All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2020 - The Matt Walsh Show
39:39
Ep. 469 - The Elites Want To Ban Homeschool

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a Harvard professor has made the case for banning homeschooling.
And her argument, of course, is insane on many levels.
We'll get into all of that.
I'll dissect her argument today.
Also, five headlines, including the media freaking out because people in Florida are committing the crime of going to the beach.
But isn't it a lot healthier and safer to be outside in the sun, in the fresh air, than inside breathing recirculated air along with the other people in your house?
And in our daily cancellation, we cancel a CNN anchor who cried for a reason that is not on the approved reasons for a man to cry list.
And so we'll talk about that and we'll go over that list again because it's very important that we all understand that.
So, all of that coming up.
But first, I want to tell you about Our friends and sponsors over at honey now now obviously is
a great time to shop online It's you know depending on what you want to buy it might be
your only option anyway, and so if you're gonna be shopping online
During this time or at any other time you need to have honey
Honey is the free online shopping tool that saves you money online.
Honey automatically finds the best promo codes and applies them to your cart, which makes online shopping finally feel as easy as it's supposed to be and as cheap as it's supposed to be.
Imagine you're shopping at one of your favorite sites, whether it's Target or Best Buy or Macy's or whatever.
When you check out, this little box drops down and all you have to do is click Apply Coupons.
Wait a few seconds for it to scan for every promo code on the internet, and then you just watch those prices drop.
And that's basically money that's going right back into your pocket.
You know, I've been using Honey now for a couple of months, and I can't even tell you how much money I've saved because I don't keep track of it, which would also require me to keep track of all the things that I buy, which I don't really want to do.
But I've saved a lot of money on Honey, and it really is as easy as just clicking a button, and then you save the money.
Honey has found its over 18 million members, over $2 billion in savings.
Users love Honey.
That's why it has over 100,000 five-star reviews on the Google Chrome store.
Not using Honey is literally passing up free money.
Why would anyone pass up free money?
It doesn't make any sense.
It's free to use.
You can install in just a few seconds.
Plus, it's backed by PayPal, so you know it's good.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
That's joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
Alright.
With schools across the country shut down, millions of parents, of course, have discovered the considerable joys and also considerable challenges of homeschooling.
And I think this has made our betters in the media and academia extremely nervous.
And for good reason, really, because what if a sizable portion of these parents decide that they quite prefer teaching their own kids?
What if they never send their offspring back into the government's education factories?
Well then they, our betters I mean, may lose their hold on an entire generation of children, and that would be a great tragedy.
For them, anyway.
For our kids it would be great, but for our betters it would be pretty bad.
And that's why we're seeing now this sort of full-court press from academia and the media against homeschooling.
Which homeschoolers know that for decades we've been sustaining these attacks on the fact that we educate our children, but it's just been ramped up in recent weeks.
So there was a recent article in the Washington Post which was pretty forthright about these fears.
The editorial claimed, quote, homeschooling during the coronavirus will set back a generation of children.
And then Harvard Law School is holding a summit to discuss these problems.
The summit will focus especially on, quote, educational deprivation and child maltreatment that too often occurs under the guise of homeschooling in a legal environment of minimal or no oversight.
And the conversation will be led by experts, of course.
You always got to have those experts in there, who will offer suggestions on, quote, legal reform for homeschooling.
Now, you hear legal reform, you think, what does that mean?
Well, to give you an idea of what legal reform might mean, at least to the folks over at Harvard, we can look at an article that was just published in Harvard Magazine, titled, The Risks of Homeschooling.
And it's accompanied by this unintentionally ironic picture, which I'll show you here.
Take a look at this picture.
So you see there's a homeschooled child locked in a prison made of books, which...
There's a lot to be said about that image.
The books are a prison.
So the homeschool child is locked in a prison, looking out, despairingly, at all of these public school children who are outside, frolicking in the great outdoors.
That's how they want us to see the dichotomy between public school and homeschool.
Of course, in reality, it's exactly the opposite.
The public school child is chained to a desk in a government building for eight hours a day.
It's the homeschool child who can go outside whenever they please.
You know, we homeschool, especially when it's an ISAP, my wife will take the kids outside to homeschool.
We can homeschool outside, you can homeschool anywhere.
