Ep. 784 - Governor Kristi Noem Is Offended By My 'Horrible Misogyny'
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Republican governor of South Dakota has accused me of “horrible misogyny” because I criticized her. She used leftist buzzwords and even a Media Matters clip to hit me, in hopes of impressing the Left. But as always when Republicans try this kind of move, it has not worked out as she intended. We’ll talk about it today. Also, Dylann Roof’s death penalty sentence was upheld yesterday, and yet we haven’t heard any of the anti-death penalty advocates on the Left protest the decision, funny enough. And a freshman orientation seminar at a university claims that straight, white, Christians are natural oppressors. Plus, Nancy Pelosi calls for congress to pass a law that will stop hurricanes and floods from happening. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the DoorDash delivery drivers who are calling for higher wages and better tips. But do they really deserve it?
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Republican governor of South Dakota has accused me of horrible misogyny, quote unquote, because I criticized her.
She used the leftist buzzwords and even a media matters clip to hit me in hopes of impressing the left.
But as always, when Republicans try this kind of move, it has not worked out as she intended.
So there's a lot we can learn from this.
We'll talk about it today.
Also, Dylan Roof's death penalty sentence was upheld yesterday, and yet we have not heard Any of the anti-death penalty advocates on the left protest that decision, funny enough.
And a freshman orientation seminar at a university claims that straight white Christians are natural oppressors.
Plus, Nancy Pelosi calls for Congress to pass a law that will stop hurricanes and floods from happening.
I'm not sure what kind of law will do that.
And our Daily Cancellation will discuss the DoorDash delivery drivers who are calling for higher wages and better tips, but do they really deserve it?
We'll discuss that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Republican legislators in South Dakota have crafted a bill called the COVID-19
Vaccine Freedom of Conscience Act to stop employers from forcing their workers to
get the COVID vaccine.
But Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of the state, is refusing to sign it.
She argues that employees who don't want to be vaccinated can just go work somewhere else.
If you don't want to inject this substance into your body, go get a new job, she says.
Also, as she stated on Wednesday, If she dictates vaccine policy to businesses, then Joe Biden can do the same.
This is a bizarre argument as it suggests that the President of the United States is looking to the Governor of South Dakota for guidance, or as a precedent, But the President of the United States, like a true Democrat, doesn't even look to the Constitution or the Supreme Court, much less to Kristi Noem of South Dakota.
He simply does what he wants, and he enacts the policies that he prefers without any concern for what anyone did before him.
Where was the precedent for the executive branch telling all landlords across the country that they can't evict delinquent tenants?
Biden admitted that there was no precedent, that it wasn't even legal to do it, and yet he did it.
But this is the difference between Democrats and feckless Republicans.
Democrats use the power that they've been granted, and then they seize additional power that they were not granted on top of it.
Republicans oftentimes, most times I would say, will not even use the legitimate authority of the offices they hold for fear that if they act, Democrats will also act.
They'd rather let the Democrats act on their own with no response or opposition.
It's better to, you know, not get into a fight with your opponent.
Better to lay down and let them stomp you into the dust.
Because if you fight back, it might hurt even more.
That seems to be the Republican approach.
Even more than with the vaccine issue, Noem exemplified this way of thinking a few months ago when she refused to sign another Republican bill, which we talked about at the time.
This one would have banned biological males from competing in female sports.
Noem said she didn't want to extend the ban all the way into the collegiate level because if they do that, then the NCAA might, in her words, quote, punish us.
She didn't want to take a stand for science and common sense and truth and decency and reason for fear that such a stand would provoke the ire of people whose ire is constantly provoked anyway.
Also, I suspect that it's not a coincidence that Noam's view on the issue lined up perfectly with the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the bill.
Noam typically finds herself in alignment with the Chamber of Commerce like a typical Republican, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
I also was admittedly not complimenting Kristi Noem yesterday on this show, which you may have heard, when I theorized openly that her popularity on the right was due to her looks.
She's an attractive woman, especially by political standards.
And this, I said yesterday, And still say today, explains, in my opinion, why she garners all of the hype that she does.
Now, I didn't say that her looks are the sole reason why she's the governor of South Dakota.
I didn't say it's why she has achieved any political success at all.
I said that her emergence as a conservative icon on the national stage is due in large part to her appearance.
It's true that, you know, Noam never locked down her state, and a lot of people on the right were happy about that.
She garnered applause on the right for that, well-deserved applause.
I still applaud her for it.
But other Republican governors also refused to instate statewide lockdowns or statewide mask mandates, and yet many of them have not gotten the kind of attention that she attracts.
Take the Republican governor of Nebraska, Pete Ricketts.
Let's take a look at what he looks like.
Now, there's Pete Riggins.
I don't mean to insult him.
He's a fine-looking person in his own way, I'm sure, but I think he will have to work a little bit harder to get the kind of attention that Christy Noem gets.
Okay?
And the reason is obvious.
It's obvious, and yet it's one of the many obvious things we're not supposed to say out loud.
We all know that there are certain benefits and privileges that come with being a physically attractive person.
We hear a lot about privilege.
Okay, hot privilege, that's a real, that's real privilege.
And there are many scientific studies that prove this, generally and also specifically when it comes to politicians.
There are many of these privileges that come with it, especially being an attractive woman, even more so.
Now, we all know that.
Every one of us, without exception, we all know that.
And yet, if you vocally acknowledge this thing that we all know and agree with, every single one of us, you'll be condemned as a misogynist.
Now, that was my experience yesterday after discussing this subject on my show, criticizing Noam for her policies and her lack of political courage, and then suggesting that her popularity is due more to her physical features.
