Ep. 1089 - Louisiana Is Protecting Kids From Internet Porn. Every Other State Should Follow Suit.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we've been told for decades that there is nothing that can be reasonably done to regulate internet porn or protect kids from it, and yet, starting this week, the state of Louisiana is doing the impossible. And porn apologists are not happy about it. Also, Kevin McCarthy encounters what the media describes as "historic" opposition to his bid to be speaker of the house. And, are pro-lifers really to blame for the disappointing mid-term results? I'll lay out why that's not the case. UFC president Dana White is caught on tape in a slap fight with his wife, but the public reaction to the video is incoherent. I'll explain why. In our Daily Cancellation, a sports commentator provokes an avalanche of national outrage over his comments related to the Damar Hamlin incident. But was there anything wrong with what he said, or is this yet another example of mindless, virtue-signaling social media outrage?
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire content catalog of movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Are you really ready to make a change this year? Pick up Jeremy’s Razors hair, skin, beard, and body care products today: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ascension Press - Start the Bible in a Year podcast and get the reading for free: https://ascensionpress.com/walsh
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/walsh
LightStream - Get a special interest rate discount: https://www.lightstream.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, we've been told for decades that there is nothing that can be reasonably done to regulate internet porn or protect kids from it.
And yet, starting this week, the state of Louisiana is doing the impossible.
And porn apologists are not happy about it.
Also, Kevin McCarthy encounters what the media describes as historic opposition to his bid to be Speaker of the House.
And are pro-lifers really to blame for the disappointing midterm results?
I'll lay out why that's not the case.
UFC President Dana White is caught on tape in a slap fight with his wife, but the public reaction to the video is incoherent, and I'll explain why.
In our daily cancellation, a sports commentator provokes an avalanche of national outrage over his comments related to the DeMar Hamlin incident.
But was there anything wrong with what he said, or is this yet another example of mindless, virtue-signaling social media outrage?
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The Bible in a Year podcast is currently the most popular religion podcast in the U.S.
Millions of people have listened to it, and twice it's hit the number one spot on Apple Podcasts.
In the Bible in a Year, Fr.
Mike Schmitz reads the entire Bible in 365 daily episodes, providing helpful commentary, reflection, and prayer along the way.
What better way is there to start the new year?
You can find the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr.
Mike Schmitz for free in your favorite podcast app or on YouTube.
Plus, you can follow along with a special reading plan to help you better understand the story Unlike any other Bible podcast, Bible in a Year follows a special reading plan that organizes the books of the Bible in a way that helps listeners understand the story.
You can get this reading plan at ascensionpress.com.
If you want to start reading and more importantly understanding the Bible this year, go to ascensionpress.com/walsh
to download the reading plan for free.
That's ascensionpress.com/walsh to download the reading plan for free.
Over the years, including recently, just a couple of weeks ago, when I have discussed
the need for, at a minimum, some basic regulations on the internet porn industry that would provide
at least minimal protection to children, I have been met with a number of objections
and all of them are incredibly lame and unconvincing, but the principal objection has always been
that such regulations are somehow infeasible, if not impossible.
Laws and regulations in every state require every other adult-oriented industry to verify ages, whether online or in real life.
But for whatever reason, we can never expect porn companies to abide by these same rules.
Every other company can, but not porn companies.
Now, granted, we've never tried.
There's never been any serious attempt at any level to even moderately regulate internet porn, but we've decided that it can't be done anyway.
There's no sense in even trying.
So let's just keep feeding generation after generation of children into this woodchipper, allowing their minds and souls to be corrupted by the most depraved forms of filth ever conceived, while we sit by helplessly on the assumption that even if we tried to do something, we couldn't do anything, and so we'll just do nothing.
Yet now into this picture steps the state of Louisiana, which, as of this week, has set out to do, and is in fact now doing, the impossible.
They have not only done it, but they've done it relatively quickly and cheaply and easily.
They haven't entirely solved the problem of children accessing hardcore porn, and there are plenty of loopholes still to be closed, but in the span of a couple of days, they have made more progress than had been made collectively for the whole history of internet porn up until now.
All it took was the willingness to do it.
That is the only thing that has held us back from protecting our kids from these filthy smut peddlers.
We have been unwilling to even try.
But in Louisiana, they are now trying.
They're putting a law in place that requires porn sites to verify ages, to actually verify the age of every user who tries to access the site.
So here's Vice on the Louisiana law.
They write, quote, a new law makes porn sites liable for content deemed harmful to minors if it doesn't install age verification technology for anyone accessing them in Louisiana.
And it's already affecting how people in the state access Pornhub.
The law, which was signed by Louisiana's Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, in June, became effective on January 1st, 2023.
Now, make special note of the fact that a Democrat governor signed this bill.
And I know it's Louisiana, but this is a Democrat governor signing this bill.
So if your state is run by a Republican governor, you should be asking why he or she has not signed a similar bill.
If the Democrats are doing it.
Vice continues, the law passed as Act 440 states, quote, any commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall be held liable if the entity fails to perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of individuals attempting to access the material.
It also states that any commercial entity in violation will be liable to an individual for damages resulting from a minor's access to the material.
Motherboard confirmed through a virtual private network that Pornhub is showing people visiting the site from a Louisiana-based IP address a page that requires identity verification before entering.
The page says, Louisiana law now requires us to put in place a process for verifying the age of users who connect to our site from Louisiana.
The page says.
When Motherboard tested the verification, Pornhub directed us to All Pass Trust, which is a third-party identity verification site, which connects to LA Wallet, which is a digital driver's license for Louisianans.
Pornhub guarantees that Pornhub doesn't collect data during this process.
Now, the article goes on to note that some other major porn sites haven't yet put anything into place to comply with the new law.
OnlyFans, meanwhile, can't be accessed at all right now from a Louisiana IP address.
Perhaps they've shut down access until they can get something in place to verify ages.
Perhaps they'll never restore access at all, which would be the best-case scenario, really.
But the fact remains that the biggest porn distributor in the world has figured out a way to conform itself To the sort of basic regulation that, once again, literally every other adult-oriented business is required to comply with.
An exception has been carved out for internet porn, a totally baseless, indefensible exception.
