Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Meghan Markle seeks to crown herself Queen Victim. Also Five Headlines including Pepe LePew getting the Me Too treatment, the media freaks out about spring break for the second year in a row, and a “medical ethicist” argues that people who do not get vaccinated should not be allowed to participate in society at all. In our Daily Cancellation, we will discuss GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy making a stand against cancel culture by reading Green Eggs and Ham. Is this a meaningful symbolic gesture, or hollow right wing virtue signaling?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Meghan Markle seeks to crown herself Queen victim.
Also, five headlines including Pepe Le Pew getting the Me Too treatment, the media freaks out about spring break for a second year in a row, and a medical ethicist quote unquote argues that people who do not get vaccinated should not be allowed to participate in society at all.
In our daily cancellation, we'll discuss GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy Making a stand against cancel culture by reading Green Eggs and Ham.
Is this a meaningful symbolic gesture or just more hollow right-wing virtue signaling?
We'll discuss that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Well, welcome again to the show.
Before we get going today, I wanted to thank you for watching and ask you if you enjoy the show and want to keep watching or listening to it, please help the show out.
Fortunately, helping us out is very simple and free.
If you're listening on iTunes, simply give the show a five-star rating.
If you're watching on YouTube, hit like, leave a comment, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
Sounds like a lot, but it takes about 30 seconds, I think.
And no matter how you're engaging with the show, remember to share it on social media, share it with your friends, shout about it from the rooftops.
Whatever you can do to get the word out, that's how you can help, if you so desire.
We begin today with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
I must confess at the outset that I don't really care at all about the royal family or any of their drama, and I have never been able to understand why anyone does care.
The fact that people are so interested is what has become interesting to me.
Maybe that's how we all get sucked in.
I don't know.
It's like walking by and noticing a group of people staring at the ground and watching grass grow, and then you stop and you stare at the people who are staring, fascinated by the fact that they're so fascinated.
Then the next group stops and they start staring at you, and on and on until a million people are staring aimlessly, none exactly sure what they're looking at or why.
Now, I admit that this comparison is probably a little unfair to grass.
Grass may be decorative, like the Royal Family, but it's also functional, unlike the Royal Family.
In any event, as you probably heard, two of these functionless, boring people, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, split off from the Royal Family a year ago in what many said was a heroic and brave decision on their part, came here to America.
You know, they said they wanted privacy and space to themselves.
And those are certainly respectable things to desire.
And they could have had both of those things, too, if they really wanted them.
They could have retreated to a cabin in the wilderness, dropped out of public eye, lived lives of private solitude and reflection.
But the ironic thing is that only interesting and substantive people can live a life like that.
Like, to live a life that seems boring like that, you have to be an interesting person.
As we've established, those are not the kinds of people we're dealing with here.
So Harry and Meghan courageously stepped away from the pomp and circumstance and wealth of celebrity life overseas, only to embrace the pomp and circumstance and wealth of celebrity life in America.
They purchased a $15 million mansion in Southern California, signed a multi-million dollar deal with Netflix, and then another one with Spotify.
Meghan Markle says that she bought the mansion in California so that she could live authentically, and quote, get back to basics.
Sure.
Well, you know what they say.
One man's basics is another man's obscene wealth.
Now, you might say that using the term back-to-basics in reference to a $15 million mansion shows an incomprehensible level of privilege.
And you'd be right.
Except that we've learned the word privilege in our culture has absolutely nothing to do with privilege, just as victimhood has absolutely nothing to do with actual victimhood.
And speaking of victimhood, as part of this effort to live a humble, basic life in their 18,000 square foot mansion with 9 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms... What the hell are you going to do with 16 bathrooms?
I have no idea.
And in pursuit of privacy, the Netflix stars did a major primetime interview with Oprah Winfrey, which aired last night.
During this interview, the celebrity couple reclining on their patio that probably costs more than your house explained in great detail why they are victims, especially Megan, who chose to leave her life as a Hollywood actress after leaving her husband, her first husband, and then marry a member of the British royal family.
This was her decision.
Everyone knows the drama and scrutiny that comes with that sort of existence.
Even I know it.
And I follow this stuff about as little as a person in modern Western society can follow it.
I don't even know all their names.
Charles, is that the old one or the much older one?
I don't know.
And she certainly knew this too.
Yet, she desired fame and wealth enough to jump right into it, and then immediately became a victim of the very thing she was pursuing.
