Ep. 482 - It's Your Job To Pay For Your Own Birth Control
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Supreme Court will once again decide whether religious employers should be allowed to decline contraception coverage. The Left is screeching that there’s a plot afoot to steal women’s birth control. We’ll talk about why those claims are absurd. Also, a video of a man being shot in Georgia has provoked very strong reactions. We’ll try to sort through the situation and get to the truth. And finally, I’ll pass along some helpful gift ideas for Mother’s Day.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Supreme Court will once again decide whether religious employers should be allowed to decline contraception coverage for their employees or if they should be forced to provide contraception to their employees.
The left is screeching, of course, that there's a plot afoot to steal women's birth control.
I've never heard anyone suggest that we should ban birth control or get rid of it or steal it or take it away.
That's not actually what's at issue here.
We'll talk about what is at issue.
Also, a video of a man being shot in Georgia has provoked Very strong reactions as you might expect so we'll try to sort through the situation and Get to the truth or the closest approximation of it that we can and finally I will pass along some helpful I hope and practical gift ideas for Mother's Day, so if you're Procrastinating and don't know what you're gonna get your mother yet for or your wife really your wife You don't know what you're getting your wife yet for Mother's Day Then stick around to the end of the show because I got some good suggestions Okay
So, starting with this.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court began to hear arguments relating to birth control coverage.
And if you feel like you've heard this song and seen this dance before, you have.
Ever since the Obama administration attempted to force employers to provide free contraception to their employees, the whole issue has been embroiled in legal disputes and the Supreme Court has heard several cases about it over the years.
This time around, the issue is about an exemption passed by the Trump administration allowing any company, or most companies anyway, to decline to cover birth control if they have a religious objection to birth control.
Obama wanted to only give exemptions to specifically religious organizations, and then he defined religious
organization in a pretty narrow way but that was
supposedly the idea right but the Trump administration's point is that hey people who
Who run non-religious organizations also have religious liberty?
You shouldn't have to be in a religious organization or running one in order to have your religious liberty respected.
But the left says, no, all employers should have to provide contraception coverage.
Uh, it doesn't matter, regardless of how they feel about it, regardless of their religious convictions, it doesn't matter because women have a right to birth control and they have a right to have their birth control covered.
And now the Supreme Court is weighing in.
Again.
Now, as always with this topic, the left has been doing a lot of posturing, engaging in a lot of hysterics and strawmanning and everything else.
You know, we're living in a handmaid's tale type of stuff, right?
And there's been a lot of this kind of thing from Kamala Harris, who tweeted, once again, this administration is trying to control women's bodies.
It's simple.
Denying birth control coverage will cost women more.
And this from Bradley Whitford.
Five conservative male Supreme Court justices are about to decide whether or not all you women out there should have access to birth control.
And lots of this kind of thing from Ayanna Pressley.
Absurd that in 2020, during a global public health crisis, we are still fighting before SCOTUS to prevent employers from denying access to contraception.
Contraception is critical to our health, economic security, and bodily autonomy.
Period.
Hashtag hands off my birth control.
And a lot of this kind of thing from Imani Gandhi, who's a senior legal analyst apparently, and she says, in all caps, very simply, They are coming for your birth control!
Okay.
So let's break this down a little bit.
First of all, To this lame, repetitive, boring crap about how men are trying to take away birth control, and men on the Supreme Court are deciding this, and men are plotting to control women's bodies and everything else, enough already.
Get a new routine.
Okay, you're boring me, feminists.
You're boring me to death.
Maybe that's your goal, to bore all the men to death.
Guess what?
Roe v. Wade was decided by men.
That was a bunch of men deciding Roe.
So unless you're going to call for the overturning of Roe v. Wade on the basis that men decided it, and they have no business making these decisions about a woman's body, unless you're going to say that I don't want to hear any whining about men getting involved in alleged women's issues.
Because it turns out that you're perfectly fine with men being involved as long as they agree with you.
What a coincidence!
It just so happens that, yeah, most men shouldn't get involved in women's issues, but you do make a few exemptions, speaking of exemptions, and it just so happens that all the ones you exempt are the ones who agree with you.
What a coincidence!
Also, by the way, if a man is selfish, and he sees women as objects to be used, Do you think he is likely to be for or against birth control?
Think about this, feminists.
Use your brains if you still have them.