Media Matters, as is their custom, clipped that part of the program and posted it to their website and to Twitter.
Trying to gin up some outrage.
And the attempt fell rather flat at first.
Frankly, I was myself disappointed by their selection because I said many more objectionable things on the show yesterday, and I would have preferred if they'd chosen one of those segments instead.
I mean, I knew they were going to choose something because they always do.
And they went with that.
And my first reaction was, this is what you guys are going with?
Of all of the things I said, this?
That people are gravitating towards a particular politician because of how she looks?
That's the supposedly offensive thing?
Nobody reacted much or cared about it until Kristi Noem herself, the governor of South Dakota, took that Media Matters clip, cut it down even shorter to remove the context and the reason for my criticism, focusing only on the part where I comment on her looks, and posted it to her own Twitter page.
In fact, her official governor Twitter page.
Along with this caption, it read, quote, instead of engaging in a debate about the proper role of government and how it isn't conservative to tell people how to do business, Matt Walsh stooped to horrible misogyny.
Eyes up here, Matt.
But she wasn't done.
She then went to her personal page and posted again, this time also telling on me to my boss by tagging Ben Shapiro.
And she said, quote, Hey, Ben Shapiro, tell Matt Walsh I was roping bulls, maybe he's a steer, bigger than him when I was in my teens.
He couldn't walk a day in my shoes.
Girl power.
And she's right.
I probably wouldn't fit in her shoes.
But if she was a college athlete, I could take her place on the team according to her policies.
By the way, let's note that a steer, okay, is a castrated bull.
So that's the dig she was trying to make there, which is fine.
Okay, pretty good insult.
I'm not offended by it.
I dish it.
I can take it.
But you can't go for the ruthless insult while also tattling on me to my boss.
Hey, guess what Matt said, Ben?
And also crying about horrible misogyny.
You really gotta pick a lane, Christy.
You're either the tough-as-nails woman riding in on your horse, roping bulls, or you're a fragile feminist accusing your critics of misogyny.
It's gotta be one or the other.
Or, might I suggest, you could choose neither of those characters because they both ring false.
The rough-and-tumble girl power shtick is especially inauthentic seeing as how, you know, you'll go head-to-head with a right-wing podcast host while kowtowing to corporate interests and the LGBT lobby.
I mean, where was this backbone?
All the courage here.
Where was this when the NCAA was coming after her?
No, they'll punish us!
Not the NCAA!
I don't want to be punished!
And what about this misogyny charge?
Is it sexist?
Is it anti-woman for me to accuse Kristi Noem of benefiting politically from her physical attractiveness?
No, it isn't.
Because for one thing, again, it's true, and everybody knows that it's true.
You can argue about the extent to which it has helped, but if you tell me that it hasn't helped at all, that I'm way off in left field here, then I will know that you're either stupid or lying.
But let's pretend for a moment that the accusation is not true.
Okay?
Let's say that I am off in left field.
Well, then that would make me wrong.
It would make me unfair, perhaps, even a jerk.
It would make me many things, potentially.
And I may be all of those things.
It still wouldn't make me sexist, though, because I heap extremely harsh criticism on politicians all the time.
It's one of my favorite pastimes, and I believe it should be a favorite pastime of all red-blooded Americans.
I criticize male and female politicians alike.
I mean, go back to some of the shows where I was talking about Asa Hutchinson, Governor Asa Hutchinson, when he refused to sign the bill banning the castration of children.
Go check out some of the things I said about him.
Quite a bit harsher, in fact.
Now, is all of my criticism of politicians accurate?
I mean, most of it is, yeah.
Well, actually, all of it is, I think.
But even if it isn't, the criticism is motivated by my dislike for politicians, especially the ones that I consider to be weak, ineffectual, and dishonest.
It's not motivated by a dislike for women.
Now, it's probably pointless for me to explain all this because the explanation presupposes that the accusation was sincere and honest in the first place, which it wasn't.
Noam was using a leftist buzzword and trying to gin up left-wing outrage against me in order to make herself the victim.
And that brings us to the most important point and the reason that I'm talking about all of this.
Here we see the critical mistake that conservatives so often make, especially elected Republicans who call themselves conservative.
Noam was using a media matters clip and leftist language to hit someone to the right of her, hoping to win favorability points among people to the left of her.
There'd be no other reason to do that.
You're not going to be using media matters and using the word misogynist and attacking someone to your right if you're trying to appeal to people to your right.
No, this was a play for people to her left.
Did it work?
No, not remotely.
Check social media today to see what folks on the left are saying about the Kristi Noem versus Matt Walsh feud, and you'll find that they are in wide agreement That we're both terrible people and scum of the earth and disgraceful ignoramuses and so on.
The sympathy that Noam has gotten has come in the form of comments like this from a guy named Brian Rosenwald.
This is pretty representative of the kind of things people are saying.
He says, I think Kristi Noam is terrible and her decisions have cost people their lives, but Matt Walsh's comments were the purest form of misogyny you'll ever see.
He wouldn't say the same things about Ron DeSantis with a similar profile.
It's a firing offense, but it's conservative media.
Well, she got her wish in one respect.
People are calling for me to be fired.
And yet, and that obviously is what she wanted, that's again why she tagged my boss in a tweet.
And yet the people calling for me to be fired still say that Noam herself is a mass-murdering monster.
And she is.
In the same way that I'm a misogynist, at least.
We have seen Republicans make this mistake a thousand times.
Thousands and thousands of times.
They criticize their own side using leftist frameworks in hopes of impressing the left.
And then the whole thing just collapses on them.
And they're the only one who gets crushed in the end.
