All Episodes
Feb. 18, 2022 - The Matt Walsh Show
57:19
Ep. 893 - Male Athlete Heroically Dominates Female Swimming Championship

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, after a year of controversy, Lia Thomas the trans swimmer finally went to the swimming championships this week and dominated the field as expected. The media and the left have been twisting themselves into knots to justify this insanity. We’ll talk about it today. Also, Democrats in California introduce a dog and cats bill of rights. And a parent at a school board meeting delivers the best smackdown of CRT we’ve heard yet. Plus, BLM crowd funds bail for an attempted assassin while the people who donated to the Canadian truckers are hunted down, doxxed, and shamed. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll take a look at the New York Times article which hails our “age of anti-ambition.”  I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb  The world’s best-selling LGBT author (me) now has his own merch line: https://utm.io/uedoZ You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 Stream Daily Wire’s newest movie SHUT IN, already with a 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, and our newest docuseries CHINA: THE ENEMY WITHIN. dailywire.com/watch Haven’t gotten your preferred pronouns badge? Head to my Swag Shack to grab yours today:https://utm.io/uei4E Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, after a year of controversy, Leah Thomas, the trans swimmer, finally went to the swimming championships this week and dominated the field, as expected.
The media and the left have been kind of twisting themselves into knots to justify this insanity.
We'll talk about it today.
Also, Democrats in California introduce a dog and cat's bill of rights.
A piece of legislation.
You know I've got to love that.
And a parent at a school board meeting delivers probably the best smackdown of CRT we've heard yet.
We'll play that for you.
Plus, BLM crowdfunds bail for an attempted assassin while the people who donated to the Canadian truckers are hunted down, doxed, and shamed.
In our daily cancellation, we'll take a look at the New York Times article which hails our age of anti-ambition.
Is anti-ambition a good thing?
Good thing.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Why endure often pointless or seemingly intimidating questions about the specifications of your vehicle, only to have the counterman order the parts on his computer anyway?
Who calls him that? Order the parts on his computer anyway.
Say, counterman, do you have what I need in stock?
You have computers with access to rockauto.com at home and in your pocket.
RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and very easy to navigate.
You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle.
Choose the brands, specifications, prices you prefer.
And best of all, the prices at rockauto.com are always low and the selection is always great.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts with the worst selection?
It doesn't make any sense.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car truck.
Write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
The Ivy League Women's Swimming Championships were held this week.
This is not the sort of event that would normally attract much attention, especially from me, except that it was the culmination of a year's worth of controversy surrounding quote-unquote transgender swimmer Leah Thomas, a male who says that he's a woman.
Leah Thomas, as you're probably familiar with by now, was a man his whole life and for the first three years of his college swimming career, and still is one actually, But during that time, as a college male swimmer named William, he ranked somewhere in the mid 400s.
So as an athlete, he could be most generously described as mediocre.
But then, through some miracle of science, wonder of wonders, William realized that he is actually a woman.
What does that mean?
In what way is he a woman?
How could he be a woman?
What is a woman?
None of these questions, especially the last one famously, have been answered.
All we know, or all that we are supposed to believe and accept anyway, is that the spiritual woman who had been mystically trapped inside William's male exterior, his male shell, finally broke to the surface, which entitled him to swim against the women, where he instantly went from 400th to 1st, Which brings us to this week and the swimming championships.
Now, there were in fact two trans swimmers on the docket.
The other is Yale swimmer Isaac Hennig, who is a female who identifies as male.
Now, Isaac won the championship in the 500-yard freestyle last night.
That, again, is the female identifying as a male.
You might ask, hold on a second, if we're supposed to take a person's self-identity at face value and put them in the league that's in accordance with that self-identity, then why would a trans man, quote-unquote, still be allowed to compete against women?
If Leah Thomas is a girl because he says he's a girl, then isn't Isaac a boy because he says he's a boy?
Or isn't Isaac a boy because she says she's a boy?
I get confused.
Meaning that by the very logic of the trans side, she should be barred from competing against women.
If we're adopting their logic, by their logic, sure, Leah Thomas is allowed in because he says he's a woman.
But Isaac says she's a boy, so then she shouldn't be allowed.
By their logic.
Well, the answer is no, because there is no logic on the trans side.
The only logic, if we can call it logic, is that the people in that protected class should be allowed to do literally anything they want, all the time, no questions asked.
And that brings us back to Leah Thomas, who dominated the 500-yard freestyle on Thursday night, easily beating all the real women in the field and setting a pool record at the same time.
If you're wondering what that looked and sounded like, well, here you go.
Thomas heads in for the final turn.
It's going to be a race for second place.
It might be Penn going 1-2 with Beroker making the turn currently in second place.
And over the last half of the pool, nobody will touch Leah Thomas, who will finish at 437-32.
Leah Thomas, Ivy League champion in the 500 free, second place to Catherine Beroker.
By the way, he beat second place by, it's like eight seconds, I think.
Seven or eight seconds.
And the argument that I've heard from the left on social media and the trans activists
is they're pointing out that, yeah, but he or she, as they would call, he didn't set
a world record.
So clearly it's still fair.
Yeah, he set a pool record, so he was the fastest, quote, woman to ever compete in that pool and dominated the competition and beat, you know, second place by seven or eight seconds.
But it's not a world record, and so therefore it was still fair.
But as far as it goes, Thomas finishes first, Catherine Barocca finishes second, so congratulations to Catherine Barocca for finishing first.
She was the fastest woman in the pool, despite what the silver medal may imply.
