A questionnaire given to students in Virginia asks all kinds of personal and inappropriate questions. Why do schools want to know these personal details about their students? Also, a creepy YouTube channel tries to indoctrinate kids. And people are mad at a cop for trying to give a guy a citation for eating on a train. But should we be mad at the cop or the nanny state politicians who make the laws? Date: 11-13-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
I want to talk again about the never-ending campaign to sexualize our children.
And by the way, someone asked me the other day, you know, why are you so obsessed with this issue?
Why do you keep talking about it?
Well, that's true that I am rather distracted by the fact that our society is normalizing, facilitating, encouraging the sexual abuse of children.
That is a fact that I admit I am focused on.
And so my question back to anyone who asks that question of me is, why aren't you focused on it?
Can you name, let's say, 10 issues that are more important?
Okay, so now an article in the Daily Wire that's written by Josh Hammer.
It says, on Facebook, Fairfax County Virginia School Board candidate Priscilla DeStefano Let's call her.
Let's just call her Priscilla.
Sounded the alarm on the news that unless parents opt out, children in the county would be mandated to take the Fairfax County Youth Survey.
Lest that survey sound innocent enough, she highlighted how the questionnaire would reportedly grill children as young as eighth grade on whether they are sexually active, whether they have engaged in oral sex, on how many sexual partners they've had in eighth grade, It would also reportedly probe children as young as 6th grade about whether they smoke marijuana or drink alcohol.
This is her Facebook post.
She says, starting this week, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th graders will be given the youth survey unless you opt them out.
The 6th grade survey asks about drug use, like if they've ever huffed aerosols to get high.
Please look through it to see if you're comfortable with your 11-and-a-half-year-old being asked the 84 questions of the survey.
And then she noted how the Fairfax County survey is even more intrusive.
The 8th, 10th, and 12th graders are asked much worse questions, like if they've ever used heroin or LSD, their prescription drug use, and their sexual activity.
Like if they use condoms, if they've had oral sex, and how many sexual partners they had.
And then Josh Hammer notes that a similar story unfolded last month in North Carolina when a survey given out to local sixth graders inquired about the student's sexual orientation.
Local ABC affiliate ABC 11 reported at the time, the mother of a Terrell Lane sixth grader is upset after a survey given to her son included a question asking about his sexual orientation.
Sixth grader.
Why are you asking 11-year-olds these questions, asks Connie Jo Hutchinson.
The program is called Shifting Boundaries, which is a very apt name and quite Orwellian.
Shifting boundaries, which is funded through a federal grant.
In the survey handed out to students, the sixth question asks, what is your sexual orientation?
It then lists 10 possible options.
Bisexual, gay, fluid, heterosexual, lesbian, pansexual, queer, questioning, prefer not to disclose, and self-identify.
So these are 11-year-olds being asked if they are pansexual.
Okay.
So, there are a couple things happening here.
First of all, we see again the normalization of this kind of activity among kids.
The thing is, when you even so much as ask a kid, have you done X?
The implicit message that you're sending is, what you're really saying is, X is an option.
Or, people do X.
Or even, you're weird if you haven't done X. So, when you go to 8th graders, and you say, have you had oral sex?
You are essentially suggesting it to them.
And that's not an accident.
It's called normalization.
It's called you saying, hey, people your age do this kind of thing, and that's okay.
But, you know, there's something else here too.
There's another message being smuggled in.
Smuggled in... Well, I don't even know if you could call it smuggled because it's so conspicuous and they're barely trying to hide it.
But that message is that the schools, the teachers, have a right to this kind of information.
So, when an adult asks a question like this to a child, the message to the child is, The message from the adult is, I have a right to know these things about you.
And it is appropriate for you to discuss them with me.
This is literally what pedophiles do.
This is how they groom their victims.
The point is to break down boundaries.
They call the program shifting boundaries.
That's, yes, exactly.
And that's what sex offenders do.
Sex predators.
Break down boundaries.
Make the victim think that it's safe and healthy and appropriate to be talking about these things with this adult.
And, of course, it's not.
It's not appropriate.
Among all the other problems with this stuff is the issue that, as an employee of the school system, it's none of your damned business whether these kids are sexually active Or what they're doing as far as that goes.
It's just, it's none of your business.
Why would it be your business?
Why should you be having this conversation?
Just because the kids come to you to learn the ABCs and 123s, why does that automatically mean that you get to know everything about them?
And why do you need to know everything about them in order to teach them that information?
This effort by the school system to take the place of the parents, to step into that role and box the parents out, well, that's what this is all about.
And think about this also.
These are just two examples of this kind of stuff in the school system, but you find this all across the country.
