your piece of music you played last week.
I listened to it over and over and was deeply inspired and found it spiritually uplifting.
I recently argued with a friend regarding discrimination of the basis of religion.
I have difficulties understanding why it's wrong.
Unlike race, which one is born with, religion is a set of viewpoints and moral values that a man can accept or reject.
So why is it at all wrong to discriminate if I believe that one's beliefs are bigoted or wrong?
I was thinking maybe there's a distinction between kids who are raised with a certain religion and didn't choose it to adults who can decide for themselves.
What do you think?
P.S.
I married two years ago.
We're now expecting twins.
Perhaps you can share a good piece of advice for raising twins.
P.S.S.
I think it should be PPS.
Anyway, why have you removed from Twitter, from your Twitter bio, the theocratic fascist title?
Thanks for reading.
Well, hi Jacob.
As for your third question, I took the theocratic fascist thing down for a time because I thought it was important for me to emphasize my preferred pronouns, which are we, us, our.
But it's back on there now, so have no fear.
As for your second question about twins, congratulations.
First of all, what is my advice?
My advice on raising twins is, well, here's what I would say.
What you want to do generally is to make the right parenting decisions as opposed to making the wrong Decisions.
So let me try to explain it.
If you're confused, when you're faced with a parental situation or decision, basically what you're going to say to yourself is, what's the right thing to do?
And then you're going to do that.
So you may be tempted sometimes to do the wrong thing, but what I would recommend is don't do that thing, the wrong one, do the right one.
And anyway, I'm writing a parenting advice book in which I sort of flesh this out in more detail because I know it can be a little overwhelming at times.
As for your first question about discrimination based on religion, it depends on what kind of discrimination you're talking about.
You as a private citizen, I agree, have every right to discriminate against me based on the fact that I'm Catholic.
So you can do that, you horrible bigot, if you want to.
If you don't want to associate with me, if you don't want to consort with the likes of me, that's fine.
No, that's your right.
Until I am crowned theocratic fascist, in which case you'll be executed.
But until that moment, you have every right to do it.
Discrimination becomes a constitutional issue, or it should only become a constitutional issue, when it's the state doing it.
And so why can't the state discriminate based on religion?
Well, because your right to believe what you believe Is essential.
It is integral.
That's what freedom of religion really protects.
That's why it's folded into the First Amendment.
It protects your right to believe what you believe and to say what you believe.
And those two rights are fundamental to us as human beings.
You say that religion is a choice.
Well, In a sense, yes.
But in another sense, no.
Because is it really a choice to believe something?
I would argue that it's kind of not really a choice to believe.
Because you either believe something or you don't.
So what you can't do is just get up one day and decide that, okay, I'm going to believe such and such.
Or get up and decide, oh, I believed this thing yesterday.
I'm not going to believe it anymore.
So if when we talk about choice, if what we mean is that, you know, the ability to just switch courses and you're walking that direction and you choose to walk another direction, if we're talking about that sort of choice, then in a sense, no, religion and belief is not a choice because you either believe it or you don't.
You can make choices that eventually lead you to certain conclusions that you hadn't arrived at before.
And you can make a series of choices that lead you in the direction of developing a new belief system or losing a belief system that you had before.
You can choose to listen to someone as they're explaining their belief system.
And you could choose to take that seriously and consider what they believe.
So you can make all those choices.
But what you can't do is just at the drop of a hat, snapping your fingers, choose to believe something or to not believe something.
And that, again, is why it's so important that we have this freedom.
Because whatever you think about religion, it doesn't matter.
For the government to come in and say, you can't believe that.
Not only is that tyranny, but it would be impossible to follow that.
Or for the government to come and say, you have to believe this, like for the government to impose a state religion and say, Hey, if you live here, you have to believe this religion.
What do you mean have to believe it?
What if I don't, what if I can't, what if I just don't believe it?
So that's, um, those are things to keep in mind.
And again, but the most important thing is when we're talking about freedom of religion.
Even if you're not a religious person, I don't know if you are or not, but even if you're not a religious person, you should still take freedom of religion seriously.
And it's still important to you because it's not just religion per se that it's protecting, it's your right to believe things and you have your own belief system, whatever it happens to be.
And so the freedom of religion protects that also.
First Amendment protects that, broadly speaking.
Okay.
Let's go to Travis.
Uh, says thoroughly enjoyed your banjo song.
It was just the right length, not too long, not too short.