Though all of the medals awarded to everybody involved in this farce are essentially worthless, especially Thomas's.
My daughter made herself an Olympic medal out of aluminum foil, and it has more value and meaning than any medal or trophy Thomas wins.
And unfortunately, there's a trickle-down effect.
His participation renders the entire event pointless and absurd, delegitimizing everybody involved and undoing everything that everybody achieves.
The whole thing is a blatant, totally unjustifiable charade.
Women's sports have been turned into some kind of strange burlesque performance, a parody of itself.
And the left has tried its best to legitimize it, but the task is impossible.
Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article titled, Transwimmer Revives an Old Debate in Elite Sports.
What Defines a Woman?
Yes, well, I know someone who's been asking that same question, though it's not a question that was ever asked in sports up until now.
This is not an age-old debate in sports.
What is a woman, anyway?
No, it's a debate that we've had for the last five seconds of human history.
Because in fact, the whole attraction of sports, its value, its purpose, its meaning, is derived from the fact that it's a raw physical competition between individuals or groups, where nothing matters but your skill and strength and strategy.
The left seeks to make this realm of refreshing clarity ambiguous, because that's what they do everywhere and with everything.
They make it all ambiguous.
Now, the article makes the case that The debate over William Thomas is no different from debates that have raged in the past.
Quoting how it says, These thorny questions over the nature of athleticism are not new in women's sports.
They've come up many times over the past century, typically when an athlete deemed too masculine started to win.
Sports authorities have leaned on medical tests, whether anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, to determine eligibility in women's categories, while requiring no analogous tests for men.
But in the realm of elite physical performance, where extraordinary biology is the rule, science has never provided neat answers.
Quote, in the end, it's about how we think about who is a woman, right?
Said Katrina Karkazi, an anthropologist at Amherst College and co-author of Testosterone, an Unauthorized Biography.
She continues, and of course, sport has, for a very long period, not been at the forefront of gender equality and inclusion.
So it's no wonder that we're having this kind of debate.
The article goes on for a while, twisting and torturing itself to try to find some way to justify biological males competing against women.
Ultimately, it cannot be directly justified, even by a New York Times writer.
So instead, they fall back on ambiguity, as always.
And it finishes with this.
Still, because of development during puberty, transgender athletes may have some lasting physical advantages in a sport like swimming.
May have, they say.
Such as a taller height and larger hands and feet.
Coming up with a policy for sex-segregated sports, therefore, requires making a choice.
Either exclude these athletes or allow them to compete with potential advantages, says Jacob Vindgren, an exercise physiologist at the University of North Texas.
There's no good answer, Vindgren said.
Someone is disadvantaged, one way or another.
But, you know, there is a good answer, and a simple one.
Males compete against males, females compete against females.
If a few of the males would really prefer to compete against females, for whatever reason, and if that preference, when frustrated, causes them emotional discomfort, that's too bad for them.
I'm sorry for them, but it doesn't really create any complications.
Because the point of sports is not to make everyone feel happy and included.
That's actually close to the opposite of its purpose, in fact.
The point of any sport, once the competitors or teams take the field or the court or the pool, is to find out who is the best on that day.
Which means that ultimately you're excluding everybody who is not the best.
Not everyone can be the best.
But in order for that process itself to have any meaning, everyone has to begin on an essentially level playing field.
All that means is that, you know, we don't have high school seniors competing against middle schoolers.
We don't have pro athletes competing against college athletes.
Well, I mean, you know, actually high school athletes have competed against pro athletes when it was the men competing against female soccer players, and they beat them.
But, you know, the other way we don't do it.
And we don't have men competing against women, usually.
If those basic walls of segregation are not put in place, then the result is a game, but not really a sport.
I'll go outside to my driveway and I'll play basketball against my kids, but I can't derive any real meaning out of the fact that I win.
And I do always win, because I never let that win.
No one's going to give me a trophy for being undefeated against eight-year-olds in one-on-one basketball.
I'd take that trophy if someone gave it to me because it'd be hilarious, but no one is offering it.
And at best, that's all that this is, right?
With males competing against females, it's at best.
A hilarious spectacle.
That's the silver lining.
Now, it's also sickening and infuriating, but I lack the energy to be too upset about it because, you know, I have come to see it as a victimless crime.
Or at least a crime where the victims have volunteered, willingly submitted themselves to be victimized.
We live in a culture absolutely infected with cowardice.
It's what most defines our age, I think.
And only in an age of terminal cowardice could something like this happen.
Something that we all recognize as wrong and ridiculous, but which few have the courage to call as such.
And so men intrude into women's sports, and few of the women fight back.
A few of them.
There's a few women who fight back, and then there are some others who complain anonymously, as William Thomas' teammates have been.
They've been going to outlets and complaining about it, not putting their name on the complaint.
But then most just go along with it, grumbling to themselves, perhaps, but choosing to participate in the travesty, thereby validating it and allowing it to continue.
If you listen to that clip again, you listen to the audience.
The audience even applauds Thomas as he wins.
None of them are actually happy to see a man beat a bunch of women.
All of them know.
All of them know that it's stupid and wrong and bad what's going on.
But they lack even the courage to refrain from clapping their hands like gutless seals.
Even that they can't do.
To just sit on their hands and not clap.
They can't do that.
So female sports will collapse because the females in these sports lack the courage to defend it.
And to defend themselves.
It's the same story replayed over and over again.
Bad people do bad things, while the good people prove they're not so good by allowing the bad people to do as they wish.
So there are, in the end, very few victims in this story.
But there is a primary villain.
