Ep. 708 - Electing A Trans Governor To Own The Libs
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, many Republicans rejoice as Caitlyn Jenner runs for governor. They are very excited about the prospect of a Republican transgender governor. But can the Right defeat the Left by fully embracing and accepting its fundamental claims about gender? Consider me skeptical. Also Five Headlines including the family of Ma’Khia Bryant calling for police reform, a Democrat Representative admits to emotionally abusing her daughter, the Oscars announce the winners but nobody’s ever heard of any of them, and a new study reveals that the 6-foot social distancing guideline is totally arbitrary and baseless.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, many Republicans rejoice as Caitlyn Jenner runs for governor.
They're very excited about the prospect of a Republican transgender governor, but can the right defeat the left by fully embracing and accepting its fundamental claims about gender?
Consider me skeptical.
Also, five headlines, including the family of Micaiah Bryant calling for police reform.
A Democrat representative admits to emotionally abusing her daughter and terrorizing her over thoughts of impending doom because of climate change.
The Oscars announced the winners, but nobody's ever heard of any of them.
And a new study reveals that the six-foot social distancing guideline is totally arbitrary and baseless, they tell us now after a year.
All of that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Reading now from a CNN article announcing the big news, it says, quote, Jenner, a longtime Republican, filed paperwork in Los Angeles County and announced her intent on her website.
Again, I'm reading from the article on CNN.
This is their language, not mine.
Her bid is one of the most high-profile campaigns by a transgender person in the country.
California has been my home for nearly 50 years.
I came here because I knew that anyone, regardless of their background or station in life, could turn their dreams into reality, Jenner said in a news release.
But for the past decade, we have seen the glimmer of the Golden State reduced by one-party rule that places politics over progress and special interests over people.
Sacramento needs an honest leader with a clear vision.
Jenner, who described herself in the announcement as a disruptor and denounced Newsom's impact on the Golden State, began exploring an entry into politics early this year and has been working with a close group of GOP strategists to lay the groundwork for her gubernatorial bid.
Alright.
So it goes on to explain that some members of Trump's team are now working with Jenner.
Also, some former Romney advisors are on board.
Romney and Trump famously hate each other, but it's nice to see that the two sides can come together for the sake of giving America its first transgender governor.
This is the kind of project that the modern Republican Party can work together to achieve.
They can't do literally anything else.
No matter how much power you give them, but this they can do.
Well, they can't even do this, actually, because he almost certainly isn't going to win, so they're either going to fail at this.
As far as qualifications to hold elected office, Jenner has none to speak of.
He also has almost no qualifications to be considered a conservative.
We're talking about conservative here only in the sense of supporting tax cuts and using phrases like the free market and fiscal responsibility.
Enough of the special interests.
But when you go even just an inch below the surface, Jenner is, of course, nearly as liberal as any other liberal in California.
The only good thing that can be said about Jenner's run for governor is that it doesn't really matter who the governor of California is.
The state is a disaster zone, a parasitic lump affixing itself to the rest of the country, and that won't change whether the governor is an outright left-wing liberal, a Democrat, or a left-wing Democrat masquerading as a milquetoast Republican.
The result is the same.
That's why the real significance of Jenner's run is how it's been received by those on the right and what that reception says about contemporary conservatism.
From what I've seen, many self-professed conservatives have celebrated the news, believing apparently that having a prominent trans Republican on the team will enhance our cultural credentials.
The idea is that we can play the left's own game and beat them at it.
It's only days until we start hearing Republicans say things like, see, Democrats are the real transphobes.
Ha, gotcha now, libs.
In the process, many conservatives have fully adopted the language rules of the left, making sure, for instance, to use female pronouns when referring to Jenner, who is, by the way, a male.
One example, a small right-wing account on Twitter put out a tweet with a picture of Nikki Haley and Caitlyn Jenner standing next to each other and said that the photo illustrates the downfall of the GOP.
Dean Cain responded saying that the tweet was funny and he was laughing at it.
Nikki Haley herself responded to Cain with this.
Interesting.
I don't find it funny.
Caitlyn came to see me at the UN and I appreciated her conservative views.
I will continue to think that the Republican Party is one of conservative views by all people, regardless of their demographics.
To me, that's not funny.
It's America.
No, I agree with the last part, at least.
This isn't funny.
I mean, maybe it's a little funny.
There's, of course, some delicious irony in the idea that the first female governor of California could be a white male Republican.
And if Jenner's run was embraced solely in that spirit, in the spirit of trolling, I could almost support it.
But that's not what's going on here.
At least not among prominent people on the right, those in positions of power and influence.
Nikki Haley isn't trolling anyone.
The Republican advisers in Jenner's orbit aren't trolling.
And that's why I find it necessary to make two points here.
Two really important points.
Putting aside the trolling element of this, because again, and I know that's going to be the response, isn't it funny?
I get it, yeah, that's kind of funny.
But there are two things that are more important.