It only comes to our attention when someone complains about it on Facebook, but there are many examples of this where nobody's complained about it, so we're not talking about it.
But think about what this involves.
The school system wants to know things about your child that you don't even know, necessarily.
So that's part of what this is.
They're trying to get these really intimate information, and it might be stuff that you don't even know.
You should know as a parent.
You should be having those kinds of conversations with your kid, or at least, well, I wouldn't be having the conversation in the way the school system does.
But yeah, if you have a sixth grader who is sexually active, that's something you should know as a parent.
But regardless.
The effect here is that they're asking these questions and they are compiling information about kids.
And even if it shouldn't be that way, a lot of this stuff is stuff that the parents don't even know.
So the and that is part of the school system taking the place of the parents.
Now a lot more in this in this vein to talk about.
Before we continue, though, I have a quick word to pass along from our friends at Quip.
Quip, makers of the Quip electric toothbrush, wants you to know the one single discovery that matters most for your dental care, and it's simply this, that if you have good habits, You're good.
It's all about good habits.
That means brushing for two minutes twice a day, flossing regularly no matter what brand you use.
Quip makes that simple, starting with an electric toothbrush, refillable floss, and anti-cavity toothpaste.
Quip's electric brush has sensitivity sonic vibrations with a built-in timer.
And 30-second pulses to guide a full and even clean.
The Quip Floss Dispenser comes with pre-marked string to help you use just enough.
Plus, Quip delivers fresh brush head floss and toothpaste refills to your door every three months with free shipping, so your routine is always right and you can maintain those good habits.
Again, that's what this is about.
Join the over 3 million healthy mouths and get Quip today starting at $25.
And if you go to getquip.com slash Walsh right now, you'll get your first refill free.
That's your first refill free at getquip.com slash Walsh.
Spelled G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com slash Walsh.
Quip, the good habits company.
Okay, now.
Staying in this general realm, this series of videos was brought to my attention by someone on Twitter.
It goes by the Twitter handle questionLGBTEDU.
So question LGBT education.
And this is a person who's concerned about the indoctrination and sexualization of kids.
And they've been sharing these videos.
And I talked to this person.
to ask where they got the videos from. These are, it's a video from a YouTube series for kids 9
through 12, and it's called Sex Ed School. Here's the description if you go to their website, Sex Ed
It says, Sex Ed School is an entertaining and educational YouTube series about sexuality and healthy relationships for youth ages 9 to 12.
Each episode features two expert hosts, Nadine and Eva, leading a respectful and authentic dialogue on sexual health and guiding participants through fun and thought-provoking activities about specific topics.
Knowing about sex is good, but understanding love, healthy relationships, and consent is key for kids as they contemplate their future.
It's never been a more important time for parents and educators to get comfortable with the uncomfortable and start talking about sexuality and healthy relationships with kids.
Now, let's meet the hosts.
This is how these two hosts are described.
Nadine Thornhill is one of Canada's foremost experts on child and adolescent sexuality.
For over a decade, she has been helping youth make positive, informed choices about their bodies and relationships.
In her spare time, Nadine enjoys escape rooms, weekend hikes with her family, and watching bad television with her fur baby, Albus Dumblecat.
Eva Bloom is a sex research and online sexuality educator.
She has a master's focusing on the social psychology of sexuality with interest in technology.
She's also the creator of the inclusive, evidence-based YouTube channel for young adults, What's My Body Doing?
She's a winner of a Planned Parenthood Toronto's Choice Award 2017 for excellence in sexuality education.
Eva can be found dancing her heart out at Zumba class, scooping out new threads at her local consignment store, or trying out new ways to make vegan cheese.
Now, this is real, guys.
I'm 98% sure this is real.
Even though, if I were to invent someone who made a, you know, a person who's making sex ed videos for kids on YouTube, if I were to invent a fake person, it would be exactly that.
It would be Eva Bloom, with the vegan cheese and everything.
But I did go to her Twitter, and it appears to be real.
In fact, I saw on her Twitter, in case you're interested, that she's also giving a sexting workshop.
So, you can go to her, pay her money to attend a workshop and find out how to sext, if you're interested in that.
Well, these are the two people making sex ed videos for kids, featuring kids.
And it's as hideously insane as you're expecting it to be.
Here's a clip put together by that Twitter handle I mentioned, and they added some captions of their own, some critical captions that obviously aren't part of the original, but anyway, here's a clip.
Hi, I'm Nadine, a sex educator.
And I'm Eva, a sex researcher.
I use the pronouns she and her because I'm a woman, and when I was your age, I used to be a girl.
Gender is how you feel on the inside about whether you're a boy or a girl, a man or a woman.