But it's not her fault, you see.
Yes, everyone who's in the public eye on that level gets criticized, but it was different for her.
So much worse.
For one thing, people were mean to her on the internet.
That's very different.
None of us know what that's like.
And she explained this more to Oprah.
Listen.
Because this was different, you know?
Different because of the race?
And social media.
And social media, oh yes.
Right?
Different time.
That didn't exist, and so it was like the Wild Wild West.
It was spread like wildfire, plus my being American.
It translated in a different way across the pond.
So you had a noise level that was very different, but if they can't see that it's different... So you felt bullied on an international level?
Look, I think the I think the volume of what was coming in and the interest was greater because of social media, because of the fact that I was not just British, and that unfortunately, if members of his family say, well, this is what's happened to all of us, or if his, you know, if
If they can compare what the experience that I went through was similar to what has been shared with us, Kate was called weighty Katie, waiting to marry William.
While I imagine that was really hard, and I do, I can't picture what that felt like, this is not the same.
And if a member of his family will comfortably say, we've all had to deal with things that are rude, rude and racist are not the same.
Ah yes, the internet.
Different time.
I don't know why I laughed the first time I saw that.
There's something about that line from Oprah that made me laugh the first time I saw it.
When Meghan says, well, it's different because of the internet.
And Oprah says, ah yes, the internet.
Different time.
And meanwhile, you've got Harry sitting there.
What kind of man, you know, I'm focusing here on Meghan Markle, but what kind of man brings his wife In front of Oprah for a major interview to bash your family.
What kind of man finds that acceptable?
What kind of man goes along with that?
No way in hell as a man can you go along with that.
Your wife says, you know, I want to do a major interview where I just rip your family to pieces.
Your response should be, hell no, that's not happening.
You're not doing that.
We're going to have no part of that.
That's not how we handle problems with the family.
But anyway, Meghan Markle is a victim.
She's bullied.
She's a victim of bullying.
Many of us would love to be so bullied.
Personally, I'd be thrilled to experience this kind of bullying that ends with me sitting in my California mansion with a Netflix deal.
I've never had the good fortune of being victimized in that way, and I'm beginning to fear that I may never have it.
But it's different for me, though, because I'm white.
Whereas Megan is only mostly white.
And that means that she can claim victimhood on explicitly racial grounds, as she also did with Oprah.
Let's listen to that.
Concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born.
What?
And... Who is having that conversation with you?
What?
So, um... There is a conversation... Hold up, hold up.
There's several conversations about it.
There's a conversation with you?
With Harry.
About how dark your baby is going to be?
Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Ooh.
And you're not going to tell me who had the conversation?
I think that would be very damaging to them.
Okay.
Okay.
We'll move on then.
People are raving about Oprah's... Oprah's another one.
Talk about things I don't understand, why people are so interested.
I've never quite understood how Oprah ever became the big thing that she is.
You know, it's a fine.
That's like the kind of standard entertainment sort of interview that you would expect to see, but I think anyone in media could do that.
That's her follow-up.
So, Meghan Markle makes this incredible claim.
Oprah says, what?
That's something else.
Who said it?
Oh, I don't want to say because it'd be damaging to them.
Well, okay.
Moving on.
So she never clarified who made that alleged comment.
What this means is that either Megan made it up, distinct possibility, or someone did say it, and she's happy to throw the whole family under the bus as the press wildly speculates as to the culprit, rather than simply naming the person who said it.
Either way, in handling it the way she did, she's not much better morally than the person who made the comment to begin with, even if that person is fictional.
And also, either way, Meghan Markle is a fabulously rich and famous person who has gone to great lengths to be both of those things, rich and famous, and who now wants to have her mansion and cry in it too.
She gets away with it.
The ruse pays off because this is how victimhood works in America.
And that's the one interesting, or at least important thing to come out of this whole story and why it's worth talking about.
Because victimhood is the primary social currency in our culture today, and Meghan Markle seeks to become like the Jeff Bezos of that currency, the Bill Gates of victimhood.
She has been making, and is going to make, a career out of being a victim.
The rules of intersectionality make that possible for her.
All the royals and all the people affiliated with them are insufferable, spoiled brats.
Harry and Meghan are no different.
But Meghan is the least white, and so she gets to be the victim.
Those are the rules.