Number one.
Language matters.
The left realizes this, and they've always realized it.
That's why they spend so much time controlling and policing language.
We're so dumb that we've always chalked this up to leftists being a bunch of over-emotional snowflakes.
That's not it.
The emotional snowflake stuff is a tactic.
And an effective one.
The point is to shape what people think by shaping the words they use.
Because that's how our minds work.
Now, when you use the word she in reference to a man, like Jenner, you are agreeing with the proposition that the person you're referencing is a woman.
That's what you're saying.
When you say she, what you're communicating is that the person you're talking about is a woman.
Now, you may not believe that yourself, but you're saying it.
You're lying.
You are participating in the lie.
You are, in fact, participating in the entire lie of left-wing gender theory.
You are adopting and agreeing with all of it.
Through that one simple word, she, you have just conceded the left's entire agenda with respect to gender and sex.
And by conceding that, You've conceded essentially everything.
Because gender theory rests on the philosophical premise of relativism.
Which, you know, there's no objective truth, truth is whatever I feel it is, whatever I think it is.
That's gender theory.
If a man feels like he's a woman, thinks he's a woman, then he's a woman.
That can't be true?
Unless relativism is true.
Of course, as we know, relativism can't be true, because the whole point of relativism is that nothing is really true.
Yet, if you say relativism is true, then you are defeating relativism just simply by saying that.
But, whatever.
The point is, relativism serves as the foundation of the left's basic ideas and doctrines.
All of them.
By using the words they tell you to use, you give up the whole game.
You give it all up.
If you think I'm making too much of it, then consider again why they make so much of it.
Why is it so important to them that you use certain words?
And we can't even use the, oh, it's polite excuse.
Now, I don't think it's actually polite to tell a lie, to participate in a lie, to participate in a person's delusion.
I don't think that that's polite at all.
But most of the time, we're talking about occasions when you're referring to someone, but they're not there.
You're talking about them when they're not even around.
Polite?
There's no courtesy there.
But even in that case, especially in that case, the left makes it very clear.
This is the word you're supposed to use.
Why do they care so much?
Well, this is why.
It's not because they're emotional.
It's because they know that if you can control the words people are using, you control the ideas that people have.
You control reality.
But this has been conservatism's M.O.
for a long time.
Conservatives think they can concede all of the most fundamental points, adopt the left's whole philosophical framework, and yet still win in the long run by electing Republicans who will cut taxes and talk about limited government.
It doesn't work.
It's never worked.
It cannot ever work.
Second point.
You can't beat the left at its own game.
Okay.
Leftists aren't thrown for a loop by the fact that there's a trans Republican.
All these dummy conservatives saying, ah, see, we got him now.
What are they going to do this time?
Got him backed into a corner.
We got it.
There's a trans Republican.
They, they, they have no problem simply saying that Jenner doesn't count, that he's a traitor to the cause, that he has internalized transphobia or whatever.
They've got plenty of things.
They've got plenty of stock answers in these kinds of situations.
Now, it might be fun for a while when the campaign gets going to accuse Democrats of being transphobic if they criticize gender.
But gender, but that tactic doesn't actually work or achieve anything.
Now, conservatives often try the same thing with race.
Democrats accuse Republicans of being white supremacists.
And so Republicans, ever lacking in imagination, respond by saying, no, we aren't.
You guys are the real white supremacists.
It's an easy response, but it achieves nothing.
And I'll tell you why.
Because you cannot beat someone at a game they invented where the rules can be changed by the inventors at any time.
It's impossible.
This is their game.
They own it.
They make the rules.
And the number one rule is you can't win.
That's the number one rule.
No matter what you do or say, if you choose to play that game with them, you cannot win.
So when it comes to anything, but now we're talking about gender theory, the left's ideas about gender.
If you decide to dive in and say, all right, I'll play this game.
I'll show you how it's done.
No, you lose.
You've adopted their whole framework.
You've agreed with their underlying premise.
You lose.
We lose.
Everything.
If there is any winning at this point, it's by refusing to play that game.
And one way to refuse to play the game is by using words in the way that they're supposed to be used.
Conveying truth when you speak.
That's what we should be doing.
Refuse to play the game.
All right, let's get now to our five headlines.
You know, one of the great pleasures of parenthood is listening to your kids have conversations, at least at a certain age.
And I mean conversations, not when they're bickering and fighting and that sort of thing, because they do a lot of that.
But sometimes you'll catch them just having normal, as normal as they can, conversations Which could be really funny.
So on Saturday, I had the boys, my seven-year-old son, my four-year-old son, in the truck with me.
We were driving to, I don't know where, I can't remember now.
But they had this long discussion slash debate about how it is that people who are currently dead can be seen on TV.
My oldest son had just recently learned Because we were watching something, and I remember we were watching, and there was an actor on TV, and he was asking me about that person.
I said, oh, that person's dead.
And you could just see the wheels turning, and my son's like, wait, dead?