If you're non-binary, feel like neither or both.
People can also be fluid, feel more like female, more like male, based on a different day or time.
It's really individual.
Absolutely.
Everyone born with a vulva is a girl.
True or false?
Not everybody is sure, and that makes sense.
But our genitals actually don't determine our gender, so some people born with vulvas can be boys.
Let's learn a little bit more about gender.
We actually have an extra special visitor to sex ed school.
I have been through the spectrum, if we were to say a spectrum, of boys and girls.
I have been everywhere in between.
I was born a girl.
And then when I was two years old, I told my mom for the first time that I was a boy.
And I think that I framed it.
I don't remember it.
I've only been told stories.
But I framed it because my brother's middle name was the same as my dad's.
And so I insisted that my middle name was also the same as his.
But back in the day, there was no talk shows and there was no internet.
There was no resources.
So she just ignored it.
And then nothing happened for many, many years.
And then it still took me A long time into my 20s before I decided to transition.
Well, a few gems in there.
People can feel more male or female based on the day or time.
Did you catch that?
One of those.
I think it was Eva Bloom that said that.
One of them said it.
Whether or not you're male or female can actually change with the day or time.
So, you know, maybe you feel more male at one o'clock in the afternoon on a Thursday, but at seven o'clock in the evening on a Sunday, you might feel more like a female.
Of course, these kids, because they're kids, don't ask a simple question like, well, what does that even mean?
What do you mean feel like a male or female?
And how do you know that the feelings you're having are male or female feelings?
And to even be speaking about male and female feelings, are you not reinforcing gender stereotypes?
I mean, if you're saying that, okay, if I happen to be feeling particularly sensitive and emotional right now, that's a female feeling, that must be what you mean, but doesn't that reinforce all the sexist gender stereotypes and stuff that you've been trying to break down?
Now, the kids aren't going to ask that question.
The kids are going to sit there and they're going to listen.
And they're going to assume that whatever the adult is telling them is probably true.
That's how kids operate.
Kids have to operate that way in order to survive.
It's hardwired.
It's built in.
As children, you just basically believe whatever an adult tells you.
Because as a child, if you were only going to follow the instructions that you understood, or if you were going to require that you fully understand everything before you go with it, Then that's just not going to work because kids don't have the capability of understanding even things that make sense.
So a child has to, at some level, just sort of defer to the adults around him.
The problem is if the adults around him are insane, that's going to be a problem.
And then, uh, uh, the woman at the end there says that she realized she was a boy at two.
Two years old.
Two.
Do you have any idea how young 2 is?
2 years old is when she came to this realization.
Now let's continue this journey with the woman who discovered she was a boy at 2.
Watch this.
Yeah.
If you were a girl when, like, you were little, how did you, like, change to become, like, a boy?
So, in my 20s, For my personal journey, I started with hormones, which is what changed my voice a bit, and it changes your body a little bit.
Yeah.
Like, now that you have a bit of a beard.
Yeah.
So that is because I'm on testosterone.
So like, do you have male or female parts?
I'm sure a lot of people ask, or a lot of people are wondering that.
For me personally, I have had top surgery, which means that I had, the technical term is a double mastectomy.
So I did have my breasts removed, so I have scars here on my chest.
And then I really only talk about kind of what's in my pants if people are getting in there.
We're going to play a game involving some chairs.
How are these chairs that you selected?
Comfortable.
Yeah, you look very comfortable.
How are you down there?
Maybe that chair doesn't feel like it suits you.
Right?
Why don't we switch chairs?
Let's see.
Everybody's gonna stand up.
You're gonna do a little walk.
You're gonna walk it out.
I'll ring the bell.
Walk it out.
Walk it out.
Oh my lord.
So we are we are now comparing biological sex to a game of musical chairs.
and I'll see you next time.
And choosing a sex is like choosing which is the most comfortable chair.
That's the illustration we're being given here.
That your physical body is no more significant Than a chair, and in fact is just as arbitrary as the chair you happen to be sitting on.
And then changing your body is as simple as just getting up and sitting in a new chair.
Leaving out all the stuff about how you're mutilating, you're getting expensive surgery, permanently mutilating your body.
I mean, the thing about sitting down in a chair is that, yeah, you're sitting in a chair for a second, you can get up and sit in a new chair, but if the chair is being surgically attached to you, that's a different story, right?
And that's what's being left out here.
So if this game was to be at all accurate, then the chairs would have to be surgically attached to you, and then it's not quite so easy to pick a new chair.
But of course the entire analogy doesn't work at all because your body is nothing like a chair.
That's just not how it works.
And this is one of the many things that is impossible to understand about this way of thinking.