If she was in a dispute with someone who was less white than her, or who could lay claim to one of the letters in the LGBT acronym, then she'd be the villain.
The details of the dispute don't matter.
Actual right and wrong don't matter.
Intersectionality is what matters.
And lucky for her, she's publicly dumping on people who are rich and powerful, obviously, yet further down the intersectionality ladder than herself.
And that's the way the game works.
It really is that simple.
But it's important for us to see how victimhood works.
Because this is what drives the culture.
This is, as I said, the currency.
Our culture's currency is victimhood.
So she at least is demonstrating that for us.
And now I'll go back to not caring about these people again.
Let's get now to our five headlines.
Before we get to five headlines today, you know, it's so important these days, it's always
been important, but it's especially important these days to make sure that we are supporting
companies that have morals, to support companies that support us in the culture, that are working
on our side in the culture rather than undermining us even as we give them money, which is so
often the case.
And a lot of that is unavoidable.
But thankfully, there's Charity Mobile.
That's one company, at least, that fits the description of being a company with morals.
Charity Mobile, the pro-life phone company.
5% of your monthly plan price goes to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice.
New activations and eligible accounts get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping.
So that means that they're on top of the great charity that they do, the great work that they do in the culture.
There's also a really good service that you're getting as well.
No contracts, no termination fees, and there's no risk with a 30-day guarantee.
What that means is you might as well go with Charity Mobile, try it out, you're not getting locked into anything.
And I think that if you try it, you'll discover that you love it.
I've been using Charity Mobile for many months now, and I have nothing but good things to say about it.
And they've got live customer service based right here in the USA.
So that's American jobs on top of it.
But the main thing, as far as I'm concerned, you're helping to build a culture of life in America while supporting a pro-life phone company.
On top of all that, you get nationwide service on America's largest and most reliable 4G LTE network, so it's a win-win-win all the way around.
Call them at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
By the way, today is, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention, I think today is International Women's Day, I believe.
I always have it marked down on my calendar, I don't know why I forgot to mark it down this time, but big deal, International Women's Day.
So today is the beginning of International Women's Week, and it's International Women's Day, which is the beginning of International Women's Week.
And which falls in the middle of Women's History Month.
So we got all that going on.
All of that affirmation for women.
And every woman that I personally know doesn't desire any of that affirmation or care about it.
But whether you want it or care about it, there it is.
You have it.
You are affirmed, ladies.
All right.
Number one, Charles Blow, New York Times columnist.
wrote a piece a few days ago defending the cancellation of Dr. Seuss and adding a few more people to cancel, to the burn pile.
Not really people, actually.
Now we're going to cartoons.
We've done Dr. Seuss, cancelling Dr. Seuss books, and we've already done The Muppets.
So they're cancelled, but they're puppets.
So we've gone from there, and now we're going all the way to the cartoon characters.
He also called for the cancellation of Speedy Gonzales and Pepe Le Pew, both of Looney Tunes fame.
Now, it's been an interesting reaction to both of these things, because he mentioned that Speedy Gonzales is insulting, because it's a Hispanic stereotype.
And now there have been a lot of Latino people coming out, including celebrities.
Gabriel Iglesias, who's the Hispanic comedian, he's going to be voicing Speedy Gonzales in the new Space Jam.
And he came out and they said, we love Speedy Gonzales.
Which, why?
Yeah, why wouldn't you?
If you're a Hispanic child growing up, especially back when Looney Tunes was more popular, why wouldn't you love Speedy Gonzales?
He's the hero, he's one of the good guys, right?
If I remember my Looney Tunes mythology, if I'm getting it correct, then he's always one of the good guys, speaking as Alice is.
So what's the problem exactly?
You can say, oh, it's a stereotype, it's a caricature.
Well, it's a cartoon!
Of course it's both of those things!
Yosemite Sam is a caricature.
Elmer Fudd is a caricature.
But isn't it also representation?
Isn't that what we want?
See, the left can never make up its mind.
Are we doing, are we getting rid of all of these representations of minority characters and minority culture?
Are we getting rid of all that stuff?
Or should we have more of it?
Which is it?
It can't really be both.
So Speeding Gonzalez would seem to be representation.
You would think it'd be the kind of thing that the left would celebrate, but we were told we have to cancel him.
And also Pepe Le Pew.
Who, Charles Blow argues, normalizes rape culture.