I'm looking at him right there.
So they were debating this, how is it possible?
And what they settled on, the answer they settled on, is that anytime you see a dead person on television, that's a robot.
And so the people who make movies, they have some sort of laboratory where they go and they create robots of the dead people.
So the dead people can keep appearing in movies and TV.
Good answer.
You know, so working your way through a problem, not coming to the right conclusion, but that's, it's this critical thinking in its earliest stages.
And this is another one of those times where the kid version of reality is so much cooler than the real version.
I feel kind of bad because one day they're going to realize that no, it's not it's not quite that cool or nearly as cool as that, unfortunately.
All right, number one, CNN reports on what exactly led to the altercation with Micaiah Bryant, where she tried to stab someone to death.
And I think this was that this was the news on.
I'm pretty sure we already had this news on Friday, we already knew this.
But, Ma'Khia Bryant and two other young women argued over a messy house and unmade bed before a fight that ended with a fatal police shooting of a black teenager.
So, the story we were getting all of last week, right, was that someone had come, she was defending her life, someone had come to jump her or something like that and she was defending herself.
Well, we knew from the footage that that wasn't true.
And now we know it's this, according to people who were there, that some former foster kids had come and they were getting into an argument and they were accusing Micaiah Bryant of not making her bed and of not being neat.
And so apparently she grabbed a butcher knife and tried to stab them to death for that.
And the way that CNN and the media presents this, it's as if they think it makes Micaiah Bryant more sympathetic and the police less sympathetic.
But I don't think that's the case at all.
Now again, as I said all last week, when a 16-year-old kid, and they are a kid at 16, I believe that's why I don't want to lower the voting age to 16.
Unlike the left, you know, Whether or not a 16-year-old counts as a kid really depends on the situation.
For me, 16-year-old is a kid.
So, a 16-year-old kid is at the point where you accuse them of not making their bed properly, and they try to stab you to death?
Well, that says a lot, not just about them, but people around them.
A lot of that blame.
If you've got a 16-year-old kid who flies into a homicidal rage over anything, but especially over that, that's a statement about their family life, apparently.
It's not a statement about the cops.
But mostly about the parents and speaking of which, ABC News has a story about Bryant's family and their calls for, you know, Bryant's family is now coming out and they're calling for, they're weighing legal action, of course, and I'm sure they're thinking about what lawsuits they can file, but also they're calling for reform to the police.
That's what they're thinking here, that obviously our daughter, Tried to stab someone to death over an argument over a messy room, and that means that the police need to be reformed.
So here's a story from ABC News.
Tonight, growing cries to reevaluate police use-of-force policies in the wake of the shooting death of Ohio 16-year-old Micaiah Bryant.
We've recently had shooting after shooting after shooting, so maybe the training's wrong.
Protesters hitting the streets again today, the fifth straight day since the shooting happened.
Bryant's family telling me the police need to change.
They have the power right now to put some changes in the book.
Regardless of the situation, we have to be able to do better and protecting life.
This week, the Columbus Division of Police released body camera footage of the incident.
Officer Nicholas Reardon firing four shots as Bryant appears to lunge at the woman in pink with a knife.
She had a knife.
She just went at her.
Columbus officers are authorized to fire their weapons if there's a deadly threat.
An independent investigation is now underway to determine whether the shooting was justified.
Fast facts cannot come at the expense of complete, accurate facts.
But while we push for answers and transparency and accountability, we can't lose sight of the history of trauma and pain in our black community.
Yeah, we actually with this story, we can lose sight of that.
We can.
It's got nothing to do with anything.
So even a lot of the people who have basically the right perspective on this particular case, Which, of course, the right perspective is that the cop did nothing wrong and is a hero for saving someone's life and is about to be stabbed to death.
But even the people who are, many of the people who are basically there, most of them still feel the need to throw in something like you just heard there.
Yeah, the cop didn't do anything wrong, but we can't lose sight of the overall issue of systemic racism and the trauma and pain of the black community.
Now, we could talk about systemic racism and whether that exists, which it doesn't, another time.
But for this issue, we can actually lose sight of all of that because it's got nothing to do with anything.
This was an isolated circumstance wherein a police officer walked onto a scene and like five seconds later, faster than that probably, there was a woman trying to stab people to death.
And so he responded.
He's not stopping to think about the trauma and pain of the black community.
He's not thinking about systemic racism.
He's responding to the situation.
And as far as trauma and pain goes, having one or two people stabbed to death in broad daylight out in their driveway, I would say there might be some trauma and pain to come from that.
Meanwhile, just to show you how, if you didn't already realize, How absurd.
The anti-police people, in order to make their case.
Most of the time, they're not even going to give you the numbers.
They're not going to give you the statistics at all.
It's going to be all emotion, all the time.
Because when you look at the numbers, of course, there's no evidence at all that there's a problem of racist cops out there executing black people.
But we're told that it doesn't matter if the stats don't show it.
I feel like You know, black American feels as though this is the reality and so it is.
Usually that's how they deal with the statistics is by not looking at them at all.
But if they do look at the statistics, then they're going to have to take them wildly out of context.
And so here's an example.
Matthew Dowd, pundit.
Tweeted this a couple days ago over the weekend.
He says, over the last 20 years, the average number of officers killed in the line of duty is 65 per year.
The average number of civilian killings by officers is 1,100 per year.
So tell me again, who is under greater threat living their lives?
Yes.
So, okay, 65 a year versus 1,100, so clearly, the answer is the civilians are under a greater threat.
If you're an idiot, and you don't stop to think about this for even two seconds, maybe that argument is convincing.
But then when you do stop and think, you think, well, wait a second.
Huh.
Aren't there a lot more civilians than there are police officers?
Like a lot more?
How many civilians do we have in this country?
How many citizens, overall, do we have in this country?
330 million or so?
Are there also 330 million police officers?
Is there one police officer for every civilian?
No, you got 330 million, give or take, citizens, not counting illegal aliens, and then 1,100 per year killed by cops.
Okay.
And then you've got, how many police officers?
I don't have the number in front of me, but it's, I think it's total like 600,000 or something.
Um, actually I do have the number in front of me.
Okay.
700,000, around 700,000 cops total in the country.
So then you run the numbers on that and what you have, um, percent killed by cops among citizens is 0.0003%.
Whereas among cops, it's .009%.
Small percentage in both, very small percentage in both cases, thankfully.
But in terms of percentages and the numbers we're dealing with, .009 is significantly higher than .0003.
So to answer Matthew Dowd's question, who's under a greater threat living their lives?
Well, the cops.
And that, of course, isn't even taking into account the circumstances Around which those 1,100 people are killed.
When you do look at those circumstances, you discover that in almost all of those cases, it's a pretty straightforward situation where you had a suspect, a violent criminal, trying to kill a police officer, most of the time by firing guns at them, shooting at them, and then they get shot in the process.
But that's how baseless the anti-cop position is.
That even if you take context out of it, and you pretend for a moment that all 1,100 people
killed by cops in a year, all of them were unarmed and totally innocent, which is not
even close to true.
But even if you pretended that was true, the numbers still wouldn't support the kind of epidemic that they're claiming.
At least in terms of percentages.
All right.
Number two, the Oscars were last night.
Didn't watch a single second of it.
And if you did, I don't know why you don't value your own time more than that.
If you didn't, then you probably don't care who won, but I'll tell you anyway.
We'll go through the list of at least a few of the winners here.
Actor in a leading role, Anthony Hopkins won for The Father.
Never heard of that.
I've heard of Anthony Hopkins.
Never heard of the father.
Actor in a supporting role.
The winner was Daniel Kaluuya for Judas and the Black Messiah.
I heard about that when it was nominated.
Don't know anything else about it.
Actress in a leading role is Frances McDormand for Nomadland.
I've heard of that.
Nobody has seen it.
No one actually knows what happens in that movie because nobody's seen it.
Actress in a supporting role, Yoo Jung Yoon.
In a movie called Minari.
I have no idea.
I have no idea what any of that means.
Animated feature film, Soul.
One, that's the Pixar movie.
I do know that one.
Cinematography, the winner was Manc.
No one has seen any of these.
Documentary, okay.
The winner for the documentary was My Octopus Teacher, which is a documentary, as it sounds there, about an octopus.
That one I have seen, and that is pretty excellent, I have to say.
A little bit strange.
I think octopuses are fascinating creatures.
And I'm big into nature documentaries.
Especially about marine life.
So I did enjoy that.
The relationship that the guy forms with the octopus is a little intense.
It's more intense than you would think a relationship between a man and an octopus would be.
But overall, really fascinating.
Of all of the nominees and winners, the only one that I've really heard of and seen is the documentary about the octopus.
Great.
The criticism here is that, well, the Oscars, these days, they only nominate these kind of artsy movies that nobody's seen, and it's very elitist, and they're not nominating the movies that everyone watches and likes.
And I agree with that criticism to an extent, but we also have to, in fairness to the Oscars, the other problem is that all of the big movies that everybody watches, all of the big tentpole blockbusters, all of them now are franchise films and superhero movies.
And almost all of those movies are total garbage and certainly don't deserve to win any awards whatsoever.
So the problem is that just a lot of really bad movies are coming out, whether they're the blockbusters or the artsy movies that only five people have seen.
All right, number three, this is pretty horrifying.
Here's Representative Katie Porter talking to Greta Thunberg.
And I'm not sure why she's talking to Greta Thunberg, but she is.
And she reveals how she, Porter, is emotionally and psychologically abusing her own daughter.
Let's listen to this.
I told my nine-year-old daughter that I was going to be speaking with you, and I said, what do you think about the climate change?
And she said, the earth is on fire, and we're all going to die soon.