Because Most of the people who subscribe to this and would say something like, well, maybe you have the wrong body or your body doesn't work for you.
Most of the people who say that are, you know, they're not, they're not like devout Christians, religious people.
Um, most of them are going to be basically secular materialist.
The point there is that from that perspective, in that worldview, All you have is you, you are your body.
You're not anything but your body.
That's all you are.
So when you talk about you, when you, when I, if I were to say me, the only thing I'm referring to is just my body.
So for me to say that my body is the wrong body doesn't make any sense.
What I'm, what I'm, what I am then saying is I am the wrong me.
This me is the wrong me.
I should be a different me.
What?
That's nonsensical.
The only way you can begin to make sense of this is if you introduce a concept like a soul.
And then you could try to say, well, I've got a, you know, I'm a female soul stuck in a male body.
The problem there Is that, first of all, you're coming up with a relationship between body and soul where the body is just, in fact you heard it there, is just a vessel that contains your soul, which is not how it works.
But also, okay, you've introduced soul, now you've introduced God, okay, and so now you're saying what?
God accidentally put the wrong soul in the wrong body?
He made a mistake on the assembly line?
So once you introduce soul, it still doesn't make any sense, because now you're suggesting that God made a mistake In how he matched up the soul and body, and the only way to fix it is to mutilate your body.
All right.
As we continue, let me pause for a moment to tell you about Brickhouse Nutrition.
Have you ever wondered why so many Americans are sick, unhealthy, overweight?
Between the food supply and a sedentary lifestyle, Americans are in the worst shape that they've ever been.
And that's why the team of on-staff physicians at Brickhouse Nutrition created Field of Greens.
Field of Greens is an easy way for you to add fruits and vegetables to your daily routine
without spending hours in the produce section or hiring a home chef or taking cheap supplements.
None of that, forget about all that.
Field of Greens is made with real USDA organic fruits and vegetables.
It also helps boost your immunity and using antioxidants and it assists your digestive health
with prebiotics and probiotics.
So it's like having a doctor and a nutritionist right there in your kitchen.
One scoop delivers a full serving of fruits and vegetables.
Just drop in a cup of water, stir it, and that's it.
You're done.
And it's also great for smoothies as well.
That's how I prefer to have it, is with a smoothie.
Bottom line, this is real food, not extracts, and you will look and feel better.
Go to BrickHouseWalsh.com and get 15% off your first order.
Just for trying it out with the promo code Walsh.
That's brickhousewalsh.com.
Promo code Walsh.
Okay, so speaking of nutrition, there's been an outcry recently over people allegedly getting arrested for eating sandwiches on public transportation.
Maybe you've heard about this.
Let me see if I can pull this up.
Reading now from Mercury News.
It says a top BART official apologized on Monday after a Bay Area man was arrested for eating a sandwich on the platform last week, capping a viral incident that angered riders and spurred an eat-in on Saturday.
In a statement, a transit agency's general manager, Bob Powers, apologized directly to the rider, identified by KTVU as Steve Foster of Concord, and said he was disappointed in how the situation unfolded.
Power said, enforcement of infractions such as eating and drinking inside our paid area should not be used to prevent us from delivering on our mission to provide safe, reliable, and clean transportation.
I apologize to Mr. Foster, our writers, employees, and the public who have had an emotional reaction to the video.
So people have had an emotional reaction.
I apologize to the people who've been emotional about it.
Videos of the November 4th encounter have racked up more than a million views on Facebook and Twitter since they were posted on Friday.
Bart said Foster was stopped for eating in the system, which is against state law, and that Foster was handcuffed when he refused to provide his name for the citation.
Foster also allegedly cursed at and made homophobic slurs at the officer, Power said.
But the incident spawned outrage among Bay Area transit riders, many of whom saw it as racially motivated.
And a case of an overzealous officer enforcing a little-known rule.
Foster's black, the officer arrested him as white.
So on and so forth.
Okay.
I'm going to part company with, I guess, most people on this.
Everybody seems to be mad at the cop.
I think that's totally absurd.
And I think for Mr. Powers here, the general manager, for him to throw a BART police officer under the bus like that, or under the train, I guess, as it would happen, is completely outrageous.
I mean, he says, enforcement of infractions such as eating and drinking inside our paid area should not be used to prevent us from delivering on our mission to provide safe and clean transportation.
Isn't the idea of enforcing the ban on eating, isn't that in order so that transportation will be clean?
Isn't that the whole point?
So what Powers is saying is that the enforcement of the rule against eating has interfered with Their mission of making everything clean.
What?
How?
I think it's all completely ridiculous.
And by the way, the man was not arrested for eating a sandwich.