So, it's public school, where you might get 35 minutes of rec time, like you're in prison, where the kids can go outside in a very controlled environment.
Don't play dodgeball.
You don't want to play any aggressive games.
Kickball, probably no good.
But they can go outside and play approved recreation for 35 minutes.
That's the public school environment, not the homeschool environment.
Now, while the picture is a hilariously poor representation of homeschooling, it is a spot-on representation of the article which time and time again confuses the problems of public school with the problem of homeschool.
With the problems in homeschool.
The piece extensively quotes Elizabeth Bartholet.
I'll just pronounce her name that way.
Who, we are told, is the Public Interest Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Law School's Child Advocacy Program at Harvard.
And Bartholet advocates an outright ban on the dangerous practice of parents teaching their own kids.
And all the reasons she gives are both illogical and morally absurd.
Let's go through and take a look.
There's basically three points to her argument, and we'll go through each of those three points.
One, she worries that the unregulated regime of homeschooling, as she puts it, unregulated regime, might allow parents who, quote, don't read or write, To handle, or rather I suppose mishandle, their children's education.
And as evidence of this problem, she points to a memoir written by a woman who was homeschooled by survivalists in Idaho.
And I guess she thinks that that's fairly representative of the way most people are homeschooled.
Now, if she got any evidence, any actual evidence, that any significant or even insignificant percentage of homeschooled parents are illiterate, Then she should provide it.
But giving us an anecdote about survivalists in Idaho is not gonna cut it.
Because I would dare say that a sizable majority of homeschool parents are not Idahoan survivalists, right?
Nothing against Idahoan survivalists, by the way.
Besides, two can play at the anecdote game, right?
I was public schooled for 12 years.
13 years, including kindergarten.
And I could give you plenty of anecdotes, alright?
If we want to play the anecdote game, we could do this all day.
So I could, for example, tell you about the geography teacher I had in high school who didn't know that Georgia was the name of a state and a country.
Or I could tell you about the Spanish teacher I had in seventh grade who was rather hampered in her Spanish teaching duties by the fact that she apparently could not speak Spanish.
And so instead we watched the movie Selena with Jennifer Lopez about five times all the way through during school.
So, for every story about dumb and neglectful homeschool parents, which I admit that they exist, but for every one story of those you could present, I could dig up ten about dumb and neglectful public school teachers.
So, this isn't going to work.
Now, if we're going beyond mere anecdotes to compare the relative quality of homeschool and public school, And we start looking at data and statistics, homeschool still fares pretty well.
Homeschoolers tend to perform better than the national average on both the ACT and the SAT.
Now, granted, standardized tests are, in my opinion, not a good way to measure these things, but that in itself is another argument against public school.
As the entire public school system is structured around these tests.
But the point is that homeschooled kids can beat the public school kids at their own game.
And succeed and do better on the standardized tests than they do.
And this is a fact that I'm convinced makes the Elizabeth Bartholays of the world hate homeschool even more.
Now, putting standardized tests to the side.
All we need to do is take a look around society, a society which is largely the product of the public school system, to see how effective that system has been.
Because by their fruits you shall know them, right?
According to a certain hugely influential book that at least kids in homeschool are still allowed to study, whereas in public school you're not allowed to.
But surveys and studies show that most American adults are downright ignoramuses in subjects like civics, geography, math.
Now, most Americans may know how to read, and most homeschool parents do as well, despite what we're told in this article, but they've largely given up on the practice, which to me is an even more disturbing indicator.
It's not just that many Americans are poorly educated, it's that they've given up on education, and I think in large part because they've been so poorly educated, they have no interest in learning anymore.
So they leave public school, and then maybe they go to college, and they leave college, and they give up on learning.
They don't read anymore.
They don't learn anything.
That's what you see when you look around.
Now, it would be irrational to lay the blame for all of this entirely at the feet of public school.
I'm not saying that we do that, but it also would be irrational to survey this landscape of ignorance and stupidity that is modern American culture and conclude that the education system is doing a bang-up job.
It obviously isn't.
It's doing a very poor job.
And that's a big part of the reason why parents are pulling their kids out of it.
Now, we'll go to the second argument, which is even worse than the first, but before we do, I want to tell you about our sponsors at LegalZoom.