Because, as you remember, if you can think back to watching Looney Tunes, Pepe Le Pew,
you know, a rather, a skunk who, you know, has voracious sexual appetites,
and is always pursuing in particular, I think it was a black and white cat that he always,
that he always confuses with a skunk, and he's always pursuing this female cat.
The thing is, he always loses.
She always gets away.
And he's not the good guy.
We're not supposed to empathize.
The message in Looney Tunes isn't that we should empathize with Pepe Le Pew.
He's absurd.
It's ridiculous.
The kids watch that and they think it's ridiculous.
They laugh at it.
Which is a good message.
Now, the main message, because it's a cartoon, it's Looney Tunes, the main message is, this is all silly and ridiculous, and don't take it too seriously.
But if you are going to take it seriously, then the real, then if you're looking for a more serious message, then the message you would take is that his behavior is bad.
Don't act like that.
Which is why, I could be wrong, but in spite of Charles Blow's claims, I don't think it's very often that you hear of sex offenders who cite Pepe Le Pew as one of their primary influences.
Could be wrong, I haven't looked into this, haven't researched it, but I'm guessing that if I did, you're gonna very rarely find a real life rapist or sex offender who says that he got into this life because he watched a lot of Pepe Le Pew cartoons as a child.
And by the way, if we're finding a reason for Pepe Le Pew to be offensive, shouldn't it be that he's a stereotype of the French?
If he's offensive for any reason, isn't that it?
He's a French rapist skunk.
If it's offensive to anyone, wouldn't it be offensive to French people?
Speedy Gonzales is a hero, you know?
He's one of the protagonist characters.
Pebula Pugh's a bad guy, basically, a rapist, or attempted, a skunk, and he's French.
But no, see, that can't be offensive, because French people are white.
Stereotypically, they're white.
So that's okay.
We gotta find another reason for Pepe Le Pew to be offensive and this is it.
And it doesn't stop there.
So we are now officially doing a Me Too with Pepe Le Pew.
Pepe Le Pew is getting Me Too'd.
A cartoon character.
You thought they would stop at people, but no, no, no.
Now we're going to cartoon characters.
And the Hollywood Reporter has this.
It says, the controversial Looney Tunes skunk cartoon character, Pepe Le Pew, was scrubbed from the LeBron James, the new LeBron James Space Jams.
Space, Space Jam.
Space Jam 2 is coming out, we just mentioned.
Speedy Gonzales is good.
Still is going to be in Space Jam 2, as far as we know.
But Pepe Le Pew has been removed from Space Jam 2.
Now, they claim that this decision was made a year ago, so not directly in response to this New York Times piece.
That's what they claim, anyway.
But one way or another, he's being taken out, presumably because he normalizes rape culture and he's offensive.
And not because he's offensive to French people.
Number two, the New York Post has this.
Spring break partying could spell the perfect storm for triggering the spread of new coronavirus variants across the U.S., according to experts.
Dr. Peter Hotez says it's the perfect storm.
Hotez said he feared that college kids hitting the party scene in Florida could accelerate the spread of highly contagious UK variant, which is known as B.1.1.7.
He said, quote, you've got the B.1.1.7 variant accelerating in Florida.
You've got all these 20 year old kids.
None of them are going to have masks.
They're all going to be drinking.
They're having pretty close intimate contact.
And then after all that's done, they're going to go back to their home states and spread the B.1.1.7 variant.
This is the New York Post story, but there are dozens of them in the media right now.
So we really are going to do the spring break freak out for a second year in a row.
We're going to do this all over again.
You may recall, back last March and April, we did the exact same thing.
Spring breakers went down in Florida, we were told that this is a disaster in the making, it's going to be a bloodbath, so many of these kids are going to end up sick in the hospital, they're going to die, and all these things.
And that's not actually what happened, if you recall.
We never got, from spring break, we never got the apocalypse we were promised, stemming from spring break.
And now, so if their panicking ended up being sort of a dud the first time, last year, well, now this year the virus is receding, and we're getting now into the warmer temperatures.
Millions and millions more people are immune to it, either because they already had the virus, even if they had it with no symptoms, or because they got the vaccine.
So why would there be more reason to worry this year than there was last year?
Well, there isn't, of course, but the media can't help itself.
Number three, from The Blaze, it says, a Democratic New York lawmaker introduced a bill to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners.