And that's the lesson that hopefully we all can learn from this.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
You know what I hate more than anything in this world?
And it's a very, very long list, as you know.
Going to the auto parts store.
I just hate the auto parts store.
And that's why I love rockauto.com.
I have a perhaps even unreasonable distaste for auto parts stores.
And why is it?
Well, because you gotta go there, you walk around, you're looking for what you need.
They don't have what you need.
They're asking a bunch of questions.
You can't answer the questions, and it's just it's a whole big ordeal.
Why not just go to rockauto.com?
They always offer the lowest price as possible, so if you know that you're getting it on rockauto.com, you know that it's the best price you're gonna get anywhere else.
No need to keep shopping around.
They're a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
You can go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
The catalog is unique and very easy to navigate.
You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle, and you can choose the brands, specifications, the prices you prefer, All of it is right there rockauto.com so Go to rockauto.com right now and see all of those parts available for your car truck and as always remember To give me credit for this and write Walsh in there.
How did you hear about this box?
So they know that we sent you All right.
So and I have gotten a lot of Requests from the media messages and people messaging email me emailing Asking me first of all, I'm getting a lot of requested.
Do you want to apologize?
Do you want to apologize for what you said about Christy Noem?
Newsweek, a Newsweek reporter is doing an article about this and he contacted me and said to ask if I regret using misogynistic language about Christy Noem.
That was the framing of the question.
It wasn't, do you think that your comments were misogynistic?
Do you regret using misogynistic language?
And then he wanted to know if I want to clarify my comments for him.
He was going to give me a chance to clarify before he writes his hit piece calling me a misogynistic bigot.
So here was my response to him.
I emailed back and this guy's name was Anders and I said, Anders, feel free to attribute this to me on the record in response to your request for comment.
And then my comment is, no, I do not regret stating an obvious truth.
I will, however, accept apologies from all of the performative idiots pretending to be offended by it.
And he responded and said that he will include that statement in his Newsweek article, which is great.
That's my general, for anyone in the media, that's my general, you could all take that statement.
As far as apologizing, I can't even say the word apology without laughing.
Okay, and I really say this sincerely.
I would rather be dead than issue any kind of public apology about anything.
Especially to some sniveling snake in the media.
I would prefer death over sending an email to someone in the media saying, I sincerely regret and apologize for those comments and please don't be mad at me anymore.
Death seems far more appealing to that because that's a form of death.
That's the death of your dignity as a man and you're never going to get it back.
Not ever going to happen.
I can tell you that right now.
Even if I'm wrong, I'll never apologize publicly.
You'll never hear me say it.
Even if I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong in this case, but even if I was, even if I did regret my horrible misogyny, the last thing I would ever do is publish a statement or sit here saying, I'm so I've thought more about it.
I deeply regret.
I'm so sorry.
I think my stance on that should be clear by now.
The genre of the public apology needs to go away.
It shouldn't exist.
You're sorry about something, if you're really actually sorry because you caused harm or you damaged somebody, those are the things you should be sorry for.
If you actually did something unfair or mean or whatever and you hurt somebody in some way, then you go and you find them and you apologize to them personally.
It doesn't have to be for public spectacle.
You don't owe the public an apology for anything.
And especially not in this case, because I am just unbelievably, absolutely 100% right in everything that I said.
If I apologize for anything, it's just for being so right about it and making other people feel intellectually inferior because of my rightness.
If I apologize for anything, it's maybe that.
All right, go now to, we'll start with the AP, which has this report.
It says, a federal appeals court Wednesday upheld Dylann Roof's conviction and death sentence for the 2015 racist slayings of nine members of a black South Carolina congregation.
Saying the legal record cannot even capture the full horror of what he did, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond rejected arguments that the young white man should have been ruled incompetent to stand trial in the shootings at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.
And so now he's still going to face the death penalty.
And his mental impairment claim is not panned out, which is great.
He deserves the death penalty, obviously.
The only unfortunate thing here, like with every death penalty case,
the unfortunate thing is that this drags out for years and years and years and
years.
And we gotta go through this whole ridiculous charade of keeping him alive
and feeding him and clothing him just so that we can eventually kill him.
It's completely ridiculous.
You might as well... Back in the old days, you're convicted, you're sentenced to death, and then that day or at dawn the next morning, you're marching up the gallows to be hung by your neck until death while a crowd watches.
And that's how we should do it now.
That should be the...
The way that we go about this.
And in fact, it's even worse.
It's even worse than that because we're not only housing and feeding these people on death row for years and years and years before eventually killing them.
But on top of that, we're actually spending more money on them.
Because these are people who have committed crimes, especially someone like Dylan Roof.
Committed crimes so heinous that to release them into the general population would be just a death sentence in and of itself.
I wouldn't complain about that either, by the way, but we're not going to do that.
And so we've got to specially protect them and preserve their lives.
Just think about how absurd it is.
We have to make this extra effort to preserve their lives and protect them just so that we can march them to the gurney and kill them.
It really doesn't make any sense.
It's ridiculous.
Now, so that's how I feel about this as someone who, um, Although I felt differently about the death penalty years ago, and I have kind of gone back and forth on this, as I admit, but at this point, I'm pretty firmly pro-death penalty.
So that's where I stand on Diller-Roof.
That's an easy one.
But the interesting thing is that, you know, there are a lot of people in this country, especially on the left, who are very much opposed to the death penalty.
At least they claim that.
They think the death penalty should be abolished, that it's state-sanctioned murder.
They're opposed to it in every case.
And there's been many monstrous people who have faced the death penalty and have been defended by many people on the left, including very prominent people, members of the squad and so forth, have come out in defense of absolute murderous monsters.