You know, it's really important to have an estate plan and, you know, especially these days
where people are thinking about this and for good reason.
Health and safety is on the top of everybody's minds right now.
No matter what happens, you want to make sure that your loved ones are protected.
And that's why LegalZoom continues to provide a reliable way
for everyone to set up the right estate plan without leaving your home either.
So you can do this all at home.
It starts with finding the answers to your questions, like do you need a last will and testament or living trust?
What about an advanced healthcare directive?
What's power of attorney?
Like really basic questions, right?
The kind of questions that I have, that I'm sure you have.
Thankfully, you don't have to figure that stuff out on your own.
You also don't have to spend hours Googling and getting different answers
LegalZoom's online resources make it easy to get started.
And if you need to speak to an attorney, their independent attorney network is there to guide you and advise you.
LegalZoom isn't a law firm, so you won't have to worry about expensive billable hours adding up.
Take an important step for your family today.
Go to LegalZoom.com to get started on a last will, living trust, and more.
And make sure you enter code Walsh when you go there as well at checkout for special savings.
That's LegalZoom.com, code Walsh, LegalZoom, where life meets legal.
Okay, so the second argument she gives, she says that homeschools families are
driven by conservative Christian beliefs, God forbid.
And that some of these parents, quote, are extreme religious ideologues who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.
Now, her fears in this case are partially justified, of course, because it is indeed true that many homeschool parents have committed the crime of being Christian.
But then, all educators, in all educational environments, have underlying beliefs.
And, inevitably, they will bring those underlying beliefs into the classroom with them.
Whether that's in homeschool or public school, it's going to happen, it does happen.
As for the notion that homeschool parents promote female subservience and white supremacy, I mean, this is, of course, nothing short of just ridiculous Fear-mongering that has no evidentiary basis whatsoever, and she doesn't bother to try to prove that.
I think her research into homeschooling apparently has consisted of reading like Jezebel.com and the Daily Kos and that's it.
Now, as far as homeschool parents questioning science and rejecting science, you hear this a lot from the anti-homeschool crowd.
That they're worried that homeschool kids will not get a good science education.
Because these are all science deniers, right?
That homeschool their kids.
I have to ask, though, we need some qualification here, because when she says, questioning science, does she mean actual science, or the kind of, quote, science they teach in public school these days, the kind that says that girls have penises and boys can get pregnant?
Because if that's the kind of science she's talking about, then yes, as a homeschool parent, I fully admit, I question that science.
And in fact, that science is, again, one of the reasons why my kids are not stepping foot in a public school classroom.
Three, finally, she says that some homeschool parents might abuse their children.
And she explains that most public school teachers are mandated reporters to the government, and so they can alert authorities if there's signs of abuse in the home.
And she says if a child doesn't go to school, and he's being abused, there's not going to be anybody there.
There might not be anyone there to save him from the abuse.
Now, the problem with this argument is that it completely fails to account For the abuse that happens in public school.
There was a study commissioned a few years ago, several years ago, by the Department of Education.
This is a Department of Education commissioned study that found that 1 in 10 public school kids are victims of sexual misconduct by educators.
That's 10%.
10% of kids are victims of some form of sexual harassment, abuse, or misconduct by educators.
Now, how many kids go to public school?
I think it's like 50 million or something like that.
So 10% of that, you do the math.
And that's to say nothing of the many thousands of children who have been sexually abused at school by other students.
Now, when you compare this to the rate of abuse at home, and even when you compare just sexual abuse in school to all forms of abuse at home, even when you do that comparison, it seems still apparent that a child who is homeschooled ...will not be rescued from his situation by a vigilant teacher.
It seems pretty apparent that a child is more likely to be abused at school than at home.
That's what the numbers tell us when you look at the numbers.
Percentage of kids that are abused at home versus percentage of kids that are abused in school.
And when you look at those numbers, it's more likely to happen at school.
So the idea of the school being there as this savior to save kids from abuse, that does happen sometimes.
But it's more likely... So yes, you may have kids who are abused at home and then are saved from it because a teacher at school notices and is vigilant.
That does happen.
But it's much more common that a kid who is not abused at home goes to school and is abused there.
Now on top of all this, public school also offers bullying, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, social ostracization, peer pressure.