That's how it's phrased in the very first sentence of this article.
Arrested for eating a sandwich.
No.
They tried to give him a citation for eating a sandwich, but he refused to cooperate, so they arrested him.
Now, my question is, what else are they supposed to do?
If they try to cite you and you refuse to accept the citation or to give your name, are they supposed to just throw up their hands and say, okay, nevermind, sorry to bother you.
If you get pulled over for speeding and the cop asks for your license and registration, should it be an option to just say, no, I'm not giving it to you?
And then if you say that, should the cop just leave?
Can I really do that if a cop asks for my license?
Can I say, no, not gonna give it to you.
No.
And then the cop walks, simply walks away.
Oh, turns out he doesn't want to give his license.
Yeah, no, he doesn't want to give his license.
No, he doesn't want it.
Oh, oh, you're saying you don't want a ticket.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, yeah, I'd prefer not to have a ticket.
Well, then nevermind, be on your way.
Be on your way.
I thought maybe you wanted one, but if you don't want one, then nevermind.
Is that how law enforcement is going to work?
No, if you're going to do law enforcement that way, where the law breaker has the ultimate say in whether he'll cooperate with enforcement, if that's the way it's going to work, you may as well not even have law enforcement officers anymore, and you may as well not even have the law anymore, because it's effectively moot.
Now, You might argue that this is a dumb law, that it's a dumb nanny state law, and that law enforcement should not be focused on this kind of thing.
That's a fine argument.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it.
I don't necessarily agree with it either, because I actually think that having a rule against eating on public transportation, I think there's an argument to be made for that.
Because the fact is that people are slobs, and so if you let them just eat wherever they want, you're going to end up with trash and food all over the place.
It's the same reason when you get into an Uber or a cab, usually there's a sign that says, please don't bring food or drinks in here.
That's not an issue of law.
That's just their own personal rule.
But why do they have that rule?
They know people are slobs, and if you bring in food, you're probably going to spill it or you're going to leave the trash.
And so I don't want to have to deal with that.
So, I think that people are acting like it's crazy to have a rule against eating on public transportation.
I don't think it's crazy.
But, all in all, I'd probably agree that this is not something that the state necessarily needs to get involved in, and we don't need to have officers focused on this.
But, the police don't write the laws, okay?
They aren't the ones you should be yelling at.
Lawmakers make the law.
That's why we call them lawmakers.
Police are law enforcers.
So it's not, they don't have any input whatsoever into the laws themselves.
And it's also not up to them to decide which laws they prefer and then only enforce those.
We don't want them to do that.
No, they just enforce the law.
If you don't like the law itself, go talk to the nanny state politicians who put it in place.
This police officer is a transit cop.
His whole job is to enforce laws on public transportation.
That's what he does.
That's his entire job.
And provided that the laws are not flagrantly immoral... Okay, if there was a law that said that...
That, like, everyone in a flannel shirt has to be thrown in front of a train or something, then I would agree that that's a law that the police officers would have a moral obligation not to enforce.
Because I'm just following orders is not an excuse to do objectively immoral things.
A law against eating a sandwich on the train is not immoral.
You could say it's stupid, frivolous.
It's not immoral.
There's no moral conflict here.
And if I was a police officer, And I knew that my job hinged on enforcing laws like that.
I'd enforce them.
I'm not gonna get fired so that you could eat a sandwich on the train.
Why should I?
It's not that important.
So, this is who you should take it up with.
Don't like the law, take it up with the people who made the law.
What I don't get is that every time, we're always focused on the people enforcing the law, and the people who make the law get off the hook.
In fact, sometimes you have the lawmakers themselves turning around and criticizing the law enforcers, who are only enforcing the laws that those lawmakers made.
I got pulled over recently for going 45 in a 30.
Personally, I think it's really dumb because the section of road that I was on was, there's no reason for it to have a 30 mile per hour speed limit.
There was no houses around.
It wasn't residential.
There were no schools.
It was just kind of a straight back road.
Chunk of road there.
And I didn't see any reason for it to be 30 miles an hour.
I think the speed limit should have been 45 or 50.
But it wasn't.
It was 30.
And I was breaking the speed limit.
I got pulled over.
I didn't get mad at the cop for pulling me over.
Why would I?
He's sitting there.
It's his job to enforce the speed limit.
I broke the speed limit, and so he pulled me over.
It's really simple.
I didn't start crying about how I'm being picked on, and, you let all those other people speed, but you pulled me over!
Yeah, probably.
A police officer can't pull over literally every single person who speeds.
But they're gonna get a few of them.