And yet in this case, I have heard none of those voices, as far as I know.
I haven't heard any of those people on the left, especially the prominent ones, come out and say, no, no, no, this is wrong.
Dylann Roof doesn't deserve the death penalty.
So they make an exception for him, which is interesting.
Why do they make the exception?
Well, because, for one thing, they don't believe in their own principles, in any of their own principles, enough To actually stand up and say, no, this man who murdered nine black people at a church, you know, shouldn't be killed.
So they don't believe in their own principles enough for that.
But also, I think they look at a crime like this, and they feel that, no, this is someone who can't exist on earth anymore.
You've committed a crime so heinous that you don't deserve to be defended.
You don't deserve to live anymore.
You have forfeited your right to live on this earth.
You have forfeited your right to be a member of human society.
What you've done is so heinous that we can't even simply segregate you and keep you in human society.
We have to remove you completely by your own actions.
You have made that choice for yourself.
You forced our hand.
I think they look at Dylann Roof and that's what they think.
And they're right.
The problem is they can't extend that to all of the other monsters on Death Row.
And they are all monsters.
You don't get there unless you are.
So they can see that with Dylann Roof.
They can't see it with anybody else.
A real disconnect there.
This is from Fox.
It says, James Madison University is under fire for pushing controversial rhetoric as part of its freshman orientation training for student leaders.
The PowerPoint presentation and accompanying video addressed topics like social justice, identity, power, and privilege, and labeled any person who fits the parameters of white, male, straight, and Christian as oppressors in a detailed chart.
JMU College Republicans Chairwoman Juliana McGrath shared her frustration with Fox News, saying the training at the Virginia University that's meant to bring students together will ultimately be divisive.
She said, quote, when you're teaching about things like this, the goal is to try to bring people together and try to get people to understand different life experiences.
But by saying, because you're white, you're an oppressor, because you're straight, you're an oppressor, because you're a male, you're an oppressor, that actually brings people farther apart.
And it doesn't actually accomplish any of the goals of what I feel like they were trying to do.
According to McGrath, the most shocking inclusion in the presentation was the implication that followers of the Christian faith specifically were deemed as oppressors, even though all religious individuals, regardless of denomination, believe in the same thing, a higher power.
She said, quote, in our chapter of College Republicans, we actually have a very diverse chapter, and we have people of different races, of different backgrounds, and specifically of different religious beliefs, and that's always been very welcome.
I feel like no matter your political beliefs, you always find some type of common ground.
I think sometimes religion is the common ground, so on and so forth.
Okay.
A lot of this, unfortunately, is unremarkable because this is the kind of re-education that we see in colleges across the country.
Most universities at this point, this is their primary function.
This is a feature, not a bug.
It's not like you send your kids to college and then they just so happen to be brainwashed into leftist dogma.
That's why the universities exist at this point.
That is their primary goal.
So that makes this unremarkable, but still important.
But I really zero in on what she said here, Juliana McGrath.
She said, the goal is to try to bring people together and try to get people to understand different life experiences.
But when you do all of this, you're tearing people apart, and that doesn't accomplish any of the goals that you're trying to accomplish, she said.
Well, no, Juliana.
Let me explain this to you.
It is important that you understand.
I don't want to be accused of mansplaining here, okay?
I don't need that on top of all the other crimes I've committed.
Maybe that'll be next.
Maybe Kristi Noem tomorrow will tweet about how I mansplained.
She'll, at this point, just dye your hair pink, cut it down, call me a mansplainer.
Why not?
Go full feminist.
Anyway.
It is important to explain this to anyone who doesn't understand.
I think there are a lot of people on the right who still don't understand this.
No, these kind of indoctrination seminars where they're saying that white people and males and Christians are oppressors and evil and all that, this is not a misguided but well-intentioned attempt to bring people together and to make people understand each other's life experiences.
No.
This is not something that's clumsy and we'll say, well, they're trying to accomplish something and they're just not accomplishing it.
They just so happen to be doing the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.
No, they are accomplishing their goal 100%.
The goal is not to bring anyone together.
That is not the goal.
The division, the hostility, the suspicion that's engendered by these sorts of programs, that is the point.
That's why they're doing it.
There is nothing well-intentioned about this at all.
They are trying to drive that wedge in between you, in between all of us.
And not one wedge, but a million wedges.
Dividing people into a million different categories and subcategories.
Even one single individual person is now divided, is chopped into a thousand different pieces, and put into different compartments and different labels, and everybody's warring against each other.
That is totally the point.
It's why they're doing it.
So when you say they're not achieving what they want to achieve, yes they are.
They're doing a great job of accomplishing their goals.
They want to divide the American population.
To inflame tribalism, that's part of the point here.
And also, to tear down our history.
And all of the authorities of the past, you know, to separate us from our own history.
Western civilization is informed, shaped by Christian values, by the Christian religion.
And that's why, that's one of the main reasons why they hate it.
And that's why, if you notice, they focus on Christianity much more than they focus on something like Islam.
Because they are trying to destroy, eat away at, chop down the foundations of Western civilization.
That is the point.
They want us to live fully immersed in modernity.
Severed from all of the ties of the past.
Hating everybody that came before us.
Our ancestors, all of the people who built this civilization that we now live in.
They want us to hate all of them, and hate our past.
Hate anybody connected with our past.
They want to identify the villains of the past, in a very simplistic way.
Well, if you're white, if you're a Christian, if you're a male, those are all the villains of the past.
Any of your historical heroes, who you thought were heroes, well, if they were white, male, whatever, then they weren't heroes, they were oppressors.