Is a selfish, cowardly, controlling, objectifying man likely to be opposed to birth control or in favor of it?
Yes, I am mansplaining to you right now.
And yes, I'm doing it in a condescending tone.
Because if you're going with this line of reasoning, you deserve to be condescended to.
Okay, if you don't understand this.
No, you see, the kind of man that you're talking about, he wants to use you for sex.
So, he loves birth control.
He loves abortion.
These are your allies, feminists.
The ally men who are out there saying, yeah, give them all the birth control and abortions they want.
Do you know why they're saying that?
Because they want to have sex without consequence.
These are things that you have to do in order to free him of responsibility.
And he loves that.
So why in God's name would you think that there's some kind of patriarchal conspiracy to rid the world of birth control?
No, if anything, there's going to be a patriarchal conspiracy to put more birth control into the world.
If anything, birth control itself is a patriarchal conspiracy.
If there's any patriarchal conspiracies involved in the birth control issue, it's going to be on the pro-birth control side, I assure you.
Okay?
Second point.
Nobody is coming for your birth control.
Nobody's trying to take your birth control away.
Nobody's trying to ban it.
Nobody is trying to reach into your medicine cabinet at home and take it from you.
Nobody is trying to put you in jail for using it.
Nobody.
That doesn't exist.
That's not a position that anybody holds.
The question is whether, simply, an employer should be required to provide birth control to you.
And there's a difference between saying, so-and-so shouldn't have to provide such-and-such, And saying, so-and-so should be allowed to prevent you from obtaining such-and-such.
You do see the difference, don't you, feminists?
It's pretty obvious.
Do I need to mansplain it more?
It's a pretty clear difference.
But I know people on the left struggle with this difference a lot anyway.
They really struggle.
You guys really struggle to see the difference between, I don't want to have to provide this to you, and I think that you should not have this thing.
Like, completely different.
Concepts.
There are... I can't even list them all.
There are literally millions of things that exist that I believe I shouldn't have to provide to you or pay for or give to you.
Yet, I think you should still have the right to have those things.
I just don't want to be the one to pay for it.
That's all.
That's it.
Third point.
In fact, we'll get to the third point in just a second.
Before we do...
You know, if you're having car trouble, as we have been having a lot of car trouble recently, then, and right now, you know, to have car trouble can be pretty difficult because your options are limited in where you can go to get the problem solved.
That's why rockauto.com is a godsend.
Rockauto.com is so much easier than going to a store, especially these days, and all the questions you have to answer.
And then what happens?
They ask you all these questions.
They interrogate you, emasculate you.
Maybe it's just me.
And then they end up just having to order it online anyway.
So cut out the middleman, go to rockauto.com.
It's unique, it's easy to navigate.
Rockauto.com is a family business serving auto part customers online for 20 years.
Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices available and they've got the best selection.
So you really, you just can't beat it.
Great selection, easy to navigate.
Best prices you're gonna find anywhere.
This is where you need to go.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
And do me a favor, write Walsh in their how did you hear about us box so that they know that I sent you.
Third point here about the birth control thing.
I am getting really tired of hearing about this lack of access thing.
The claim that women lack access to contraception.
You can access contraception anywhere.
It practically rains from the sky in this country.
It all but rains from the sky.
Do you need it to actually rain from the sky in order to admit that you have access to it?
Or I'm starting to think that, you know, with feminists, even if birth control was literally raining from the sky, Like you could wake up in the morning and there's birth control strewn across your lawn like morning dew drops.
You would still say that you don't have access to it because you have to physically walk out and bend down and pick it up for yourself.
Until there is someone who will pick it up for you and ferry it into your house and place it in your mouth for you, you're gonna say, I don't have access.
If you really are having trouble accessing contraception in this country, don't take this the wrong way, then you're too incompetent.
To be having sex anyway.
Maybe this is a good litmus test.
If you can't figure out how to get your hands on contraception, then you are an incompetent and you shouldn't be having sex.
Because any competent adult knows that if you want birth control, if you want contraception, you can find it in some form at Target, at Walmart, Any pharmacy, at any gas station.
You can get it for free at Planned Parenthood.
And if it's that important to you to have it covered by your employer, you can always go to any of the countless employers that cover it.
There is no problem of access.
None.
You can get it for free, you can get it for cheap.
You can get it over there, you can get it over there, you can get it anywhere.
You can get it on a train, in a plane.