And if you might be one of those people, and it might be your unlucky day, to start crying and acting persecuted about it, like this guy is with the sandwich, You might not like it.
That's the law.
You broke it.
It's not like you have some sort of constitutional right that you're taking a stand for.
All these people that are doing the eat-in, taking a stand for their right to eat on... You don't have a right to eat on a train!
Someone actually said to me on... A few people on Twitter said that this is a constitutional issue.
And one person even said that when I said, well, okay, no, you don't really have a constitutional right to eat on, they, someone said, well, where does it say in the constitution that you can't eat on a train?
Someone actually said that.
Not joking.
I don't think they were joking.
They were being serious.
And if you don't know what the problem is with a claim like that, then I'm not going to explain it to you.
But in any case, this is not an issue of rights or First Amendment or anything.
It might be a frivolous and stupid law, just like the 30 mile per hour speed limit on the part of the road that I was on.
I think that was frivolous and stupid, but it's the law and it was being enforced.
I'm not saying that we should just accept Every frivolous and stupid law.
I don't think that at all.
I'm saying we should take it up with the people who make those damn laws.
That's where we should bring our grievances.
So, if you're gonna have an Eden or something, if it's that important to you, which, frankly, I don't know why it is that important, of all the things, I think frivolous speed limits that are there only to trick you into speeding so the state can take money from you.
I think that's far more outrageous and more worthy of our outrage than a rule against eating on a train.
But that's just me.
In any case, if it is that important to you, then why aren't you going to the state capitol?
Finding where the lawmakers are and having your eat in there.
So that's what doesn't make sense.
I used to live in a beach town and there were all kinds of dumb laws.
Every beach town has them.
There are tourist areas.
All kinds of dumb laws about what you can and can't do on the beach.
For example, you can't drink alcohol on the beach.
I always think that's pretty stupid.
And there would be cops on the beach enforcing these laws.
I didn't get mad at the cops for enforcing the law.
They are cops in a beach town.
Just like this is a cop who works in public transportation.
This is what they do.
They have no choice but to enforce the laws in this area.
That is their job.
So with the beach town, I got mad at the local officials who came up with these stupid rules.
And that's where the anger should be directed.
Another dumb thing people do is when they go, they say, well, why is he focused on this when he could be out arresting murderers and rapists?
Oh, it's really that simple, huh?
So a cop could just hop into his car, go downtown and arrest 16 murderers and 27 rapists before lunch.
Is that how you think it works?
Why don't you go arrest some murderers?
Yeah, I'm sure they'd love to.
It's not that simple.
There's a process you have to go through.
He's not Batman.
He can't just show up and use his grappling gun, leave a guy tied to a lamppost, okay?
No.
To arrest murderers, there's investigation.
There's a whole process that goes into it.
And that's just not how policing works.
Now, I'm not a police officer myself.
I'm not familiar with all the procedures.
Anyone who is a police officer, maybe you can fill me in on this.
But my understanding is that, you know, you don't start your day down at the station And the police chief says, okay, go arrest some people.
And then you just get in your car and go wherever you want and try to arrest murderers.
My understanding is that it doesn't work that way.
You have certain specific things that you're supposed to do and areas that you're patrolling and certain, you know, that's my understanding.
So the guy on the train, the cop on the train, I'm sure he would have loved, would love to arrest a murderer if there was one to arrest.
But there probably wasn't.
Now, if you have evidence that this police officer walked right past a guy in the process of being murdered and didn't say anything so that he could yell at the dude with the pastrami sandwich, if you have evidence of that, then I will totally agree that we should be really mad at this cop.
In fact, cops probably go to jail for negligence.
But I don't think that's the case.
I think that he was just there enforcing the law.
He was a guy breaking it.
He didn't arrest him.
He didn't cuff him at first.
All he said was, OK, I got to give you a citation.
Not a big deal.
OK, we're not making a huge thing of it.
But you did this.
I'm right here watching you do it.
I'm a police officer, so I'm going to cite you for it.
I don't know.
Same with anything else.
It's like getting mad at the meter maids, the people that give you parking tickets.
You come out, you see someone putting a parking ticket on your car, you start yelling at them, people do that.
What are you yelling at them for?
If you really think that it shouldn't cost you anything to park in this particular area, which maybe it shouldn't depending on the situation, Then don't talk, why are you talking to them?
They're just doing their job.
Okay.
So, I'm not going along with that outrage, I'm afraid to say.
I'll meet you guys for the next outrage.
I'll catch up with you later, okay?
Let me know when there's a better outrage and I'll be there.
Let's go to emails, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
Let's see here.
This is from Kimball, says, hi Matt, you need to read this, it is absolutely outrageous.