And their progeny, to this day, still oppressors.
That is, again, the whole entire point.
And it is crucially important for us to understand that.
All right, next, Nancy Pelosi yesterday talked about what we can do to prevent floods and storms, and here she is on that.
When we talk about challenges that we have in our country, we have these fires in the West, floods in Tennessee.
The President approved a major disaster declaration for Tennessee, middle Tennessee region, has had flooding and deaths.
In California we had the river, in the West we had the river, and Dixie fires, which the President has Yeah, so we want to pass legislation that's going to stop floods from happening and stop hurricanes and fires.
us think if we can address the climate crisis, we can deal in a better way to prevent some
of this.
Yeah, so we want to pass legislation that's going to stop floods from happening and stop
hurricanes and fires.
That's what they're calling for.
This is, we should be heaping ridicule and scorn and contempt on this sort of thing.
I'm afraid that we don't treat it as absurd as it really is.
We don't treat it like the absurdity that it actually is.
And part of it is that, like so many other absurdities in modern culture, we're used to it by now.
We're used to hearing politicians Seeing them stand in front of cameras, talking about laws they can pass to change the weather.
And we hear it so often that it kind of goes right over our head.
But think about how insane that is.
You think that some politicians sitting in the Capitol can, you know, type out some legislation and then vote on it, and it's going to change the weather?
You think you're that powerful?
Not only is this anti-scientific, which it is, but it speaks to the incredible narcissism of these people.
And I believe that they really believe it.
They believe that they are gods, that they are more powerful Then the sun itself, which as we talked about yesterday, is actually the thing, this enormous ball of gas, which you could fit a million Earths inside of it, burning 27 million degrees Fahrenheit at its core, 10,000 degrees on the surface.
Gravitational force extending 12 trillion miles into space.
Like, that is the thing that determines the weather on this puny, tiny little planet.
There's nothing you can do, Nancy Pelosi, I'll tell you this right out, not a single thing you can do to make any significant changes to it.
And the Earth's temperatures and its climate, it changes.
Climate is meant to change.
Even the phrase climate change is redundant.
That's what climates do.
Of course they change.
But the Earth endures.
The Earth has endured supervolcano eruptions.
The Earth has endured asteroids the size of entire states hitting the Earth.
Or the size of cities, anyway, I should say.
The Earth endures all of that.
Because we are not that powerful.
The SUV that you drive or the HVAC system that you turn on It's not quite as powerful as you want it to be.
And the legislation that you write is also not as powerful as you want it to be.
I hate to inform you.
Alright, this is an interesting case from BBC.com.
It says, Spencer Eldon, the man who was photographed as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind, is suing the band, alleging sexual exploitation.
The cover depicts Eldon as a four-month-old in a swimming pool.
I mean, you've seen this cover.
It's an iconic cover.
You got a four-month-old baby naked in a swimming pool, and he's grasping for a dollar bill that's dangled in front of him.
The dollar bill was superimposed into the picture after it was taken.
But now, Eldon says that his parents never signed a release authorizing the use of his image on the album, and he also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.
He said, quote, or legal papers filed in California say the images exposed Spencer's intimate body part and displayed Spencer's genitals from the time he was an infant to the present day.
Eldon's lawyer, Robert Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill makes the minor seem like a sex worker.
I hadn't seen that until I just read this.
The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Eldon's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld.
Well, this is clearly Clearly, absurd.
Well, this also means that every baby that's been in, like, a diaper advertisement, they could all sue based on child pornography.
First of all, if you're going to sue anyone, then it would be your parents.
They're the ones who brought you for this album cover shoot and apparently threw you into a pool.
So I think they're the ones who I would take this up with.
But if you really want to know how absurd this is, This guy, Spencer Eldon, he has, through the years, on like three or four different occasions, has recreated that album cover to mark the anniversaries of the album.
So like the 10th anniversary, 15th, 20th, I think.
I think all three of those.
He went and he recreated it.
He was very happy about it.
He's recreating this album cover that he now says was child pornography and exploitation.
But, this is the world we live in.
You see a chance, in our litigious society, you see a chance to file a lawsuit, make some money.
Why not do it?
That's what's going on here.
And finally from the Daily Wire, it says, "Though Comedy Central has been airing reruns
of NBC's beloved long running sitcom, 'The Office' for years,
there's one episode you may not be able to find on the network going forward, and that is 'Diversity Day.'"
The episode is famous for its politically incorrect storyline, which features boss Michael Scott forcing the paper company staff to participate in a racial diversity seminar where he speaks in an exaggerated Indian accent and reprises Chris Rock's notorious standard routine about different kinds of black people.
According to Barstool Sports, the cable channel has quietly omitted the episode from the rotation.
Comedy Central has not Admitted that they're doing this, but if you watch the whole rotation of Office reruns on Comedy Central, you're not going to find that one.
And this, of course, is no shock.
This is only a matter of time.
People who are fans of The Office, like myself, at least I'm a fan of The Office from the first season until the middle of the fourth season.
And I don't acknowledge any other episodes of The Office after that because it fell off of a cliff, especially after Steve Carell left in season six.
But fans of The Office, we have known for a long time that this is coming.
All good comedy eventually will be cancelled.
Because it's all offensive.
Because almost all comedy, almost all good comedy anyway, is based on poking fun at human beings and human nature.
Comedy is supposed to kind of point us to things that we're not supposed to talk about.
Comedy is supposed to kind of desecrate the sacred cows in culture.
That is one of the functions of comedy and comedians.
That's the service they provide to their societies, and it's an important service.
But we can't have that anymore, so this is only a matter of time.
And of course, the irony is that We all knew that these episodes were going to go away, especially Diversity Day.
I mean, for years, Office fans have been saying this.
They're going to start getting rid of these episodes, and that's going to be the first one to go, because it's all based around racial stereotypes and so on.
But the irony is that we're supposed to be, we're not laughing really at the racial stereotype.
You're supposed to be laughing at Michael Scott, who is this oaf who doesn't understand social conventions and doesn't understand, he's not even intentionally being politically incorrect.
He just is because he's stupid.
That's the joke anyway.
So you're not even laughing at the racial stereotype.
You're laughing at the person who is engaging in these racial stereotypes.
And even that you're not allowed to do because it acknowledges the stereotype to begin with.
And yeah, part of what makes it funny and kind of cringy is that there's some truth to most stereotypes.
So you can't do that.
That's gonna go away.
And this is progress, though, when we start erasing these episodes.
Can't laugh about it, can't joke about it.
That's supposed to be progress.
In reality, it's the exact opposite.
Because you know that you've achieved... There's never going to be, and was never going to be, in any culture, including our own, absolute, perfect, utopian racial harmony.
There's never going to be any kind of perfect utopian harmony in this life, anyway.
That's what the next life is for.
But you know you've gotten as close to that as you can possibly get.
When you've got different groups of people who can joke about themselves and each other and they can laugh about it.
That's how you know a group of friends are really close friends when they can poke fun at themselves, but also poke fun at each other, make fun of each other, even be kind of ruthless in their insults and laugh about it.
That's how you know you're comfortable with somebody else.
And we could do that when it came to racial jokes, even as recently as 12, 13 years ago.
And now you can't, and that's a sign that we're going in the wrong direction.
All right, next we move to our comments.
CoolPapaJMagic says, I love how Gen Z are actually the ones saying pornography is ruining our lives, while middle-aged men are saying it's our right to watch.
It seems backwards, but it makes total sense.
Yeah, I've noticed that as well.
I don't know if we looked at the surveys.
I'm sure they would find that the majority of people in Gen Z have very permissive attitudes about pornography, but it is also interesting to note That right now, this sort of anti-porn movement is fueled largely by young people, even people younger than myself.
I don't even know if I qualify as a young person anyway.
But it's a young movement that is speaking out against this.
And even if they're not in the majority, which I'd say they almost certainly aren't, though I wish they were, that's a powerful statement.
And one of the things that makes it powerful is that, especially with Gen Z, these are people, kids, who grew up with this.
I mean, a lot of these kids, a lot of these young men now who are speaking out against porn culture, they were probably exposed to it for the first time when they were like seven.
And so when they talk about the dangers of pornography, they're not talking in a theoretical academic sense.
They're saying, if you listen to them, they're saying, this is what it's done to me.
This is the effect it's had on me and my friends.
I've lived in this culture and this environment.
I know what it's like.
And it's dreary and depressing and perverse and corrupting and empty and hollow.
They're speaking very much from experience.
All of the older people, middle-aged people, the boomers who are still valiantly defending the rights of pornographers and pimps and smut peddlers, They didn't grow up in that kind of environment.
They created that kind of environment for their kids to grow up in, but they didn't grow up in it.
They got to have their innocence, at least for a time.
Their kids never got it.
And if they were to listen to their kids, their kids are mourning the fact that they never had that innocence.
All right, Liam says, to further Matt's idea of adult content actually being sex starved, it's something akin to how you can starve a cat by feeding them tuna.
Please don't.
They'll eat the tuna because of the taste, and they think it's satisfying, but it also has almost zero nutritional value for them.
The same is true for people that only consume those types of videos.
They're not really getting anything they need, and what's more, they'll continue to not seek out something fulfilling.
Well, right, that's exactly right.
That's why it breeds addiction.
Like any other drug.
Yeah, you could use the example of tuna for a cat, or you could use the example of junk food.
Someone who sits around drinking soda all day.
It tastes good in the moment, but you're not actually hydrating yourself.
You're destroying your body in the process.
But I think drugs provide the best example because there's certainly nothing fulfilling there.
You get the high in the moment, the high diminishes, and you have to keep chasing it and chasing and chasing.
And that's where a lot of times you go to the harder drugs and everything else.
And it's the same thing with pornography.
And there is, as you note, there is no fulfillment.
That's the one thing that is missing.
In an actual human romantic relationship with a flesh and blood person, it's not going to be perfect.
You're going to have your arguments and your strife, but there's real fulfillment there.
You feel fulfilled with this person.
You feel content.
If it's a good relationship and you found the right person.
There's no contentment with pornography.
Nick says, I will genuinely always regret not throwing my hat in the ring for the Sweet Baby Gang anthem, but whatever anthem is selected, I will stand by it till the end.
Well, thank you, sir.
And I mourn your own regrets.
And I know that there are many such cases, because the deadline is over.
No more submissions.
And now it's just a matter of discovering who is going to be our true... What will our true Sweet Baby Gang anthem be?
We're gonna find that out very soon.
Let's see.
Rich says, I like Matt, but his arguments on prostitution slash sex work sucks.
Phrasing, Rich.
Phrasing.
Using his logic, he's not really different than a sex worker.
Okay, that's what you're going to have to explain a little bit.
How am I similar to a... Maybe I don't want to know in what way you find me similar to a sex worker.
Now if you mean, I think I already addressed this, that Yeah, you can try to claim that everybody who has a job and makes a living is selling their body because they're using their body to do whatever they do, unless they're using the powers of ESP or mental telepathy or something and just sitting there and moving objects around with their mind.
Unless they have that ability, the rest of us are going to be using our body in some way to perform a task.
And that goes for podcast hosts and construction workers and everybody, right?
But as I explained, the difference is, in all these other jobs, you're using yourself to perform some sort of task, some kind of skill, and it's that skill that you're, or the thing that you're producing, which you're selling.
In this case, I'm making a podcast, and that's the product that I'm selling, as it were, right?
If you build tables, then you're using your body to build a table, and you're selling that.
But in the case of a so-called sex worker, especially somebody, as we talked about, we were specifically speaking about people on OnlyFans, although it goes for all of them, but especially the prostitutes on OnlyFans, you know, they're just displaying their body on camera.
There's no art.
There's nothing to it.
There's no skill.
And they're selling their body.
That is the object of the product that is on the shelf to be bought.
It is objectification by its definition.
It is dehumanizing by its definition.
It has to be dehumanizing.
The porn consumer... The whole thing doesn't work if the porn consumer really thinks of the person behind the screen, on the other side of the screen, as a person, as a human being.
As the porn consumer, if you really reflect on the humanity of this person, And the fact that this might be a mother, this is a daughter, this is someone who, you know, this was at one point a young child, this was an innocent young child at one point whose life went horribly wrong.
I mean, if you start reflecting on all of those things, then that's going to take you out of the mood that you want to be in as the porn consumer.
So it depends on the person dehumanizing themselves and you going along with that.
You've both kind of agreed to put their humanity, and your own really, on hold.
And that really is the difference.
It's that time again, folks.
Your favorite time of the day.
And that is the Daily Wire promos.
And I got three of them for you today.
So, what's it like to be part of the fastest growing conservative media company in the country?
Join us and find out.
Daily Wire has several open positions at our headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee.
So go check them out at dailywire.com slash careers.
Currently, we're looking for a podcast marketing manager to join our marketing team.
If you're someone with a lot of experience and passion for growing podcasts, a creative and strategic thinker, and a self-starter, then go apply right now, and you'll have your work cut out for you selling this show right here.
We're also hiring a web marketing specialist to do, well, a bunch of technical stuff on dailywire.com.
I don't really know exactly what they're supposed to do, but they do something anyway.
Both positions are based in Nashville for in-office work.
If you think you're qualified for either role, go apply now.
To dailywire.com slash careers.
Our team is constantly growing, so keep checking the careers page for new opportunities.
And also, as lockdowns, curfews, mask mandates, and vaccine passports begin to pop up around the world, it's important that we as Americans question and discuss the actions currently being taken by the reigning administration.
That's why We're gonna be doing a backstage tonight to discuss and debate the issues with myself, Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boren, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klaver.
We're all gonna be there 7 o'clock p.m.
Eastern Time, 6 p.m.
Central on dailywire.com or on our YouTube channel, which is The Daily Wire.
Right now, also, it's no secret that the truth is hard to come by if you're listening to the legacy media.
That's why we started our newest podcast, Morning Wire, which has been topping the Apple and Spotify charts since its recent release.
It's the only daily news podcast that values your time, And the truth.
And while we're working overtime to bring you the news you need to know, we need your help to keep the facts trending towards number one.
So subscribe and start listening now to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
Wow, those reads were a mess.
Now we're going to get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our cancellation, we have a fun twist on an old story.
A DoorDash delivery driver who goes by the handle FrenchFryThug online recently recorded a video where he claims that he had gotten a little bit of revenge on a customer who didn't tip him.
Here it is.
This video is for Amy.
Amy, I just delivered your food.
Hi!
I left you a note with your food.
It says, Dear Amy, if you can't afford to tip, then you should go pick it up yourself.
Who do you think you are to order food and have someone come and bring it to your door for free?
For free?
I just drove my personal car to your house to deliver your food for fun?
Nah.
Not today.
You can write your wrongs below.
Venmo, I forgot to tip.
Amy, no hard feelings.
You just can't have people bring you your food for free, okay?
This is a learning lesson for everyone.
All right.
So we're used to hearing stories where a waiter or delivery driver claims that a customer left them a nasty note.
But in this case, the delivery driver claims that he left the nasty note.
Now, as we saw even just last week, the nasty note stories are almost always hoaxes.
And I say almost only to leave open the slight possibility that there's been a real incident at some point this century, though, if there was a real one, I don't think we ever heard about it.
What about this one?
Well, here again, again, he's saying that he left the note.
Can't we trust that?
I mean, would he lie about leaving his own note?
Would someone really be so starved for attention, and also so much of a passive-aggressive coward, that they would pretend to have left a note that they didn't really leave?
Would they?
Is it possible?
Well, as it turns out, the answer to all those questions is yes.
The driver typed out that letter, printed it, but never actually gave it to the customer.
So I think we could probably declare now, first of all, at this point, that all notes or letters left for or by waiters or delivery drivers or anyone associated with the food industry, they're all fake.
All of them.
There is something about people in the restaurant business that compels them, as if by some unseen mystical force, to write fake notes.
I don't know what it is.
If you're in the restaurant industry, maybe you can tell me.
What's going on exactly with you people?
Why do you keep doing this?
I can't explain it, and this guy doesn't really explain it himself.
Here's the New York Post.
They say, quote, A DoorDash delivery man who went viral last week for leaving a passive-aggressive note for a habitual non-tipper now says that the stunt never happened.
Quote, Amy is real.
She's a real habitual non-tipper, but I didn't leave the note at Amy's house.
He posted on Saturday, four days after he shared a now-unavailable video claiming to have left the note along with the female customer's order.
A subsequent video showed French Fry Thug supposedly distributing the money that he said he received from strangers on Venmo to fellow underpaid DoorDashers.