You know, when you consider the myriad dangers of public school, and the harmful effect it so often has, and the generally abysmal job it has done of educating our children, you start to think that if we're banning any form of school, maybe it should be public school that we ban.
Now I'm not sure that I would go that far, But I could make a much more persuasive argument in that direction than the one that Harvard Magazine has offered or that any anti-homeschool person offers against homeschooling.
But as I said at the top, even though their arguments are absurd and are easily debunked, there's a good reason for these people to be nervous about homeschooling and for them to oppose it.
Because when it comes down to it, they want to have control over your children.
They don't trust you.
It's not that they don't trust you because they think that you're physically abusing your kids.
No, they don't trust you to instill the right values in your kid.
This is all about values and ideas.
And they don't trust you with that.
And so they want you to send your kid into the government building for eight hours a day, Five days a week, nine months a year for the first 13 years of their, or at least for 13 years or more of their formative years.
They want you to do that so that they can take over that part of it and make sure that your kids become the right sort of person in their minds.
Now, let's move on to headlines.
Number one, Florida opened their beaches back up and the media has not stopped having a panic attack over it.
Just to give you one example, among many, there's this headline in the Daily Beast.
It says, very, very scary.
Officials dumbfounded as Florida beaches reopened three days after death spike.
And the article goes on to quote local officials who are very scared and scandalized by all
the people allegedly packing the beaches.
Now a guy who works on the Biden campaign posted a viral tweet showing the carnage.
Thank you.
Take a look at this picture here, and with the caption, it says, Jacksonville Beach reopened 26 minutes ago.
This is a live picture.
Oh my gosh, terrible.
This is terrifying.
Look at all those families spaced out on the beach, in the open air, in the sun.
Wait, so what exactly is the problem here?
Because when I look at that picture, I see clumps of people who we can assume are families.
They went to the beach together.
Most people don't go to the beach by themselves.
So what I see are little clumps of people, families, and then I see a lot of space in between the clumps.
And so I don't understand what the problem is.
And then The Hill posted a montage of video footage of the beaches.
And this is all, again, supposed to be terrifying when you see all these allegedly stupid people, reckless, who've gone to the beach.
So let's look at this montage.
And again, for the most part, people are spaced out.
Now, you do see groups closer together, but those are in the shots where people are walking by each other.
So we're not looking at A bunch of whole crowds of people setting up shop, you know, camping out right next to each other.
They're just walking by each other on the way to somewhere else.
Now, let me ask you.
What is the chance that you transmit or catch the virus while walking past someone for two seconds outside, in the sun, in the heat, in the open air?
What's the chance?
I'm not saying it's impossible.
But what's the chance of it happening?
I don't know the answer to that.
And neither does anyone freaking out about this.
But all of the available research tells us that the virus does poorly outside, and especially in the sun, and it is not very efficiently transmitted when you're out in the air where there's air circulation.
So the chance is very low.
I think we can at least say that.
Very, very low.
And I would argue that the negligible risk is counterbalanced by the psychological and physical benefits of getting exercise and getting sun.
Now, by the way, drive-throughs are still open everywhere in the country, as far as I know.
Even places like Dunkin' Donuts are open.
So, you can drive through.
Now, Dunkin' Donuts apparently is essential, because you might really need that donut.
Which, okay, I get it.
Sometimes donuts are essential.
But you can go to the drive-through.
At Dunkin Donuts, for example, and come within six feet of another person to get a donut.
Now they do have to, you might be in the drive-thru, but you are, I mean, most people, their wingspan isn't more than six feet.
So you got to get closer than six feet so they can pass the donuts to you.
Unless you're, unless you're, you know, 50 feet away and they're just, then they're throwing you the donuts.
Maybe we'll get to the point where that's how it's done.
But right now you're getting within six feet.
So somebody can hand you a donut, which they touched with their hands.
So, let's think about this for a second.
Which of those is more dangerous?
To eat a donut that a stranger hands to you, or to walk by a stranger on the beach?
Now, both, I think, are very safe and nothing to worry about, but which is more likely to be an occasion of viral transmission?
Seems pretty obvious to me that it's the one where you're putting something in your mouth that a stranger has touched.
Yet everybody is shaming the people on the beach, not the people in line for a glazed donut.