In a house with a mouse, it's like a Dr. Seuss book all of a sudden.
Well, no, don't get birth control from a mouse.
But, I mean, anywhere else you can pretty much get it.
There is no problem of access, none at all.
Any competent adult, if they want contraception, they can obtain it easily and cheaply.
Once again, if you're struggling with this, if you can't figure out how to get your hands on birth control, then don't have sex.
And I'm not saying that everybody should use birth control.
What I'm saying, though, is that it's just a thing that anyone should figure out how to get their hands on if they really want it.
Fourth point.
Feminists like to say that their sex lives are none of our business.
They like to say that their bodies are none of our business.
They like to say that their medical decisions are none of our business.
I agree.
Wholeheartedly.
On every count.
It is none of my business.
So stop talking about it.
Shut up about it if it's none of my business.
It's a very odd thing to tell someone that something is none of their business, and then to all hours of the day, and then next all hours of the day, you're screaming about it in their face.
Usually if something is none of other people's business, you keep it to yourself.
What kind of adult goes around whining about their birth control anyway?
How embarrassing.
That's your affair, it's your business, your problem.
It's not my problem, I'm sorry.
It's not your employer's problem either.
What is this thing?
I want to have sex but I can't get birth control.
Who goes around saying that?
Okay, figure it out!
What do you want us to facilitate?
Your sex life?
Are you serious?
It's humiliating.
I'm embarrassed for you.
If you don't want it to be an issue up for discussion, stop making it an issue up for discussion.
Figure out your own sex life and leave everybody else out of it, including your employer, if he doesn't want to pay for it.
Besides, if it's not of anybody's business, what are you going to your employer, who oftentimes is a man, and saying, give me birth control!
I demand birth control!
Yeah, a real strong and independent woman who does that.
Goes crawling and whining and crying to a male employer demanding birth control.
Fifth, the Trump administration is right.
Religious liberty is not solely the province of religious organizations.
I don't have to be in a religious job or have a religious vocation to have religious liberty.
Any more than I need to be in the NRA to have gun rights.
Now, you may not agree with people who are opposed to birth control.
That's fine.
But many religions, not just Christianity, many religions have problems with contraception.
Because they see it as something that contravenes God's plan.
I mean, that's the basic reason why so many religions are against it.
You may not agree.
Doesn't matter.
You don't have to agree.
You're allowed to not agree.
This is America.
But because it's America, if I run a business, I can run my business according to my religious convictions.
Don't like it?
Get another job!
If you don't want to work for a devout religious person, don't apply for a job with a devout religious person!
Take some responsibility for your actions!
Now, Just because someone has a religious objection to birth control, it doesn't give them the right to come and pry it out of your hands.
They can't break into your home in the middle of the night and steal all your birth control.
But it does give them the right to decide that they don't want to fund it, provide it, facilitate it.
Or be involved with it in any way, shape, or form.
And if you really value your autonomy and privacy and dignity, you wouldn't want them to be involved in any way, shape, or form.
Alright.
I trust that everything I've said here will now settle the matter rather than just inflaming feminists even more and making them more pissed off.
Let's go to actually I was gonna say we're gonna go to five headlines, but we're not gonna do five headlines today Instead I have just one headline that I want to talk about At a greater length than I normally do for these news stories So I'm shelving five headlines just for today to talk about this this being the case of Ahmaud Arbery This is a case that has sparked mass protests and outrage and lots of discussion.
Much of the discussion has consisted of reflexive and emotional reactions that don't help us get to the truth of the case, and that's usually how these things go.
Now, I, in fact, am one of the people who offered one of those unhelpful emotional reactions, unfortunately, last night on Twitter.
Twitter, always a great forum for talking about these kinds of things.
We'll get to all that in a moment.
First, the basics of the case, as far as we know, if you're not familiar with it.
There is now video that has been released.
I'm not going to play the video because, I mean, it's not the kind of video everybody wants to see, but you can easily go find it online if you want to see it.
It shows a man running down the road, in the road, and the video is being taken from behind by a guy in another car.
And then you see the running man, that's Arbery, Come up to two guys who are stopped in the road.
They're in a pickup truck.
Stopped in the road.
And you see Arbery go around the car like he's initially trying to get away.
And then the camera doesn't capture the first moment of the altercation.
But at some point, we see that Arbery approaches one of the men with the guns.