And in Louisiana, at least, that exception, that loophole, has been closed.
Now, one of the most important parts of closing the loophole is the financial liability, as mentioned in the article.
Porn sites now have a major incentive to try and keep kids off of their platforms, whereas up until now, they have had no incentive to keep kids off.
Indeed, the incentives have gone the other way.
Like, we have been actively incentivizing porn sites to expose kids to their To this stuff.
Luring kids onto the platforms early and often, up until now, in Louisiana anyway, guaranteed millions of new porn addicts every year, translating into billions and billions of dollars.
That was the incentive.
The only way to compete with this kind of profit motive is to, as Louisiana has done, make porn sites financially liable for the harm caused to the children exposed to their product.
This, yet again, is exactly what we do with every other industry that sells a product that is potentially harmful to kids.
We require them to put measures into place to ensure that kids are not accessing the product.
If they fail to enact such measures, and there are recklessness results in children gaining access to their product or service, they are subject to fines and lawsuits.
There is no reason why porn companies should continue to enjoy the unprecedented privilege of being able to harm whoever they want and profit from it without a shred of accountability.
So, why shouldn't similar measures be put in place in every state?
And on the federal level too?
You know, the harm that pornography consumption afflicts on the developing minds of children is not a subject up for debate any longer.
There is no debate about it.
There is no question that a young child who is exposed to hardcore porn suffers very real emotional and psychological trauma, which manifests itself immediately and in the long term in myriad ways, none of them good.
This is not only proven by the research, but it is an inescapable conclusion reached by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense.
Because we know that the human mind is impressionable and the mind of a child is more impressionable still.
Marketing departments know this, advertising, the advertising industry knows this.
So what kind of lasting impression then is left on a child who's introduced, introduced to the concept of human sexuality through exposure to forms of sexual debauchery and depravity that human beings prior to the internet age could not have even conceived of?
Okay, this is stuff that most people who've ever lived on Earth prior to the Internet never would have seen or even thought of, and now we have eight-year-olds who are ingesting it every day.
What impression, what impact does that have on the child?
You don't need to put on a lab coat and conduct a scientific study to answer that question, but as it happens, people have conducted such studies, and the results line up with what common sense already attests to.
So, back to the question.
What is the argument against this?
What is the problem with taking even the most meager and basic steps to prevent internet pimps from hawking their poisonous product to seven-year-olds?
Why isn't this happening everywhere?
Why is it only just happening now in one state?
Well, there really is no argument against it.
I mean, I know that because I've asked the critics, you know, those freaking out about this Louisiana law and similar efforts elsewhere.
I've asked people to explain it to me.
For years, I've been asking this question.
And they can't explain it.
The most they can do is mutter about how protecting children from porn is the parents' job.
Which it is, yes, but it's also the government's job to protect its citizens.
And that includes, indeed ought to especially include, children.
See, children should be at the front of the line when it comes to protection from the government.
You expect to be protected from the government.
Adults expect it.
You expect various forms of protection.
Well, children should be in the front of that line.
They should be in front of all of us when it comes to being protected.
And parents cannot contend with a porn-saturated culture all on their own.
They cannot be left alone to deal with this.
That is not a fair thing to expect.
And there's no reason why they should be.
Now, we're also told that this is a slippery slope.
There was a viral tweet from someone who identifies themselves as a criminal defense attorney in Louisiana, anonymous, and also anti-fascist, he says.
And he was, it was a viral tweet and he lives in Louisiana.
He's very, he's very upset that now he's, you know, he has to go through one extra step before accessing Pornhub.
So his masturbation has to, he has to hold off on that for another like 30 seconds.
Very upset about that and so he's tweeted this long viral thread saying this is a slippery slope into fascism, a surveillance state.
You know, first the government will require identification for accessing Pornhub and then next some bad thing will happen.
You know, of all the weak, half-cocked, faux-libertarian arguments that porn apologists come up with, this is probably the dumbest of all.
And that's saying a lot.
And I'll just respond to it this way.
I need everyone to pay attention to this part because it's very important.
The government does not need the precedent of a good thing in order to do a bad thing.
Okay?
They'll just do the bad thing.
So whatever you're worried about, so maybe protecting kids from porn is okay, but then that would lead to the government doing this other thing.
Whatever that other thing is, they're already doing it.
It is already doing whatever bad thing you're worried about.
The question is simply whether, amid all the bad the government does, it ought to at least also do a good thing or two.
Another way of putting this.
Because the government does a lot of things that aren't its lawful or rightful job, Should we then object on the rare occasion when it actually does its lawful and rightful job?
Protecting children from multi-billion dollar porn merchants is fully and clearly within the purview of the government.
Why in God's name would you oppose that based on the fact that it's also doing a bunch of things that are not in its purview?
Yeah, it shouldn't be doing that.
But the stuff in its purview, it should be doing.
I mean, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Except in this case, you're just throwing the baby out and keeping the dirty bathwater.
It's the worst of all worlds.
But it's no surprise that such bad arguments would be made by those opposed to protecting kids from porn.
They can't be blamed for their bad arguments.
They are trying to defend the indefensible.
And they're doing it for reasons that they won't really say out loud.
That's why all the arguments are so stupid and bad, is because none of these people will actually say what their real argument is.
Their real motivation is to, as we talked about a couple weeks ago, not only protect their own ease of access to pornography, but also, I think, at a deeper level, they want to avoid thinking about the harm that pornography inflicts on people to begin with.
You know, this entire conversation requires us to confront what pornography is and how toxic it is, And that causes the adult porn user to feel bad about himself and his habits.
I think that's really why he'd prefer that we not talk about it.
Or do anything about it.
But that's also yet another reason why we must.
Now let's get to our headlines.
[MUSIC]
It's extremely important to protect your online privacy with a VPN.
Choosing a VPN you trust is equally as important, and I can say with full confidence that ExpressVPN is the best VPN on the market.
Here's why.
First, ExpressVPN doesn't log your online activity.
Other cheap or free VPNs make money by selling your data to advertisers, but not ExpressVPN.
They even developed a technology that makes it impossible for their servers to store any data at all.