Well, there you go.
He included his Venmo in the fake note, and the strangers, you know, online for mysterious reasons, were once again eager to send him money.
There are charities and nonprofits out there that work with actual poor people and sick people, and yet struggle to raise funds.
Meanwhile, any random dummy with a phone can rake in hundreds or thousands of dollars with the lamest sob story.
Children's cancer research probably gets less funding than whiny waiters and delivery drivers on TikTok at this point.
It's quite a sad state of affairs.
But what about this issue of tipping door-to-ass drivers?
Let's look at the larger and more serious issue.
And this is a serious issue, we're told.
DoorDash drivers actually just went on strike for a whole day a few weeks ago.
Among their demands were a higher base pay.
Right now, they make between $2 and $10 per delivery as a base.
And they want to know the tip amount from a delivery before delivering it.
Because when you order on DoorDash, you're expected to pay the tip beforehand.
But apparently, DoorDash doesn't tell the drivers what the full amount is until they've completed the order.
And the drivers insist that they should know the tip ahead of time and then be able to decide if they want to complete the order or not based on that.
Now, of course, this is all backwards.
I can tell you right now, I say unapologetically, I tip very little, or most of the time, not at all, when I order from a food delivery service, Uber Eats, DoorDash.
Sorry, guys, I'm not tipping you.
And for one thing, because I'm not going to tip you before you've completed the task that I am tipping you for.
The tip is supposed to be in response to and calibrated based on the quality of the service provided.
How can I reward you for the quality of your service before you performed it?
And what happens when, as has happened to me in the past before I adopted this new policy, what happens when I leave a generous tip and then the driver takes their merry time bringing the food to me cold and soggy and absconding with the tip that I already gave them?
But the other issue is that DoorDash and Uber Eats both charge delivery fees, along with other taxes and service fees.
What that means is that I'm already paying $65 for a hamburger and French fries, and now you want me to add an additional tip on top of it?
There are limits to my generosity, or to my capacity for financial mismanagement, however you want to look at it.
But there are two other factors at work here as well, which are a little bit broader and larger.
The first is the rather new idea That tipping is an act of unconditional charity that we're expected to perform for people in the service industry.
And as tipping has turned into a form of financial assistance, a sort of endowment that we're supposed to bequeath on people, it's also expanded exponentially.
Now you're expected to walk through life handing out tips to anyone who wears a name tag or works a cash register or hands you food in a plastic bag.
It's completely out of control.
Social convention had already determined who gets tipped and who doesn't.
And I don't see any reason to change any of that.
Yeah, it might have been relatively arbitrary in some cases.
We don't tip our plumbers, for example, even though a good case could be made for them.
But you have to draw the line somewhere, and it's been drawn.
More importantly, I'm supposed to tip based on the quality of the service that was provided to me, not on the level of my own personal guilt or on the victimhood resume of the service worker that I'm dealing with.
It's not my job as the customer to make sure that you're paid a fair wage.
I got news for you.
You have to work that out with your employer.
So when you hear from people in the service industry, well, I'm not paid a fair wage, that's why you got a tip.
No, see, that's not my, I'm not your employer.
I don't decide what your wage is.
How did that become my issue all of a sudden?
See, I was at an airport recently and I heard two pilots complaining about their insufficient compensation.
They were in the terminal, they were just sitting there talking about it.
They were overworked and underpaid, apparently, from what they were saying, which disturbed me greatly, I have to say.
And maybe their compensation is insufficient.
I don't know.
But it would have been pretty strange and rather concerning if they were in the plane and they left the cockpit and walked down the aisle with a tip jar, expecting the passengers to cover the difference.
The passengers are already paying for the flight.
They've done their part.
The rest is not their concern and shouldn't be.
The second factor is this idea that every job should provide a living wage, right?
DoorDash drivers are upset that they aren't paid enough.
They demand that their customers make up for it, even if the customer is already paying $29 in additional fees for a $12 bag of fast food tacos.
But how much should a DoorDash driver really expect to make anyway?
You're simply taking a bag of food from one location to another.
It's something that literally anyone with a driver's license could do.
And even a lot of people without a driver's license could probably do it.
And probably do, in fact, do it.
$2 to $10 plus a few bucks for tip per delivery seems pretty fair for that menial task.
In fact, it seems surprisingly high, if anything.
How much do you want, if that's not enough?
$20 per delivery?
$40?
Should you pull down an astronaut's salary for picking up someone's Kung Pao chicken at Panda Express and driving it eight miles to their apartment?
I mean, how much is the labor actually worth?
That's the question that we are always losing sight of.
How much is this labor actually worth?
How much could it possibly be worth?
People are already paying a premium just so they don't have to put on pants and drive to Panda Express themselves, but there are limits to our laziness.
And you make that premium much higher than it already is, and we'll probably just choose the pants instead.
Not every job is meant to be a career.
Not every job is supposed to be something that you can live off of.
I mean, DoorDash driving?
Some jobs are meant for teenagers who live at home or people who are looking to make a bit of extra cash on the side.
If you're running DoorDash orders as your main source of income, you probably should find another main source of income.
And the good news is that there's 10 million jobs out there, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding it.
That would be your wisest course of action, I would say.
Or, you could make fake notes and solicit PayPal donations as well.
That may be your most lucrative path, after all.
Though, if you choose that path, you will still be, in the end, as this DoorDash driver is, of course, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
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 producer is Mathis Glover, 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 Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
The U.S.
abandons 1,000 Americans in Afghanistan, lockdowns kill newborn babies in Australia, and a new study finds that only 22% of cable news is news.