Now they're struggling.
There's a struggle that ensues between Arbery and one of the men.
And then the second guy, who's in the pickup truck, standing on it, shoots three times, I think it was, and kills Arbery.
And he collapses and dies.
That's what the video shows.
This happened in February.
The men who did the shooting have not been arrested, haven't been charged.
Now there's going to be a grand jury, seemingly in response to the outrage.
You know, the claim being made by supporters of Arbery is that, you know, they should have been arrested.
This should have happened back in February.
The only reason they're doing it now is because we noticed.
I think there may be some truth to that.
This all happened in Georgia, by the way.
The men with guns are Gregory and Travis McMichael.
They're white.
Arbery's black.
The context appears to be that there had been some break-ins recently in the neighborhood, and from the way that it's being reported, Gregory and Travis McMichael thought that Arbery looked like the potential burglar who had committed other burglaries.
There was apparently a series of 911 calls that were placed about Arbery and his presence in the neighborhood, but apparently none of them identified any clear crime that Arbery was committing.
So a couple of people called, but it wasn't clear what they actually were concerned about that Arbery was doing.
One mentioned that he had been seen on a construction site, and maybe inside a half-built home.
It's not clear that the McMichaels saw Any crime being committed.
It's not clear if they saw a crime being committed or if they just thought he looked like someone who had committed a crime in the neighborhood at some point.
They say, the McMichaels say, that they went to chase after Arbery and make a citizen's arrest.
And they say they pursued him for a while and he was trying to get away and then they cut him off on the road, got out with guns, he went after them, attacked, they killed him.
So that's sort of their version of events.
The odd thing is that the video shows the few seconds leading up to this altercation and it doesn't look like Arbery is fleeing the scene of a crime.
He appears to be just jogging down the road.
You'd think if he was running away from a crime, he'd probably be trying to evade detection.
He wouldn't be running in the middle of the street, in the middle of the day, but that's what he's doing.
The narrative from supporters of Arbery is that he was just out for a jog, and he hadn't committed any crime at all.
And that is being reported by some media outlets as fact.
I don't think it is established fact, but that's one version of events, that Aubrey was out for a jog.
I don't know if that's true or not.
The video does seem to lend credence to that version of events, but I don't know.
He also seems to me to be wearing what you would expect a person to wear if they were out for a jog and not what you would expect them to wear if they were on a burglary spree.
It's also the time of day where you would expect a jog and not a burglary spree.
But again, who knows?
I don't know if Arbery really committed a burglary or not.
It's important to note though that Arbery is not accused of committing any violent crime so far as We know at this point.
I've also seen some people on social media who are more inclined to defend the McMichaels, who are saying that Arbery had robbed.
He had committed a robbery.
Well, there's a difference between a robbery and a burglary, and the difference is important.
He's not being accused of being involved in any robbery.
He's being accused of being involved in a burglary, which is a property crime.
It's not like he held a gun to somebody and took their wallet.
I think that distinction is important.
And as far as we know right now, there is no claim that he had on that day been witnessed by the McMichaels committing a crime against them.
Or, you know, we don't know if they witnessed any crime at all or if they just had reason to believe that he had.
We don't know.
It's also important to note on the other side of this that the police say there's a video of Arbery committing a burglary right before all this ensued.
That's what we're being told.
We haven't seen that video.
Is it the video of him on a construction site?
Is that what they're calling a burglary?
I don't know.
We haven't seen it.
So let me try to offer some thoughts on this, okay?
Those are like the basics of the case so far as I understand them so far.
First of all, as I already said, the video is upsetting because a man dies and you watch it happen.
My initial reaction was an emotional one based on having witnessed that.
And I said on Twitter, always, as I said, always a great forum for these discussions, that this is a clear-cut case of first-degree murder and the two shooters should get the death penalty.
That was my first reaction.
Which is stupid, obviously.
It's angry and emotional.
It's a stupid thing to say on my part.
I usually pride myself on being the rational and logical one and not jump into conclusions without evidence.
And that's generally how I approach these things.
I broke my own rule in this case.
So I had to go back a couple hours later and amend myself a bit.
Because we certainly can't call this clear-cut and the idea that I could just declare not only that it's murder, but what degree of murder it is, is just dumb.
So, there's a lot that isn't known.
There's a lot of weirdness with this.