And now he's taken home the gold.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
This is actually, we're in a new spot now, and if you're watching on video, this is totally real back here.
100% real.
I'm sitting in front of the cityscape of Nashville.
So we actually moved to a third studio, and now I'm just sitting, I've got this great, we're in a high-rise in Nashville, and you can see the background there.
Is that even Nashville?
Yeah, it is.
Okay.
That's where we are.
Listen up, guys.
The Daily Wire is better than you think.
What do I mean by that?
I mean, we're much more than news and opinion.
We're creating an incredible amount of content just for you.
Movies, comedies, documentaries, and so much more.
Let me give you two examples.
First, they're shut in.
If you haven't seen Daily Wire's first original movie, then you've been under a rock.
The film has an audience score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes.
It's a riveting redemption story, absolute emotional rollercoaster.
It's artful, suspenseful.
Highly entertaining.
500,000 people watched it live during the world premiere last week.
Even the left-leaning San Jose Mercury reviewed it and gave shut-in props.
But it's not just quality movies like Shut In, Run Hyde Fight, or the soon-to-be-released The Hyperions, or our summer blockbuster Terror on the Prairie with Gina Carano.
When you become a member, you'll also get hard-hitting documentaries like China, the Enemy Within, which is debuting today.
This is from acclaimed journalist and writer of The Plot Against the President, Lee Smith.
Show how we're all being betrayed by the ongoing coup orchestrated by America's political, corporate and media elites to gain power and prestige all to the benefit of themselves and the Chinese Communist Party.
This is a gripping five-part series that shows how Fauci, Biden, the NBA, Hollywood, even our schools have become beholden to China.
Now throw in our investigative journalism, one-of-a-kind shows like Third Thursday Book Club, Candace, Debunked, and The Search, and you know you've got to become a member.
Not to mention our willingness to fight for what you believe in.
This is why I say the Daily Wire is bigger than you think.
When you sign up, you get all of this.
And trust me, more big things are coming.
But we need you.
Help us build a world of news and entertainment that reflects your values.
Become a Daily Wire member today.
Head to dailywire.com slash watch to get caught up on all of this new exciting content.
Again, that's dailywire.com slash watch.
I want to revisit this story to make an important connection here.
The Courier-Journal, we talked yesterday about Quintez Brown, the Louisville BLM activist who tried to kill a mayor this weekend.
And they were planning on, BLM was planning on trying to bail him out, and now they've succeeded in doing so.
So, going back to the story, it says, Quintez Brown, the Louisville activist accused of trying to murder mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg, has been released.
On bail from the county jail.
So he was freed around 7.30 p.m.
Wednesday after the money was put forward by the Louisville Community Bail Fund, which is a local group that raises money to free defendants in criminal cases and connect them with pretrial support resources.
So this was a crowdfunded bail.
And we have to keep emphasizing this.
Quintez Brown walked into a guy's office on Sunday and tried to kill him with a gun.
And by Wednesday night, he's back in his own house, or his mom's house, or wherever he sleeps.
His bond had been set at $100,000 Tuesday morning by Judge Annette Karam, which was raised at the request of the Jefferson County Attorney's Office after that figure was initially recommended $75,000.
So they tried to give him a bail under $100,000, and they at least got it to $100,000 from $75,000.
But Brown will be subject to home incarceration.
He'll have house arrest anyway.
Maybe BLM will complain about that and they'll say that, no, he should be allowed to go, he should be able to go on a vacation to Paris if he wants to.
So this was a crowdfunded bail for an attempted assassin, which BLM got together, fundraised, and they provided it.
Meanwhile, People who tried to donate to the Canadian truckers, peaceful protesters, when they tried to do that, the website that was taking those donations was shut down and hacked.
Information about the donors was leaked to the public.
And American media has participated in doxing these small donors.
Let's put up this from Libs of TikTok.
They've got some examples of what the media is doing.
This is happening This is not just one, this is one example we'll give you, but this is pretty widespread in the media right now.
It says the Salt Lake Tribune is now using the GiveSendGo hack data to reach out to donors who gave as little as $50.
This is harassment, this is not journalism.
And then we have the actual screenshot.
A reporter who reached out to one of these guys who donated $50.
Says, I'm a reporter with the Salt Lake Tribune.
Your name and email address appeared in leaked data from give-send-go contributions to the Canadian Trucker Convoy.
Your name appeared to be associated with a $50 donation.
Can you email or call me to confirm this matches your records?
Why did you decide to donate to the campaign?
But here's a good response.
None of your damn business why I donated to it.
These are Just normal people giving $40, $50 to peaceful protesters in Canada and they're being doxed by the corporate media.
Compare again.
Do you think anyone, are they going to be chasing down the people who donated to the bail fund for an attempted assassin, a BLM assassin who went in and tried to shoot a Jewish guy?
Are we going to get any doxing of that, of those people?
Probably not.
Well, what we can do, and I'm glad that this email was put out there with the guys.
Brian Scott's the guy's name, apparently.
Salt Lake Tribune.
So we got his name.
I wish that his email address was out there as well.
Because I tell you, the only way that this stops with the corporate media doxing and harassing regular, law-abiding people who've done nothing wrong whatsoever, The only way it stops is if the journalists who engage in this behavior are docs themselves.
I mean their email addresses, their phone numbers, their home addresses, everything put out there.
And they would deserve it.
Because this is the environment that they've created.
And it's the only way this stops.
Not just giving screenshots of emails, that's a good first step.
But all their other information too.
Because these are parasites I mean, this is scum of the earth we're talking about.
Enemy of the people.
