Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, amid sky-high inflation, the Biden Administration wants us to take solace in the fact that the Federal Reserve is more diverse and gayer than it’s ever been. Today we’ll talk about diversity and whether it’s something really worth celebration. Also, Republicans are losing their grip on the midterms. Why is this happening and how can the trend be reversed? John Fetterman says that voter ID is racist because black people don’t know how to get driver’s licenses. A school in Wisconsin reintroduces corporal punishment. And the New York Times announces that maternal instinct is a myth invented by the patriarchy.
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at jeremysrazors.com.
—
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
Charity Mobile sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the Pro-Life charity of your choice. Call at 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at charitymobile.com Mention offer code: WALSH
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, amid sky-high inflation, the Biden administration wants us to take solace in the fact that the Federal Reserve is more diverse and also gayer than it's ever been.
Today we'll talk about diversity and whether it's something that really is worth celebrating.
Also, Republicans are losing their grip on the midterms.
Why is this happening and how can the trend be reversed?
John Fetterman says that voter ID is racist because black people don't know how to get driver's licenses, according to him.
A school in Wisconsin reintroduces corporal punishment and the New York Times announces that maternal instinct is a myth invented by the patriarchy.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
It's important that you act now, therefore.
You can get a great deal in as little as 10 days by calling American Financing.
Get a free mortgage review from a salary-based mortgage consultant.
No pressure, no obligation, no upfront or hidden fees.
Just a simple conversation around custom loans that can fit your budget better.
From better rates to shorter terms, even debt consolidation options, you can save up to $1,000 a month with American Financing.
And listen, this is something that we should all be doing because we're all looking for ways to save money.
And we know that we also cannot rely on The power's that be to fix any of these problems for us.
So we have to take initiative and do it ourselves.
And if you want to do that, here's what you got to do.
It's very simple.
Call 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Just one short phone call will put you on the path to making everything better for yourself.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net NMLS 182334 NMLSConsumerAccess.org.
This weekend, the AP published the exciting news headline, Fed Tackles Inflation With Its Most Diverse Leadership Ever.
Apparently, as the Associated Press reports, to the great relief of every ordinary American, the Federal Reserve has, at this moment, the widest array of races, genders, and orientations that it's ever had.
Reading more from the article says, "There are more female, Black, and openly gay officials
contributing to the central bank's interest rate decisions than at any time in its 109-year history.
Many are also far less wealthy than the officials they have replaced. Over time,
economists say a wider range of voices will deepen the Fed's perspective as it weighs the
consequences of raising or lowering rates. It may also help diversify a profession that
historically hasn't been seen as particularly welcoming to women and minorities."
Broadly, that's helpful, said William English, a former senior economist at the Fed who teaches at the Yale School of Management.
There's evidence that diverse groups make better decisions.
Now, surely this is a great comfort to the average American.
Our monetary policies have led to sky-high inflation, the worst in decades, which has made it difficult for normal people to feed and clothe themselves and their children.
This is a source of enormous stress and heartache, but at least we can all take solace in the fact that the people setting up these disastrous monetary policies are extremely diverse.
Indeed, there has never been so many gay people, black people, and women involved in not solving a problem.
And that makes it all better.
I mean, really, it does.
Just the other day, I was, this is true, I was at the grocery store, and I overheard a conversation between a husband and wife as they were walking through the dairy section, and the husband was complaining about how everything was so expensive, and the wife said to him, this is what she said, she said, yes, I know, honey, I wish we could afford food also.
But remember that there are lots of gays at the Federal Reserve now.
And then they just hugged each other and sobbed, tears of joy.
And the husband said, you're right, our kids don't need to eat.
There have been many exchanges just like this all over the country.
At least that's what we're supposed to believe.
Truly, we are not far from the point when prisons will start bragging about the diversity of their execution teams.
If this isn't happening already, I don't know.
I mean, you can imagine someone leaning down to the man strapped to the gurney and saying, we're about to administer the lethal injection.
Just thought you should know that the team overseeing your death is the most diverse in history.
The guy with the needle right there, he's actually bisexual.
We also have a trans woman and an autistic Korean here as well, so I hope that makes you feel a little bit better about your painful death.
That's where we're headed.
In fact, this has been a banner week for diversity, and not just at the Federal Reserve.
On Monday, NASA was scheduled to launch the first voyage of its Artemis mission.
Artemis 1 is set to be the first unmanned mission to the Moon in many years.
Eventually it'll all, if all goes to plan, Artemis 2 will follow a year or two behind.
And then around 2025, that's the plan anyway, Artemis 3 will launch with a manned crew who will be the first human beings to walk on the Moon since 1972.
And that will be followed by Artemis IV, and down the road, if all goes again according to plan, this will lead to manned missions to Mars and beyond.
Now, it all seems quite exciting as it represents the next phase of human space exploration, perhaps the inauguration of a new age of discovery.
That would be pretty great.
That's why I find it exciting anyway.
But NASA wants us to be excited for different reasons.
On the NASA Artemis Twitter page, I'm given two sentences to describe the purpose and goal of the Artemis mission in their bio.
Right?
So they've got limited space to just tell people this is what the mission is all about.
This is the most important thing about the mission.
This is what they decided to lead with.
This is what it says.
With Artemis, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the moon.
Take the next giant leap with us.
So forget space exploration, forget Mars, forget the discoveries that await us out in deep space.
Instead, think about the skin pigment and sex of the next people to walk on the moon.
Think of the diversity.
Think of all the inclusion.
I mean, isn't this what gets you most excited?
Perhaps we can set up a diversity, equity and inclusion seminar on the lunar surface.
Hopefully they'll do that before they worry about, you know, things like figuring out how to build a sustainable human colony.
I'm sure that'll be their first priority.
Get there and set up the seminars right away.
NASA has its priorities straight.
Which is why it's been bragging about the diversity of its new space mission all along, leading to headlines like this from a local ABC affiliate in Florida.
It says, NASA hopes Artemis mission will inspire diversity inclusion in future of space.
This is what they're primarily focused on, it would seem.
By the way, unrelated I'm sure, the Artemis 1 launch failed.
One of the engines wasn't working right.
So space will have to wait a while longer to be introduced to the importance of diversity.
Now you might ask, what's wrong with the powers that be focusing so much on diversity?
I mean, am I against diversity?
Am I against a black person or a woman walking on the moon?
Is that what I'm saying?
No.
Here's the problem.
You'll often hear that there's tons of evidence proving that diverse groups of people work better or more productive, more effective, more efficient.
I'm sure you've heard these claims before.
In fact, we heard that in the AP article I just read.
One of the senior economists, formerly at the Fed, Yale professor, he said that there's evidence that diverse groups make better decisions.
Now, as always, of course, we're meant to just end our inquiry there.
We've been assured that the evidence exists.
Is there evidence?
Yes, there's evidence.
We need not actually look at the evidence for ourselves.
Just trust that it's out there, and some people have seen it, and those people assure us that it validates all of their preconceived notions conveniently.
That's just what it is.
I mean, these people, they want there to be evidence that their ideology is correct, and they say that there is evidence.
They don't show us the evidence, they just say that it's there, and that's all you should need.
But I'm a little more stubborn than that, so I do insist on seeing the evidence, if you can believe it.
And what you find, if you look for the data supporting these assertions about diversity, is that the data doesn't exist.
It just doesn't.
There's a woman named Alice H. Eagley, a professor at Northwestern University.
She looked for the evidence, too, and wrote an article for The Conversation in 2016 with these findings.
And by the way, she actually has links to all of the studies, which is a different strategy from what you usually get.
But here's what she writes.
Advocates for diversity generally maintain that the addition of women to corporate boards enhances corporate financial success, and they hold that diversity in task groups enhances their effectiveness.
Abundant findings have accumulated on both of these questions, more than 140 studies of corporate boards, and more than 100 studies of socio-demographic diversity in task groups.
Both sets of studies have produced mixed outcomes.
Some studies show positive associations of diversity to those outcomes, and some show negative association.
Social scientists use meta-analyses to integrate such findings across the relevant studies.
Meta-analyses represent all the available studies on a particular topic by quantitatively averaging their findings and also examining differences in studies' results.
Cherry-picking is not allowed.
Taking into account all of the available research on corporate boards and diversity of task groups, the net effects are very close to a null or zero average.
Also, economist studies that carefully evaluate causal relations have typically failed to find that women cause superior corporate performance.
The most valid conclusion at this point is that, on average, diversity neither helps nor harms these important outcomes.
Now, this is the case even given the enormous handicap that most studies showing that diversity has a negative or neutral impact will never see the light of day.
Almost all the academics and social scientists who set out to investigate this question have a very particular result in mind, which is a big problem.
And if they don't get that result, we have to trust that they'll report their findings honestly anyway, but we obviously know that we cannot trust that.
And anyway, this is all somewhat beside the point.
So, most diversity research, Simply compares groups of people in a professional environment and finds a way to measure their productivity.
You know, so you've got a diverse group and then a less diverse group and then you measure their productivity and hopefully the researchers doing this, they want to be able to say that, oh look at that, the diverse group is more effective.
And then it will just pronounce that diversity is helpful or harmful based on that measurement.
When measured this way, And this is what in the article we just read there.
When measured that way, diversity seems to be basically irrelevant.
But the real question is about the impact of assembling a team with diversity in mind to begin with.
What happens when you recruit people based on diversity quotas and then put them together to accomplish a task?
Now, if everyone is hired based purely on their skill and competence, and it just so happens that you end up with a diverse team, great.
If you end up with a non-diverse team, that way, that's fine too.
And if you take two teams that are both put there because of their skill and competence and their qualifications, and one is diverse, one is quote-unquote diverse, and one is less diverse, probably they're going to perform about the same, and that's what the studies show.
Because they're all there for the same reason.
The race and sex is basically irrelevant.
But what if more qualified people are excluded because they are not, quote, diverse, meaning because they're white or they're male?
That's the real question, considering this is how nearly every major institution now operates.
And recent evidence, along with just plain common sense, tells us that productivity and overall effectiveness are definitely harmed when you hire people based on attributes that have nothing to do with their productivity and effectiveness.
Okay, when you need to accomplish a task, and you recruit people, and you base that recruitment on anything other than their ability to accomplish the task, then you're going to end up with groups that are less able to accomplish a task than you would have if you had prioritized accomplishing the task.
That's the idea here.
Now, in NASA's case, this raises a question about whether The first black man and woman to walk on the moon are in that position because they happen to be the best for this extremely dangerous and challenging job.
If so, great.
Or, if they were selected first and foremost because they checked the desired identity boxes.
Did NASA recruit this team and then say, what do you know?
This works out great.
It just so happens that we're going to have the first woman and the first black man on the moon.
It just works perfectly.
Or did they set out to engineer it that way to begin with?
There is every reason to believe the latter is the case.
Indeed, there's good reason to believe that this entire mission mostly exists just to put people from those two identity categories on the moon so that white men will no longer be the only ones to have ever done it.
And if that is all true, then this next phase of space exploration suddenly looks a lot less promising.
Because space is a brutal, deadly, cold, desolate, unforgiving place.
If you go there with anything less than the absolute best and most qualified people, you're inviting disaster.
Despite what NASA seems to think, space does not care about diversity and inclusion, and never will.
But there's another problem, a deeper problem with this focus on diversity, which is especially underscored when applied to space exploration, but also, you know, it applies across the board.
And it's that diversity and inclusion are quite hollow, small, petty concerns.
They can't serve as the marching orders for a civilization, not a thriving one anyway.
They aren't important or significant enough to hang our collective hopes on.
Nobody's ever been motivated to do great things for the sake of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Now, there certainly were civil rights pioneers in history who achieved greatness for the cause of justice and racial equality, but that's not what diversity and inclusion as we know it is about.
In a modern context, it means simply checking identity boxes.
That's what it means.
And box checking does not lead to greatness.
Certainly cannot propel us into the unknown, into deep space.
Can't take us anywhere really worth going.
Because for that you need things like faith, courage, intelligence, skill.
And all of those things have increasingly taken a back seat.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
The Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe is a huge, albeit long overdue,
step in the right direction.
But there's still a long way to go to rid our country of abortion.
We've still got a long fight ahead of us.
Many companies are bowing to the woke mob by donating to pro-choice causes and candidates, or even reimbursing their employees' travel so that they can, you know, if they live and work in a pro-life state, they can travel to a pro-abortion state and get an abortion.
Well, what if I told you that if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers, you might be supporting these companies and their pro-abortion agenda with your monthly phone bill?
Don't let abortionists use your money to fund policies you don't believe in.
Switch to Charity Mobile instead.
Charity Mobile is a pro-life, pro-family cell phone company that sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the pro-life charity of your choice.
You don't have to compromise on values or good phone service.
Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones, no device or service contracts, great nationwide coverage, and live customer service based right here in the USA.
The fight for the right to life continues and pro-life causes need your support.
You can help by simply switching your phone service to Charity Mobile today.
Call 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at CharityMobile.com.
Mention offer code Walsh to redeem a free cell phone offer.
That is CharityMobile.com.
Mention code Walsh.
All right, one other point about this NASA thing, and mainly this is just an excuse to play a clip from Kamala Harris, because you know what a fan I am of hers, and especially I'm an admirer of her eloquence and her insight.
And so, she, before the mission failed, before the launch failed, she had some thoughts about it, and it plays in exactly to what we were talking about in the opening, but let's listen.
I'm so proud of what is happening in terms of our space program and the leadership that the United States is providing to the world.
The Artemis program is the beginning of the next era of what we have a history and a tradition of doing, of providing vision and inspiring innovation in a way that is going to benefit all mankind and womankind.
And so I'm very excited to be here.
Mankind and womankind.
Now, never mind that you can't define the word woman, as we know.
The point is that you see the division, and this is the other thing that you get from this focus on diversity and inclusion.
It's really about, of course, it's always about dividing.
It's about putting people into different categories and different little buckets, and then treating them differently depending on which bucket they're in.
And you see that here too, because, you know, Apollo 11, According to Kamala Harris, it didn't land on the moon for all of humanity.
When, you know, the words, the fateful words, one giant leap for mankind, according to her, that just meant men, like literally men.
And so now we need another mission for womankind.
So we had the man mission for mankind.
Even though, of course, mankind means humanity.
It means everyone.
And by the way, if you have a problem with the term mankind, because it has the word man in it, well, the word human also has the word man in it.
I got news for you.
But that's irrelevant because it just means everybody.
And that's what it meant when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
But now, so we got the mankind mission, so that was the mission for the boys, and now we need the woman mission.
And there's also a black man, because according to the identity politics gurus, somehow when they talk about men in general, especially in a derogatory sense, they mean white men, of course.
So this is about missions to space for different identity groups rather than just for everyone.
And it used to be that space exploration was about increasing humanity's understanding of the world, of the universe.
That's why it was such a uniting moment, for the country anyway.
But not anymore.
Okay, this is from The Hill.
It says, Republican worries of a midterm flop are growing heading into the critical post-Labor Day campaign season, with analysts who had previously predicted massive GOP gains shifting their forecast towards Democrats.
Rick Tyler, a Republican strategist and analyst, said the environment looks not even close to a red-wave election year.
The enthusiasm is just not there, Tyler said.
Last time Republicans had a good year, they were six points ahead in the generic poll.
Now we're barely two points ahead, so it's definitely not going to happen.
Real clear politics averages of polls measuring whether voters would prefer Republican or Democratic control of Congress show the GOP advantage slipping from 4.8 points in late April to less than a point as of Friday.
At around this point in 2010, when Republicans saw historic gains in Congress, generic polls showed an advantage of four to six points for the GOP.
And so this is the media narrative, is that Republicans are losing their grip on the midterms.
And that is the media narrative.
This is of course the narrative that they want.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true.
Now when the media says something, just because they said it doesn't mean you can trust it,
It also doesn't automatically mean that it's not true.
And because there are times when the media narrative happens to line up with reality.
And when that happens, it's purely incidental.
But this is one of those incidental occasions, I believe, where the media narrative lines up with reality, which is that Republicans, you know, you can decide how much you trust polls, but this is what the polls are showing.
I don't know, this is kind of like totally anecdotal, but this is the sense you sort of get from people is that Republicans are losing the steam that we thought they had leading into the midterms.
All indications right now are that the promised and hoped for red wave looks less likely than it did a few months ago.
It could still happen because things change in a dime.
But, and nobody remembers anything from 24 hours ago.
So any trend that existed 24 hours ago could go away and reverse itself because we all have the memories of fruit flies.
But that's how it is right now.
And I think the reason, and I agree with Ben Shapiro's analysis of this, which he offered yesterday, I basically agree, is that Republicans are, one of the problems is that, one of the big problems is that Republicans are not staying on message.
They're losing focus.
I think part of the reason for that is, you know, as things, as the conversation among Republicans and on the right has turned more to Donald Trump, with the FBI raid and everything, and there were a lot of conservatives who thought, well, this is what's going to be the red, people are going to be motivated to go to the polls because of this.
The Dems have really stepped in at this time.
What we have to remember is that if the Democrats thought, and when I say the Democrats, I'm including the FBI in that.
If they thought that it would hurt them politically to do the raid, they wouldn't have done it.
I mean, they're only going to do what they think will help them.
And if they thought that talking about Donald Trump a lot, making him the subject, making him the topic, right, making the election about him, if they thought that would hurt them, they wouldn't do it.
But they do it because they've decided that it helps them.
It's all they have.
It is all they have.
Like, they want to talk about Donald Trump because they got nothing else.
The last thing they want to do is talk about what's actually happening in the country right now and the issues that really affect people on a day-to-day basis.
I mean, think about what normal people wake up every day worried about.
You don't have to speculate about this.
If you're a normal person, and especially if you have a family, you're a parent, you have kids, you have a spouse, what are the kinds of things that you wake up, it's like the first thing you worry about in the morning?
You go to bed thinking about it.
What are the kinds of things, the cliche about sitting around the kitchen table, but whether it's around your kitchen table or somewhere else in the house, what are the things that you sit around talking about with your spouse?
Well, it's finances.
Okay, people are worried about their finances.
They're worried about their family's safety.
They're worried about their children's future.
They're heartbroken by America's cultural collapse, its continuing plunge into insanity.
These are the things that really trouble people, and for good reason.
And this is what they're thinking about.
This is what Republicans should be speaking to.
That's how they win.
And I would suggest that you could see a direct correlation when Republicans are on message about that stuff.
Economy, crime, the grooming and indoctrination and mutilation and drugging of children, the cultural decay, like these kinds of things.
People live immersed in these issues every day.
It's what affects them most directly.
It affects not- it affects their wallet and their bed cap, but also, you know, it speaks to the- also, you need to go beyond that, too.
The issues that speak to their- to their heart, their deepest concerns, and that's what deals with, like, what's going to happen to their kids.
What kind of world are we leaving behind for their kids?
When Republicans are talking about that, I think you see in the polls that they do well.
When they get away from that, they start to trail off.
That's the correlation I think we see.
Everything else is a distraction.
Republican politicians and candidates who can't speak consistently and compellingly to these kinds of issues, and who haven't shown an ability and willingness to take action to fix it, should be disregarded, really, no exceptions.
There are, we know there are plenty of Republicans who have been stuck in a 1990s mentality for a long time.
These are like the establishment Republicans, have been stuck, they still think it's 1995.
And they're useless.
But same goes for Republicans who are stuck in 2016.
Also, that's going to make you useless because we live in a different world now and it's changing every day and not for the better.
That's why Republicans need to be dialed in and focused on that.
When something relevant happens with Donald Trump, well, of course, you talk about it.
He gets raided by the FBI.
That is outrageous, and it's something that should be discussed.
But you can't make that the focus.
The more that's the focus, then we're not talking about all these other things over here that the Democrats don't want you to talk about.
The fact that communities all across the country are being ravaged by crime and nothing is being done to stop it.
They don't want to talk about that.
It's the last thing they want to talk about.
It's very clear they don't want to talk about the trans agenda and how that's affecting kids.
I mean, they so badly don't want to talk about it that they will accuse you of being a terrorist if you do talk about it.
That's how desperate they are to not talk about it, which is exactly why we should be.
What you have to do, strategically, think about the things that your opponent doesn't want to talk about, and talk about those.
Real simple strategy.
If there's a subject that your opponent really, really wants to discuss, that's probably what you should stay away from as much as you can, or spend a second on it and move on to the next thing.
All right.
John Fetterman is letting his racist flag fly.
Now, I will give him credit here.
I really am impressed by this, actually.
This is, I think, a 30-second clip.
And he is able to string together 30 seconds worth of, you know, sentences.
And it's basically coherent.
So I'll give him that.
But that's the most I can say about this.
Let's listen.
In my own state, they are going to attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, making sure that universal voting ID for every time you vote, not just when you sign up to vote, but every time you vote, because they understand that at any given time, there's tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians who typically are on the poor side and are people of color that are less likely to have their ID at any one given time.
Oh, yeah.
Well, you know, black people, they don't know how to get IDs.
So it's that old canard again.
This is something worse than bigotry of low expectations.
You know, because when you say that a certain group of people don't know how to get photo IDs, that's worse than low expectations.
That's just no expectations whatsoever.
And it is, of course, not even close to true.
Well, you know, black people are less likely to have IDs.
What?
First of all, once again, if you are an adult, a functioning adult in modern society, so you're not homeless, but outside of the homeless population, if you're an adult in modern society, you must have some kind of photo ID because you can't do anything without it.
What?
You can't rent.
Where do you live?
You can't rent an apartment.
You certainly can't buy a house.
You can't get a credit card.
You can't do anything.
You can't get a job.
You cannot do anything without a photo ID.
So, if you refuse to get a photo ID, then you've handicapped yourself, not just with voting, but with everything in life.
And there's no reason to handicap yourself that way, because getting a photo ID is enormously easy.
Anyone can do it.
You know, when you go to the DMV, they make it very easy.
It's tedious, okay, and it's annoying, but they make it very easy so that, you know, anyone can do it.
It doesn't matter who you are.
You don't have to be some kind of, like, you don't have to be an expert.
Who exactly?
I'm not sure I've ever met.
An adult that does not have a photo ID at all and has never had one.
Who are these adults?
Again, outside of the homeless population, even them, probably many of them have one.
At least at one point had one.
So I'm not sure I've met an adult who doesn't have a photo ID.
I would like to meet an adult like that just so I can talk to them.
I have so many questions.
Why don't you have one?
How do you function?
Is this a choice?
Why?
This must be a choice that you're making.
Why is that a choice?
I mean, maybe if you want to live off the grid completely, no photo ID, burn your social security card, go live in a hut in the woods.
I mean, that's an appealing option.
But outside of that, this is one of the most ridiculous straw men that you hear from the left.
And I know that's saying quite a lot.
Acting as though it is some great burden to go get a photo ID.
Even though one is required for everything else.
And even though, as we know, they had no problem requiring vaccine cards and all the rest of it.
So they can require you to go and inject something into your body and take a card and carry that around with you.
But going to get a photo ID is a Is a burden that is too cumbersome for people to carry.
Or not people, they say.
Specifically, too cumbersome for black people to carry.
They say.
Which, it's hard to think of something more degrading, insulting, and paternalistic than that.
And also, again, completely false.
All right.
You know, we are just months away from the Salem witch trials, I would say.
This is from People magazine.
Sydney Sweeney is, she's an Actress, I think.
Yeah, she's an actress.
She's facing backlash over photos from a recent family function.
After throwing a surprise Hoedown-themed party in Idaho for her mom's 60th birthday, the current Emmy Award nominee responded to online criticism of a photo that shows one relative wearing a Blue Lives Matter t-shirt.
Her brother Trent Sweeney also shared photos that showed guests wearing parody MAGA hats printed with Make 60 Great Again.
And Sweeney, so there was apparently a big backlash against this, big enough that she responded to it.
She said, you guys, this is wild.
An innocent celebration for my mom's milestone 60th birthday has turned into an absurd political statement, which was not the intention.
Please stop making assumptions.
She was met with criticism, further criticism, in the replies to that post.
Someone wrote, then you should have selected other pictures to post that wouldn't be left up to interpretation in this manner.
Lesson learned for you, I assume.
Others came to her defense, but generally this was what the fans were coming after her for.
Now, this is ridiculous for many reasons, but apparently I'm learning from this article, this actress is in the show Euphoria, and she's been in some other shows too, but that's primarily what she stars in.
Which, I've never seen the show, I don't claim to know a lot about it, but I think it's safe to say that If somebody was deeply conservative with conservative values, they're not going to star in that show of all shows.
So, she would seem to be pretty safe.
You don't have to worry.
She's not one of those right-wing witches that you do have to find and burn at the stake.
She's not one of them.
But even being indirectly associated with things that aren't really conservative or ideological, but that themselves can be associated with conservative people.
So you've got multiple degrees of separation.
But even that very indirect, circuitous path to connecting with conservatives, even that is unacceptable.
And she has to, you know, issue clarifications and everything.
Now, if she hasn't issued an apology yet, or disowned her family, rebuked her own family, I think we'll probably wait a couple days for that.
If the outrage doesn't die down in a couple of days, we'll see where she is.
But I would not be—that's usually the trajectory of these kinds of things.
Staying in the world of, you know, of media and And that sort of thing.
Olivia Rodrigo, who's the pop star who sang about getting her driver's license or her learner's permit or whatever it was, she performed with Billy Joel a couple of days ago.
And Variety put this clip from the performance out on Twitter.
They put it out in a positive way.
Like, oh, listen to this great performance.
But I don't know.
Listen to it for yourself.
Here it is.
I bet that she knows Billie Joel cause you're playing her uptown girl.
You're singing it together now.
I bet you even tell her how you love her.
In between the chorus and the verse.
Do I know you get deja vu?
Can we get a screenshot of just the very end there, because you see Billy Joel staring.
I didn't notice it the first time I watched this clip.
I think because I actually, this is the first time I watched the clip the whole way through.
It's only about 15 seconds.
It's too, it's really difficult to watch.
It's so embarrassing.
There's just something about someone.
Someone's singing badly that is for some reason it's so so difficult not just because it hurts your ears But because it's so embarrassing for them But you can see Billy Joel in the background and he's looking at her like what the hell is this?
What am I doing here?
Who is this person?
You've got this guy's in his 70s.
He has no idea Olivia Rodrigo's.
I think she's a pop star whose career began on TikTok, I believe, right?
And so she's only a pop star because she would dance on TikTok and then that was her, and
then some record label came along and said, "Oh yeah, we're going to make you a pop star."
Because that's how it works now, of course.
It's worked that way for a long time.
We'll just take someone, you don't have to have any ability whatsoever, no musical ability.
But it used to be that, I mean, there was a time.
I mean, pop music has for a long time been vacuous and bad.
And it's been a long time since, in general, pop musicians were actual musicians.
So they have no musical ability.
But it keeps getting worse because I think there was a time at least when they could do something.
So you go back far enough, and anyone who is a famous musician, it's because they could play music, they could write music, they could just produce music, right?
And it was all them.
And then that went away.
And of course, they're not writing their own music anymore.
But at least they basically had pretty good voices, they could sing, and they could dance.
And so those are skills.
They had that going for them.
And now we're at a point where you don't have to be able to do any of that to be a I think she just won a Grammy, too.
A Grammy award-winning millionaire pop star.
Cannot sing, cannot dance, can't do anything.
And now she's on stage with Billy Joel, who was clearly regretting all of his life choices.
All right, I wanted to mention this, too.
This is an interesting story from MSN.
It says, a school district in southwest Missouri is bringing back a measure it last resorted to over two decades ago to address disciplinary problems.
That is, spanking students.
Classes started Monday for the 1,900 students in Classeville R4 School District, about an hour west of Branson and some 15 miles from the Arkansas border.
During open house, families were notified that the school board had adopted a policy in June allowing physical force as a method of correcting student behavior.
Parents were handed forms to specify whether they authorize the school to use a paddle on their child.
Formerly known as corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure usually involves striking students on the buttocks with a wooden paddle.
In Cassville, staff members will employ reasonable physical force without a chance of bodily injury or harm in the presence of a witness.
This is according to the new policy.
Now, what exactly constitutes reasonable physical force is unclear, but that's what they're going to do.
Now, this is interesting to me because it kind of, again, highlights Some of the fundamental problems with the school system, the public school system.
It's true that there's a total lack of discipline in the school system.
Kids don't respect their teachers or the administrators.
They don't care about the punishments.
Suspension in particular is a really, and I think this is where the paddling idea originally came from, is that they were looking for another form of punishment instead of suspension.
And that makes sense in a certain way because suspension is a particularly stupid form of punishment because the kinds of kids who get suspended are also the kinds of kids who love nothing more than to stay home from school.
And they're likely to be the kinds of kids whose parents aren't going to hold them accountable at home.
So by suspending them, you're not really accomplishing anything.
Suspension only works as a disciplinary tool if the child being suspended, number one, wants to come to school, and so you're taking something away from him that he wants, and two, has parents who will react with appropriately severe, you know, with appropriate severity to their child being suspended in the first place.
So you need both of those criteria to be met in order for the suspension to work as a punishment.
But usually, neither of the criteria are met.
So what are you left with?
They don't really expel kids anymore, unless they're found guilty of misgendering, in which case, then you can toss them out.
There's detention, but that only goes so far.
And what if a kid refuses to show up to detention?
What do you do?
This is the kind of hopeless, situation that lots of teachers and administrators are in.
There's nothing they can do.
The kids are not listening.
They don't care.
They have no respect.
They haven't been raised to respect their elders or anything like that.
So it's just, what are you supposed to do with them?
And it's what makes you think, well, maybe it's time to introduce corporal punishment as another option.
But then here comes another complication, because if I'm a parent sending my kid to public school, In the year 2022, I am not going to be okay with paddling because there's no way in hell that I trust the teachers or administrators to dole out a punishment like that appropriately or responsibly.
I just don't trust them.
And so when you're using physical force in that way, and you're authorizing another adult, a stranger to use it, you have to really trust.
There has to be a lot of trust there.
But I'm not going to have that kind of trust.
In any of the adults working in the school system right now.
I just don't trust you.
So no strangers, especially not one in public schools, laying a hand on my kid.
I don't trust them.
I don't trust any adult with that.
Especially not government workers in a government, in a government school system.
Yeah, I'm not gonna entrust government employees to physically punish my child.
No.
This is the conundrum then.
The lax discipline doesn't work.
But harsher discipline requires a certain amount of trust between school and parent.
And that trust doesn't exist.
And largely that's the fault of the schools.
Because they've destroyed all that trust.
So what's the answer?
Well, I'll tell you what the answer is.
Get your kid out of the public school system.
That's the answer.
Alright, let's get to the comments section.
[MUSIC]
Oh, by the way, I'm going to get to the comments in a second, but I do have to mention this because we were just
talking about horrible pop music and all of that.
And I had this also on the docket to mention because I can't fail to mention it.
Taylor Swift has a new album coming out that she just announced.
I think she announced it at the VMAs.
And so it's really exciting.
It's an album called Midnights.
And I think the album, the idea is that these are all songs that she wrote in the middle of the night or something like that.
And now she... Most of her music, especially her recent music, is really, really bad.
You give her credit though because she does actually write her own music and she can basically sing.
So she's got that going for her at least.
Yet she's also a terrible writer at the same time.
So this is her Instagram post announcing the new album.
This is what she wrote.
And this is like middle school creative writing level stuff here, okay?
We lie awake in love and in fear, in turmoil and in tears.
We stare at walls and drink until they speak back.
We twist in our self-made cages and pray that we aren't, right this minute, about to make some fateful, life-altering mistake.
This is a collection of music written in the middle of the night, a journey through terrors and sweet dreams, the floors we pace and the demons we face.
For all of those who have tossed and turned and decided to keep the lanterns lit and go searching, hoping that just maybe, when the clock strikes twelve, We'll meet ourselves.
I guess this is what passes for poetry these days.
It's better than Amanda Gorman at least.
But all I can say is, first of all, what's this we stuff?
Speak for yourself?
So she's talking about this as if this is a common, you know, we've all been through this.
You're lying awake at night, drinking so much that the walls are talking to you.
I've never had that experience.
I don't think that's a, is that a universal human experience?
I've never been through that before.
Praying that you don't make a fateful, life-altering mistake.
What the hell are you doing at night?
Now I'm kind of interested in actually listening to the album.
This is taking a very dark turn.
Alright, Lisa says, Matt, your segment about homelessness was not correct.
Not all homeless are drug addicts.
Actually, less than 40% abuse drugs.
There were a lot of comments in this vein taking me to task because I said, That in the homeless population, almost all of them are homeless because they are drug addicts and or have serious mental illnesses.
And there were a few people that were upset by that.
And I did hear this statistic quoted a few times.
Only 40% are drug addicts.
I don't know where you're getting that information.
I'll believe that you got it from somewhere.
Maybe there's some kind of study or something that was done.
I believe it.
I don't buy it though.
Come on.
It's just... You have to be able to use your common sense sometimes.
Is that really what you think?
Less than half of homeless people are abusing drugs?
Have you been?
I mean, go anywhere where there are homeless people and what you're saying is clearly just, your claim just evaporates in the face of reality.
Go anywhere where there are homeless people and walk around and what you see, drug abuse and mental illness.
Everywhere.
Now, it may not be literally everyone.
There may be a few exceptions here and there.
But that is largely what leads a person to end up sleeping on the street.
You know, on a cardboard mattress.
That's what largely will lead someone to that point.
It's not an insult.
That's not anything.
It's simply the reality.
And it's important to Confront that and acknowledge that because if you want to actually do something about the homeless problem, you have to be able to understand why the homeless problem exists in the first place, what's causing it.
All right.
Jay Stoss says, Matt said that the podcast group apologizing over Ben Shapiro showing up was the most pathetic apology he'd ever seen.
I'd say that John Cena, an American groveling to China and Chinese over calling Taiwan a country, was even worse.
That was one of the most pitiful, emasculating things I've seen.
I forgot about that one.
That might... It's a competition.
They're both in the top five.
Maybe I forgot about the John Cena one because he wasn't speaking in English.
It wasn't, you know, you couldn't tell exactly what he was saying.
But yeah, that's certainly, that's in the, that's, that's in the running, we must admit.
NinjaSquirrel says, this whole hotel thing, they tried that already in Amarillo, Texas.
In less than 72 hours, there was a number of fires.
So this is, they tried opening up the hotel rooms, empty hotel rooms, to homeless people.
And this is what NinjaSquirrel, and this is a source you can trust, this is what he says happened.
In less than 72 hours, there was a number of fires, four stabbings, and one shooting, seven accounts of rape, etc.
Three whole floors were ruined due to vandalism, not counting the fires, mind you, to such an extreme that the entire hotel was forced to close forever.
Am I saying that Los Angeles can do better?
Definitely.
I'm willing to bet money on the fact that Los Angeles can do it in under 24 hours.
Yeah, this is... Los Angeles would not be the first city to try this.
There are other cities that have done similar things, and it always ends in disaster.
And also, going back to the first comment, and anyone else who took exception to me saying that, you know, homeless people, by and large, drug-addicted, mentally ill, unstable... You say that you... That's not true.
That's not fair.
Oh, really?
If that's the case, you know, and if you don't believe that, then, okay, you've got two hotels to choose from.
In one, Your entire floor is going to be comprised of homeless people who have been given those rooms.
And in the other, they're all paying customers.
Which one are you choosing?
Which one are you going to go to?
Flip the coin, does it matter to you?
No, you know that you would not feel safe on the floor of homeless people because so many of them are drug addicts and mentally ill and unstable, prone to violence, all of these things.
Mad says, My husband's a corrections officer in Utah, which doesn't have near the problem of homelessness that California does, but he deals with more homeless and mentally ill people than actual criminals.
There's a large group that just rotates in and out of jail.
They get to sleep in a warm bed and get food.
Then two weeks later, they're let out.
Most county jails are treated as mental institutions, and it does not help the homeless people in the slightest.
Yep, just another Nothing but band-aids, that's all we're doing.
With the homeless problem, and in pretty much every other problem in society.
A bunch of band-aid solutions, because we don't want to get to the core of it, you don't want to get to the root of it, because we can't even talk about the root of the problem, because as soon as you do that, people start getting offended.
For some reason.
John Williams says, Seriously, Matt, speaking for many on behalf of the Sweet Baby Gang, we missed the flannel shirts.
The blazers look fine, but perhaps you could switch back and forth, just saying.
Grenade Away says, Wow, Matt, you've got a new studio, and now you wear blazers every day, so I guess you sold out.
That's what makes me a sellout?
Man, you've got a low bar for selling out.
You've got me in a pretty tight box here.
Wearing slightly nicer clothing and doing a show that's not in front of a sheet is selling out.
Well, then I guess I'm a sellout.
What can I say?
Well, if you can believe it, which of course you can, because I've been the butt end of a sick joke for weeks now,
the walrus destined for my possession is still being withheld and it was announced yesterday
that Ben, who had access to my walrus before me, released little stuffed walruses.
He even held up the wrong one yesterday because he has so many walruses.
He's like drowning in walruses while I have none.
That's a mistake I'm not sure I'll ever have the luxury to make.
Now, not only has he withheld my walrus from me, but his fans are buying their walruses before you,
which is unacceptable.
This is all getting very weird.
So go to dailywired.com/shop or click the link in the description
to get these adorable, cuddly companions to my book, "Johnny the Walrus,"
which you can also get, by the way, and that also makes a perfect gift
for any child or sweet baby.
They actually did a great job with this.
This is really high quality walrus material.
Rather than buying another stuffed animal for your kids from woke companies that hate your values,
buy these walruses instead.
My kids will really enjoy this, and I'm sure your kids will too.
My kids will most enjoy the big giant walrus, which I still have not been given,
but this will be.
A consolation prize, I suppose.
Head over to dailywire.com slash shop to get yours now.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Much of what passes for modern journalism today consists of taking some obvious
feature of physical reality and declaring that it's a myth.
This claim is then supported with a series of assertions along with frantic assurances that there's at least one study out there somewhere that supports whatever they're asserting.
We discussed an egregious example of this last week with the Scientific American's documentary series seeking to debunk the concept of the sex binary.
And this week, the New York Times has gotten in on the action with this op-ed titled, Maternal Instinct is a Myth that Men Created.
Now, once again, you see, the thing that you always thought existed, and you've always known existed, and you've witnessed yourself, and maybe experienced yourself, and which all of human society has believed in and professed and bore witness to, is a myth.
Not only that, but it's a myth very recently invented by patriarchal men sometime around the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
This is the claim that the writer Chelsea Conaboy, a journalist specializing in health, it says in her bio, wants you to believe.
The article itself is lengthy and takes many irrelevant detours into anecdotes about women who suffer from postpartum depression.
She talks about a commercial that she saw once.
At one point, she cites a stand-up special by a comedian named Ali Wong.
Like, this is all evidence that she marshals to prove her point.
There's a lot of fat to trim from the bone, but I think this portion here, which I'll read to you, captures the essence of her argument.
So this is what she writes.
The notion that the selflessness and tenderness babies require is uniquely ingrained in the biology of women, ready to go at the flip of a switch, is a relatively modern and pernicious one.
It was constructed over decades by men selling an image of what a mother should be, diverting our attention from what she actually is and calling it science.
It keeps us from talking about what it really means to become a parent, and it has emboldened policymakers in the United States, generation after generation, to refuse new parents, and especially mothers, the support they need.
Today, many proclaim that motherhood is neither duty nor destiny, that a woman is not left unfulfilled or incomplete without children.
But even as I write these words, I doubt them.
Do we collectively believe that?
Maternal instinct is still frequently invoked in science writing, parenting advice, and common conversation.
And whether we call maternal instinct by its name or not, its influence is everywhere.
Belief in maternal instinct and the deterministic value of mother love has fueled pro-family conservative politicians for decades.
Oh, God forbid.
Those pro-family politicians, you know, a sinister bunch.
And we get to the substance of the argument there, such as it is, which I think can be handled pretty quickly.
First of all, whether maternal instinct exists or not, And it does.
We'll get to that in a second.
The idea certainly is not modern.
You can read ancient writings from across the world, including the Bible and texts even older than that, and find beautiful homages written to the special bond between a mother and a child.
Like, every ancient civilization has noticed this and remarked upon it.
Not just remarked upon it, but built their civilizations with that in mind.
If there's anything unique about our view of the subject, it's the opposite of what the author claims.
Only in the modern, industrialized West would we even think to question whether a mother has a special bond with and duty to her own child.
This is not even a subject of discussion in other cultures, nor was it through history because the answer was so obvious.
Maternal instinct was self-evident to our ancestors.
And like so many of their insights, this one has only been confirmed and validated by Modern Science, even if the New York Times would like to claim otherwise.
There was an article written in the Smithsonian Magazine in 2021 titled, The New Science of Motherhood, and it goes into great detail about the biological and neurological changes a woman goes through when she becomes a mother, which serves to bond her even closer to her child.
This stuff has been measured.
You can see it.
In fact, the New York Times itself in 2008 published an article with the headline, Maternal Instinct is Wired into the Brain.
It reports the results of one of the many dozens of other scientific studies showing how a mother's brain is miraculously wired to connect with her own child.
Reading from the article, it says, Tokyo researchers used Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI, to study the brain patterns of 13 mothers, each of whom had an infant about 16 months old.
First, the scientists videotaped the babies smiling at their mothers during playtime.
Then the women left the room and the infants were videotaped crying and reaching for their mothers to come back.
All of the babies were dressed in the same blue shirt for the video shoot.
MRI scans were taken as each mother watched videos of the babies, including her own with the sound off.
When a woman saw images of her own child smiling or upset, her brain patterns were markedly different than when she watched the other children.
There was a particularly pronounced change in brain activity when a mother was shown images of her child in distress.
The scan suggests the particular circuits in the brain are activated when a mother distinguishes the smiles and cries of her own baby from those of other infants.
The fact that a woman responds more strongly to a child's crying than to smiling seems to be biologically meaningful in terms of adaptation to specific demands associated with successful infant care, the study authors noted.
But...
The maternal instinct doesn't just kick in when a woman actually has a baby.
I mean, lots of things do happen, and a mother's brain is wired a certain way, and there are hormonal changes and all these things.
But girls from a young age are much more inclined, on average, long before they have kids of their own, they're still much more inclined, on average, to exhibit maternal traits.
There's a reason why girls play with baby dolls.
That's what playing with a baby doll is all about.
I mean, think about it, you've got little girls who are, my daughter's two years old, she's already pretending to be a mother.
This is what she loves to do more than anything in the world, is to carry her baby dolls around.
Now sure, there are some boys who might show an interest in baby dolls also, but they're the exception.
Nearly all parents on earth, and who have ever lived on earth, have noticed in their daughters an inclination towards these sorts of things.
The left wants us to doubt what we've all seen, what we all know to be true.
And all they can give us to justify the doubt are anecdotes about exceptions to the rule.
And yet at the same time, these very same people validate what they claim are unfair stereotypes by in the next breath insisting that a boy who shows maternalistic traits is probably actually a girl.
They can't get their own story straight.
So I couldn't take them seriously even if I wanted to, and I don't.
Also, we haven't taken into account the animal kingdom, where the females of any given species are not only on average the most likely to be primary or sole caretakers of the young, but also where, even among animals, mothers are often observed sacrificing themselves to protect their young.
How do we explain that?
Are chickens and polar bears and elephants also subject to social conditioning and political pressure?
Have they been manipulated by dastardly conservative politicians?
Now, of course, human beings are different from chickens and polar bears and elephants in that we are self-aware and we're capable of making moral choices.
And this is the one possible criticism of maternal instinct as it relates to humans that I would entertain, is that you might argue that calling a human mother's love and devotion to her child an instinct diminishes it.
You know, when a mother rushes into a burning building to rescue her child, It's not just instinct.
She's making a choice.
She's making a heroic choice.
And we should acknowledge that.
She's not merely obeying her biology like some kind of machine.
But all that means is that human mothers have a maternal instinct along with something far more powerful, which is a soul, a mind, capable of making these kinds of choices.
The writer of this article is aware of that, actually, and that's really her point.
She wants women to use their higher faculties to reject their maternal instinct, override it, turn it against itself, and deny everything that makes them special and unique.
Many women in our culture have done exactly this, tragically, violently rejecting their motherly vocation through abortion.
Increasingly, there are women who reject womanhood entirely and have doctors cut out their female reproductive organs so that they can live as some bizarre, mutilated approximation of a man.
And this is what the writer ultimately wants.
And what the left wants, generally.
Which is why, when they deny that things are a certain way, what they really mean is that they think that things ought not be that way.
This is one of the most important things to understand about the left.
When they look at physical reality and they say, oh no, it's not like that.
No, no, they know that it is like that.
What they're saying is, it shouldn't be.
This is something we should destroy to the best of our ability.
They want us to live as if a certain reality is not the reality.
Maternal instinct exists, but it shouldn't.
I mean, that's Chelsea Conaboy's real point.
And it's why she is today, finally, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
Hopefully you have become a member by now.
If you haven't, make sure you do that so you can join us for the rest of the show.