The video is, along with tragic, very weird for a number of reasons, in that it doesn't appear to fully fit either side's version of events, as far as I can tell.
Though I do think at this point it fits the side of Arbery supporters more.
More, it seems to me.
So based on what we know right now, it seems like The two sort of opposite possibilities are this.
One, Arbery was out for a jog.
The McMichaels thought he fit the description of a burglar, which of course has very strong undertones of he's a black guy running in a white neighborhood.
Right?
Has undertones of that.
We don't know if that's what it was, but those are the undertones that, you know, you can't get around and there's no point in denying it.
And so they went after him.
He was out for a jog.
They thought he looked like he might be a criminal.
They went after him.
He was innocent.
He defended himself because he's got guys rolling up on him with guns.
What else is he going to do?
Are you going to go?
I mean, if two guys roll up in a pickup truck with guns, are you going to just do whatever they say?
Maybe you will.
But I think other people would be more inclined to fight for your life because you don't know what these guys intend.
And then he was killed.
So that's one possibility.
One version of events.
The other possibility is this.
Arbery was in the neighborhood committing crimes.
So far there is no suggestion that he had that day committed any violent crimes or crimes against persons.
He was committing, by this version of events, he was committing a burglary or burglaries.
The McMichaels witnessed him doing it or had strong reason to believe that he had just done it.
Maybe we don't know what those reasons are yet.
They go after him to make a citizen's arrest.
He tries to get away.
They keep pursuing.
They cut him off on the road.
They grab their guns.
He goes after them.
They kill him.
Those seem to be the two possibilities right now.
Maybe there's some kind of in-between option between those two.
Or maybe the truth is something very different from any of this.
But I think for the truth to be something very different from either of the two options I laid out, that would require there to be a very significant detail that right now we don't know about.
And maybe there is, right?
I can't say if that detail exists or not.
So I'm basing this on what we know.
And remember, this happened in February.
It's not like it just happened and people are making rushed judgments.
My point is there's pretty good reason to believe that we know basically most of the story.
And that there aren't any more shoes to drop.
But maybe there are.
So here's my thing.
In option one, they went after an innocent man, they approached him with guns, and you don't pull a gun on someone unless you're willing to use it.
And now that innocent man is dead.
And they have to pay for that.
So that to me is, if that's the case, then it is pretty clear cut.
Now in terms of assessing the degree of murder and everything, well that's... I'm not going to get into that again.
But it's clear that a very serious crime has been committed by the shooters.
They need to go to jail and answer for that.
You can't just kill a guy while he's jogging because you think he looks like he might have committed a crime, right?
You can't go fully armed and loaded and chase a guy down who fits a description, a guy who you think might have maybe committed a crime at some point in the past, and then try to apprehend him and kill him in the process.
That is vigilantism at best.
And it's criminal.
So if option one is true, then the shooters are fully in the wrong, they killed an innocent man, and now it's just a matter of assessing the degrees and figuring out what their sentence is going to be.
What about option two?
Well, as it stands right now, it's hard for me to see how they wouldn't be in the wrong, the shooters I mean, even if option two is correct.
Let's say best case for them, based on what we know, best case for them right now is they witnessed a burglary.
Once again, a burglary, not a robbery.
Let's say they witnessed a burglary.
Does that give them the right To grab their guns, chase him down, park in the street, and wait to ambush him?
Even if the ambush wasn't supposed to be deadly, is that the right response?
And if you do that as a civilian and someone dies in the process, are you not responsible for that?
I believe in giving people a ton of leeway when protecting their own property on their own property.
So if you come on to a man's property and he's there, even if you didn't intend him harm, he has every right to assume that you intend him harm and to react accordingly.
So it is very rare that I hear of a case, in fact, I can't think of any case off the top of my head, where someone killed someone on their own property and I think that person who shot the gun should go to jail.
I can't think of any case.
I mean, maybe there's been cases like that, if there could be egregious other details, but I think a lot of leeway when it comes to protecting your own property, your own life, your own family, right?
So I believe that.
I would also say that if they witnessed this man attack someone, abuse someone.
Someone said to me on Twitter yesterday, what if they had seen him, you know, raping a woman or something like that?
Would they be right to chase after him?
Then I would say yes, chasing him down could be a form of defending the victim.
Because this is clearly a physically dangerous man.
Who's now on the run.
He was just victimizing someone.
And so chasing him down, I think it was a valiant and courageous thing to do.