When will you be recording your album?
Are we all required to listen to your music to avoid being put to death?
What would happen if some moron started doing you while you were on stage?
Travis listening to my musical pieces, of course, won't be enough.
You'll need to show an appropriate level of emotional investment.
Um, I need to see the tears welling up in the eyes.
I need to feel your enthusiasm for my music.
And anyone who fails to show that enthusiasm will be strangled to death with one of my banjo strings, or chords, or whatever they're called.
Finally, let's see, this is from I got a couple of good ones.
Well, we'll do this one, and then I'll save the next one for tomorrow.
Says, from Mark, says, Hello, Matt.
You've been writing about airplane etiquette for a while, and this last suggestion is an affront to all window seat dwellers.
Everyone knows that the person who is in the window seat has all power and authority regarding the window.
If I want it up and you want it down, well, that's unfortunate for you aisle sitter.
I want to be able to stretch my leg and have quicker access to my bag and getting out That human tube rocket with wings.
I may ask for your preference, but I am under no obligation.
You can give me your request, but I have sole and absolute veto authority over that request with no option for it to be overturned.
Yes.
Mark refers to a tweet that I sent about airplane etiquette, which has been a focus of mine recently, uh, as a frequent flyer myself, the lack of etiquette on planes has really taken a toll on me physically, emotionally, spiritually.
And so here's my point in a typical seating arrangement on a plane, assuming it's a medium to large size plane and you're, and you're not in first class, then you're going to be sitting in a row, probably with three seats, window, middle aisle, right?
Here's the problem.
I like to sit in the aisle seat, as I have discussed, and I won't go into the trials and tribulations that I've gone through in just protecting my right to that aisle seat.
But the point is that that's where I like to sit because it gives me access to the aisle, gives me a little bit more leg room.
It's the least claustrophobic option of all the claustrophobic options.
But the problem is that I also like to be able to look out the window at my leisure Because look, first of all, we're 35,000 feet in the air.
And I think it's really sad that we're flying 500 miles an hour, 35,000 feet in the air.
We're over the clouds.
And what's the first thing that everyone does as soon as the plane takes off?
They just put the window down.
Are you really like, you can't appreciate, you don't want to look out and see that beautiful view.
You're in the sky flying and you're so jaded to all of it that you just put the window shade down and you don't even want to look out the window.
What if we were, what if we were on a, uh, what if this is 20 years in the future and then we, we, they're, they're doing tourist flights to the moon and Mars.
Are you going to go to Mars and have the window shade down the whole time?
It's crazy.
And also, um, at the same time, I like to look out the window so that I can alert the pilot if we're about to crash, because he might need my help.
And so I want to keep an eye on things.
And if it looks like something's going down, I want to be able to go tell him.
So, the problem is that the person in the window seat usually puts the shade down without consulting anyone else in the row as if they own the window, as if it's their decision to make.
This is immoral, unethical, undemocratic.
It puts lives at risk, potentially.
And my point is, and this is what I said on Twitter, and it provoked a backlash from all these window hogs.
But just because you're sitting in the window seat, you don't own the window.
Show me on your ticket.
You're flying United or whatever.
It says you're sitting in a window seat.
Show me on the ticket where it says that you control the window.
Show me that.
You can't.
You don't control the window.
That window is controlled by the community.
That is a communal window.
And so if you want to put the shade down, you need to consult with the Roe.
This is America, dammit.
This is not North Korea.
Now, obviously, that said, the person in the middle seat has no rights and is not really human.
The middle seat person is filth and scum.
They are a burden.
You automatically hate them the moment they sit down, and they deserve it.
They have no right to be there.
Uh, everyone knows this.
So when I say that you have to consult with the other people, I'm saying there's really only one.
The person in the middle is not a person.
So you have to consult with the aisle person and there has to be an agreement.
If there's no agreement, then the window stays up default position.
And that's probably how it was when you got on the plane.
And that's all that, you know, that's, that's just, that's my points.
It's, it's a really, it's a, it's, this is not just courtesy.
This is about.
This is about standing for American values and the American ideal.
And our founding fathers did not put all their blood, sweat, and tears into founding this great nation just so that one person could sit in the window seat and decide if the shade goes up or down.
That is not what they had in mind.
Amen.
Right?
God bless America.
And thanks, everyone, for watching.
Thank you for listening.
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 Knoll Show and the Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer
Jonathan Hay, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling,