Ep. 1009 - Biden Steals From The Working Class And Gives To Gender Studies Majors
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Joe Biden officially announces a 300 billion dollar vote buying scheme with his student loan forgiveness plan. And yet the Administration has not been able to defend this morally and financially catastrophic policy. We’ll discuss. Also, Ron DeSantis provokes more outrage with his comments about Dr. Fauci. A woman sues her psychiatrist for signing off on a gender transition after just one meeting with him. George Foreman is accused of sexual assault 50 years ago. Is there no statute of limitations on accusations like this? And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with social media influencers who use their children for clout.
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”, streaming exclusively on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSX1
—
Today’s Sponsors:
American Financing empowers families with personalized mortgage solutions. From lower rates to shorter terms, and even debt consolidation! Call American Financing for a free mortgage review at (866) 569-4711 os visit AmericanFinancing.net
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Joe Biden officially announces a $300 billion vote-buying scheme with his student loan forgiveness plan, and yet the administration has not been able to defend this morally and financially catastrophic policy.
We'll discuss.
Also, Ron DeSantis provokes more outrage with his comments about Dr. Fauci.
A woman sues her psychiatrist for signing off on a gender transition after just one meeting with him.
George Foreman is accused of sexual assault 50 years ago.
Is there no statute of limitations on accusations like this?
Should there be?
In our daily cancellation, we'll deal with social media influencers who use their children for clout.
Watch all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Dig into your expenses, your savings, your investments.
Take action to cut back where you can.
If you have a lot of credit card debt or high living expenses, deal with it right now.
Call American Financing for a free, no obligation mortgage review and learn how your home can work for you.
I mean, you've probably put a lot of time and effort into it, and many of you may be experiencing significant equity gains.
It may be time to access that equity as cash, put it towards credit card interest or any high interest
debt for that matter.
You can learn more about custom options and you really got to look into these options right now
because we're all looking for ways to spend money. Or rather, we're looking for ways to save money,
maybe spend it too. By calling American Financing, there's no pressure, no upfront or hidden fees.
It's worth 10 minutes of your time to learn more. That's all it will take.
No reason not to take advantage of it.
All you got to do is call this number 866-569-4711.
866-569-4711. That again is 866-569-4711 or visit AmericanFinancing.net NMLS 182334 NMLS
consumeraccess.org. Joe Biden's first and last term in office has been an unmitigated disaster
in every sense of the term across the entire board and in every area.
Though Biden is likely not aware of his failures, because he's not aware of anything, he doesn't even know how he got into whatever room he's standing in currently, much less does he understand his own policies or their impact on the public, still, it has been a cavalcade of catastrophes.
What else is a Democrat going to do, heading into an election season with no achievements to highlight, no successes to brag about?
Well, he has only one desperation move, one Hail Mary play, and that is to, of course, bribe the voters.
Or rather, more specifically, bribe some of the voters, a relatively small fraction actually, and to do so at the expense of all the other voters hoping that the group left holding the bag doesn't notice that they're holding it.
And so finally yesterday, after much build-up and anticipation, President Biden did officially announce that he would forgive, quote-unquote, $300 billion of student loan debt.
The plan, which the White House unveiled on Wednesday, would wipe out $10,000 worth of loans for
borrowers earning less than $125,000 in income as individuals or $250,000 as a household.
He has taken out his magic wand and poofed all of that debt away.
Well, not really.
I mean, the wand is more of a giant broom which will be used to sweep the debt from one part of the room over into another, even larger part.
The mess that had been mucking up one corner will now become a more widely distributed mess across a larger portion of the house.
And worst of all, the people that are now left to deal with the mess are precisely the ones who did not create it and had nothing at all to do with it.
The plan translates into about $2,000 worth of additional financial burden for every taxpayer, but that's only the beginning.
The even greater cost will come in the form of inflation.
Of course, Biden says that there's no need to worry about inflation because, uh, reasons.
By resuming student loan payments at the same time as we provide targeted relief, we're taking an economically responsible course.
As a consequence, About $50 billion a year will start coming back into the treasury because of resumption of debt.
Independent experts agree that these actions, taken together, will provide real benefits for families without meaningful effect on inflation.
Well, that is nonsense, obviously.
As Jason Furman, a former economic advisor to Obama, wrote yesterday, he said, "Pouring
roughly half a trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that's already burning
is reckless.
Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise, 10,000 of student loan relief, and
breaking another, all proposals paid for, is even worse."
Now, that's especially compelling coming from an economics guy who worked for a Democrat,
but we don't need him or anyone else to tell us this.
Obviously, dumping $300 billion into an economy already ravaged by inflation will create more inflation.
Any rational person can see that.
Even as the Democrats, as always, tell us not to believe our lying eyes, and also don't believe our lying ears.
Especially when our ears heard Nancy Pelosi just recently declare that the President does not have the authority to do what he just did yesterday.
You may recall this.
People think that the President of the United States... Is this more on the subject than you ever want to know?
Well, you'll let me know.
People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.
He does not.
He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power.
That has to be an act of Congress.
Yet another moment to be shoved down the memory hole.
But if you really want to understand how indefensible this move from Biden is, all you have to do is listen to the administration try to defend it.
For example, here was Biden yesterday when asked whether this policy is fair to the people who have already paid back their loans.
And that's a very good question.
Here's what he says.
Thank you.
Mr. President, is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?
What?
That was a total non sequitur.
Too incoherent and irrelevant to even qualify as a strawman.
Mr. President, why did you just kick that dog in the face?
others don't have to.
What?
What? That was a total non sequitur.
Too incoherent and irrelevant to even qualify as a straw man. Mr. President, why did you just kick that dog in the
face?
Why did I kick the dog? Well, what about the orca in Free Willy, right?
Remember him?
He was treated poorly.
Was that fair?
Was it?
What?
And before you blame his response on dementia, please note how the White House spokesperson was also asked some questions about this and didn't perform much better when confronted with a similar line of questioning.
Let's watch that.
Again, here's what we have done.
But you're talking a lot about how much it might cost, it might not cost.
Who is paying for this?
What we are saying is the work that this administration has done, the work that the Democrats in Congress has done, is actually there.
And you see that the $1.7 trillion deficit deduction that you see is going to benefit us in being able to do something for the middle class.
To do something for the middle class.
This is about doing something for people who make less than $125,000.
$1.7 trillion.
That's what we've been able to do.
But when you forgive debt, you're not just disappearing debt.
So who is paying for this?
And then I'll give you the second part.
We lifted the pause, right?
We're going to lift the pause at the end of this year, which is going to matter, right?
Which is going to offset a lot of what we're doing as well.
Well, that doesn't answer the question at all, and it's nonsense, first of all.
Think about what they're claiming here.
The White House expects us to believe that they're offsetting the $300 billion loan forgiveness by not forgiving the rest of it.
What?
If I lend you $20 and then I forgive half of it, can I offset the cost of losing 10 of the dollars I'm owed by still recouping the other 10?
Now, I'm not a math whiz, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
And of course, my analogy doesn't really work, because in that scenario, I am eating the cost of my own forgiveness.
Because, by the way, that's what forgiveness actually is.
When you forgive someone, that's something that you are choosing to do.
Okay, you are, to use a favorite leftist phrase, you are doing the work.
But if you're just making someone else carry the burden, then that's not forgiveness.
And in this case, though Karen Jean-Pierre doesn't want to say it out loud, the people paying for this forgiveness are the ordinary taxpayers.
And as always, the burden will be felt heaviest, most, by the working class.
So think about this plan for a moment.
College graduates earning six figures as an individual will have part of their debts paid by people making a fraction of their salary, most of whom didn't even go to college.
And I know that because the majority of adults in this country do not have bachelor degrees.
The median individual income in the USA is less than $40,000.
Biden is offering forgiveness, quote-unquote, to college graduates making three times the median.
Half of the student debt is held by graduate students.
Graduate students are in fact, you know, a big part of the reason why we're in this mess.
Again, half of the debt is theirs.
And these are people who kept taking out loans.
They didn't just take out loans when they were 18, but when they were well into adulthood.
Kept taking out loans, staying in school for years and years.
We all know people like this.
It's just like they don't want to get a job or live, so they just keep going back to school.
Racking up degree after worthless degree, staying there for years, spending all this money.
And now, those who made more responsible decisions and who earned far less money must carry the burden for the poor choices they had nothing to do with that were made by people wealthier than them.
It is obscene.
We are, in fact, bailing out PhDs by reaching into the pockets of plumbers and mechanics.
We're taking money from working families and handing it to gender studies majors.
That's what we're doing.
Words can hardly express what a ludicrous injustice this actually is.
Meanwhile, adding insult to injury?
Nothing at all is being done to actually solve the underlying problem or hold any of the guilty parties accountable.
Let's start with the universities.
It is amazing that we can constantly have this conversation about student debt, the student debt crisis, and yet the universities are let off the hook completely.
It's like when we talk about student debt, it's like the universities don't even exist.
Where's this debt coming from?
What are the people paying for?
Why are they taking out the loans to go to the universities?
Why are the loans so much money?
Because the universities are charging that much.
Why are they charging that much?
No one even asks the question.
Especially on the left, they don't.
Why the hell should it cost $100,000 to go to one of these stupid places?
They're not made to justify those prices.
They never are.
When's the last time you saw any university official being asked by anyone, hey, why are you guys charging this much?
What about their, you know, let's look at the salaries.
We hear so much about the, you know, dreaded millionaires and billionaires in the corporate world.
What about the salaries of these university officials, administrative officials?
The universities are still charging exorbitant fees for an education that proves to be worthless most of the time.
In fact, now they can charge even more, and they can be even more reckless, knowing that the federal government will come in and transfer the debt from the borrower to his neighbor across the street.
So the corruption and greed in the university system is not only not addressed, but actually encouraged.
Also, the school system.
Before you get to the university system, you have the school system, grade schools, funneling millions of kids into the universities.
They're still doing this.
They were doing this when I went to grade school.
It's not subtle.
They're, like, telling you, you need to go to college.
If you don't go to college, you're going to be a failure.
You're not going to be able to make any money.
That's what they tell kids.
Any accountability there?
What about the employers who are still doing their part to deepen the crisis by requiring
college degrees for positions that don't necessitate them and for jobs that must be learned by
doing whether you have a degree or not?
Now there are exceptions to this, but most jobs out there in the world, most of them,
you learn them just by doing them.
You don't learn them by going to school for four years.
You go to school for 20 years and you're not going to be even a fraction of the way there
in terms of being ready for most jobs that exist because you have to actually do it and
get training.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
These are the culprits constantly working every day to inflate the student debt bubble and not a single thing is being done to stop them.
Not a single thing.
Instead, the problem is allowed to persist.
The cancer is left untreated and the people made to pay the price are precisely those people who have the least to do with any of it.
You know what the greatest insult to injury actually is?
Is that, you know, go talk to people that are in college about why they're there.
Most of the college kids, they have no idea what they want to do with their lives, so it's not that they're, it's not that.
No, what's one of the main reasons that kids even go to college?
It's for the social experience, right?
I.e.
in other words, they're going to college because they want to party for four years.
That is a huge part of the motivation for many of these kids.
They're taking out these loans and they're going to college because they want to party.
That's what they do.
They spend four years partying.
It's like a vacation.
It's like four years vacation.
It's a four years divorce from reality.
And now you got working people with real problems and real things they got to deal with and families and everything and they got to pay so that you could party for four years?
Now look, you may support this approach.
If you do, it's because you personally benefit and you don't really care about the effect it has on other people.
That's it.
I mean, it's selfishness.
You're allowed to be selfish.
You know, you can be.
But that's what it is.
Don't claim it's anything else.
But if you do support it, all I ask is that you please, please, Never speak another word about equity or justice or fairness ever again.
You have lost the right to pretend to care about any of those things.
So just be honest.
It's the least you could do.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
And I know I pointed this out yesterday, but I really, I can't quite get over.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
The other aspect of this, the claim being made here, especially given the timing, you know, this is happening along with some of the other issues that we've been discussing.
So it just brings you back to this fact that like, according to the left, an 18 year old cannot consent to a student loan.
Student loans are predatory.
because the interest rates and everything, but mainly because they are being offered
to 18 year olds who don't understand what they're signing up for.
So an 18 year old cannot consent to a student loan, which that part I agree with, by the way.
It's crazy that we're allowing 18 year olds to take out loans like this.
But that's what the left that part we all agree left says can't consent to it.
But, officially, I'm not.
But, a 15-year-old can consent to a double mastectomy.
A 12-year-old can consent to chemical castration.
A 4-year-old can consent to socially transitioning to another gender.
A 4-year-old can consent to becoming another gender, socially, quote-unquote.
But an 18-year-old cannot be expected to read the terms of a financial agreement before he signs it.
This is what we're expected to believe.
These are the ideas we're expected to take seriously.
Again, it's just obscene, is what it is.
Alright, Ron DeSantis has made some people a little bit upset with some remarks that he made about Tony Fauci.
Let's listen to those.
You have people like Fauci saying that his lockdowns didn't cause any permanent damage to any young kids.
I got news for you, it did.
And we are going to reap those rewards across the whole country for years and years and years because they treated kids so poorly.
And I'm just sick of seeing him.
I know he says he's going to retire.
Someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac.
Uh, that is really disappointing stuff, honestly.
Um...
And, you know, you know how I can be, and I'm not a very sensitive person, but I have to say it's inappropriate and unfair.
And again, I'm just disappointed.
Deeply unfair to elves to say that.
The elves in the Lord of the Rings are good, they're also tall, they're honest, they're wise.
Fauci's none of those things.
So this is just an unfair comparison to elves.
It's not fair to call.
I would say Fauci is more of a golem type of creature.
So what he should have said is pick up that golem and chuck him across the Potomac.
Now that would have been much better.
Just, you know, Fauci's like this old, shriveled, shifty, untrustworthy, obsessed with power... Yeah, Gollum, I think, is what we... So, just, in the future.
Let's stop with this.
Let's stop with the elf slander.
Can we?
Alright.
This one from the New York Post says an Australian woman who transitioned to male before realizing it was a mistake is suing a psychiatrist after he approved her female to male hormone treatment following a single meeting and later signed off on two surgeries to remove her breasts and uterus.
Jay Langodinos, now 31, was just 19 when she first met Dr. Patrick Tuohy, who is a veteran Sydney psychiatrist, in May 2010.
The teen was referred to him by her endocrinologist to determine if she was suitable for a gender transition.
A specialist wrote that she was very young and needed a thorough psychiatric workup before embarking on hormone treatment, according to a statement of claim filed in court.
After his first meeting with the teen, Tsui concluded that Langodinos suffered from gender dysphoria and was fit for testosterone therapy.
So this is one meeting.
The psychiatrist took one meeting with this individual and said, yep, good to go.
Let's get him on the hormone therapy.
And keep in mind, when you hear this story, all of this is 100% typical.
This is the way that it goes.
Because this is how psychiatrists are programmed now, is they're thinking about drugs.
They're going to listen to you talk, and then what drug can we give you?
It's the same thing in many cases if you're looking for antidepressants.
Just take one meeting, you'll get them.
Looking for hormone drugs just takes one meeting.
The next time Langodinos had an appointment with Tuohy in February 2012, she told him she was eager to undergo top surgery to have her breast surgically removed as part of her transition.
Tuohy approved the double mastectomy for his patient, who underwent the procedure in April of that year, according to the court filing.
A month later, Langodinos met with Tuohy for the third and final time to discuss removing her uterus, and once again, the psychiatrist said, yep, go ahead.
So this is three meetings, and we've gotten rid of two body parts.
And we've got drugs.
First meeting, put them on drugs.
Next meeting, take off the breasts.
Meeting after that, remove the uterus.
And the psychiatrist was there signing off on all this.
And then it goes on detailing how The Langodinos eventually came to, relatively quickly, came to regret all of this.
And now, nearly a decade later, Langodinos, who no longer identifies as male, is suing Tuohy for professional negligence, claiming that he greenlit her hormone therapy even after she told him that she suffered from social phobia.
She also alleges that he was negligent in not recommending that she get a second opinion ahead of her hysterectomy.
The court filing states that Tuohy strongly recommended that Lingodinos seek social and family therapy, but she did not heed that recommendation.
Despite that, he went ahead and signed off on her two surgeries.
So that's, that's his, apparently that's his defense, is that he said, well, you should, you should go and seek other forms of therapy.
She didn't do it though, and so, but he said, yeah, you should have the drugs anyway.
Signed off on the drugs and the surgery.
This, as I said, is extraordinarily common.
This is not an outlier.
This is the way that it works.
And even if they extend it to two meetings or three meetings.
I mean, there's no number of meetings with a psychiatrist that would justify a recommendation of removing healthy body parts.
But the fact is that they don't, most of the time, it only takes a couple.
And what's happening here is what needs to happen all across the world.
I mean, that is, you know, we could talk about how to fight back against this madness, and there are many ways to do it.
You know, there's activism, there's political pressure, there's all kinds of things we could do.
But, lawsuits, ultimately, that's what's going to put a stop to this.
And that's the indispensable element of this fight, is they gotta start suing these people for negligence.
And we're gonna see more of this.
I mean, the class action lawsuits that are coming down the pike here are just, it's hard to conceive of what we're gonna be looking at.
Class action lawsuits against hospitals, psychiatrists, pharmaceutical industry, all of it.
And it all needs to happen.
All right, from the Daily Wire it says, Finland's Prime Minister Sanna Marin, who was already in deep water after videos showing her partying hard with a man not her husband appeared on social media, apologized on Tuesday after a photo revealed two bare-chested women kissing at her official residence, with one woman's breasts only covered by a sign reading, Finland.
Marin telling reporters in Helsinki that she had invited some friends over to sauna, swim and spend time together.
After a music festival in July, so she's coming to a, so she's attending a music festival too.
This is the prime minister, alright.
So the incident occurred in the downstairs guest bathrooms and said, in my opinion, this is what she said, in my opinion that photo is not appropriate.
I apologize for that.
That photo should not be taken.
And then I believe she went on To say once again that she's human.
So that's been her excuse all along.
Is that, well, I'm human.
Yeah, we get that.
That part we understand.
But you're also a grown adult and you're a prime minister.
That's the aspect of this that's causing some problems for people.
Now, the interesting thing is that I've actually seen some people, even on the right, defend this woman and kind of characterize this as cancel culture.
Oh, just let her have fun, not hurting anybody.
Now, we should be very clear about this, that this is not cancel culture.
I mean, first of all, as the leader of a country, it's not really possible to be a victim of cancel culture.
Being criticized is part of the deal, and that's supposed to happen.
You're supposed to be criticized.
So there's no amount of criticism or scrutiny, even if it's unfair.
That's not cancel culture, that just comes with the territory.
And it's necessary and healthy that you be criticized and scrutinized all the time.
Also, of course, the other thing about cancel culture is that it is, as I'm always trying to explain, it's a function of the institution.
That's what cancel culture is.
That's what differentiates it from other, you know, from just holding people accountable or average, everyday, sort of run-of-the-mill criticism.
It's a function of the institutions.
So when you have the institutions working to punish someone for something that they've done or said, that's when you have cancel culture.
But when you're running the institutions because you're the prime minister, well, then you can't be a victim of it.
No.
So this isn't cancel culture.
This is standards of behavior, which is not cancel culture.
And that's a good thing to have.
And especially as conservatives, that's one of the things that we should be trying to conserve, actually, is standards of behavior.
We expect people to act in a certain way.
And our expectations for you are going to depend on your station in life.
It depends on who you are, what your role is, what your vocation is.
If you're an adult, in general, there are certain standards of behavior, certain expectations.
That's good.
That's one of the things, again, as conservatives, we should be trying to conserve.
A society where there are no expectations of anyone, and you can just do anything you want, And without any shame whatsoever, that's what the left wants.
That's like moral anarchy.
That's not us.
That's what they want.
So there are standards of behavior if you're an adult, and then if you're a political leader, even more so.
We expect more of you.
You should be acting even better than the average person because of the responsibilities you've been given.
All right.
So this is an interesting case that I just saw right before we went on air here.
The New York Times, it says two women filed lawsuits on Wednesday in California alleging that George Foreman, who's the former world heavyweight boxing champion, sexually abused them when they were teenagers in California in the 1970s.
According to the lawsuit, the women, using their pseudonyms Gwen H and Denise S to protect their identities, initially met Foreman when they were under 10 years old through their fathers.
One man was a boxer, sparring partner of Foreman, while the other was a boxing manager and longtime advisor to Foreman.
Foreman then groomed the girls for several years, according to the complaints, before forcing them to have sex with him in places ranging from a San Francisco health hotel to an apartment in Beverly Hills.
The two women, who are both in their early 60s now, filed the complaints in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Representatives for Foreman referred inquiries about the lawsuits to a statement that he released last month, and he says that they're trying to extort him.
They've been trying to extort him for years.
This is a false claim, and he denies it.
Now, you read this story, and you think, are there... Of course, I don't know if this happened or not.
These are claims dating back 50 years.
And so you read that and you think, are there no statute of limitations here?
How can you come out 50 years later?
Now, if something did happen to you when you were much younger, when you were a kid, it's understandable that kids who are victimized oftentimes don't want to come out right away because they're afraid, they've been intimidated.
That's part of the conditioning and the grooming.
Like, once you get to adulthood, at a certain point, you have to say, if you wait, not just waiting 50 years, you've waited like 40 years into adulthood.
And now you're saying something at a time when it's just impossible to prove one way or another.
It would be impossible to do.
It's also impossible to, if you've been, you know, if the claim is false and you're being falsely accused, it's impossible to vindicate yourself.
It's just a claim.
So how can you wait 50 years?
Should there not be some kind of statute of limitations putting some urgency on this, saying, if you've been victimized, we absolutely want you to come forward, but you can't wait half a century to come forward, because there's nothing we can do with the claim at that point.
Well, you would think that, but actually, California changed their law relatively recently.
They changed it in response to the Me Too hysteria, and according to the law that went into effect back in 2020, They extended the statute of limitations.
They extended it broadly just across the board.
But then they also basically extended it indefinitely because now according to their law, you have to come forward within five years, if you're claiming you're a victim, you have to come forward within five years of discovering an injury.
So that's the way they've phrased it in the law.
Which, if you don't think much about it, it sounds like, okay, well, five years, that's, okay, that's not that long, that seems fair.
Well, but they're including psychological injury.
So, five years of discovering a psychological injury, which is another way of saying that you have forever, there is no statute of limitations.
Because, yeah, you could walk into a psychiatrist's office when you're 65 and say, I'm traumatized by something that happened 50 years ago and that's it.
That's all you have to do.
And now you've got five years from that first meeting with a psychiatrist to file a claim.
And it should come as no surprise, by the way, that As soon as California put this law on the books, or rather it's amending the currently existing law, as soon as they amended the law, there's just been a rush of claims like this from people alleging that they were victimized decades prior.
It's just obviously total madness.
You know, there's not an exact science here of what the statute of limitations should be, but I think any thinking person, any rational person, would agree that 50 years is just way too long.
Maybe like 5 years into adulthood?
I think that might make sense.
Just, you know, something between 5 and 50.
All right, so we have two stories here of Hollywood, which, you know, we know Hollywood loves nothing more than lecturing its own fans.
And so we've got two examples of that.
One of which I actually find somewhat upsetting to me on a personal level.
So first, this is from Variety.
It says, House of Dragon star... House of Dragon, I guess that's the new Game of Thrones show.
So one of the stars, Steve Toussaint, who plays Lord Corlys...
Valoran, I don't know, aka the Sea Snake on the series slammed viewers of Game of Thrones prequel who took issue with his casting saying that they're, you know, that they're racist.
He says, it seems to be very hard for people to swallow.
He said this in an interview with Men's Health.
They're happy with a dragon flying.
They're happy with white hair and violet colored eyes.
But a rich black guy?
That's beyond the pale.
Toussaint added, what has been wonderful is for every toxic person that has somehow found their way into my timeline, there have been so many others who have been so supportive and been like, oh my god, I can't wait.
This is going to be great.
All right.
And then he goes on from there.
So he's accusing viewers of being racist, and he's alleging that they're criticizing him, I guess, because he's portraying a character who in the books is a white guy, and they switched him over to a black guy.
And so he's calling them all racist for that criticism, which to begin with, we can pretty much guarantee that because we know this, there's a lot of precedent here.
We've seen many stories like this where actors are coming out now.
It's very common now.
There used to be a time when actors would be hesitant to criticize their own fan base, but now they just love doing it.
Scolding their own fans and so we know from precedent that that oftentimes when we're told that our fans are racist because they're Criticizing a black actor and then you look at most of the criticism you say well No, they're just they just don't like the performance got nothing to do with the skin color But then of course there's the inconsistency here because Even if there were fans saying that hey, well this the character here Doesn't look like what he's supposed to look like based on the books what we know that if you reverse that That criticism would be seen as totally valid.
Okay, we all understand what would happen if, for example, Black Panther, who's a fictional character, doesn't actually exist.
You can make him look any way you want.
But if Chris Pratt, let's just imagine Chris Pratt being cast for the next Black Panther film.
There would be, I'm not kidding when I say there would be riots in the street over that.
There would be riots, there would be buildings burning if Chris Pratt was given the fictional role of Black Panther.
And we all kind of understand that.
So that criticism is totally valid, but if you do it in the reverse, it's horrifically racist.
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
And then there's this.
This is the one that kind of hurts me a little bit, because I'm such a big fan of the show and also of this individual.
Vince Gilligan, who is the writer and creator of Breaking Bad, has come out and, according to the reports anyway, has accused Breaking Bad fans of sexism Because of their treatment of one of the characters on that show, Skyler, who of course is Walter White's wife.
So here's what it says.
In Breaking Bad, Walter White, played by Bryan Cranston, builds a multi-million dollar meth empire, all while lying to his family and mercilessly killing those who stand in his way.
But it was often his wife, Skyler White, played by Anna Gunn, who was viewed as the villain in the story.
In a lengthy interview with the New Yorker, Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan opened up About the undeserved and often sexist hatred towards Skyler, saying that it troubled him and also the actress Anna Gunn.
Now, I will say that reading his quotes, he doesn't actually use the word sexism.
He doesn't specifically say that, but it does seem to be what he's implying.
He says, back when the show first aired, Skyler was roundly disliked.
I think that always troubled Anna Gunn, and I can tell you it always troubled me, because Skyler the character did nothing to deserve that, and Anna certainly did nothing to deserve that.
She played the part beautifully.
I realize in hindsight that the show was rigged in the sense that the storytelling was solely through Walt's eyes, even in scenes he wasn't present for.
And so it was rigged and that's why... And then all the sexist fans came out and he's upset about that and he kind of regrets it.
And this makes no sense on a number of levels.
First of all, I'm just trying to understand.
You're accusing the show of being rigged.
Well, it was in a way.
It was written.
It was scripted by you.
You're the creator of the show.
So you wrote these characters.
And you wrote her to be unlikable.
The fans are responding emotionally to the characters the way that you wrote them.
And yes, the show, it's got to be through someone's eyes.
It's pretty, when you have the central character of the show, for the show to be, for us to sort of see the world through that character's eyes, that's storytelling.
That's what makes it interesting.
That's why people like watching movies and shows.
That's kind of the point of storytelling, is to be able to, you know, see the world through this character's eyes.
And now that makes you a sexist.
It's also interesting because we're always told by the left that, you know, art is subjective.
They're always emphasizing the subjective nature of art.
And yet what we're constantly reminded now is that actually, well, no, it's not subjective.
There are incorrect ways of responding to works of art.
And so many of the Breaking Bad fans, according to Vince Gilligan, responded incorrectly.
They were not supposed to dislike this person.
And if you don't like this actor's portrayal of a character on the Game of Thrones prequel, then that's an incorrect emotional response.
Oh, so it turns out that art is objective in the end.
Who would have thought?
Let's get to the comment section.
Have you given up already?
Did you let the man win?
Well, I don't give up on anything.
I especially am not going to give up on my giant walrus, especially because when it's in the building somewhere, how could I give up on it?
I have instead been running this down behind the scenes, investigating the situation.
And what I'm starting to understand more and more over time is that this really is a scandal, which I didn't realize this at first.
I honestly thought at first that this was just a miscommunication.
That's all.
I thought it was like no one is really responsible for it.
What I'm starting to understand is that there is intention behind this.
And not only that, worst of all, but the scandal goes all the way to the top.
Here's just an example.
It's come to my attention.
That people have been, viewers have been sending walruses, not giant stuffed walruses, but like smaller little walruses to me, I guess to, you know, as kind of like a consolation prize to make me feel better.
I appreciate it.
It's not, it's not really enough.
It's not, you know, it's not the, it's not enough to make up for what I've been deprived of, but still I appreciate it.
And yet, um, I obtained this photograph, From down in Florida, apparently the walruses that are supposed to be going to me have been intercepted and are now with Ben down in Florida.
So he has not only taken away my giant walrus, but is also now taking the smaller walruses away too.
Things are getting very strange.
But I haven't given up, I tell you that.
Joe Blow says, I had a vasectomy at 19.
I truly regret that decision to this day.
No one at that age has the proper capacity to make those decisions.
It is insane to me, actually, that even at 19, that you could go in at 19 and get a vasectomy?
Because, of course, you're a 19-year-old guy, and at 19, you feel like you're never going to want to have kids.
Do you know what other 19-year-old guys feel that way?
Like, almost all of them.
It's very common at 19 to think, I don't know if I'm right.
When I was 19, I hadn't signed off on the idea completely, but I couldn't imagine myself at 19 being a father.
It was like an unimaginable thing.
Six years later, I had two kids.
And so, even at 19, yes, you're a legal adult.
But the doctors are performing a procedure on you, and they must know that there's a high likelihood that you're going to regret it.
And all the more so if it's a gender transition surgery.
Good thing about a vasectomy, by the way, is that it can be reversed, right?
So you can actually reverse that.
A lot of these gender affirmation surgeries, or in fact all of them, cannot actually be reversed.
Not completely, anyway.
Adam says, People are ignorant of the fact that Michael Jackson's—oh, we're not going to keep doing the Michael Jackson thing.
All right, fine.
Michael Jackson's bedroom is two stories, that Macaulay Culkin is one of the biggest defenders of Michael, and that Wade Dobson's mother is a literal con artist.
But I'm not shocked when you take a man with Michael's appearance and his childish behavior and add in the media repetition, guys like Matt take the bait.
It was designed and sold to the conservative audience for that reason.
Okay, I played the clip for you.
He said that he slept in bed with many children.
He said that.
That's what he said.
Not that he was in a two-story bedroom, slept in bed with many children.
That's what he said.
So if you want to continue to claim that that's a totally normal thing and not suspicious at all, I know you don't believe that.
I know you don't.
Nobody does.
But if you feel like you need to tell yourself that for some reason, then I can't stop you.
Old timer says, and these activist pediatricians have the power to report you to CPS, claiming that you are abusing your child by not allowing pediatricians to transition your child, thus CPS will take your child away from you.
That's exactly right.
We've already seen cases like that.
We've seen cases like that in Canada, which tends to be even more egregious there because of the way the laws are set up, especially now with their laws.
The way the laws against conversion therapy are written in Canada, it means that if you correctly gender your child, if you call your male child a boy or a he, but he wants to be a she, then you are guilty of conversion therapy.
That's abuse, like we heard from a father in What Is A Woman, which you can go to whatisawoman.com and watch that film now, and then you can get your child taken away.
So that's in Canada, but it's also happening increasingly in this country as well.
You're absolutely right about that.
Let's see.
Dan says, Matt, your wife getting a college degree and sustaining student debt, did it pay off for her in a rewarding career?
Genuinely curious, considering your stance, as I fully agree with you.
I think she would agree with me that it didn't exactly pay off because she's not working in that field, right?
She's raising the kids.
I'm paying off the debt.
Many such cases.
You know, here's the other thing.
I think it's an important point to make about the student debt conversation.
That I often criticize, as many people do, the university system for giving a worthless education.
People get the degree, they go out, they don't use it.
But in an ideal scenario, we wouldn't be talking about using your education.
Like, in an ideal scenario, an education would be worthwhile for its own sake.
So that if somebody went to school and they got the degree, they spent four years in school or however many years, they got the degree, and they don't, you know, they end up staying at home, they're a stay-at-home mom or whatever, or they work in a field where a degree isn't necessary.
Ideally, we'd like to be able to say that, well, it wasn't a waste because even though they're not using the degree, they still got the education.
And so they're just like a more well-rounded, more intelligent person, and it's worth it for its own sake.
They're not using education to make money, but they are using it in a sense of it's part of them now, right?
So, we should be able to say that, but we can't, for a couple of reasons.
Number one, it's so ridiculously expensive.
It's too expensive to justify doing for its own sake.
If you're going to charge six figures for something, then it needs to have some practical application.
Unless you're a multi-millionaire, you can't afford, you can't justify spending tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands on an education just for its own sake, just for the experience.
And that's compounded by the fact that the education that these universities provide in so many cases is worthless in the sense that it's not going to help you get a job, but also in the sense that it doesn't help you become a more well-rounded person.
A lot of these kids come out of college and they're worse and dumber than they were when they went in.
So that's another part of the conversation we should be having, which is another reason why we should be focusing our criticism and ire on the university system itself and asking it to account for itself, but we're not.
Or how about, as others have suggested, here's a student loan forgiveness plan that I might actually be able to get behind.
Make the universities pay it.
Take it from their endowments.
Make them pay it.
Okay?
You force Harvard to pay off the loans for all the Harvard graduates?
Okay, I could get on board with that.
But we're not going to make Harvard do it, we're going to make the plumber next door do it.
Recessions aren't recessions.
Inflation is good.
Men are women.
If you're more confused than usual lately, it's by design.
The left thinks they have a monopoly on the definition of words and they can silence you.
But they can't.
And if you simply push back, the house of cards starts to collapse.
Just look at what, in my film, What Is A Woman?
My film caused a rift.
In the space-time continuum, just because I asked a question, the month it came out, The Daily Wire had more members sign up than at any other time in its history.
More than 5,000 audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes later, and the film still has people talking.
People come up to you all the time talking about it.
And that's a good thing, because the more we bring these conversations out into the open, and the more we confront the madness, the sooner it will hopefully end.
So if you haven't seen it yet, go to whatisawoman.com and watch it now.
That's whatisawoman.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, you got to feel sorry for this generation of kids for many reasons, really, but especially
because this is the first generation of children who will know what it's like to be raised
by social media influencers.
They're the first to experience the trauma of having their childhoods mined for TikTok content.
So take, for example, the four-year-old daughter of TikTok influencer Kat Calamani, whose social rejection by the neighborhood kids was immediately converted into content by Mommy.
Cat has made, somehow, headlines this week after issuing a, to use the New York Post's phrase, heartfelt plea to other parents on the platform.
The Post reports how a tearful and devastated mother witnessed her child being bullied and responded how any loving parent would by leveraging the incident for internet clout.
So here is the emotional video, which has garnered over 2 million views, by the way, which was totally not the point, I'm sure.
It was not the point of getting views, but here it is.
Parent and have kids?
I need your help.
Why is parenting so hard?
My daughter's four and has these little girls around her neighborhood who I thought she got along great with.
Well, I looked out the window and I saw a couple of the girls putting their hands out like they didn't want to play with her.
And so I walked over there and they were telling me she's not allowed to play with them because they don't want her to.
She was devastated.
She was crying and asking me why her friends don't like her and why she can't play with them.
I didn't even know how to respond.
I just said, everyone sometimes makes mistakes and sometimes people aren't feeling the best and then they treat other people not so nicely and you can't control that.
And when you are around people who are not so nice, it's just best to walk away.
Because you can't control them.
How do you handle situations like this with your children?
Well, not like that.
She didn't know how to respond.
She didn't know how.
So instead, she took out her phone, shot a selfie video, Then edited it, and put sad piano music in the background, and then posted it.
And then started furiously responding to the supportive comments, all while her daughter, presumably, stood by sobbing, having now been ignored by both her friends and her mom.
But it's really, it's the music which does it for me.
That's what does it.
That's what destroys any chance that this was like an authentic, I'm reaching out for help.
You're taking the time to pick out the emotional music to go along with it.
No.
Now, of course, even apart from the clout chasing, the problem with the video is that it's histrionic and absurdly melodramatic.
Look, it's really not a big deal at all when little kids tell other little kids that they don't want to play with them.
That's how little kids are.
They're quite fickle as a community, okay?
Four-year-olds in particular are prone to just, like, casually stabbing each other in the back for no discernible reason.
It's extremely common for kids that age to play together nicely for a while, only for one to suddenly run out of the room And snitch on the other, trying to get him in trouble based on real or imagined crimes.
And the amazing thing, though, is that they can go right back to being friends after that.
The betrayed child doesn't hold anything against his betrayer.
He doesn't even look at the other kid and say, what the hell, dude?
I thought we were cool.
What are you doing?
No, he knows the rules, and he accepts them.
They all accept tattletailing as inevitable.
It's a custom among their people.
They all understand this.
And the same goes for incidents like what Kat witnessed.
A child will want nothing to do with another child one minute, only to be pronouncing her a best friend the next.
And in fact, girls don't grow out of that habit until, like, in their mid-70s.
But the point is that kids experience hurt feelings, betrayals, rejections all the time.
They'll be utterly devastated for 45 seconds, and then they forget about it.
And you can even shorten that 45-second period of sadness by giving them candy, or a sticker, or a band-aid.
Kids love band-aids.
You can heal almost any wound, physical or emotional, with a band-aid.
And if it's a physical wound, the band-aid doesn't even have to be on the part of their body that has the wound.
The other day, my daughter had a small cut on her hand, but insisted that we put a band-aid on her elbow.
Again, these are the ways of childhood.
We can never fully understand it, even though they were once our ways, too.
Does this mean that we should never take our children's emotions seriously?
No, it just means that we shouldn't blow things out of proportion or create drama where it's not necessary.
There's no need to make mountains out of molehills, and we especially should not be making TikTok videos out of them.
Because that is really the problem here.
You know, the world has always had mothers who get far too emotional and upset about the most minor pains or difficulties their children suffer.
I mean, every good mother has a tendency in that direction to one degree or another.
That's why it's important to have both a mother and a father in the home.
The mother has enough empathy to compensate for the father's occasional deficiencies in that regard, and the father has enough calmness and rationality to compensate in the other direction.
That's the complementary nature of the sexes saving the day yet again.
But Kat's problem is really not an overabundance of empathy or emotion.
Her problem, if anything, is the opposite.
Her emotion is a performance for the camera.
You know, she saw her daughter's sadness as a thing to be exploited, a piece of content for public consumption.
She claims in the video that the incident just happened a moment ago, which means that almost immediately the thought occurred to her that the whole thing would make a good TikTok video.
It's not natural to think that way.
It shouldn't be anyway.
It's not surprising, though, when this generation of parents, my generation, views moments in life, or really all of life itself, through this lens.
Many of us have been conditioned to put all of ourselves out there for viewing, making spectacle of even the most banal moments and experiences.
But not everything needs to be presented to the public in this manner.
And I say that as somebody whose job necessitates talking into a camera for over an hour every day.
One of the reasons why we should retain some semblance of a private life for ourselves, and especially for our children, is that the internet is not a good substitute for a trusted confidant or counselor.
If you really feel that you need to vent your frustrations, or you need a shoulder to cry on, or you need some wisdom and guidance, the comments section of TikTok is by far and away the absolute worst place to turn.
Faceless strangers who are scrolling social media looking for content to distract them from their own personal lives are not suited for any of the roles I just listed.
They also don't know you or care about you, and they will have forgotten about what you posted five seconds after they see it.
The bigger problem is that when you get into the habit of packaging your life into these bite-sized videos and social media posts, and offering them up as pieces of entertainment for strangers, who will then in return give you a rating through likes and shares, which you will obsessively track and count, when you do all that, and you do it every day for years, as so many people do, After a while, you begin to lose the ability to live your life as a normal human being.
You forfeit your humanity to a large extent.
You begin to think about all of your experiences in terms of how many likes they can get.
You start engineering things in your life so that they'll be better fodder for an influencer post.
You live your life with your back turned to it, looking at it through your phone, with your face in the foreground and everything else blurred into the background.
We now have multiple generations of Americans who live this way, constantly sacrificing authenticity for the sake of making content, until they no longer know how to live authentically.
So Kat Calamani is far from alone, but she is the one who is today, unfortunately, cancelled.
And that will do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
If you're not a member, once again, go to dailywire.com, become a member, and you can watch the whole entire show.