That, to me, doesn't make any sense.
And there's a lot of shaming happening.
Here's a video someone took of people at a park.
This is not in Florida, but... And this is at a park, but again, shaming them for being outside.
So you look at this.
Once again, what's the problem?
People are well-spaced, they're outdoors, they're in the sun.
Meanwhile, you're filming while you're driving.
Just so you could be a snitch.
Which is a greater danger to public health?
Someone who's more than six feet away from you outside, or someone who's filming while driving?
Number two, there were protests all across the country this weekend, thousands of people taking to the street to demand an end to the lockdowns.
Of course, many proponents of the lockdowns have been less than charitable to the protesters, shall we say, accusing them of being selfish, stupid, conspiracy theorists, so on and so on.
But if you're wondering why these people are protesting, let me give you a little hint.
Here's a shot of a food bank line in Texas.
And this is happening all over the country.
We've seen images like this in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Florida, California.
All over the country, we've seen this.
So, if people are protesting, you know, if you're confused about it, you're wondering, why would people protest?
Well, maybe it's because they can't eat.
Have you thought about that?
Maybe it's because they would like to be able to eat, and the government has taken that ability from them.
Now, for another hint at why people might protest, we can look at this image from a CNN article.
It's a woman who was protesting in Maryland, and she's got a very crudely made sign, and she's saying she wants to save her business.
You know, she needs her business to live, that's her livelihood.
Which makes sense, doesn't it?
You may not agree with the protesters, you may support the lockdown still, but if you sneer in contempt at them, as so many people have been doing, Then you're just a bad person.
Because any decent person, agree or not, can at least understand why desperate people who've had everything taken from them and cannot even afford to eat or to feed their children would want this to end.
You should at least be able to understand that and sympathize with it.
It is not selfish or dumb for a person to fight to protect what they worked their entire lives for.
It is not selfish or dumb for them to fight so they can feed their kids and care for their families.
You know, I got into a back-and-forth with somebody yesterday online, and they were telling me that, no, it is selfish and dumb because, you know, besides, you don't really need your job, the government will take care of you.
If the government's there, the government can give you money.
Well, the problem there is, number one, that solution isn't working, and we'll talk more about this in a minute.
But a lot of people who need the money aren't getting it.
A lot of people who are getting the money need a lot more than what they're getting.
The government cannot step in and become the sugar daddy for tens of millions of Americans all at once.
It just can't do that.
The money has to come from somewhere.
And it doesn't work.
And besides that, this person who I was talking to, was a man, a man, allegedly, And I think a man especially should understand, you know, this, at least for me as a man, I want to be able to provide for my family, not have the government do it.
I want to provide for my family.
And if you took that away from me, even if you took that away from me, even if the government was able to step in and compensate, which it wouldn't be able to do, but even if it did, That would still be a great tragedy for me.
Because I want to provide for them.
And you are taking that from me.
That is something real and important that you are taking from me.
And from my family.
That's something that every man should be able to understand.
And if you're a man and you act like you don't understand that, then I have to question your basic manhood, honestly.
Now I'm not saying, this is exactly my point, I'm not saying that if you're a man and you're not able to provide for your family right now and the government has to step in, I'm not saying you're less of a man.
My point is, it's a terrible thing that's happened to you.
I'm sympathizing with you.
And if I was in your boat, well, look, if I lost my income, I would take whatever help I could get for the sake of my family.
And that would, in that case, be the manly thing to do, to humble yourself.
But it's not ideal, it's not good, it's a tragedy.
And I just can't help but take note of the fact that seemingly the vast majority of the people criticizing the lockdown protesters, certainly the loudest and most visible critics in media, still have incomes.
They have an income, but they're calling you selfish for wanting your income back.
Three, and here are bulldozers in California filling a skate park in with sand, the Venice skate park, to stop people from skateboarding there.
So there you go.
Once again, of course, we don't want people outside.
You know, if you skateboard past somebody, I'm sure there's a real, outside, I'm sure there's a real great chance of the virus being transmitted, right?
And you know, it's better to, rather than having the kids outside in the sun, in the open air, rather than that, let's have them inside with their older relatives.
Having prolonged contact with their older relatives.
That's a much better plan, right?