And I asked her how that made her feel, and she said it made her feel angry.
What should I tell my daughter and how should I help her and the youngest generation bear the emotional toll of the actions that we're taking, fossil fuel companies are taking to destroy our planet?
Well, thank you for your question.
That's a big, big question.
And I know that there are many young people who feel angry and sad because of all the things that some people are doing.
Okay, shut up Greta.
Let me answer that.
Can I jump in here?
Let me actually answer that question for Representative Porter.
What do you tell your daughter when she says she's afraid because the earth is on fire and everyone's going to die?
Well, you lunatic, you tell her that that's not true and she's going to be okay.
That's what you tell a child when they're afraid.
Especially when they're afraid of something that legitimately isn't true.
There's nothing to think about.
It would be like if I went into my daughter's room at night because she's crying and I say, what's wrong?
And she tells me, daddy, there's monsters under the bed.
What if I were to respond, oh, there's monsters under your bed?
How does that make you feel?
It makes me feel really scared.
Yeah, it is scary.
Well, anyway, I'm going to hit the sack.
See you later.
Good luck with the monsters.
No, what you tell your daughter is, no, there's no monsters.
I'll go look.
I'll go check.
I'll fight the monsters if there's any.
Oh, no, there's no monsters.
You're okay.
Everything will be fine.
Daddy's here.
You'll be okay.
I mean, the fear that the Earth is on fire and that we're all going to die of climate change is as ludicrous as the fear that there are monsters under the bed.
But you can't blame a child for having ludicrous fears.
They're children.
And if you've told them this, then what else are they supposed to think?
I mean, unfortunately, Katie Porter's parents, or rather children, have Katie Porter as a parent.
And sadly, they're going to believe whatever Katie Porter tells them.
It's not until they're older and they're out of the house when they can start to realize that their mother was an abusive lunatic, psychologically manipulating them.
The earth is on fire.
Come on.
You know what?
I have a lot of fears for my own children, which I talk about all the time.
I worry very much about the world that they're going to live in.
I worry about the culture they're going to live in.
I worry about the country that we're leaving for them.
I worry about all of those things.
But I am not worried that climate change is going to kill them.
Not anywhere on my list of worries.
They'll be perfectly fine as far as that goes.
As far as everything else, I don't know.
But you know what?
Even my valid worries and concerns, I'm not telling my kids about that.
There are a lot of really real things out there in the world to be worried about.
There are a lot of things out there in the world that could harm my kids, could kill them, God forbid, could corrupt them, all kinds of things.
Could ruin their lives.
I mean, there's a lot of terrible things that could happen to them.
That's the reality.
I'm not telling them that.
They don't know about almost any of it because they don't need to know right now.
They're with me and my wife.
We're there to protect them.
Eventually, we won't be.
So over time, you start to introduce them to some of these realities.
But at the age of six, seven, eight, no need.
You can protect them from those realities, and you can protect them from the realities as a parent, and you can especially protect them from things that are not a reality, such as the concern that climate change is going to destroy the Earth, because it's not.
All right, speaking of things that are not a reality, this is from the New York Post.
It says, social distancing inside at 60 feet is no safer than at 6 feet.
And exposure time indoors is actually far more important, according to a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In a report that challenges widely accepted COVID-19 prevention guidelines, researchers say there's little benefit to health officials' six-foot rule, especially when wearing masks inside.
MIT engineering professor Martin Bazant said the distancing isn't helping you that much, and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at six feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors.
Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually.
During the study, researchers calculated exposure risk to the virus based on factors such as amount of time spent inside, air filtration, and circulation, according to the study.
They also looked at factors such as mask use, immunization, and respiratory activity, such as breathing, eating, and speaking.
And it's an interesting article.
You could go and read the whole thing.
So what they're saying, six foot, that's not based on anything.
You're six feet away from someone or 60 feet, basically the same thing.
And I think that was obvious to a lot of us from the beginning because they just pulled the six foot rule out of thin air.
And so why did they decide on six feet?
Well, because that was as far as they felt they could enforce.
That's all it was.
It was an enforcement calculation.
Now, whether there was any good reason to be enforcing anything at all, that wasn't considered.
It was just decided that, okay, we need to separate people and let's come up with a distance that we think we can reasonably try to enforce.
And of course, for them, reasonable includes shutting down the whole economy, destroying thousands of businesses in one fell swoop.
For them, that's a reasonable thing that they can do, and they did.
But of course they did.
Of course there was no science behind it.
They came up with this rule on the spot, early on.
I mean, what kind of studies did anyone think they could have done at that point?
You know, the irony here is, as it says in the article, the real kicker is exposure time.
It's how much time are you spending inside with someone who's infected, no matter how close you are to them.
So if you have an infected person in your family and you're in your home and you're inside with them all hours of the day, then there's a really good chance you're going to get sick no matter how close you are to them.
And what that means is that rather than all of these cities and states shutting down their parks, shutting down their playgrounds, you know, telling you that if you want to go walk the dog, you can only be out for seven and a half minutes and you got to go back inside.
Rather than doing that, they should have been, they should have been telling people, no, get outside as much as possible.
Go out to the park, open up the parks, build more parks for people, if anything.
That's what should have been done, but instead they forced everyone to stay inside, which increased exposure time, and then people got each other sick.
Brilliant, brilliant strategy.
All right, finally, this is a tweet from Senator Schumer.
He says, excited to be watching the Oscars with an ice-cold plant-based beer.
Thanks, Joe Biden.
Now, I'm not sure what this is referring to.
This must be some kind of attempt at a joke referencing some dumb thing or another.
I don't know.
Obviously, all beer is plant-based, first of all.
A meat-based beer sounds kind of interesting, but not the kind of thing you'd probably want to, you know, maybe you'd try that one, a bacon-based beer.
I don't know if that exists.
I'd try it.
Not your everyday sipper kind of beer.
But my problem is, look at this picture here.
He's in a wooden chair, sitting two feet from the screen.
Holding the beer like it's the first time he's ever held a beer in his life.
This is what happens.
And he's watching the Oscars, of all things.
Who sits in a chair like that?
You're lounging at night, you're watching TV, you're sitting in a wooden chair right next to the screen?
This is what happens when these half-humanoid automatons that we've elected to office, when they try to act like real people, this is what you end up with.
Is this.
Well done.
I guess he thinks he's dunking on conservatives there.
I'm not sure how or why, but there it is.
Well done, Chuck Schumer.
All right, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Eugene says, love you, brother.
This black American is all about personal accountability.
Yeah, if we're going to talk about LeBron James is out there shouting accountability, accountability.
I think accountability is a great idea.
I think we need more of that.
I agree with you, Eugene.
Personal accountability, first and foremost.
Well, personal accountability and another P word, parental accountability.
Those are the two forms of accountability that we need.
Another comment says, I actually saw an arrest playing out today.
The one being arrested appeared to be a black man.
He didn't resist, answered all the cops' questions, and what do you know?
He wasn't shot.
It's crazy how it almost always works out that way.
You're being arrested because you committed a crime or you're suspected of committing a crime.
You don't resist arrest, you fight the charge in court, you'll live to tell the tale in almost every case, black or white.
Another comment, we live in an era of narcissistic nature.
We've emboldened this idea of me first, and now we have multiple generations that believe the lie that they are uniquely important.
That young girl was never taught that you have to respect authority, whether you like it or not.
Yeah, Micaiah Bryant, obviously not taught to respect authority, but You know, the greater problem is that it doesn't seem like Micaiah Bryant was taught anything at all from a parenting perspective.
It doesn't seem like there was really any parental influence.
She was in foster care, after all, and her mother is living and apparently lives down the street.
So, she wasn't taught how to respect authority.
She wasn't taught anything.
And that's how you end up with a 16-year-old trying to stab someone to death over a fight over, you know, who makes the bed.
Another says, we have grown to love the polka dot shirt, Matt.
Well then that means I guess I have to stop wearing it.
You're not supposed to love it.
You're supposed to grow to hate it more and more with each passing week.
That's the punishment.
This is kind of like, I'm going through what I go through with my kids now, where your kids get to a certain age where sending them to their room isn't really a punishment anymore.
Because it just gives them a break and kind of gives them some time to themselves and they can play with their toys.
I'll think of different punishment, I guess.
But no, I'm still going to wear the polka dot shirt.
I said a year, and I'm going to do it.
Finally, another comment says, hey Matt, I'm a travel nurse on assignment in Austin, Texas right now.
I came to UT to hear you speak and unfortunately was one of the many with a ticket who couldn't get in due to the COVID restrictions.
I was upset but ultimately laughed at the irony of not being let in to hear you speak due to COVID.
I wasn't nearly as upset as the guy in front of me who drove from Houston to hear you.
Looking forward to hopefully catching you speak in the future.
Yeah, I feel terrible about that.
I heard a lot of these stories after I was done.
I was speaking at UT Austin last week.
And, um, I'm giving my speech blissfully unaware of what's going out in the hallway.
And apparently there were lots of people that were, that came out, had tickets, were turned away by the university because of COVID restrictions.
And, and just because, because what the university decided is that speaking of arbitrary guidelines, you know, we know six feet is arbitrary.
They also decided that only 99 people could be a part of the event.
99 was the cap.
Couldn't go beyond 99 people.
Uh, because we all know, right?
As long as you don't get into triple digits, once you get the triple digits, that's when COVID activates and everyone's going to get sick.
Um, but to give you an idea of, of how ridiculous this was 99 people.
Um, and what that meant was you could only have 99 people participate in the event, no matter where they were on the campus.
So for example, we had a, Really big open room right next to us where we could have had some overflow capacity, but that would count against the 99.