I can't believe anyone would make such a ridiculous case to defend the Soviet Union.
This article would have all of us get down on our knees and praise this communist for their aid in World War II and conveniently ignore the atrocities of Stalin's rule.
You don't need to reply, I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
Kimball sends a link to an article in the Daily Beast, or the Daily Least as I call it, No, actually, I don't call it that.
I apologize.
That's a boomer move.
That's the ultimate boomer move.
To come up with some corny but insulting nickname for people and things you don't like.
Like, uh, Baracko Bozo is a member of the Demon Crap Party that always gets favorable coverage in the New York Slimes and the rest of the lamestream media.
Anyway, so the Daily Least article is titled, Nine Reasons to Thank the U.S.S.R., How We Got the Cold War Wrong.
Nine Reasons to Thank the U.S.S.R., How We Got the Cold War Wrong.
So I did read this after it was sent by Kimball, written by a guy named Brian T. Brown, who just wrote a whole book on the Cold War.
He's allegedly, I guess, a historian.
Which is, it's like if someone who pretends to be a real historian wrote an article titled, actually Hitler is good.
And that comparison is completely fair because Stalin was just as evil as Hitler, if not more evil.
And the Soviets murdered, well, more people in the end.
Though, that's because they had a lot more time to do so.
So the nine points that he makes about why we should thank the USSR and why we got the Cold War wrong, and that is his case, remember.
He's saying that we got the whole thing wrong, and that viewing ourselves as the good guys is wrong.
And so what evidence does he bring to bear for that?
First, he brings up the Eastern Front in World War II, all the sacrifices made by Soviet troops, and the fact that so many were killed.
Many more Soviet soldiers were killed than were American soldiers.
And that's...
That's true.
But nobody is saying that there was no physical courage among Soviet soldiers.
There was obviously quite a bit of it.
No one is claiming otherwise.
It's the USSR, it's that government, that regime that didn't value the lives of its own people.
and that just fed them into the meat grinder with no regard for them.
And then when they got home, as Solzhenitsyn recounts in Gulag Archipelago, when they got
home, many of them were shipped off to labor camps for the crime of being potentially exposed to
Western culture. Stalin was worried that they got a look at Western culture maybe if they
came in contact with American troops or something.
And now they're going to see how cool the West is, and they're going to want to be Western.
And so when they came home, he would just ship these guys off to labor camps for 5, 10, 15 years.
So if you want to point out...
All of this as evidence that people living under Soviet Russia were persecuted, and many of them were good people who didn't deserve that kind of treatment, then yes, I would totally agree.
But that's not the point.
That's not the argument.
When we talk about the Soviet Union being evil, we're talking about the regime.
We're not talking about all the people, many of whom were being persecuted and oppressed themselves.
And then from there, he goes into more about what the Soviets did during World War II, and he complains about McCarthy, and he says America did some bad stuff, too.
And that's the whole case, basically.
That's it.
Amazingly, the word gulag doesn't appear anywhere in this article.
He just completely skips over it.
Leaves it out.
He's trying to rehabilitate Stalin and doesn't even bother to mention the labor camps where millions of people were shipped off and tortured, starved, beaten, raped, and killed.
He just completely ignores it, like it didn't happen.
It's embarrassing.
And the Daily Beast obviously does not value its credibility at all, probably because it knows it already has none, so it might as well just go for broke, I suppose.
Okay, this is from Nathan says, Hey Matt, this is Nathan.
I'm from Utah.
My question is regarding my relationship of two years with my now fiance.
We've had issues for a while, but I'm starting to doubt the solidity of our relationship.
And if it's worth working out, I love her, but she can also be controlling.
And I'm starting to feel like I have no say in relationship and freedom in my relationship.
I've tried to bring this up to her, but it always backfires on me and becomes my fault.
I don't want to make this seem like everything in our relationship is her fault, but I've definitely contributed, but I feel like I'm not as happy as I used to be.
We still have amazing times together, just I feel like they may not be enough.
I would appreciate your input on what I should and can do.
Okay, now I have to put on my Dr. Love hat again.
It's invisible.
It's an invisible hat.
I've been getting a lot of these relationship advice emails recently, and I'm not exactly sure why.
The fact that I convinced a woman to marry me, For some reason, somehow, I was able to do that.
I don't think it makes me an expert in relationships.
In fact, this is the tough thing.
It's kind of a catch-22, because if you're successful at romantic relationships, then you probably haven't had that many of them, because you found the right one and you stuck with it, and that is what success in romantic relationships looks like.
But then the problem is you don't really have all the experience with varying types of relationships to dole out advice.
However, if you have experience with a bunch of failed relationships, then that means you really suck at relationships and you especially can't dole out advice.