Four, here's an MSNBC report about police departments across the country using Chinese-made drones to spy on citizens for the sake of enforcing social distancing.
And I want you to especially pay attention to when they're listing the areas where you might be spied on.
There's one area in particular that I think should cause your ears to perk up.
Watch this.
Mayors need to be creative.
We have to figure out a way to get to people that police cars can't get to.
Elizabeth City Police shot this video for us to show us how drones work.
The drones make it easier for police to see into certain areas where access by patrol cars is more difficult.
That includes tight spaces between buildings, behind schools, and in backyards.
Failure to comply could lead to a summons or a $1,000 fine.
You think the drones watching over people is a good idea or a bad idea?
I think at this point, it's worth a try.
It's just an invasion of your privacy.
The mayor's heard it all.
My answer to those people are, if these drones save one life, it is clearly worth the activity and the information that the drones are sending.
The drones donated by DJI, a Chinese company, have gone to 43 agencies in 22 states, all to help enforce social distancing rules.
You should not be congregating in groups.
Authorities say the drones aren't taking pictures or collecting evidence.
It's a high-tech warning against a deadly virus.
Backyards.
You heard that, right?
They said they're spying on you in your backyard.
With a drone that was helpfully donated from China.
I'm sure out of the goodness of their heart, China, out of the goodness of its heart, has donated spy drones that police departments can use to spy on Americans when they're sitting on their own property.
And then the mayor there gives us the old, if it saves one life, bit.
I mean, they're still giving us this.
If it saves one life, you know, if it saves one life, because I'm a humanitarian.
This is really, I'm so concerned about saving lives.
That's all this is about.
That's it.
Well, guess what?
No.
No, it is not worth it if you save one life.
It's not worth you spying on me in my own yard if it saves a life.
I'll tell you this, I don't care if it saves 10,000 lives.
Which it won't, by the way.
Okay, the drone's not going to save any lives.
It's going to save zero lives.
But even if it saved 10,000 lives, it's not worth the price of having our privacy completely destroyed and being spied on in the government by the government when we sit in our own yards.
I mean, maybe you could save lives by performing random house checks, maybe going door to door Barging into people's homes, checking to make sure they're washing their hands correctly, and so on.
In fact, you know what?
Actually, maybe install cameras in people's bathrooms and kitchens just to, you know, and have hand-washing experts in the government watching.
And if somebody doesn't wash their hands properly, you know, they can come on over the intercom and they can give instructions.
Citizen, you did not wash your hands correctly.
Maybe something like that.
That could save lives.
Could.
But, you know, I guess I'm so cruel and heartless I would say I don't care if that would save a million lives.
I would say absolutely not.
The complete forfeiture of our privacy and freedom is not worth it.
Period.
Is not worth it.
I would rather die than have that.
I would rather be dead.
That used to be the American attitude.
That, in fact, is the attitude that our country was literally founded on.
And now you have people embracing this kind of stuff because they're scared.
It's pathetic.
But, of course, you know, we're really playing the government's game, in a way, when we argue about whether this is worth it to save lives, because it's not saving lives, first of all, and that's not why they're doing it anyway.
That's not the point.
So I feel the need to engage with this argument.
It's worth it if it saves one life, but maybe the best thing is to not engage with it, because this is just the excuse they're giving.
Do you really think the mayor, whatever mayor that was there, I don't remember, sending spy drones to your house, you really think he's a humanitarian who gives a damn about saving lives?
No, it's just power.
It's enormous power.
And he's saying to himself, oh my gosh, I have these fancy drones now and I can go spy on people?
Awesome!
That's all the thought going into it from people like that goober there that you saw.
It's just, whoa, cool!
I can spy on people?
Sweet!
That's it.
That's the entire thought process.
Number five, Shake Shack has announced that it's returning a $10 million government loan that was part of the small business Relief package for the coronavirus, and they're returning it, saying they don't need it.
Good for Shake Shack, so they should be applauded for that.
A little positivity there.
But of course, this raises a question of why Shake Shack, which is definitely not a small business, ever got a small business loan as part of the coronavirus relief effort, and they aren't the only ones, by a long shot.
Many large restaurant chains and other large businesses, who by the way, are still operating and making money, have been given these loans, while many actual small businesses have not.