So if you had, if there were 99 people in the room and one person sitting in a 300 person room next door, watching it on, on a, on a TV screen or listening to it, that would, that would be above the limit according to the university, even though they're in the next room.
So those were the rules.
I apologize to all the people that got turned away.
I really do.
I hope we can get to a point soon enough where we can just do events and not have to worry about this anymore.
Quick word now from Charity Mobile.
We're about to talk about, in the daily cancellation, yet another woke company and why we should probably consider, you know, not giving our money to all these companies that hate our guts.
And if we're taking our money away from the companies that hate us, how about giving that money, some of it, to companies that actually support us in the culture, like Charity Mobile.
One company that certainly fits the description here is Charity Mobile, the pro-life phone company.
5% of your monthly plan price goes to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice.
And there's also a lot of great perks as well that you get with this company.
New activations and eligible accounts, get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping.
There's no contracts, there's no termination fees, there's no risk at all with the 30-day money-back guarantee.
So there's no reason to not at least try Charity Mobile out, see how much you love the service, and you will love it.
And by the way, they've got live customer service based right here in the USA.
You're also getting free usage alerts, you get a free app to monitor your usage, pay your bill and everything, which I've found to be really helpful.
All the while, you are helping to build a culture of life in America while supporting a pro-life phone company.
So call them at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at CharityMobile.com.
Well, another high energy episode of Candace is coming at you this Friday.
This week, Candace hosts political commentator and interviewer Dave Rubin, where they'll, of course, going to have a lot to discuss, including the recall election of California Governor Gavin Newsom and his new opponent, Caitlyn Jenner.
You can subscribe now and stream Candace live on Fridays at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, only on Daily Wire.
They get 25% off a new membership with code Candace at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation, we turn to a viral article in the Orlando Sentinel.
The piece is written by guest contributor Jonathan Van Boskirk with the headline, I love Disney World, but wokeness is ruining the experience.
And it begins this way, he says, my family and I have been loyal Disney customers for decades.
We vacation at Disney World every year.
We take a Disney cruise every year or two.
Consequently, we spend way too much money in Orlando.
Unfortunately, I'm strongly rethinking our commitment to Disney and thus Orlando.
The more Disney moves away from the values and vision of Walt Disney, the less Disney World means to me.
Disney is forgetting that guest immersion is at the core of its business model.
When I stand in Galaxy's Edge or Fantasyland, I know I'm in a theme park, but through immersion and my willingness to set the real world aside, something magical happens.
That spell is broken when the immersive experience is shattered by the real world.
And boy, has Disney been breaking the immersion.
Okay, now already we have a problem because a grown man is describing Disney World as magical.
It's arguable whether a grown man ought to be calling anything magical, unless the thing is literally magical, like if you stumble across a lamp with an actual genie inside it or something, then you could call that magical.
But certainly, that sort of sentiment should not be applied to a theme park.
I've been to plenty of theme parks, and at this point in my life, they do not put me under any sort of spell.
If I'm immersed in anything, it's the thought of how much damned money I'm spending for the privilege of standing in a series of long lines while listening to kids, other people's and my own, whine about the line, the heat, they want a snack, etc, etc.
As I said, this article went viral, and most people are criticizing the writer, but not for the reason that I'm criticizing him.
I take issue with Mr. Van Boskirk primarily because adult men shouldn't like Disney World so much, or at all.
And I've made this point before and I've been told by other adult men that I'm nothing but a curmudgeon for saying this because Disney World is the happiest place on Earth.
And how could I hate the happiest place on Earth?
Now I am indeed a curmudgeon, but even so.
A place that trademarks itself as the happiest place on earth and charges you hundreds of dollars to experience that happiness is certain to be anything but the happiest place on earth.
For me, it's not like I don't have any happy place.
For me, the happiest place on earth for me is a quiet lake at 6am with a coffee mug and a fishing rod.
Second happiest is the same lake 12 hours later with a beer instead of a coffee.
That, for me, that's the happiest.
It's quiet, it's free, it's peaceful.
The idea of trading that in for a theme park is repugnant to me on a deep and visceral level.
No way.
That's my problem with this article.
That's my problem with it.
Everyone else seems to be taking issue with this part, where he writes, quote, Recently, Disney announced that cast members are now permitted to display tattoos, wear inclusive uniforms, and display inclusive haircuts.
Disney did all of this in the name of allowing cast members to express themselves.
The problem is, I'm not traveling across the country and paying thousands of dollars to watch someone I don't know express themselves.
I am there for the immersion and the fantasy, not the reality of a stranger's self-expression.
I do not begrudge these people their individuality, and I wish them well in their personal lives, but I don't get to express my individuality at my place of business.
What's next?
Is Disney going to end the rule barring on-stage cell phone use by cast members as an infringement on self-expression?
Now, people are mocking the writer for this passage, but he's actually 100% correct about this part of it.
I personally have no stake in the uniform requirements for Disney princesses, but as a neutral third party, I can say, yes, this is stupid.