So that's the problem there.
And with that caveat, I will say that, well, I'll say what I often say in these kinds of situations.
And I don't mean to be too quick in telling people to pull the plug, but my thought is, if you aren't married and you don't have kids, then there's really nothing tying you together.
And this is someone who you could have out of your life in 10 minutes if you wanted to.
Now, I know you're engaged, so that makes it a little bit more complicated, I suppose, in a certain way.
And that's going to make the emotional difficulty of breaking it off more severe.
And then, you know, you've got all the people who are looking forward to a wedding and now you got to tell them wedding's not happening.
So those are all things that are awkward and difficult and emotionally draining.
But at the end of the day, you are not connected to this person in any sort of permanent way.
You haven't said your wedding vows.
You don't have any kids with them.
All you have done is you're planning on eventually saying your wedding vows.
The whole point of this process beforehand is to figure out if that's what you really want to do and if you're really ready to do that.
So if you were writing to me and telling me that your wife is controlling and you have no freedom and you aren't happy, And it's not like it used to be, and so on and so forth.
Then I would be recommending various things you could do to try to fix that, fix your marriage, put yourself back on the right track, put yourself back into your proper place as a man and not a child to be ordered around.
And that's what I would be saying, because if you're married, then you should fight for that marriage.
You agreed to fight for it when you got married, but if you're not, and you're telling me that you're feeling that way, and you're telling me that you're not that happy, and You don't feel respected, and you feel like you're being controlled, and you don't feel like she listens to you, and all of that, then there's a part of me that says, why mess around?
Why waste your time?
She doesn't treat you well.
She doesn't respect you.
Why even bother trying to fix it?
You don't have to.
That's the thing.
When you're married, You have an obligation.
If there's an issue, and there will always be issues, they come up, you have an obligation to try to fix it.
If you're not married, you don't have that obligation.
And so if you come up against something and you say, this, you know what, this is just, this is probably more trouble than it's worth.
Or if there's, if there's an issue with your, you know, girlfriend or even fiance, that appears to be so fundamental and appears to lie at the core of her being, Where you don't know if it can be changed, then again, that might be a reason to just go your separate ways.
If you're not ready to do that, then I think at the very least, you say you've tried to talk to her.
I don't know how direct you've been in those conversations.
I know oftentimes there are people who say that they've tried to talk to their significant other about this or that issue, but in reality, they actually haven't.
They've tiptoed around it, and then the moment they get any pushback, they go running for the hills.
I don't know if that's the case for you.
If it is the case, then what I would say is have a real conversation, sit her down, look her in the eye, say to her, I am not feeling respected in this relationship.
I am not happy.
You're trying to control me.
You're trying to run my life.
I'm not going to put up with that.
Okay, that's not the kind of relationship we're going to have.
I want this to work, but I'm not willing to be in a relationship where I am not respected and where my happiness is not taken into account at all.
So are you willing to fix that or not?
And if she says no, or if she tries to flip it around on you, or if she tries to play the victim, or if she tries to make you feel bad for bringing it up, or if she yells at you and she gets angry, then I would say, that's it.
You tried.
You tried.
But if she's not even willing to listen to your perspective, and you haven't even got into the marriage yet, that's not a good foot to start on.
And probably at that point, I would just cut my losses.
But maybe if this is the first direct and frank conversation you've had, maybe she didn't realize that you were feeling this way, and maybe she really does try to fix it, and maybe there is something there worth salvaging.
I don't know.
I tend to be skeptical, Nathan, I gotta be honest with you.
I don't mean to be a bummer, but going into a marriage and already feeling this way before you even walk down the aisle, it's one thing, look, to feel nervous, To be questioning, is this the right decision?
All that is normal.
But what you're saying is, I don't know if it's worth working out.
She's controlling.
You don't feel respected.
You don't have freedom.
I mean, those are Those are the kinds of issues that, if they're gonna come up, you know, maybe they come up 15 years into the marriage, and you hit a rough spot, a rocky patch, and then you work through it, maybe you go to marriage counseling, but to be walking down the aisle with that kind of baggage, I would recommend against it.
So, one way or another, you don't want to walk down the aisle with that baggage, and if you can sort this out with her, then great, but otherwise, if you just have to end the relationship, I would do that as well.
All right, I think we'll just leave it there.
And thank you for watching, everybody.
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, The Michael Knowles 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, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
The impeachment hearings begin today, and I am so excited I can't even remember what I was talking about.
The entire narrative of this administration has been a president going from success to success, while the wily coyote Democrats blow themselves up with one ACME impeachment device after another.
So hey, maybe this could be amusing, but I doubt it.