The sex education will reportedly be outsourced to a left-wing organization that believes, quote, sex ed is a vehicle for social change, including incorporating social and racial justice messaging into their sex ed lessons.
New York Senator Samra Brauch, a freshman Democrat from Rochester, introduced a bill to teach comprehensive sexuality education in schools, including children as young as five years old.
The bill reads, quote, each public and charter school to provide students in grades kindergarten through 12 with comprehensive sexuality education.
Her proposal, the New York Post reported that her proposal would legally link New York schools to the shifting recommendations of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
This is what's going to determine, you know, what your kids are taught in school when it comes to sex ed.
Of course, in reality, there should be no sex ed of any kind for kindergartners.
This is part of the ever-present effort to sexualize children that we see in our culture, especially in the schools.
And I always have to remind people, when we get into this conversation about sex ed, And all of the depraved and disgusting and perverted things that kids are taught, even at young ages, in modern sex ed.
And this effort to confuse them, we start introducing gender identity at very young ages, telling the little boys, hey, if you like playing with dolls, you might be a girl, that kind of thing.
But the response, in many cases, from conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, when they hear about this kind of stuff, Is, uh, well, you know, this is why we need abstinence education instead of this kind of sex education.
And my response to that is no, we don't need that either.
You know, the antidote to this kind of depraved sex education for kids is not, well, let's, let's, let's form a better version of sex ed.
No, it's neither.
None of it.
That's the answer.
Schools shouldn't be doing any of this.
You want to teach the biology of human sexuality?
Of course you teach that in biology class.
You want to teach about human anatomy and what all the different parts of the body do, including, you know, the sex organs?
Well, then at the appropriate age, you teach that in science class.
But in terms of a message about sexuality, especially an ethical or moral message, A message about how to engage in sex and when to do it and all that kind of stuff doesn't belong in the schools.
No, I don't want, if I sent my 12-year-old to middle school, to public middle school, which I wouldn't, but if I did, I don't want their health teacher telling them how to use birth control or condoms.
But I also don't want the health teacher to get up there and tell my son about the wonders of chastity and abstinence.
Because I can do that.
And that's a really important lesson that I do not trust the schools to impart.
That's something that you as a parent need to do.
We cannot farm everything out.
We can't outsource every aspect of parenting to the schools.
This is a big one.
These may be uncomfortable conversations that parents don't want to have with their kids, but if you don't, then school's going to do it, and I wouldn't trust the school to do it.
So that's the answer.
Get all this stuff out of the school.
Number four, Arthur Kaplan, who's a professor of, quote, medical ethics, had some medical ethics advice for us on CNN yesterday.
Let's listen to that.
Well, remember, vaccine passports or even vaccine requirements do depend on access.
It's hard to impose anything unless you are pretty sure that somebody can get a vaccine.
So I think it'll be a little while before we see this, let's say, within the U.S.
But there are going to be communities and areas of the country where it starts to make sense due to high availability of vaccine to say, you want to come back to work in person?
Got to show me a vaccine certificate.
You want to go in a bar, a restaurant?
Got to show me a vaccine certificate.
I think there will be some inequality in the US, but hopefully it will wash out quickly as the supplies increase very rapidly.
And I think they're going to.
It also gives you an incentive to overcome vaccine hesitancy.
Some people are not sure still whether they want to do the vaccine, but if you promise them more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that's a very powerful incentive to actually achieve fuller vaccination.
It will never cease to amaze me to see how quickly the bodily autonomy argument has just gone out the window.
This has been pretty much the entire argument for abortion.
It's all the left really has when it comes to abortion, and even there it's not a good argument.
But the personhood argument, you know, they've lost all of that.
Because we, it's modern science, very clear.
And you really didn't even need modern science to tell you that the being in the womb of a mother is a human child.
What else could it be?
What other species could it be?
Of course it's a living.
What else would it be?
Dead?
Inanimate?
So they've lost that.
That doesn't mean they won't keep trying to make claims, but it's a losing argument.
So they go over to bodily autonomy, which is why I'm engaging with the bodily autonomy argument for abortion all the time.
But that argument, in order for that to even begin to work for abortion, you have to take an absolutist view on bodily autonomy.
Where you say, I can do whatever I want with my body because it's my body.
That's the only way that it even... And it still doesn't work.
Because the problem is, there's someone else's body immediately concerned here.
With abortion, it's not really at all what you're doing with your body, it's what you're doing to someone else's body.
That's the issue.
That's the whole debate.
Should you be allowed to dismember your child in the womb?
Stab them in the heart with a poison needle?
Should you be allowed to do that?
Whatever your answer is, that is an answer you are giving in relation to someone else's body, not your own.
But even so, in order for this argument to even get started, then you have to take the absolutist view that I can do whatever I want with my body, even to the extent that, you know, if someone is reliant on my body, I can kill them.
I can actually, you know, violate their own body to the extent of destroying them because they depend on my body.
So that's the absolutist hard line you have to draw in order to get the wheels in motion for that argument.
But now we've just tossed all that out the window.
With masking laws, you know, the idea of vaccine passports, you just heard from this medical ethicist.
By the way, I don't know his view on what his medically ethical view is on abortion.
I could guess what it is.
But for the left generally, you know, vaccine passports, masking laws, Okay, if you want to argue for those things, I'm not in favor of them.
But if you want to do that, then you are forfeiting bodily autonomy.
Out the window.
Because in this case, you are telling someone what they have to do with their own body.
Not only that they have to wear a certain thing across their face, but now you're telling them they have to inject a substance into their body.
You want to make that argument?
Go ahead.
But bodily autonomy is done.
You can't go back to that.
All right, number five, also from CNN, it says, the risk of death from COVID-19 is about 10 times higher in countries where most of the population is overweight, according to a report released Wednesday by the World Obesity Federation.
Researchers found that by the end of 2020, global COVID-19 death rates were more than 10 times higher in countries where more than half the adults are overweight.
10 times higher.
Compared to countries where fewer than half are overweight.
The team examined mortality data from Johns Hopkins University and the World Health Organization and found that of 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February, 2.2 million were in countries where half of the population is overweight.
In an analysis of data and studies from more than 160 countries, the researchers found that COVID-19 mortality rates increased along with countries' prevalence of obesity.
And this is important too, they note that the link persisted even after adjusting for age and national wealth.
Now, this is not new information.
We already knew this.
We knew this back at the very beginning, that obese people were especially susceptible.
We knew elderly people and obese.
And if you're elderly and overweight, then you're really in the danger zone.
So we knew that, but this link, it's something that we've known.
It's been reported here and there, kind of scattershot.
But it hasn't been emphasized the way that it should be.
And the reason that it should be is very clear.
We want to make it clear.
If you are an overweight person, especially if you're older, you've got to be extra special careful about this.
But the reason why the link has not been emphasized, I think two reasons.
One is just general fear mongering.
You know, the media wants everyone to be equally as frightened by the virus.
But also political correctness.
They don't want to be accused of victim blaming if they go and say that obese people are more likely to die of the virus, which is true, but it sounds like you're blaming them for being obese or all these things.
So political correctness, hyper drive, that's why the link is not emphasized.
It's the same thing that happened with the AIDS virus.
And even now, We are often told, or it's strongly implied, that AIDS is an equal opportunity virus.
It doesn't discriminate whether you're heterosexual or homosexual.
You're just as likely to get it.
That's not true at all.
The majority of people who get the virus are homosexual.
And then the next biggest chunk would be intravenous drug users.
And then if you put that big chunk aside, you're left with a very, very small number of cases.
And then from there, if you take medical mishaps out of it, blood transfusions or medical equipment that wasn't properly sterilized, you take that out of it and you're left only with heterosexual people who do not use drugs and haven't had any kind of medical mishap.
How many of them are getting the AIDS virus as a percentage?
Very, very, very vanishingly small percentage.
And that has always been known too.
But that reality is de-emphasized in order to send the message that everyone, you know, is equally as susceptible, which also is not true.
And there's a real consequence to de-emphasizing the truth here.
Because with AIDS, you know, if you're homosexual, engaging in this kind of sexual activity, there are extra risks that come with it.
You want people to know that.
And when it comes to coronavirus, if you're obese and you're also older, there's a reason for you to be even more concerned than everyone else.
That's not to single anybody out or victim blame.
It's to keep people safe.
And also to simply tell people the truth.
And the truth still matters, I think.
Even if the media would disagree.
Let's get now to our reading the YouTube comment section.
We've got a couple here pertaining to the show on Friday.
Sebastian says, I'm 15 and even I don't think 16 year olds should vote.
I have to say, I saw a lot of comments just like this.
Kids that are 15, 16, 17 saying, yeah, look, I'm in it right now.
Don't let me vote.
Which I appreciate.
I appreciate the honesty there.
OJH says, I looked up Mick Eligot's Pool, Dr. Seuss book, and read it online.
There's a mention of Eskimo fish with little fur coats.
Unfortunately, I am now a racist bigot as a result of reading it.
We're going to talk more about that in a moment.
But yes, if you actually go now, it's hard to do this now because these books have been erased.
But if you have a copy of one of the banned Dr. Seuss books, And you go pick them up.
You know, several of these books, you're going to have a hard time figuring out what was offensive about them.
And Mick Eligot's Pool is certainly one of them.
As far as I can tell, and I had the same thing, I had to go back and read it.
I found it online anyway.
Or I could, something I could, you know, the text online that I could read.
As far as I could tell.
What was offensive about that book and why it's on the banned list is because it says the word Eskimo.
We'll talk more about that in just a second though.
Doflamingo Don Quixote, great username, says, Matt, could you give us a breakdown of what makeup products you use?
I'm aspiring to be TikTok famous, but I need to not look like a corpse.
Thank you.
That, look, I admitted You know that I wear makeup on camera?
Anyone on camera does.
I admitted that.
That's as far as I go.
We're not at the point now where I'm giving makeup tutorials.
I also have no idea.
I sit down in the makeup chair and I, you know, it's like, don't ask, don't tell.
Just do what you have to do.
We're going to pretend this isn't happening.
So I don't know what they put on my face.
They put something on there.
And finally, Not Important says, does anyone else salute Matt when he says Godspeed to end the show?
Well, I assumed everyone was doing that.
I would demand that kind of reverence and respect, in fact.
And obviously, if you are not saluting me at the end of the show, then you are banned.
Now a quick word from our very good friends at Rock Auto.
Listen, as more and more of our life migrates online, that's not always a good development, but one area where I think it is good is with rockauto.com and shopping for auto parts, because there's no real advantage to getting into your car Which you may be having problems with in the first place.
That's why you need the auto parts.
You go down to the auto parts store and you're going to spend more money.
There's not going to be as good of a selection.
You're going to have to answer a lot of questions you may not know the answer to.
No real advantage when you've got RockAuto.com in your pocket, at your desk, on your computer.
RockAuto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear like airlines do.
They're a family business.
They've been doing this online for 20 years.
And they're always going to give you the best price possible.
If you find it at rockauto.com, whatever you're looking for, and you'll most likely find it there, what you also can know is that it's the best price you're gonna find.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need at rockauto.com.
So, go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck, write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box, so they know that we sent you.
Well, Also, what if the police could go on strike at a moment's notice?
Firefighters, the military, imagine the kind of disruption and chaos that that would create.
These are the dangerous scenarios associated with public sector unions, and in the latest episode of the new series, Debunked, Ben Shapiro breaks down all of the known lies and platitudes that most people are fed with regard to unions.
The latest episode, which dropped this past weekend, covers all of this and more, but You have to be a Daily Wire member to watch.
So go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code debunked to get 25% off your new membership.
That's code debunked for 25% off at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we're going to cancel Republican Congressman and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
McCarthy is canceled today for engaging in what I would call right-wing virtue signaling.
Right-wing virtue signaling is a special sub-genre of virtue signaling, popular among Republican politicians, wherein the signaler jumps into a culture war issue in the hollowest, most superficial, and corniest way possible in order to signal to other conservatives that he's down with the cause, even though he isn't really doing anything to help the cause at all.
Now, perhaps the greatest possible example of this is what Kevin McCarthy did a few days ago when he filmed himself reading the Dr. Seuss book, Green Eggs and Ham.
Let's check this out.
Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss.
I am Sam.
I am Sam.
Sam I am.
That Sam I am, that Sam I am, I do not like that Sam I am.
Do you like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.
Now leaving aside the fact that his reading voice for children's books needs a little work, reading children's books is all about, and I've done a lot of it in the last seven years, it's all about rhythm and cadence.
There's a certain poetry to it, especially with a Seuss book.
And all of that is lost in McCarthy's rendition.
And it can be cancelled just based on that alone.
I'm very picky about the reading of children's books.
But never mind that.
The real point is that this is the cringiest and most pointless display we've seen from an elected Republican in a long time.
Why is he reading Green Eggs and Ham?