If your job is to pretend to be the Little Mermaid or whoever, then that's your job.
Nobody cares about your self-expression.
Nobody goes to Disney and pays all that money to see, you know, Sarah Johnson from Lakeland, Florida, express herself.
They're not going for that.
They want to see The Little Mermaid.
That's why they're there.
Why they go to see The Little Mermaid is a different question.
Why grown men go to see The Little Mermaid is definitely a whole separate question, but that's what they're doing.
That's what they want.
And your job is to give them what they want.
It'd be like if I worked at McDonald's and I decided that I was going to personally change the recipe of the Big Mac in order to express myself.
If I said, you know, I just, I'm giving out these Big Macs all day and I just can't, I can't communicate my inner feelings through this Big Mac recipe.
I'm going to change it.
See, the problem is that the people in the drive-thru line, they're not there to get Matt Walsh's twist on the Big Mac.
They're there for the Big Mac, the same Big Mac they've always had.
And my job is to give them that.
Again, there's the same question as to why anyone would want that product, but if you work there, it's not your place to be asking those questions.
It is not to reason why, it is but to do and die.
That wisdom from the charge of the Light Brigade applies both to military units and Disney World employees, in my mind.
So on this point, I agree with Mr. Van Bosskirk.
He continues.
More broadly, like many corporations, Disney has been politicizing its business.
Disney is in the process of taking the woke scalpel to the jungle cruise.
Traitor Sam is out because he might offend certain people.
Every grown-up in the room realizes that Traitor Sam is not a representation of reality and is meant as a funny and silly caricature.
It's no more based in racism than every Disney caricature of an out-of-touch white American dad.
Side note, no, grown-ups don't know who Traitor Sam is.
That's the grown-up perspective on this, but anyway.
The next time I ride Jungle Cruise, I will not be thinking about the gloriously entertaining puns of the skippers.
I will be thinking about Disney's political agenda.
That's a mood killer.
Disney proclaims that Splash Mountain must change because of its association with Song of the South.
Disney owns Splash Mountain, so it can do what it wants.
But if Disney screams at the top of its corporate voice, which is pretty loud, that it's changing it to appease a certain political point of view, now every time I look at that ride, I am thinking about politics.
The same with Pirates of the Caribbean.
Disney has made significant changes to Pirates of the Caribbean over the years.
Whether Disney caved to political pressure or really thought the alterations were necessary is irrelevant.
Finally, it concludes with this.
Disney World is going to lose us as customers if it continues down this path.
I don't want to have Disney World taken away from us because Disney cares more about politics than happy guests.
Disney, please return to the values and vision of Walt.
The customer experience should be the core of your business model.
Immersion should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and appeasing the Twitter mob.
Okay.
Now, I join the writer in opposing the woke-ification and PC-ification of pop culture.
I agree with the general sentiment, though again, you wouldn't have this problem if you were out on the lake, like a man.
But this man, and every other conservative, needs to understand something.
Disney, like so many other companies, hates your guts.
That is not going to change.
Disney hates you.
Despises you.
It will gladly take your money.
If you insist on pushing your money into its hand, if you continue to empty your wallet right into Disney's grubby paws, it'll be happy to oblige.
They'll put their hands out and say, go ahead, give me all your money.
But it hates you.
And giving Disney your money begrudgingly, scowling and complaining while you do it, that doesn't accomplish anything.
Money is money.
You don't achieve anything by saying, gosh darn it, Disney, I'm not happy with you.
I'm really miffed about this.
Oh, how much was that?
$646?
Okay, here you go.
Anyway, I am so displeased with you, Disney.
That message just lacks a certain weight, I guess.
The only thing that will make a difference, make a dent, is if you withhold your money completely.
Again, Disney hates the majority of its customers.
If all of those customers said, okay, well screw you too then, and took their money elsewhere, things would change.
But if you aren't willing to do that, then there's no point in complaining.
So we have to make a decision.
Okay, it's decision time.
Either we can shut up and be good and cooperative little consumers, and open our mouths and consume whatever they serve to us, Whatever heaping pile of toxic sludge they put in front of our faces, we could just dive right in.
Or we can be discerning and intentional in how we spend our money.
You know, those are the choices.
If we choose the former, then we might as well stop whining and go with the flow.
Whichever the case, it's time to choose.
Door one or door two.
The writer of this article seems to want to have it both ways, and so he is cancelled.
Also, a lot of his critics are cancelled for disagreeing with his correct points.
They disagreed with him for the wrong reasons, and so they're cancelled.
And Disney is cancelled too.
And the Disney princesses with tattoos, also cancelled.
Everyone is cancelled.
As it should be.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching, thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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 Wall 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 Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Caitlyn Jenner kicks off his campaign for governor.
The media make a golden idol out of Fauci, an actual literal golden idol.
And Elon Musk laughs about how many people will die on the first mission to Mars.