And you are, you know, in a sense, defending the victim, even if it is after the fact, because you don't know if this guy could come back or anything like that.
And yeah, you could call the cops, but he could still get away.
You know, you can't count on the cops to be there on time.
And so you chase after him.
But none of that, it seems to apply to this situation.
He's not being accused of committing any violent crime against anybody.
I haven't heard that even the McMichaels aren't making that claim.
No one's making that claim.
At best, from what we know, they might have seen a property crime, a burglary, and then they decided to take the law into their own hands, and a man died in the process.
I think, even then, they have to be held accountable for that.
Unless there's some huge detail we don't know about.
Which is possible.
Another thing to think about, you know, people are saying, why did Arbery attack the guys with the loaded guns rather than trying to run away?
Well, first of all, it seems like he did originally try to run away.
Second, put yourself in his shoes for a moment.
Even if you did commit a burglary, right?
Even so, that doesn't change this.
Two guys with guns are chasing you down.
They stop their car, they get out, guns in hand.
They're telling you to stop, come with them, or at least come to them.
They aren't cops.
They're just random guys with guns.
Do you go with them?
Do you stop?
Do you listen?
Do you have some kind of obligation to listen to them?
You might well think, look, these guys are going to kill me.
I can't run because I can't outrun a bullet.
My only choice is to fight.
It's a classic fight or flight scenario.
And not everybody is a fighter in that situation, but some people are.
And I would say that, generally speaking, fighting is the smarter choice.
This is the problem with civilians doing this kind of stuff.
Now, if those were cops, then we could say two things.
Number one, you have an obligation to stop if they tell you to stop.
That obligation may not be absolute.
There could be situations where you don't have to stop.
But most of the time, a cop tells you to stop, you stop, and you listen.
Number two, if you stop for a cop, you can be reasonably certain they aren't going to kill you.
Again, neither of those apply when it's two random dudes in a pickup with guns telling you to stop.
You have no obligation to listen to them, to do what they say.
As far as you know, they plan to kill you.
And what if you did commit a burglary?
Does that mean that you just have to give yourself up to be killed?
It's like, well, they got me.
I mean, if you're gonna kill me, go ahead.
I wouldn't do that.
In fact, I would go so far as to say if two random guys with guns pull up in a pickup truck, the absolute last thing you should do is stop for them, listen to them, go with them.
You should fight them or run.
You never go with a random guy with a gun when he tells you to.
Never.
You got all these people now defending the shooters on the basis that, well, you should have listened to them.
What?
So now you're saying that anyone who grabs a gun and points it at you, you have an, not just that it's the smart thing to listen, but you have an obligation to listen?
No.
No.
Now, if they were cops, I would say the absolute last thing you should do is try to fight the cops or flee them.
But these were not cops, and that really, really matters.
That's why we don't do armed vigilantism in this country, in a civilized society.
Especially when the alleged supposed crime, burglary, doesn't warrant that kind of reaction.
I mean, I could even, like, you know what, if this was a situation where a guy was committing some heinous crime against a person, you caught him raping or abusing a child or something, and you hear about these kind of cases, and the guy tries to run away, and you chase him down and kill him, I would say in that situation, you know, I would be in favor of, you could plead, like, temporary insanity, you were blind with rage, and I would be in favor of letting somebody off on that basis.
Not that we pass a law saying it's legal to kill anyone of you, but just... In that situation, even I could see it because you're so emotionally enraged by what you saw and that you lose control of your faculties.
And given the fact that the crime is so heinous, the blame for your reaction will fall on the person who committed the heinous crime causing that reaction.
So I could, but for a burglary?
No.
Sorry.
Uh, no.
You don't chase down suspected burglars as a civilian and kill them.
So, um, that's where I am on this right now.
Open to new information, but based on what we know, that's where I am.
Last thing.
Okay.
Uh, I said this was going to be a lengthy discussion of this on the racial angle.
You know, obviously there's, Obviously, that's going to be a part of this story.
And there are people that are being very irresponsible and trying to basically stoke race rides.
I mean, LeBron James came out last night and said something like, you know, every time a black man leaves his house, he's hunted down.
Just completely reckless, irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric, insane, absurd.
Totally divorced from reality, right?
And so there's been a lot of that.
I mean, there are irresponsible and bad people out there who are interested in taking advantage of these kinds of situations to try to sow unrest.