That isn't one of the banned Dr. Seuss books.
Nobody has taken issue with Green Eggs and Ham.
It doesn't require any courage or boldness to read that book.
It's totally irrelevant.
It's a signal.
Not to the left.
This is not a signal to the left saying, I will oppose you.
I'm not afraid of you.
That's a good signal to send.
But the left doesn't give a damn if you read Green Eggs and Ham.
No, this is a signal to the right.
And the signal is supposed to be, I'm on your side.
Look at me.
I've joined this latest culture war kerfuffle.
Aren't I such a brave boy?
But the real message he sends is, I am afraid to say anything interesting or valuable about this situation.
So instead, I'm going to read from this children's book that nobody cares about.
What he could have done would have required some guts, not much, but a little.
And would have also had some value is if he had read one of the banned Dr. Seuss books.
And the point of doing that would be first to just defy the woke mob for the sake of defying it.
And second, to demonstrate how political correctness and wokeness have gone way overboard and driven everyone insane.
He could have read, for example, as mentioned earlier, Mick Eligot's Pool, which is an actual banned Dr. Seuss book, and the only reason it's banned, so far as I can tell, is that it uses the word Eskimo.
That's it.
That's really it.
But Eskimo is not a slur.
It's not a pejorative.
We don't have to bleep it out when I'm saying it right now.
Eskimo.
You can say that.
It's not offensive.
Now, it may not be the popular term to use these days, but it's not a slur.
And the idea that it's so offensive that it needs to be taken off of eBay and Amazon and taken out of publication by its publisher because it said Eskimo is simply ludicrous.
Now, it would have been interesting if McCarthy had read that book in order to make that point.
But then he would have had to say the word Eskimo, and that would be a little too edgy for his taste.
I don't want to say that.
I don't want to say the E-word.
Or he could have read one of the titles with offensive imagery and showed the imagery on camera.
Now, that would have been interesting.
And he could have made the point that people 80 years ago, you know, didn't have the same sensibilities that we do today.
We can't hold them to a modern standard or view their work through an entirely modern lens.
He could have done that, and that would have been worthwhile and bold and interesting.
But instead, he read Green Eggs and Ham, a book that is not in dispute and that nobody is talking about.
Yet reading it is the safe, easy, uncontroversial way of dipping your toe into the culture war battle of the moment.
And that's all we get from elected Republicans.
A bunch of toes dipping barely below the surface.
And unfortunately, people fall for this stuff.
He tweeted that out and it got like 40,000 or more, I think, likes and a bunch of retweets on Twitter.
You know, Pete, for what reason?
I know that among Republican voters, they might say, well, at least he's doing something.
It's better than nothing.
No, it's not better than nothing.
This is nothing.
And there's going to be a lot of this sort of thing from here on out.
Remember, the Republicans had total control of the government for two years.
They had the White House and the Senate for four years.
During that time, they did basically nothing.
They passed a few tax cuts, plenty of cable news hits, But they didn't advance the conservative agenda in any significant way.
They didn't even try to advance it, in fact.
They complain now about, you know, big tech censorship.
Well, why didn't you do something about it when you had the power to do it?
The same question could be posed about every subject the Republicans whine about today.
They could have passed actual laws, set policy, but they preferred, as they always prefer, to bide their time until they're out of power so they can get back to writing big rhetorical checks that they'll never have to cash.
That's their specialty.
Always has been.
Stand on the sideline and talk a big game.
But the moment their number gets called and they're out on the field in the starting lineup, all they do is fall to the turf and curl up in the fetal position, yelling, please don't hurt me!
Then when they're back on the sideline, they're immediately back to, you know, talking smack.
Man, I wish they'd put me in there.
I'd run somebody over, I tell ya.
The same old song and dance, over and over again.
I'm not impressed with it.
Not fooled by it.
I hope you aren't either.
And that is why Kevin McCarthy is cancelled.
Green Eggs and Ham is not cancelled.
It's a great book.
And if the mob ever does come for Green Eggs and Ham, I will be there to fight to the death on its behalf.
But right now, that is not the subject that we're talking about.
So again, Kevin McCarthy is cancelled.
And we'll leave it there today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, 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 Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Joe Biden showers money on Americans, according to the Washington Post.
Top New York Democrats call on Andrew Cuomo to resign.
And Meghan Markle whines about being a princess to Oprah.