Trump was ahead of his time in that label.
There were a lot of people when Trump first started calling the media the enemy of the people.
There were even a lot of people on the right who said, I don't know, it's a little bit overboard.
Well, that's quite literally the enemy of the people.
They are going after the people, just normal people, and trying to destroy their lives.
Why?
No reason, just, well, because they don't agree, because they have the wrong opinions about things, so we're going to destroy their life.
Now, this question of whether or not the journalists who do this should, whether we should be sort of fighting fire with fire, you know, there's some on the right who say that's not the right approach.
In fact, someone emailed me yesterday, I have the email right here, it says, Matt, what do you think about the conservatives saying that we should dox the journalists who dox the trucker donors?
Isn't that repaying evil with evil, which the Bible forbids?
Well, here's the point that I want to make.
It's not.
Okay?
It's fighting fire with fire.
It's kind of a war of attrition.
Mutually assured destruction.
It is that.
You know, that's also why I would say people who participate in cancel culture deserve to be cancelled.
People who went after Joe Rogan for saying naughty words, and then others went and dug through their tweets and found, oh, you used the same naughty words.
They deserve that.
Joe Rogan didn't, but they do.
And that's the only way the cancel culture stops.
Mutually assured destruction.
If you take part in this, it's going to turn around on you eventually.
Right?
You launch your nuke, the other country's going to launch theirs, and now everybody's dead.
But it's not evil with evil, because only one party is evil here.
It's not inherently evil to dox someone.
It's not like that's an inherently evil act.
Now, it is never acceptable to engage in an inherently evil activity, even if you have good intentions, because that's ends justify the means, and that's morally wrong.
But doxing someone is not inherently evil.
I mean, there's nothing inherently evil about putting someone's information out there necessarily.
Is it inherently evil to put a child rapist on a registry?
That's certainly a form of doxing.
But I think we'd all agree that it's not.
So your motive and reason matter.
It's evil to dock someone who gives $40 to a crowdfunding campaign for peaceful protesters.
That's evil.
Because they've done nothing wrong.
And they don't deserve that treatment.
There's no benefit, there's no good to come of doing this to them.
Docking journalists who behave this way is different.
Because they have done evil, they are evil, and they have to pay for it in order to stop this in the future.
It's justice for them, number one, but also it's the only thing that has any hope of putting an end to this whole vicious cycle.
All right.
Okay, I want to pull this up.
Here's the latest from Gallup.
It says, the percentage of U.S.
adults who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than heterosexual has increased to a new high of 7%, which is double the percentage from 2012, when Gallup first measured it.
Gallup asks Americans whether they personally identify as straight or heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender as part of the demographic information it collects on all U.S.
telephone surveys.
I still, every time I read this, one of these surveys, I always ask the question, who exactly is stopping to talk to these people?
I've never answered a single survey in my entire life.
And if I was going to answer one, it wouldn't be about some stranger calling me and asking me what my sexual orientation is.
How do you not immediately hang up the phone?
Excuse me, sir, I'm with Gallup.
I'm just wondering, who are you sexually attracted to, men or women?
What?
Leave me alone, I'm eating dinner, you freak!
But there are people who stop and say, well, let's sit down and talk about it.
In fact, I'm usually attracted to it.
They're like, what?
Who's doing this?
But some people do.
And it says respondents can also volunteer any other sexual orientation or gender identity they prefer.
So they could also, you know, that you can answer the questions.
And if you have any other information about your sex life that you want to give to a stranger on the phone.
He's more than willing to listen to it, and a lot of people will volunteer that.
In addition to the 7.1% of U.S.
adults who consider themselves to be an LGBT identity, 86.3% say they're straight or heterosexual, and 6.6% do not offer an opinion.
The results are based on aggregated 2021 data encompassing 12,000 U.S.
adults.
So, that's the overall number.
There's been a doubling of LGBT identity For the overall population since 2012, which is significant.
It's more than significant.
You're talking about an astronomical rise in the general population.
But then, when you get a little more specific and you look at this from a generational perspective, that's when you really see what's happening.
So, breaking it down, the Gallup poll.
Gen Z, Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers, and I guess what they're calling traditionalists?
People born before 1946 are traditionalists.
So as of 2021, let's look at this data.
The numbers who identify as LGBT.
For traditionalists born before 1946, that's 0.8% identify as LGBT.
0.8% identifies LGBT, not even 1%.
And this actually undersells it because if we were doing Gallup polls, you know,
going back all through history, we could pretty much guarantee that it's going to be around.
If there was some way to conduct a seance and do a survey of people born in 1846, you're going to find a 0.8%, or probably a lot lower than that, actually.
Then you get into baby boomers, and they're saying 2.6% identify as LGBT.
Then you get up to Generation X and it's 4.2%.
And then to Millennials, my generation, and we're at 10.5%.
Already, that is 10 times higher than our grandparents.
Now Generation Z, 20.8% identify as LGBT.
Nearly 21%.
A 20 times increase over their grandparents' or great-grandparents' generation identifying as LGBT.
And while this is happening, it is still considered a conspiracy theory, a wild and offensive conspiracy theory, to suggest that there is any kind of intentional effort going on to recruit younger kids into the LGBT camp.
You're still not allowed to say that.
Even after a 20-fold increase in a matter of a few years, Still, most people you talk to will say, oh no, this isn't intentional, this is just a coincidence.
Now, the clips that we played for you yesterday at the educational conference for private schools, and they're talking about the sex ed curriculum for preschoolers, introducing queer inclusion for four-year-olds, this is exactly the result that is intended.
It's to get to them young and to recruit them early.
And it is working.
As I've said before, this is the most effective recruit... The LGBT... LGBT activists are conducting the most effective recruitment drive in American history.
I don't think any other group, organization, institution has ever accomplished anything like this.
And it's kind of easy, you know, when you're, first of all, you're doing this in the midst of total civilizational decay and collapse, and also you're getting to the kids when they're four years old and they have absolutely no psychological defenses whatsoever.
All right, let's go to this from the Daily Wire.
It says, earlier this month, a Democratic lawmaker in California introduced a bill of rights for dogs and cats.
The proposal states that it would enact the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights and would require every public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelters, and human society shelter or rescue group to post a copy of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.
The bill would impose a civil penalty for failure to post the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights as specified.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.
By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The Act continues, Dogs and cats have the right to be respected as sentient beings that experience complex feelings that are common among living animals while being unique to each individual animal.
And if you're wondering what exactly are the rights of dogs and cats according to this legislation in California, well, let's take a look.
They have listed, looks like, you know, five or six rights that they are enumerating for dogs and cats.
Number one, dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.
Two, dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.
So anytime a dog experiences fear, his rights are being infringed upon.
By the way, are we including just domesticated dogs and cats in this?
Are they the only ones who have these rights?
Like wolves and tigers and so on, are they included in the Bill of Rights?
I mean, lions out on the Serengeti, I imagine they experience, it's not exactly the most comfortable life, So are their rights being infringed upon?
Do we need these animal rights activists?
Do they gotta go and find all those lions and round them up and bring them into their homes?
Because I'll tell you something, I would not oppose a program like that.
If you believe in the Dog and Cat's Bill of Rights, in fact, I would actually suggest that this should be maybe put in the legislation.
If you believe in the Dog and Cat's Bill of Rights, you should be required to adopt a lion or a tiger in your home.
Don't put her in a cage or anything.
It's just equal to you.
Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.
Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.
Once again, all those lions and tigers, they don't have any shelter whatsoever.
Gotta do something about that.
Dogs and cats have the right to preventative and therapeutic health care.
Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.
Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters.
How do you throw that in at the end?
Dogs and cats have the right to population control?
Dogs and cats have the right to be castrated?
How do you throw that in after all the stuff about they have a right to a life free of fear and anxiety?
Well, I don't know about you, but the idea of being anesthetized at the vet and then castrated, that would give me a lot of fear and anxiety.
So those are all the rights.
And it raises a whole lot of questions.
First of all, again, how do you only target domesticated, domestic dogs and cats and something like this?
And also, if we're saying they have the right to be properly identified, I thought where they were going with that is they also have the right to, you know, to having their personal pronouns respected.
I don't know how you don't add that into the bill.
And third thing, why only dogs and cats?
Putting aside the domestic versus wild problem, why only them?
There are a lot of other animals out there.
Why have we decided that dogs and cats are special?
Well, I'll tell you why.
And this is the flaw in all the animal rights thinking and all the stuff about how the animals are equal to all of us.
Nobody really thinks that.
Nobody lives that way.
You know, because I don't care, you take the most devoted animal rights activists in the world, and if they have a roast, a roast, a roach, that's what I'm going for, if they have a cockroach infestation in their house, Which many of them do, because these are dirty people, most of them, animal rights activists.
All of them are calling the exterminator.
There has never been an animal rights activist who had a roach infestation in their house and said, you know what, they have a right to be here just as much as I do.
While the roaches are crawling all over them at night and like, you know, crawling into their refrigerator and their food and everything, defecating on their silverware.
So no, all of our focus is on the animals that we find to be the cutest and that we like having around.
And so while they pretend that this is about respecting the animals and it's about equality of animals, it's actually the opposite of that.
It's a very narcissistic, self-centered view of the world.
Where the animals that you personally like the most, and that you think are cute, and you want to be able to cuddle with them, the most cuddly animals to you are the ones that also have rights equal to your own.
So it all comes back to you, doesn't it?
Damn narcissist.
All right.
What else do we have here?
Okay, I wanted to play this for you.
A couple of school board highlights actually.
Here's a parent, I don't know if we'll play the whole thing here, but he's speaking out against CRT, this is a black parent we'll mention, at his school board, and here's what he has to say about critical race theory.
Let's play it.
The non-discrimination resolution.
The CRT deal.
Because it's happening, and as a parent, I speak to other parents, there's a few things that we don't want.
I'm biracial, I'm bilingual, I'm multicultural.
The fact is, in America, in North Carolina, I can do anything I want, and I teach that to my children.
And the person who tells my little pecan-colored kids that they're somehow oppressed based on the color of their skin would be absolutely wrong and absolutely at war with me.
And I think that's the same for every parent.
What the masks showed us is that the parents, the most powerful group of people in our country, that they're taking back the wheel.
Now obviously we had to take the wheel back for the mask, but we're taking the wheel back from Washington all the way to Raleigh and into our local school board.
Because CRT, all of that, the parents don't want it.
It's a big fat lie.
If you believe in CRT, I want to tell you, you're a liar.
Because that means you look at your black neighbor and say that they're oppressed, and you look at your white neighbor and say that they're evil, regardless of the experience that you've had with them.
And we're not going to do that.
The parents in the United States of America, right here in North Carolina in Comparis County, we know that's not true because we believe the lives we live.
The fact is, I've been a business owner right here in North Carolina, and I deal with white people, black people, Hispanic people.
My children deal with everybody.
And the racism is only happening at the government level and on the media.
The fact is, you have racists, and there's like, you can't even find them hardly.
You just hear the stories about them.
But this is what we're dealing with.
The parents are taking the wheel.
I have an eight-year-old daughter who is absolutely dynamic.
This is an important perspective, too, because we talk about critical race theory, and I've pointed out that it's anti-white racism, which it is, and we have to call it that.
And we have to condemn anti-white racism because it's the only acceptable form of racism left in America, which means that it deserves most of our attention.
The types of racism that almost everyone agrees are bad, but we don't have to talk about it much because everyone agrees it's bad.
But his perspective is also important too because it's quite demoralizing, to say the least, When you tell someone, tell a kid from a very young age that he's oppressed and he's a victim and you're driving that into his head.
It's also bad when you tell a kid that because of his skin color he's a villain and he has something to apologize for and should feel guilty.
But honestly, if I could choose, if we were actually able to identify as whatever race and decide which benefits we want to enjoy, I think I would still prefer to be shouted down as the villain and be blamed for all of the world's atrocities and every bad thing that's ever happened in history.
I think I would prefer that over constantly being told that I'm a victim and I'm oppressed and there's nothing I can do about it.
I prefer neither of those options, but if I had to choose one, I think I'd rather be called the villain.
Then be called the helpless victim.
Because when you're the helpless victim, you have your free wills being taken away.
You're immediately being assigned this position.
And so it's quite degrading and dehumanizing.
So we appreciate that from that parent.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Dailywire.com/sweetbabycomments If you want to leave a video comment, we've got a couple here.
Let's start with clip eight.
Hey Sweet Daddy Walsh, my name is Jules and I just wanted to say thank you for not changing your child's diaper on Valentine's Day and depriving your wife of her role in life.
I come from a long line of diaper-changing women.
My parents had 11 children in 14 years, no twins.
And my dad can count on one hand the amount of times he had to change diapers.
And actually that's one of the reasons my husband decided to marry me is because I assured him that he would not have to change any diapers from our children.
And he can probably count on one hand also the amount of times that he's been forced to do such a role and take on that challenge.
So as a newly appointed gender educator, as of this week, I've decided to say thank you on behalf of women everywhere and mothers everywhere.
for letting us fulfill our true roles and know our place in life.
So, SBG for life!
Bye!
Wow, so much internalized misogyny there, and I really appreciate it.
You actually told your husband before you got married, you promised him you would never have to change a diaper.
I hope that he proposed to you on the spot when you said that.
Like, if you said that on the first date, that's just proposed right then and there.
You have found the woman of your dreams.
All right, let's go to clip 10.
Hey, sweet daddy Walsh.
I just got off the Peloton.
I wanted to show you this leaderboard here.
Look at the second name down.
Hashtag SweetBabyGang.
It's going to become my hashtag as soon as I'm finished with this.
That's from Roadside.
Looks like he's identifying as a male in his 40s in Colorado.
He had a hell of a ride.
Anyway, SweetBabyGang has made it to the Peloton.
This is unbelievable.
Sweet babies for life.
We're everywhere.
We can't be stopped.
We're now... I'm not even sure what that is.
I know what the Peloton is.
Isn't that just an exercise bike?
So you compete against other people on the Peloton?
I'm always five years behind on every trend, so I'm just learning what a Peloton is right now.
I'd only heard the name before.
Is that what it is?
You compete against other people?
And you have their, against their times?
Well, and someone from the Sweet Baby Gang is, what is it, number nine?
Pretty good, but you gotta get into the top five.
I appreciate it, but don't represent the Sweet Baby Gang until you're in the top five.
It's embarrassing.
But thanks for that anyway.
You're banned from the show.
Payton Ruth says, Matt, I gotta know if you had leftover pizza, would you warm it up or eat it cold?
Yeah, I'm glad you brought this up because something really annoys me when I hear people say that cold pizza tastes better or they prefer it cold.
That's, of course, ridiculous.
If you have the time and you're not lazy, then it's going to be better if you warm it up.
Not in a microwave, but if you can warm it up and pop it in the oven, you know, on 350 for five minutes, it's going to be a better experience.
But you can eat it cold.
It's acceptable to eat it cold, but that's just out of laziness.
It's not better cold.
In fact, there really isn't...
There isn't any food that's actually better as a... There are some foods that are good as leftovers, but I don't think there are any foods that are better as leftovers, despite the propaganda that you often hear.
Sydney says, Matt, the diapers don't change depending on what the baby has expelled from their body.
You shame a man who can't help his fellow citizens by simply returning his cart.
Yet you can't take the time to learn how to change a diaper to help out your family.
Your wife pushed out four children.
The least you could do is learn how to change a diaper.
Your excuses aren't valid.
Try harder, Matt.
Try harder.
Why don't you try harder to get banned from the show?
Actually, you don't have to try because you are.
Sidney, so you just know all about my lived experiences, huh?
You've seen the world through my truth prism?
And you just make all of these statements?
About me and my life.
No, you haven't had my lived experience because if you had, you would also know that on top of everything else, I suffered a hand injury years ago that makes it excruciatingly painful to change diapers.
I can do most things, but the particular mechanism of changing a diaper for whatever reason, it causes me great pain.
I've told my wife this.
Now I tell you.
I don't want to have to talk about it.
But you forced me to.
Redder says, Matt Walsh, if you can't do the right thing when it costs you nothing, you can't do the right thing when it really matters.
Also Matt Walsh, I'm really proud that I've avoided changing diapers for eight years, and you should admire me for it.
Okay, except that avoiding changing diapers is the right thing.
In my case.
It's the right for me, and my physical health and well-being, and my emotional well-being, and my mental health.
That's what this is, really.
I just stumbled on it.
It's mental health.
We learned from Simone Biles, we've learned from a lot of female athletes, who are all heroes of mine, that your mental health comes before everything.
And it is a drain on my mental health to change diapers.
There we go.
All right, Logan says, Matt, what do you say to the claim that communism is good in theory, but just fails in practice?
Well, I say that claim is very stupid.
I mean, it's not good in theory.
Communism in theory robs humans of free will, of their own identity, of the ability to have things of their own, to have a life of their own.
But even putting that aside, what does it mean to say that something is good in theory?
A system is good in theory, but every time it's put in practice, it's bad.
What does that even mean?
If a theory is always bad when put into practice, isn't that proof that it's not a good theory?
How do we judge a good theory?
How do we judge a theory, good or bad, but by putting it into practice?
Isn't that the test of a theory?
It's like if I said that my theory is that humans can fly, and then everybody starts jumping out of their windows and splattering on the pavement, and I just shrug my shoulders and go, well, it was a good theory.
No, it was a bad theory, clearly.
It might be true that I wish humans could fly, but that makes it a good fantasy, not a good theory.
So is communism a good fantasy?
Well, no, it isn't that either.
But you can fantasize about whatever you want.
Biden just appointed a guy who fantasizes about having sex with dogs.
So people have a lot of sick fantasies.
Communism is one of them, but it's certainly not a good theory.
And finally, Denton says, I love that half the show is just Matt stating something stupid that someone said or did and then saying, what?
Well, as my loyal followers who we call the Sweet Baby Gang likely know, my store in the Daily Wire shop, The Swag Shack, is expanding almost as fast as the Left's list of pronouns.
Why?
Because as a man of many prestigious titles, theocratic fascist, beloved LGBTQ children's book author,
so many more, philanthropist is another one.
It's only fair that there are plenty of ways to pledge allegiance to the sweet baby gang.
If you remember my last announcement, I'm releasing a very limited edition patch once a month
for you to wear on your shirt, clothes.
You can iron it directly onto your skin.
That's not an official recommendation, but you could do that if you wanted to.
Or wherever you feel best demonstrates your fealty to the cause.
As promised, February's installment in the Patch Program is here.
If you've embarked on a journey of altered reality molded by narcissism and blatant disregard for the integrity of your fellow man, demanding I'll refer to you in a way that validates your lived experience, congratulations.
You've earned the Preferred Pronouns Merit Badge, featuring my preferred pronouns, handsome and brilliant.
Which are actually my preferred adjectives, but you know, who's counting?
If you haven't gotten the bundle of the first five merit badges, there's still time.
You can also peruse the rest of my collection for shirts, stickers, my best-selling LGBT children's book, Johnny the Walrus, and so much more.
Head to my swag shack, which we're really going with that, that's what we're calling it, at dailywire.com slash shop and get to the latest patch today.
You've earned it.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel writer Noreen Malone for her piece just published in the New York Times titled, The Age of Anti-Ambition.
When 25 million people leave their jobs, it's about more than just burnout.
The article is long, very long.
In fact, I'm beginning to realize that this is the defense mechanism used by the New York Times and by their columnists and their ilk.
Because if they write pieces that are rambling and long and boring, nobody will be able to read enough of it to criticize their arguments.
But I've broken through those defenses, subjected myself to the entire screed, and I can report That it is yet another soliloquy about how hard it is to work and how this great difficulty has led to more and more people stopping their work, and how this is in many ways, she says, a more enlightened path than that taken by our grandparents who were futile wage slaves blind with hopeless ambition.
Malone proposes that we're living in, as the title suggests, the age of anti-ambition, where our ambition is to have no ambition.
So a few select portions of this piece I think should suffice.
She begins by talking about how COVID made it so much more stressful to work, especially because so many people were forced to work at home in their pajamas, the poor dears.
And she says, quote, they log on to Slack and Zoom where their co-workers are two-dimensional or avatars, and every day is just like the last one.
Depending on what's happening with the virus, their children might be there again, just as in March 2020, demanding attention and sapping mental energy.
The internet is definitely there, always demanding attention and sapping mental energy.
A job feels like just one more incursion, demanding attention and sapping mental energy.
And it didn't help that, early in the pandemic, all jobs were pointedly rebranded, essential or non-essential.
Neither label feels good.
There's still plenty of purpose to be found in a job that isn't one of the helper professions, of course, but non-essential is a word that invites creeping nihilism.
This thing we fill at least eight to ten hours of the day with, five days a week, for years and decades?
Miss family dinners for?
Was it just busy work?
Perhaps that's what it was all along.
Now, pausing for a second, I agree with her that the essential versus non-essential distinction was grotesque and wrong.
But that's because I would say all jobs are essential, as all jobs provide people with an opportunity to care for themselves and their families.
And so they are essential to the people doing the job.
The writer, though, takes issue with both labels.
She doesn't like being called non-essential, but neither does she like the pressure that comes with being called essential.
She says, quote, for the obviously essential workers—ICU nurses, pulmonologists—the burden of being needed is a costly one.
The word burnout, promiscuously applied these days, was in fact coined to diagnose exhaustion in medical workers, in a more quaint time when we weren't heading into the third year of a multi-wave global pandemic.
Teachers, who happen to be both highly unionized and college educated, haven't taken kindly to being on the expendable end of the equation, asked to work in person with tiny people who aren't good at distancing and masking and have spent the past years cooped up.
Right, because the teachers are the primary victims of the fact that many kids were locked in their homes for a year.
Now, after a while, we get to the fundamental complaint, which is that work in general is hard, she says.
It's just so very hard.
Nobody wants to work.
It's not fair that people have to work.
Malone explains, quote, essential or non-essential, remote or in person, almost no one I know likes work very much at the moment.
The primary emotion that a job elicits right now is the determination to endure.
If we could just get through the next set of months, maybe things will get better.
The act of working has been stripped bare.
You don't have little outfits to put on and lunches to go to and coffee breaks to linger over and clients to schmooze.
The office is where it shouldn't be, at home, in our intimate spaces.
And all that's left now is the job itself, naked and alone.
And a lot of people don't like what they see.
It's as if our whole society is burned out.
The pandemic may have alerted new swaths of people to their distaste for their jobs or exhausted them past the point where there's anything to enjoy about jobs they used to like.
Perhaps that's why the press is filled with stories about widespread employee dissatisfaction.
I paused there for a second because I was looking for the Jeffrey Toobin joke when she said our jobs are naked and alone, but I couldn't quite get to it, so there it is.
And then we get a whole lot of stuff after that about all the people who are heroically quitting their jobs, not to pursue a better job necessarily, but to do nothing at all.
To live a life of anti-ambition.
Malone does find a silver lining, though.
She writes, quote, It's important to acknowledge that some people have reacted to this moment by becoming less cynical about the possibilities of work.
The broader world is getting darker.
Climate change.
Crumbling democracy.
It feels impossible to change it.
But work?
Work could change.
An idealistic generation has set upon demanding a utopian world on a local scale in their own little busy towns.
More diversity.
More attention to structural racism.
Better hours.
Better boundaries.
Better leave policies.
Better bosses.
Now, she says this in an approving way, of course.
Literally demanding a utopia is presented as a reasonable and positive path forward.
The message seems to be, from this article and from the culture broadly, that we're all entitled to a perfect and painless life.
And if we can't have that, we're within our rights to simply give up.
Stop working.
Of course, the Noreen Malones of the world never grapple with the fact that the choice to stop working is a choice to leech off of the work of others.
Because life requires work.
Life is work.
It is impossible to live without work.
You have to eat.
You have to live under some sort of shelter.
You need clothing.
You need clean water.
None of these things materialize on their own out of thin air, which means that work must be done to provide them.
The only question is whether you will contribute to that work or make others do it for your sake.
So you don't want to be a wage slave?
Fine, but if your choice is to be nothing instead and to do nothing, then you're making other people your slaves.
And I can understand the selfish appeal of that decision from a lazy perspective, but don't pretend that you're taking some kind of moral high ground.
And please stop trying to be poetic about your laziness and weakness.
I'm really tired of everybody sitting around, staring at their own navels, obsessing over their own feelings, thinking about what they're thinking about, throwing one pity party after another.
Okay, you've noticed that working is hard and not always fun.
Good for you.
It doesn't make you Socrates.
Now, why don't you try just going and doing what needs to be done, because it needs to be done, without thinking so much about how you feel about the things that you're doing.
What I'm trying to say is suck it up, Buttercup.
Get a grip.
Try thinking about someone other than yourself for five seconds of your life.
It will be a relief, trust me.
One other point to make here.
Ambition, as the word is used in modern English, is not a bad thing.
Far from bad.
It's essential to living a fulfilled and meaningful life.
Ambition is not just about earning money either.
In fact, I would define ambition as the ability and desire to do the things you want to have done Rather than always doing the things you want to do.
What I mean is, if your only guiding principle is simply to always just do whatever you feel like doing in the moment, whatever is most enjoyable right now, which is the non-ambitious life, then you'll never do anything worthwhile with your life because the most enjoyable thing in any given moment, the thing you most feel like doing right now, is always going to be to just sit on your couch and watch YouTube videos.
And that's why a lot of people never do anything but lie around and stare at screens.
Because they're always doing what they feel like doing right now, which is nothing.
Because, I mean, who really feels like doing anything?
So instead of thinking about what you want to do, you have to think about what you want to have done.
Somebody once said of writing that they don't love writing, but they love having written.
The experience of having written, you know, of having crafted something with language in your own mind, is one of the most fulfilling things in the world.
But writing itself is not enjoyable, often.
I mean, it's hard, it's exhausting, it's tedious.
You write so that you have written.
The payoff comes at the end.
You do what you want to have done.
What you wish you did yesterday.
So, you might not feel like going to the gym today, but I bet you wish you did yesterday.
I mean, who doesn't wish they went to the gym yesterday?
You might not feel like pursuing that difficult opportunity, taking on the tough project, taking a chance, whatever.
You might not feel like doing that now, but you wish you did it yesterday.
So do it today, so that tomorrow it will have been done.
And this principle really can never guide you wrong.
If there's something that you wish you had already done, then it's worth doing now.
If there's something that, after doing, you're going to wish you had not done, then it's not worth doing now.
Or ever.
This is all a long way of saying that modern Americans demand instant gratification.
We can't bring ourselves to endure even a moment of pain or mild discomfort.
Each moment has to be pleasurable in itself.
But there just isn't any way to achieve anything or live a real life that way.
For most of human history, it wasn't even an option to choose pleasure and comfort in each moment.
Now it is.
But if you do, then you're forfeiting success, fulfillment, joy, and purpose with your anti-ambitious life.
And that's why today, Noreen Malone of the New York Times is cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today and the week.
Have a great weekend.
Talk to you on Monday.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall 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 Robbie Dantzler, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
Export Selection