We've seen that before in the past, and I'm very afraid of that happening here.
But so, you know, just because I'm saying it looks to me right now this is an unjust shooting and these people should be held accountable, doesn't mean go out and have a riot about it.
And it also doesn't mean that they were hunting down a black man out of some racial... motivated by racial hatred.
Maybe they were, but we don't know that.
What I will say is, if option number two is correct, that they did witness a crime, then I think that that doesn't necessarily justify what they did, but it does pretty much remove the racial angle, because then they're reacting to what they saw happen, not to the skin color of the person who did it.
And in order to prove a racial angle there, you would have to prove that these guys in the past have seen white people committing crimes and didn't chase them down, but only chased down black people when they see black people commit crimes.
And if that evidence exists, then present it, but I doubt that evidence does exist.
So if he did commit a crime, I think it takes the racial angle out.
If he was an innocent man just going for a jog, and they thought he fit the description of a burglar, then I think it's hard at that point to avoid the racial component of it, and it would seem like they profiled him.
And he died in the process.
So that's why between option one and two, it does make a significant difference which one it is, but I'm not sure that either option would justify the shooting.
Okay, now for your daily cancellation.
But before we do that, actually, I want to take a moment to tell you about Daily Wire's newest, most exclusive membership tier, the All Access Insider.
The All Access Insider Membership Tier is our premier level of membership.
All Access members get the benefits of our other membership tiers, including an ad-free website experience, access to our live broadcast, the show library, access to the show's mailbags, and a full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show, along with dedicated editorials from Ben Shapiro.
You get all of that.
All Access members also get other amazing benefits, including, of course, the singular, the irreplaceable, leftist-tiers Tumblr.
They also get to join live, exclusive online Q&As.
They get to participate in the All Access live shows as well.
So, head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join Daily Wire's all-access club with a new membership or an upgrade and get 10% off with coupon code WALSH.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
See you there.
Okay, now for your daily cancellation.
And we'll do this quickly.
I'm canceling every media outlet, media person, and person in general who had any opinion about or cared at all about or was upset about for any reason The fact that Adele lost weight.
So to back up here for a second, Adele, the singer obviously, apparently took a picture recently on Instagram and she was skinny, she had lost weight.
Okay, good for her.
I mean, I think good for her.
Who cares at the end of the day, really, or even at the beginning of the day, or doesn't matter what time of day, who cares?
The weight or lack thereof of celebrities is just not important.
Even a little bit.
But this event of Adele losing weight provoked a lot of reaction from people.
And many articles were written.
Many articles.
Many entire... There are people who sat down and wrote whole articles about Adele losing weight.
Here are some of the headlines.
Inside Adele's weight loss, experts sound off on her new look.
What expert?
Experts on what Adele looks like?
Adele appearance experts?
Is that a major now in some colleges?
I wouldn't be surprised.
The frenzy over Adele's weight loss has forced me to confront my own issue with body image.
Another headline.
Let's not be amazed that multi-millionaire Adele can lose weight.
Another one.
Why the photo of a new slimmer Adele makes women like me feel uncomfortable.
Another one.
Adele's new birthday photo thanking frontline workers sparks debate on body image.
And then CNN says, Adele lost weight.
Are we allowed to praise that?
The controversy here is that by praising Adele for losing weight, could we be implicitly fat shaming?
Could we be insinuating that it's better to be skinny than fat?
Could we be suggesting that fat is not preferred, not ideal?
And the answer to all those questions, of course, is yes.
We are suggesting that.
As well we should.
Excess fat is bad.
It's unhealthy.
It can kill you.
It's better not to have it.
Adele is a healthier person now than she was before when she had the extra weight.
That's it.
Now, it doesn't mean you're a bad person if you're fat.
It doesn't mean you're worth less.
It doesn't mean you have no value.
It doesn't mean that you're a better person when you lose weight.
It just means that it's better to lose weight.
It's better not to be fat than to be fat.
Because you'll be healthier and you'll live longer and your internal organs will fare better in the long run and so will your skeletal structure and everything else about you.
Your body will be very happy that you're not fat anymore.
And that's all.
That's it.
It's not complicated.
But this really is my problem with the whole fat acceptance thing.
It's not just that fat acceptance tells people to accept and celebrate unhealthy things about themselves.
That's a problem too, don't get me wrong.
But even more than that, it encourages people to be self-obsessed.
To see everything through the lens of their own ego, which is something we all do anyway.
We don't need more help with that.
So a celebrity loses weight, and their first thought is, how does this affect me?
Adele lost... a famous singer in England lost weight.
How does this affect me?
That's what I want to know.
Answer, it doesn't.
At all.
Not everything is about you, you ridiculous narcissist.
You're cancelled.
All of you.
Cancelled!
Finally, since I've already gone wildly off track and abandoned my normal show format, let's keep the chaos going and throw out the email segment for today.
And for this, because I want to do a special segment about Mother's Day.
With Mother's Day fast approaching, I wanted to take a moment, and I feel like I don't do this enough, but I really wanted to give just some practical advice that might be helpful to you.
So, we talk a lot about issues and ideas and everything, and oftentimes I feel like it's not practical enough, and people say to me sometimes, what are the practical solutions, Matt?
I mean, you're all about complaining, which is true.
It's my favorite thing to do.
Give me some practical steps, some practical things I can do.
Okay, well, here you go.
So for any guys out there, I'm going to pass along five suggestions for Mother's Day gifts for your wife specifically.
And these gifts might work for your mom as well, but I'm really focusing on what you give to your wife.
Because even though we're in the middle of a pandemic, you are not off the hook.
All right?
You definitely are not.
You've got to do something, and you have to make it good too, because your wife is under a lot of stress.
So let's talk about these.
Here are my four Mother's Day gift ideas.
Number one, this is a classic, kind of a cliche, but there's a little bit of a twist to it.
So first suggestion is a mop.
Now you're thinking, yeah, mop's a great gift, but I gave my wife a broom for Christmas.
Isn't this redundant?
Well, no, first of all, because it's important to have the complete set and your wife's going to be excited about that.
She's going to call all her friends and say, I finally got it.
I got the full cleaning set.
Like I always wanted.
But also, here's the twist.
You're going to give her a little card, and inside the card you're going to have suggestions for areas of the house that really need to be mopped the most.
And what she'll love, because it means you're paying attention, is if you put the date of the last time that area of the house was mopped.
And so it puts a little urgency on it, but it also shows that you are paying attention.
to the chores she does in the house and the chores she neglects.
She will like that.
Number two, this one's pretty fun.
This is pretty creative, but get her a pair of pants that's intentionally three sizes too small, and on the inside of the waistband, write a little romantic note that says, you'll get there.
Number three, now, if you're looking for something that's maybe a bit more spiritual, I know there are a lot of devout Christians who watch this show, as I am as well, so here's a good one for you.
You can get your wife.
You know those pictures people like to have in their homes now of famous quotes and things like that?
So, you could do that, but this one is going to be a framed picture of Ephesians 5.22.
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as you do the Lord.
Of course, famous quote.
Important thing, though, is don't include the rest of that passage that talks about all the stuff a husband is supposed to do, because that's not really the point, is it?
This is about her.
It's Mother's Day.
It's not about you.
Four, finally, maybe so far the ideas haven't been quite sentimental enough, and you're looking for something that's very personal to you.
Very intimate even.
Something that shows how much you love her.
Something that shows just how much you care and that you really put some thought into it.
So, here's an idea.
What you want to do is think about a piece of jewelry.
Think about a piece of jewelry that you bought for an ex-girlfriend when you guys were dating.
And then go and get that same jewelry for your wife.
Explaining, while you give it to her, Tell her that this is the same jewelry that you bought for an ex-girlfriend years ago.
So the idea is it's kind of a symbolic passing of the torch from the girlfriend to the wife.
Even if you've been married for 10 years, it's not too late for the passing of the torch.
And then your wife will appreciate it even more if you kind of reminisce with her and tell her a few stories about the women you've dated and the fun things you did.
Wives always love to hear about that stuff, especially on special occasions.
So those are my four Mother's Day gift ideas.
I'm not going to be using any of these ideas myself, but only because I don't want to take the ideas from any of you and I don't want to steal your thunder.
So I'll be doing something else.
Probably something along the lines of flowers, you know, boring, patronizing, insulting.
So don't do that.
Take these ideas and you will not regret it.
Trust me.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Have a great day.
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.
If you want to cut through the madness of our politics and culture and know what's really going on, head on over to The Michael Knowles Show, where we can all bask in the simple joys of being right.