Second, ExpressVPN has engineered a new VPN protocol that makes user speeds faster than ever.
You can even stream HD videos with zero buffering.
And lastly, ExpressVPN is incredibly easy to use.
You just heard me talk about a lot of technical features, but you don't need any technical skills to get started with it.
Fortunately, if you did, I wouldn't be able to use it.
Just fire up the app and tap one button and you're connected and that's it.
So, it's not just me saying this.
Business Insider, The Verge, many other tech journals rate ExpressVPN the number one VPN in the world.
All right, if you're watching on the video podcast, I don't want you to get overwhelmed by the fancy new camera angles we're doing.
We're going full Hollywood on you now.
We've got camera angles.
It's at www.cssvpn.com/walsh, expressvpn.com/walsh.
So, it'll stave off obesity for another 30 minutes anyway.
So, Washington Post headline here.
Kevin McCarthy faces open GOP revolt as House fails to elect speaker.
Republican leader Kevin McCarthy faced open revolt in the House chamber Tuesday, failing in three rounds of balloting to earn enough votes to capture the speakership in a once-in-a-century showdown that will now spill into a second day.
The stunning failure of the House to elect a speaker on its first round of voting came after McCarthy and his allies spent weeks working to secure the 218 votes needed for him to take the gavel.
Republicans won back the House in November's midterms, but worth a slim four-vote majority requiring near consensus among the conference to move votes forward.
By early Tuesday, it became clear that hard-right GOP holdouts had not been swayed.
The failure was the culmination of an internal divide that had, in the past, helped bring down the speakerships of John Boehner and Paul Ryan, with members of the staunchly conservative House Freedom Caucus asking for a range of demands in exchange for their votes.
So this is another example of a couple things about this.
Another example of the kind of story the media makes a big deal about, and political pundits make a big deal about it.
You know, we hear, historic showdown, once in a century, we haven't seen this in our lifetime.
But most people, I suspect, aren't even aware that this is happening, couldn't care less who the Speaker of the House is, and in reality, It probably doesn't matter all that much to your life.
Whether Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House or some other Republican, or if they put a broken toaster oven as the Speaker of the House, of those three options, your life would probably be exactly the same.
If I were to give you three crystal balls, and I didn't tell you which was which, and they give you a vision of your future, In each scenario, here's the crystal ball where Kevin
McCarthy's Speaker House, here's another Republican, here's the broken toaster oven
scenario.
And you were to look into it and see what your life is like, you wouldn't be able to tell,
because it would be exactly the same, is what I'm trying to say. Your life would play out
exactly the same no matter who Speaker of the House is.
With that being said, Kevin McCarthy, for what it's worth, doesn't deserve the
speakership.
And this is not, we could call it a historic showdown with these so-called hard-right Republicans are refusing to go along.
Refusing to go along with it just means that they don't think that Kevin McCarthy is, these other House members, they don't want to vote for a leader who they rightly have judged to be unfit and to be a failure.
Kevin McCarthy, in his role in Republican leadership, has been a failure.
And it's not just because of the disappointing, to put it mildly, midterm results, but that's just the latest in a line of failures.
Another way of looking at it is like, what has this guy achieved exactly?
Nothing.
He's just another Republican establishment, kind of squishy, nobody, empty suit kind of guy.
And this idea that he deserves the speakership, that it belongs to him, that he should have it, that is the most establishment-like mentality of all.
That is establishment.
That's what the establishment is.
It's this idea that certain people deserve these roles in government.
And so everyone else would just step aside.
But that's not the way it's supposed to work.
And I say that about the Speaker of the House.
I say that about the presidency.
You know, you hear from some people who are Trump fans that, well, no, it's his turn again in 2024.
Everyone else should step aside.
It's not a turn.
What do you mean it's your turn?
It's nobody's turn.
If you want a role in government as an elected official, you've got to run for it and earn it.
Get the votes.
And if you want to be Speaker of the House, you have to get the votes from your members.
And he doesn't have them right now.
And he shouldn't.
Because again, he's a failure.
He's a nobody.
And really, the onus is on him.
So all the people that are worried about, well, this is a historic meltdown and it's making the Republicans look stupid or whatever.
You hear this a lot.
It's a big clown show.
Again, most people aren't paying attention.
So most people don't care.
And as far as Republicans making themselves look stupid, they don't need any help with that.
Republicans make themselves look stupid every day.
But not because of this.
This is one example of Republicans, some Republicans at least, actually standing on principle, and standing up against their own so-called leadership, and having a backbone, having a spine.
This, this is an example of them making Republicans?
No, this is like the one time when they don't look stupid.
But even if that's true, then whose fault is it?
Then the onus is on Kevin McCarthy to step down, step aside.
You don't have the votes.
If you're worried about how this all looks and that it's some sort of historic quagmire, then why are you putting the pressure on Kevin McCarthy to step aside and clear the way for someone else?
He's failed in his role of leadership.
He doesn't have the confidence of many of the members, and so he should step aside.
I see the onus on him.
That's where it should be.
All right, Fox News headline, DeSantis calls Florida a land of sanity and slams Biden policies in his inaugural address.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday praised the Sunshine State as the land of liberty and land of sanity while slamming the floundering federal establishment in Washington, D.C., the Biden administration, and laying out his policies for the months and years ahead as he was sworn in for a second term.
DeSantis, who's considered a likely GOP 2024 presidential contender, delivered his inaugural address On the steps of the state's capital in Tallahassee on Tuesday, after a decisive 19-point re-election victory.
Now, it was a great speech and all, and I think it's a very good speech, at least.
Worth watching.
But this was the best part.
Here's just a 20-second clip.
And this may not seem very remarkable to you, what he says here, but this, to me, was my favorite part of his speech.
Listen to this.
Florida must always be a great place to raise a family.
We will enact more family-friendly policies to make it easier to raise children, and we will defend our children against those who seek to rob them of their innocence.
There you go.
Very simple.
Like I said, doesn't appear to be anything revolutionary there.
And there isn't.
But this should be the Republican Party's platform going into 2024.
And this is, if you want to know what my political ideology is at this point, that's it, what you just heard there, that's the whole thing.
Protect families, protect children, there you go.
That's what, that's it, that's the fundamental political platform and that's what every Republican ought to be talking about.
And if the term conservatism means anything, it ought to be conserving that.
Most fundamentally, as I always talk about, it's conserving basic truth.
It's also conserving and protecting the family and the safety and innocence of children.
That should be the marching orders.
And not only is that the right platform and the right mission, And what needs to be done, but it's also a winning political message.
Forget about what you've heard from squishy establishment Republicans for years and years, who still to this day, you know, they will go down with the ship claiming that all anybody cares about is their wallet and the financial bottom line, and so just talk about tax cuts and all of that.
That's all anything anybody cares about.
That's not true.
People care about money.
They care about their financial well-being.
Of course they do.
We all do.
But they care about those things primarily because of how that affects the safety and stability of their families and their children.
Because even more basic than the financial concern is that concern about your family, about your kids.
This is what people... This is why I always say you gotta think about what do people wake up in the morning thinking about?
Okay, they don't wake up in the morning thinking about tax cuts.
Nobody does.
If you're a parent, you wake up in the morning and you're thinking about your kids, you're thinking about your family, you're thinking about your spouse.
That's the first thoughts in your mind.
And politically, if you're speaking to that, if you're speaking to... Forget about the kitchen table issues.
I'm talking about before you even get to the kitchen table.
Okay, before you sit down at the kitchen table for breakfast, what are the things that you're thinking about?
And it's that.
And politically, if you're speaking to those issues, then that is going to be a winner every time for almost everybody.
All right.
Here's something else.
This is, if I could pull it up here.
A story from last week that I wanted to touch on.
The Hill headline says, Trump Says Abortion Issue Responsible for GOP Underperforming Expectations in the Midterms.
This is the article from last week.
Former President Trump blamed the abortion issue, quote-unquote, for Republicans' underperforming expectations on the 2022 midterm elections.
Trump said in a post on True Social on Sunday that many in the GOP handled the issue poorly, especially those who firmly insisted on no exceptions to bans on the procedure, including on instances of rape and incest.
Well, rather than reading the article, I'll just read you what he posted on Truth Social.
He says, it wasn't my fault that the Republicans didn't live up to expectations in the midterms.
I was 233 to 20. It was the abortion issue poorly handled by many Republicans,
especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the cases of rape,
incest, or life of the mother that lost large numbers of voters. Also, the people that pushed
so hard for decades against abortion got their wish from the US Supreme Court and just plain
disappeared, not to be seen again. Plus, Mitch, stupid money.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Stupid money?
Not even sure what that means.
Mitch, Mitch, stupid, and then a dollar sign, apostrophe S. Anyway, so that's what he said.
Now, there are a few problems here.
The first is that, before we even get to the substance, this is just whiny.
You know, like, I think one rule in politics, and also to be an adult in life, is like, Never start a sentence with, it wasn't my fault that... Never start a sentence that way.
Even if you're trying to deny fault in a situation.
Don't start a sentence.
It sounds whiny.
It just sounds weak and whiny.
That's how it sounds.
And it again makes you think, like, is this what the Trump campaign is?
He announced his candidacy, what, two months ago now?
And then disappeared.
Like, where is he?
And he announces candidacy, and rather than launching right into rallies and exciting things and making announcements and, you know, stirring things up, he just, like, retreats to Mar-a-Lago and is issuing these, what do they call them?
Truths on Truth Social.
Deflecting blame, looking backwards, all this kind of stuff.
It looks weak and whiny and irrelevant.
That's the first problem.
The second is putting blame at the feet of pro-lifers, which, by the way, is what the Republican establishment, speaking of them, it's what they've always done.
What you hear here, what you hear in this case, is a slightly more direct version of what the Republican establishment has been saying for decades.
Anytime there's a major political defeat, they always, and I know this as a pro-lifer myself and someone who's been in the movement for years, standing in the group That always has the fingers pointing at it from the conservative Republican establishment.
It's all their fault!
Because they care too much about protecting babies from being murdered.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's not true.
Especially from the guy who in the past has bragged about the Dobbs decision.
The Dobbs decision is legitimately a legacy of the Trump administration.
If we didn't have Trump, if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, then obviously she would not have appointed three justices who would then go on to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So this is not only part of his legacy, but it is the most important part and also perhaps the only lasting bit of legacy that there is.
Everything else that Trump did was undone by Joe Biden in about five seconds.
This is the one lasting thing, and it's one of the most important moments in American history, is the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Even with the states that still have, you know, still kill babies, even with them, it's still tens of thousands, at least, of lives saved every year because of this.
At least.
So, that's something that Trump should be championing.
And he has in the past, until now, he's turning around and pointing the fingers at pro-lifers.
And it is pro-lifers, by the way.
It's not just singling out certain Republican politicians.
I'm saying Republicans, generally.
Voters.
Who are too firm in insisting on no exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother and all the rest of it.
You know why we don't agree with those exceptions?
Because the exceptions are morally incoherent.
It doesn't make any sense.
Okay?
There is only one reason to oppose any abortion at all, okay?
There's only one reason.
I don't care the circumstances that lead, that led up to the baby being conceived, what stage of pregnancy we're talking about, the manner of the abortion, putting all that, whatever, that doesn't matter.
Whatever kind of abortion we're talking about, there's only one reason to oppose it.
And that one single reason is that the child is a human child, And that intentionally killing a human child is murder.
It is the murder of a child.
That is the one single reason to oppose abortion.
And it's a really good reason.
You know, when you have a good reason, when you have a good argument, you don't need any other arguments.
When you've got a trump card argument, that's all you need.
And that's our one single trump card argument.
This is a human child, scientifically, You are intentionally killing it, and that, by definition, is murder.
Intentionally killing human life is a bad thing.
This is the murder of a child, and we are opposed to murdering children.
The only reason to be opposed to abortion.
But if you oppose abortion for that reason, it doesn't make any sense to carve out exceptions.
How can you possibly say, well, I oppose murdering children, except for... What?
Except for...
There are some things where there can be no except for.
There can be no but.
And this is one of them.
If abortion is murdering a child, then there can never be a situation where it is okay to do, because there is never a situation where it is okay to murder a child.
But if abortion is not the murder of a child, then there's never any reason to oppose it.
Then you're not murdering a child, you're just dispensing of inanimate, meaningless matter, and so why shouldn't you do that?
Those are the two options.
Okay, that's not me being extreme or hard-line or anything.
I mean, you could call it that if you want, I don't care.
It's really just about being morally and intellectually consistent.
And if your argument on this topic is not morally and intellectually consistent, then it just falls apart.
This is not about a purity test or something like that.
Standing on a pedestal and saying, I'm more principled than the rest of you.
That's not what this is.
It's just your argument falls apart if it's incoherent, which the exception thing is incoherent.
That form of being pro-life doesn't work.
It doesn't achieve anything.
It doesn't win the argument because it can't.
Now, the so-called moderate pro-lifers, they benefit from the fact that pro-abortion people are very bad at arguing their case.
But if they were any good at it, then they could easily, you know, like how would an argument, imagine how a conversation with a competent pro-abortion person would go.
Argument between a competent pro-abortion person, if they exist, and a so-called moderate pro-lifer who believes in exceptions.
So the moderate pro-lifer says, abortion is the murder of a baby, we shouldn't be allowed to do it.
A competent pro-abortion person says, well, what about rape and incest?
Life of the mother.
Oh yeah, well no, except for those, that's okay.
So in those cases, it's okay to murder a child?
So those children can be murdered, you're saying?
Well, I mean, yes.
The moment they get you to admit that you're actually saying it can be okay sometimes to murder a child, you lost.
All right, Joy Reid this week has joined in the pro-lifer pile-on.
I want you to listen to this 90-second clip because there's a lot to be learned about leftist misinformation strategies here.
Listen to this.
As we brace for a Republican-controlled House in a post-Roe America, it may be a good time to take a closer look at just what the so-called pro-life party has been doing, or attempting to do, legislatively since winning their tiny majority in November.
Over the past month, Congress has voted on numerous pieces of legislation.
And while several passed with bipartisan support, there was a considerable amount of Republican opposition.
To members that all had one thing in common.
That is, they affect either pregnant people, mothers, or young children.
And these weren't complicated or thorny issues.
In fact, they all seem like pretty basic, bare minimum stuff.
For example, in the House, 90 Republicans voted against the Pregnant Women in Custody Act.
Which would guarantee minimum levels of health care and nutrition for women who are pregnant and incarcerated and their newborns, while also preventing those who are eight months pregnant from being placed in solitary confinement.
Among the politicians who voted against the bill were Matt Gaetz and soon-to-be ex-Congressman Madison Cawthorn.
44 Republicans voted against a bill that aims to provide maternity services for pregnant and postpartum veterans.
Yes, you heard that right.
The party that supposedly loves the military doesn't want to help those serving our country while pregnant.
Make it make sense.
17 Republicans voted against the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act, a bill that would help early diagnosis and treatment for deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns, because apparently they only care about the health of babies who are in utero.
Once you're out, you're on your own, kid.
I continue to be just amazed that anyone watches that show on purpose.
Even if you agree with what she's saying, how can you?
It's just grating to listen to.
Now, the claim that she makes there at the end, that this is one of the ultimate political cliches, that conservatives only care about life in the womb.
Talk about being incoherent.
That just goes to show That what leftists have in their head, they have this cartoonish idea of conservatives.
And they really believe it.
They see their opposition as a cartoon.
Which makes them vulnerable.
Makes them easier to beat.
Because you can't defeat an enemy if you don't understand them.
You gotta understand them first.
But leftists don't understand conservatives, and they don't want to try to understand conservatives, because trying to understand conservatives means taking us seriously for at least a moment or two, so you can try to understand where we're coming from, and then you can formulate strategies and arguments against us.
But they won't do that.
So they have this cartoonish idea of, like, psychopaths who care deeply about children in the womb, but the moment they're born, they don't?
Just psychologically, that doesn't make any sense.
The whole argument, right, for caring about life in the womb is by drawing a comparison to life outside of the womb and making the observation that there is no substantive distinction between life in the womb and life outside the womb.
So our whole argument hinges on the fact that life outside the womb has meaning and value.
If we didn't believe that, then there'd be no reason to think That life inside the womb has meaning and value.
And the morbid irony here is, of course, on the left, they're the ones who actually don't think that life outside the womb has any value.
They don't think that life inside the womb has value, and they also don't think about life outside the womb.
These two things go hand-in-hand, because it's the same life we're talking about.
And so, if a baby, five seconds before emerging from the birth canal, has no value according to you, It is guaranteed you're also not going to see much value in it a second after it emerges from the birth canal, because nothing has changed.
It is just, it has switched locations in space, that's it.
Whereas if you really believe that that baby has value a second before emerging from the birth canal, of course you'll still think that when the child emerges.
Because again, nothing has changed.
So on the left, they're the ones, the nihilists, who don't believe that Life has any intrinsic value.
But just to show you how you can't trust anything these people say, let's take one of the claims that she made.
She said that all these Republicans voted against the Pregnant Women in Custody Act, which she says was supposed to guarantee proper treatment of pregnant women in custody.
So, why would Republicans vote against that?
Well, there was one Republican, Representative Scott Fitzgerald, who's quoted in a media article explaining the issue with this law.
And he says, we all believe that pregnant incarcerated women should be well cared for while they're in federal custody.
However, I would like to note the concern the bill would require the Bureau of Prisons to provide abortifacients to pregnant inmates.
However, the word contraception is not defined in the bill and the internal Bureau of Prisons policy does not define contraception.
Because of the word contraception is not defined, this ambiguity leaves the reasonable interpretation of the term contraception and could include abortifacients or other substances that induce abortion.
Okay, so this bill wasn't simply about protecting pregnant women in custody, which by the way, women?
What are those?
Okay?
This is like one of the only times they'll acknowledge that women even exist.
But this was not about protecting pregnant women in custody.
What the bill says, here's the language of the bill.
Access to complete appropriate health services for the life cycle of women.
The director of the Bureau of Prisons shall ensure that each woman of reproductive age is in custody at a Bureau of Prisons facility, A, has access to contraception and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases upon request of any such woman, and B, is administered a pregnancy test on the date on which the woman enters a facility which the woman may decline.
Okay.
So this isn't exclusively for pregnant women.
It's actually also for non-pregnant women, any woman of reproductive age, as it says, guaranteeing birth control.
Well, all you need to do is think about that for a second.
Why would you need birth control in prison?
What's the need for that?
Now, of course, I say that, but as they introduce males into women's prisons, the possibility and the actuality of women getting pregnant while in the lockup, that is happening more and more.
But under normal circumstances, you wouldn't think there'd be much need for birth control in a prison, in a women's prison.
Which just leads all the more to the suspicion that when you say contraception, you're also including abortifacients.
And that was not properly defined in the bill.
There was nothing put in there that stipulates, no, we're not going to be requiring taxpayers to give abortifacients to pregnant inmates and all the rest of it.
And because of that, there were some Republicans who rightly voted against it.
Of course, we don't hear that from Joy Reid.
All right.
One other quick thing.
Yahoo Sports.
UFC President Dana White admits to slapping his wife on New Year's Eve.
Now this is a story that's gotten a lot of attention.
Dana White slaps his wife.
Beat his wife, as some on social media have put it.
Lots of outrage about this.
Lots of claims that White is a domestic abuser.
Lots of condemnation, etc.
Before we talk about it, let's check the video.
Here it is.
Okay.
[MUSIC]
Okay, so there it is.
So his wife slaps him, he slaps her back, and all the headlines saying Dana White
slapped his wife could just as well say Dana White's wife slaps Dana White.
But we know why they don't.
Here's what I'll say about this.
You know, the position most people, especially on the left, have on this, condemning Dana White.
Maybe this is a theme we're talking about today, people who have incoherent positions.
Well, the position of most of these people, again, particularly on the left, it's an incoherent position.
Because if you truly believe that men and women are entirely equal, there is no difference between the two.
In fact, the categories don't even exist, according to you.
These words don't even mean anything, if that's what you believe, which every person on the left just about pretends to believe.
Then there just is no basis for condemning, for any serious condemnation of Danoy, because then you have one individual who was slapped by another individual, and that individual slapped back.
So yeah, you could blame him and say, be the bigger man, be more mature, whatever, but to go beyond that just doesn't make any sense.
So if you're consistent in that belief, then you should look at that video and react to it the exact same way that you would react to a different video of a man, let's say a smaller man, walks up to Dana White, slaps him in the face, and then Dana White slaps that man back.
If you believe that men and women are entirely equal, then you should react to the one of him and his wife the same way you'd react to that.
And how would you react?
How would anyone react to a video of a smaller man walking up to Dana White, slapping him in the face, getting slapped back?
Almost every single per- Now, there might be a few people who say, uh, you know, be more mature.
But almost every person would respond by saying, well, don't go up and slap Dana White.
I mean, you got slapped back because you slapped him.
If he's a bigger guy, you shouldn't be doing that.
F-A-F-O, right?
F around and find out.
That's what everybody would be saying.
That's what every single person would be saying.
And we all know that.
So to heap any sort of extra condemnation on Dana White, the only way to do that, the only way to condemn him beyond how you would condemn him if he slapped another man who slapped him first, which is you wouldn't condemn him hardly at all in that case, the only way to do it is on the grounds of chivalry.
It's on the grounds of like a recognition that men and women are not equal and that there are codes of chivalry and conduct.
That men should abide by.
That men should treat women differently from how they treat men.
And women should treat men differently from how they treat other women.
That is the only basis upon which you can coherently condemn Dana White here.
But most of the people doing the condemnation, they don't accept that basis.
And so it's all incoherent.
Which, by the way, you know, and I'm a believer in chivalry.
But does chivalry lead to the conclusion that it's never acceptable under any circumstance for a man to strike a woman?
Well, of course not.
I mean, there could certainly be and have been conceivable scenarios where self-defense is necessary.
Like, you're not called upon as a man to just be beaten silly and to not defend yourself at all because the person doing it is a woman.
That's absurd.
But as kind of a general principle, If you don't subscribe to the leftist notion that the sexes are equal, then you see that they're unequal and you think, well, men should respond in situations differently to women and then they respond to men.
Alright, let's get to the comment section.
The beginning of a new year sets the tone for the rest of it.
If one of your goals is to take control of your credit card debt, which is a great goal to have, then you need to check out Lightstream.
A credit card consolidation from Lightstream can help you pay off your credit cards and lock in a low fixed interest rate.
Rates start at 7.99% APR with auto pay and excellent credit.
Plus, the rate is fixed, so it will never increase over the life of your loan.
You can get a loan from 5,000 to $100,000 without any fees at all.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan experience,
and that's exactly what they deliver.
Just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount
and save even more.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com/walsh,
L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M.com/walsh.
Subject to credit approval, rates range from 7.99% APR to 23.99% APR
and include 0.5% auto pay discount.
Lowest rate requires excellent credit.
Terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit lightstream.com slash walls for more information.
Michael Miches says, there was once a frog in a beaker full of water.
The beaker was over a Bunsen burner and the water in the beaker was slowly getting hotter.
At some point, the frog began to realize that he was in danger and in a panic began to try to get out of the water.
Fortunately, someone convinced the frog that he was only having a moral panic and he was able to die in peace.
Perfect.
You have, Michael, I will say, you have, in a YouTube comment, you have succinctly summarized our cultural condition there.
That's pretty much it.
That's the whole story.
That's the whole story of modern Western culture.
A Body in Progress says, Matt managed to say senior member of research at Media Matters without laughing out loud at the idea that Media Matters does research and has a senior member of that department.
That takes major acting skills.
That's not acting at all.
It's research.
I mean, it's very tough research, too, because they have to watch me every day.
And I know it's not an easy thing to do.
So, as always, I thank them for their service.
Janet says, My heart swells with pride for you, Dad.
Dad.
Well, Sweet Daddy Walsh is, of course, the proper name.
And if your heart is swelling, you probably shouldn't have gotten that booster shot.
RaptorMan101 says, the 2 million subscriber special should be Matt confronting people who haven't returned their shopping carts.
You know, we've run past 2 million subscribers without even noting it, I guess.
This is like, once you get to the first million, it's a big deal.
And then after that, it's like nobody cares anymore.
I think you have to get to 100.
The next one that anyone will care about is if I get to 100 million subscribers.
Similar to what, and I will abide by that, because this is what I say all the time about birthdays.
You know, we celebrate birthdays when you're a child, and in YouTube terms, sort of like your childhood and adolescence is before you get to the million subscribers, and then you get there, you're an adult now, YouTuber, and we don't really recognize birthdays until it's something really significant.
As far as confronting people who haven't returned their shopping carts, I would love to do that, but that is already... That service is already being provided by Cartnarks, and they're out there every day hunting down people who aren't returning their shopping carts.
And I think they're doing a fantastic job.
I wouldn't want to steal the idea from them, but also I think they're already performing that service.
Let's see.
Andrew says, Matt, do you actually have to watch a WNBA game or can you hang out at the concession stands and walk around the arena when you're at the WNBA game?
Do WNBA games even have concession stands?
I don't mean that as a joke.
Do they actually sell?
Is there someone there who tries to actually sell, like, merchandise and food?
Is it just some kid with a lemonade stand selling lemonade in a plastic cup for 25 cents?
Well, whatever it is.
No, I think this is clear.
I have to sit and actually watch the game.
And as I've been saying all along, nobody's ever watched an entire WNBA game before.
So we don't... In fairness, we're all sort of assuming that it will be horribly boring and tedious.
We're assuming that.
And I think it's a pretty safe assumption, but no one's tested the theory.
No one's actually tested the theory.
Not one single person.
This is a scientific fact.
Not one single person in the world has ever actually watched an entire WNBA game.
And so I am going to be that first person.
And we'll find out.
Maybe I'll enjoy it.
Maybe I'll get into it.
Maybe I'll be their first fan.
That would be a twist ending that nobody would see coming.
And finally, Tampa Tampa 6 says, My response to Matt's assault on Ranch is simple.
We agree on a lot, roughly 99%, but I will hold my ground.
If you want me to stop covering my pineapple pizza in Ranch, then come and take it.
Well, I don't want to touch that stuff, so I won't do that.
But I actually, I'm not one of these people that has a problem with pineapple pizza, okay?
I will, you have my blessing, you want to put pineapple on your pizza, that's fine.
I don't see pizza as this sacred thing.
You can try different toppings.
I have a very surprisingly open mind when it comes to pizza.
But ranch doesn't belong on anything.
It is, if there is anything, well, I'll put it this way.
If there's any food item, That would be improved by ranch, then that is a food item that is not fit for human consumption to begin with.
So that's the way that I would slice it, so to speak.
In 2022, we launched Jeremy's Razors as a joke at first, but it was an important joke.
Now, just 9 months and 15 premium products later, we've amassed the largest social media following of any brand in the category and taken over $10 million away from so-called men's grooming companies that despise masculinity.
But that was just the beginning.
This year, we've got even more great products and woke-scorching endeavors in store, so skip the resolutions and join the revolution.
That was good.
I like that.
Together we'll upend the wokeonomy and finally give conservatives a return on their values.
Are you ready to really make a change this year?
We'll pick up Jeremy's Razors hair, skin, beard, and body care products today by going to dailywire.com slash Walsh.
That's dailywire.com slash Walsh.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
After Buffalo Bills player Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field, everyone on social media, and in the news media, and especially in sports media, agreed, and said out loud over and over and over again, that football is just a game, and that when stacked up against matters of life and death, it is completely unimportant.
Now this is, of course, true, and incredibly obvious.
So obvious, in fact, that it doesn't really need to be said.
Much less does it need to be said 100 million times in a row, repeated over and over again, like some sort of incantation.
But one thing we know about tragedies in the modern world is that they serve as occasions for people to issue totally unnecessary statements just like that.
Not because they need to be said, but because the person making the statement needs everyone else to see him making it.
Otherwise known as virtue signaling.
And when it comes to pointless, unproductive games, games that especially should not be a top priority in the light of tragic occurrences like the DeMar Hamlin incident, this game, the game of virtue signaling, is even more pointless and less productive than football.
That's especially the case for the particular brand of virtue signaling that comes in the form of performative outrage.
This, obviously, is the Internet's favorite kind of virtue signaling and favorite game.
And ironically, many of the people who tripped over themselves to clarify and declare that games aren't important now that Tamar Hamlin is in the hospital were in that very moment, at the same time, playing the most frivolous, self-serving, grotesque game of all, which is performative virtue signaling outrage.
Now, we know how the game is played.
As soon as the terrible event occurs, the hordes of frivolous simpering idiots immediately begin prowling the internet in search of any opinions connected to the event that they, the frivolous simpering idiots, can label as somehow inappropriate or out of bounds.
Then every single person in this group will individually denounce the bad opinion.
So the bad thing happens, and all these people go on the internet and say, let's find someone saying something bad about this.
And once they find it, every person individually has to take turns saying, I disagree with this.
Even after it's been denounced 50 million times, still idiots number 50 million and one and 50 million and two and so on must make sure to register their disapproval as well.
I also think this is bad, they say.
Not because there's any need for this allegedly bad opinion to be condemned even more after it's already been condemned by half the planet, but only because, once again, they want everyone else to see them condemning it.
This is how the game is played.
And after the Damar-Hamlin injury, a number of candidates were selected as targets for this dogpile of dummies.
Principal among them was sports pundit Skip Bayless.
Now, to be totally clear, I have no affinity for Skip Bayless.
I don't enjoy his work.
I don't watch his show.
I don't care about his opinions.
But that doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that even his most benign statements are unthinkably monstrous and heinous.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened on Monday night in response to one in a series of tweets that Bayless posted about the Hamlin situation.
This one tweet, the one that provoked the ire of millions, earned over 100,000, okay?
100,000 outraged comments in a day and over 100 million views on Twitter.
We know that now because Elon changed it so you can see how many views a tweet gets.
This one got over 100 million.
It's a third of the country!
He was trending number one on the entire site.
This one tweet about Hamlin was allegedly so offensive, so out of bounds, so scandalous, such an unseemly abomination that it received this level of attention.
There were many outraged media headlines published about it.
People called for Bayless to be fired from his Fox Sports show.
Many professional athletes joined in the cancellation chorus, saying he should be fired.
The tweet, which I'll read in a moment, was called sick and gross and disgusting and disgraceful.
It was so bad that Skip's co-host on his Fox show, Shannon Sharpe, refused to come to work and host the show with him on Tuesday.
Because he was so upset by this tweet.
It was so bad that Skip not only apologized for the tweet, the follow-up tweet, but even began his show, which he was hosting by himself yesterday, by apologizing for even hosting a show to begin with.
Watch.
Jen, allow me to say up front, That I apologize for what we're going to set out to do here today if it offends anyone because we're we're going to try to do the show pretty much as we usually do the show but I'll admit up front
I'm still shook up by what happened last night to DeMar Hamlin.
In fact, I'm still wrecked.
In fact, I'm not sure I'm capable of doing this show today.
But after barely sleeping on it, I decided to give it a try.
Maybe I'll fail.
Maybe we will fail.
But we're going to try.
So he says he's wrecked.
Incapable of doing the show.
He couldn't sleep.
Because of this.
Really?
It's a terrible, very sad thing.
Well, this is all performance, we see.
That's all this is.
That's all any of this is.
It's performance.
The outrage against Skip Bayless, Bayless's response to it, it's all performance.
And as for the tweet that set this all off, here it is.
Okay, get ready for it.
He tweeted on Monday night shortly after the injury first occurred.
He said, That's it.
159 million views.
100,000 outraged comments.
postponing the rest of this game. But how? This late in the season, a game of this
magnitude is crucial to the regular season outcome, which suddenly seems so
irrelevant. That's it. 159 million views, 100,000 outraged comments, calls for termination because of that.
What exactly is the problem?
He asks a rhetorical question about how the NFL will handle rescheduling the game, while in the same breath acknowledging that the game is insignificant compared to the tragedy.
What precisely is so horrifying about that?
The faux outrage mob will respond that, you know, Bayless shouldn't have been thinking at all about the logistics of rescheduling the game at a time like that, even if he acknowledged out loud that it's not important.
But that's nonsense.
Every single person Watching the game at home, was wondering about how they'd handle postponing and rescheduling, and especially a week before the regular season is supposed to end.
Every person watching the game had that same thought.
It's a normal thing to think about.
Not because this consideration is more important than DeMar Hamlin's life, but simply because it's one thought of many that happens across a human being's brain.
People are capable of holding more than one thought in their head at the same time.
Now, I will confess to you right now that as I was sitting with my wife in our living room and we saw this and we had the same question, we very briefly acknowledged that canceling the game at this point in the season presents an interesting challenge and we wondered how they would handle it.
If you had been sitting in the living room with us and you overheard this very brief exchange, you would not have shrieked out in horror and cried, you monsters!
How dare you!
That's a disgraceful thing to briefly consider at a time like this.
You would not have done that.
Because that would be insane.
That would be an insane reaction to such a benign nothing of a comment.
And that's because that's the sort of histrionic display that people reserve solely for social media and nowhere else in life.
There are a great many statements a person can make that would be considered perfectly normal in any other context of life, and yet be greeted with screeches of outrage on social media, where mob rule and performative anger combine to create an environment where you simply are not allowed to say normal things.
The whole thing is obscene.
The phony outrage mob is obscene, Skip Bayless, well he's obscene too for plenty of other reasons, but in this particular case, the obscene thing is the tiresome internet charade, the pageant of fake anger wherein a person cries, how dare you think the same thing that I was also thinking?
And that by the way, I was thinking and I maybe would have tweeted myself until I saw that you tweeted it and how people reacted to you, so I won't tweet it, instead I'll pretend to be outraged by that thing myself.
This is the state of things on the internet at all times, every day, no matter what is happening in the world.
But the outrage theater really kicks into high gear and people put in their most melodramatic, Oscar-bait-type performances when there is some kind of tragic event, right?
As soon as the tragedy occurs, the mob begins laying traps in the form of these arbitrary rules.
And depending on the tragedy, there are things you are allowed to say and things you're not allowed to say.
You're not going to know what the rules are until you've run afoul of them.
That's the game.
Part of the fun for the Outrage Mob is that they change the rules for every tragedy.
They move the landmines around, and then they sit back, barely disguising their gleeful anticipation as they wait for people to step on them.
Now, of course, another aspect of the game here is that not every tragic event in the world registers on social media.
People die every day.
Terrible things happen every day.
People die in the course of doing their jobs every day.
And most of these atrocities and tragedies are ignored entirely.
You're allowed to carry on with your life, say whatever you want, without even acknowledging it.
In fact, there's a lot of death that happens every single day that you're allowed to make light of on Twitter.
I mean, there are literally videos posted on Twitter of people dying.
Like, videos of death posted on Twitter that people will post and joke about.
Here's a video of someone actively dying in front of you.
Isn't this funny?
Well, that's okay.
Every once in a while, though, one tragic event is selected as the main topic of conversation on social media, and all of the rules of conversation change in light of it.
Everything you're allowed to say, even if it's not about the subject, now changes.
Though, again, you're not going to know the rules until you violate them.
And then in a day or two, maybe two days, you know, maybe three days, it will be randomly decided that enough time has been spent on the tragedy and everybody just moves on.
And most of the people who are so emotionally affected by this event will never say another word about it ever again for as long as they live.
And they will carry on as if it never happened.
That's all part of the game.
And the real terrible consequence is that it turns the people who play this game into sociopaths.
Incapable of experiencing authentic human emotion.
You know, those who grow so accustomed to performing emotion, performing it, performing emotion, they eventually forget how to actually feel emotion.
So, ironically, as they appear increasingly oversensitive, they're actually becoming the opposite.
They aren't sensitive, they're sociopaths, feigning outrage, feigning sadness, because they cannot feel it.
They can't feel anything else either.
And that is why they, the faux outrage mob coming after Skip Bayless, though not Skip Bayless himself, are today cancelled.
Though Skip Bayless will, I'm sure, get his turn in due time.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members' block, hope to see you there.