And this is why, we were talking about before, this is why you cannot shut down the economy and expect the government to fill in the gaps.
The government is not nearly competent enough for that, is far too corrupt, and even if the government was perfectly benevolent and competent, it still would not be able to do this.
You still wouldn't be able to shut down a multi-multi-trillion dollar economy Grind it to a halt and have a bureaucracy step in and nothing is lost in translation.
It would not work.
It can't work.
All right, finally, let's go to your daily cancellation.
Today we have to cancel CNN anchor Brian Stelter, who perhaps you might say has a bit of a melodramatic streak.
And so, over the weekend, he tweeted, this is what he tweeted, take a look, he says, Last night I hit a wall, gutted by the death toll, disturbed by the government's shortcomings, dismayed by political rhetoric that bears no resemblance to reality, worried about friends who are losing jobs, kids who are missing school, and senior citizens who are living in fear.
I crawled in bed and cried for our pre-pandemic lives.
Tears that had been waiting a month to escape.
I wanted to share because it feels freeing to do so.
Now is not a time for faux invincibility.
Journos are living this, hating this, like everybody else.
Okay, now, listen.
This is a tough time for all of us.
And I agree.
But pull yourself together, man.
Pull yourself together.
Be a man, for God's sake.
Can you imagine?
I ask, ladies in the audience, I ask you to imagine this.
What would you do if you climbed into bed at night and you found your husband there, sobbing?
Be honest, okay?
You'd feel bad for him, probably.
Part of you would feel bad for him.
But at the same time, wouldn't you be at least, wouldn't at least part of you also be embarrassed for him as well?
Unless he has a good reason, obviously.
And we've gone over before, what are the good reasons?
What are the acceptable reasons for a man to cry?
There are only a few.
But if he's crying because his dad just died, or another immediate family member, okay.
Or because his team just lost in the playoffs.
Or because the cat jumped up on the counter and knocked over his bottle of whiskey.
That would be acceptable.
Or because he just watched the movie Rudy.
That would be fine.
Or because he was just stabbed in the stomach.
Now, only in the stomach.
If he was stabbed, like, in the arm or the leg, then it's... I mean, it's... Walk it off, right?
But if stabbed, like, in the gut, and if it just happened ten seconds ago, maybe you're the one who stabbed him.
Then I think you have to allow for a few tears.
A few manly tears.
And then, you know what?
I'll also allow for... for tears related to fatherly pride.
So, for example, if your son hits his first home run in Little League, you could cry over that.
Also, fatherly shame.
So, if your son, if we're, you know, five games into the season and your son has not even gotten a hit yet, hasn't even gotten a base hit, he strikes out every time because he's a bad athlete, then you might weep a little bit in the stands when you realize that your nerdy son has no athletic skill whatsoever.
So, either of those, I'll allow.
But that's pretty much it.
And hopefully, if you see your husband crying over that, you'll console him.
Because that is a manly cry.
But if he's crying because he's stressed about stuff that's happening in the world, well then, yeah, part of you pities him, but the other part of you is worried that you may have accidentally married a woman.
The real problem, though, is I think just talking about it publicly.
Like, okay, you cry, you have a nervous breakdown, whatever.
You don't need to advertise it to everybody else.
As a man, you shouldn't be going around telling people that you cried last night.
Have some self-respect.
Even if it's for one of the acceptable reasons.
That's still, it's an intimate moment.
Maybe one other person witnessed you cry.
I mean, as a man, there should only be a very few people in your life who have ever seen tears exit your tear ducts.
And you don't want to share it with everybody else.
So have some self-respect.
And if you don't have self-respect as a man, then you're cancelled, which will give you another thing to cry about, I suppose.
Alright, and of course we haven't even, I mean, we could even put all that aside and just the fact that he's again trying to make journalists the victims and the heroes of this, it's just repulsive, so.
But that's it.
We will leave it there.
I'm gonna go have a good cry myself.
I'm scheduled for one and I'll talk to you guys tomorrow.
God bless.
Stay safe.
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.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
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.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Well, Brian Stelter couldn't get to work last week because he had to cry like a little girl, and the media wants the rest of America to do the same.
The elites have a message for you.
Let them eat dust.
We have a message, too, about what they can eat, and I'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection