Ep. 1141 - Trump Is Indicted. The Justice System Is A Sham.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats wage an actual war on democracy by finally indicting their chief political rival Donald Trump. This outrageous witch-hunt is yet more evidence that the justice system is a sham in this country. Meanwhile, DeSantis has pledged not to cooperate with any extradition request. Should Trump then throw down the gauntlet and refuse to surrender? Also, speaking of assaults on democracy, leftist militants have staged two insurrections at two different state capitols in just the last 24 hours. And a trans activist goes on MSNBC to explain why God "made him trans." Plus, a scientist warns that AI might become super intelligent and wipe out all life on earth. Do we need to add that to our list of worries?
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold Group - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
- - -
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, Democrats wage an actual war on democracy by finally indicting their chief political rival, Donald Trump.
This outrageous witch hunt is yet more evidence that the justice system is a sham in this country.
Meanwhile, DeSantis has pledged not to cooperate with any extradition requests should Trump then throw down the gauntlet and refuse to surrender.
Also, speaking of assaults on democracy, leftist militants have staged two insurrections at two different state capitals in just the last 24 hours.
And a trans activist goes on MSNBC to explain why God, quote, made him trans.
Plus, a scientist warns that AI might become super intelligent and wipe out all life on Earth.
Do we need to add that to our list of worries?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
The recent surge in gold prices is directly tied to an extremely volatile market.
This is why gold has historically been a great hedge against the stock market and against inflation.
The only company, then, that I trust to help you diversify into gold is Birch Gold Group.
Diversification has never been more important.
Precious metals will always have inherent value.
Gold is a tangible and finite resource, uncontrolled by any single government or any single financial institution.
As such, they cannot simply be printed on a government's whim like paper currency.
This gives precious metals a unique advantage and results in numerous benefits for investors.
Birchgold can also help you convert an existing IRA 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical precious metals.
Text WALSH to 989898 to get a free info kit on gold today.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, Birchgold is the company that I trust to protect my future and yours.
That's Walsh to 989898 today.
Last year, a 37-year-old man named Marcus Wright walked up to a woman who was standing on the sidewalk, talking on her phone, and for no discernible reason, brutally assaulted her.
It was a random and senseless attack, but not unexpected.
After all, Marcus Wright was a career criminal with 36 arrests on his rap sheet.
He had long ago made it clear that he has absolutely no interest in behaving like a civilized human being.
He's going to continue committing crimes and victimizing the innocent until the justice system decides to stop him.
And they still haven't.
But in New York, that system is run by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, another Soros goblin who doesn't believe in punishing criminals, and doesn't believe in protecting the innocent, and doesn't care about the innocent.
Wright had been charged with grand larceny a few months prior, but they reduced the crime to a misdemeanor, let him back out on the street.
A few months before that, he was given a similar sweetheart deal on a robbery charge, and even after committing the assault on the pedestrian, he was still released without bail.
A couple months after this latest incident with Wright, a 16-year-old thug attacked a cop in a Harlem subway station, punching him 20 times.
And this assault occurred three days after the same suspect was arrested for assaulting and robbing somebody else.
Once again, he was released without bail, and Bragg's office recommended that he be released without bail again for the assault on the officer.
Fast forward another few weeks.
In September, a sex predator named Justin Washington allegedly sexually assaulted five people in the span of a single day near his homeless shelter.
And this crime spree happened after he had already been arrested for raping a teenage relative.
He agreed in that case to plead down in the rape case and he received in exchange a 30-day jail sentence and some probation.
Now, these are just three examples pulled at random.
Actually, they're the first three examples that popped up when I Googled it.
Okay, so these are just three examples.
Many, many more, which together explain why, during Bragg's first year in office as DA, as Newsweek reports, quote, Manhattan's seven major felony offenses, murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, grand larceny, and grand larceny auto, rose by 26% to the highest since 2006.
That was just in his first year in office.
This is a man, Alvin Bragg, who does not place, to put it mildly, does not place a high value on the safety and security of his own community.
A man who does not think that justice ought to involve actually punishing dangerous criminals.
A man who has never met a crime that he takes seriously.
Unless, of course, the alleged culprit is Donald Trump.
The Daily Wire reported last night the news that I'm sure you've heard by now, quote, a Manhattan grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump in connection with so-called hush money payments to Stormy Daniels in 2016, according to a report.
The felony indictment was filed under seal by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office,
according to the New York Times, and will likely be announced within days.
At that point, Trump will be compelled to surrender and face arraignment.
According to a report, a lawyer for Trump confirmed an indictment to the Associated
Press.
The former president is now the first former president in U.S.
history to ever face criminal charges.
The lead prosecutors in the case met with the grand jury on Thursday and read them the
criminal statutes before they voted.
The report said a few hours later, the prosecutors walked into the court clerk's office and began filing the indictment.
The news comes as the Wall Street Journal reported that District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office has also started examining an alleged $150,000 payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal.
The report said that prosecutors could use the alleged hush money payment to McDougal to bring additional potential charges against Trump.
Prosecutors could also use McDougal's evidence to try to establish an alleged pattern of conduct by the former president, since alleged participants have claimed that Trump played a key role in the deals, according to the report.
Okay, so we now know that the indictment has over 30 charges, and apparently Bragg is not done.
You can see why he has all this pent-up energy to actually prosecute a crime.
I mean, he's so excited he's actually indicting someone for a change.
He hasn't prosecuted muggers, robbers, carjackers, murderers, rapists, the people actually terrorizing his city and causing immeasurable harm to the people who live there.
He hasn't done any of that because he's been saving all of his energy to bring Donald Trump to justice for supposedly giving some money to some floozy.
There's no telling what other charges are on the indictment.
It's still sealed right now, so we don't know.
Perhaps Bragg has also uncovered evidence of unpaid parking tickets.
Maybe an overdue blockbuster rental from 1992.
Maybe we need a separate grand jury for those investigations.
Who knows?
It's a joke, but it's not a funny one, because there's nothing funny about a dying republic, and this is what happens in a dying republic.
We are witnessing before our eyes the late stages of a civilization.
And that's the part where one political party arrests and attempts to imprison its chief political rivals.
You know, for all the hand-wringing about attacks on our democracy, This is actually an attack on our democracy.
It's hard to imagine a more serious attack than this.
Trying to win an election by throwing your opponent in prison.
Like, if you want to attack democracy, that's how you do it.
It's not simply an attack on democracy, it's actually the death of democracy.
And it's happening at the hands of people who, of course, claim to be democracy's greatest champions.
Of course, You know, there might be more to this.
Democrats are soulless and corrupt, but they aren't generally idiots.
So they're certainly aware of the same fact that we all recognize, which is that nothing could possibly help Donald Trump's primary campaign more than this.
And his coming mugshot photo, because they're going to do the whole deal.
They're going to arrest him.
Fingerprints, mugshot, everything.
And when that photo is taken and released, just on its own, becomes one of the most powerful and compelling images in the history of American politics.
Powerful and compelling in Trump's favor, as it should be.
So it's far too early to say that this move by Bragg has sealed the nomination for Trump.
You know, I'm not going to say that it's won him the nomination, because it's just, it's so early.
And we also know that people, people forget things.
I mean, you could have a story, we've seen this many times, a story that's the biggest thing in the world for 36 hours, and then everyone forgets about it six months later.
It's like it never happened.
So that also factors into this.
This definitely has considerably expanded the gap between Trump and second place in the race for the GOP nomination.
And the Democrats know this.
Okay, we all know this, and we're saying it.
It's not like they don't know it.
They're aware of that political reality.
Is that part of the game, then?
Are they operating on the theory that the indictment will help Trump in the primary, And they want to help him because they want to run against him, but it will hurt him in the general, thereby ensuring Biden's re-election.
You know, is that the theory?
Whether that theory is true or not, is that what they're doing?
So is this simply an act of mindless political vengeance without concern for the political impact it might have, or is it something more strategic?
And this really comes down to the question of whether or not you believe that Democrats are dumber than they are corrupt.
And if you believe that, you'll probably assume the former.
This is mindless political vengeance with no other strategy in place.
Now, if you believe that they're more corrupt than they are dumb, you'll assume the latter.
That this is also a political play.
And I tend to assume the latter.
They're more corrupt than they are dumb.
But whatever the motivation, what we absolutely know for sure is that none of this would be happening if the alleged culprit behind these alleged quote-unquote crimes was named Donald Smith rather than Donald Trump.
Because as we've established, Bragg can't be bothered to throw the book at actual child rapists and armed robbers.
He certainly wouldn't waste his time on this ticky-tack nonsense if not for the fact that Trump is the target.
That's what we know.
That's all we need to know.
And that's what makes this a historic outrage.
And yet more evidence that the justice system does not exist in this country.
It's not a two-tiered justice system.
It's not a justice system that operates on a double standard.
There is no justice system.
There is no system in place to enact, protect, and preserve justice.
That no longer exists.
In fact, it's quite appropriate that Trump's arrest would come now, at the conclusion of a 24-hour period where leftist militants were storming state capitals.
They stormed two state capitol buildings in 24 hours.
First, there were the trans activists invading the Kentucky capitol to defend their right to castrate and sterilize young children.
And then yesterday afternoon, an angry mob of leftists in Tennessee stormed our state capitol here in Nashville, calling for gun control.
It was a rare occasion where insurrectionists were demanding fewer rights rather than more.
They were storming the Capitol to say, take our rights away.
We don't want them.
Please take them.
Here's some of the footage of that scene.
Check it out.
[Bleep]
[Bleep]
No action, no peace!
Well, there's just no way around it.
That is an insurrection, according to the standards that have been set.
Everyone involved should be hunted down, arrested, and thrown in prison for years.
Yet, as expected, the media has not condemned the actions of these insurrectionists.
They have not solemnly declared that, uh, what was yesterday, March 30th?
March 30th will now live in the national memory as a date more tragic than 9-11.
They haven't said any of that.
Instead, they've reported on the insurrection like this.
Watch.
Protesters flooded the State Capitol building today.
Take a look.
You can see young kids among those holding signs demanding protection and calling for the end of gun violence after the horrific shooting at the Covenant School on Monday, which left three children and three staff members dead.
And that's where NBC's Lindsey Reiser joins us from the State Capitol in Nashville.
Lindsey, I know you have been talking to people there at memorials, at the vigil yesterday, now at this protest.
What are they telling you?
Yeah, Chris, hundreds of people showed up today.
I mean, probably about 1,500, maybe even upwards of that, showing out.
A lot of young people, a lot of young students skipping school, a lot of parents bringing their young kids here as well.
And I talked to the organizer of today's event.
She's a single mom herself.
Her son's about to turn five, and she said, In other words, it was a mostly peaceful insurrection.
But, you know, the media is allowed to be absurdly biased, and it's allowed to be run by partisan hacks.
the result today with people singing songs, confronting lawmakers on their way into the
General Assembly today, calling for some kind of gun reform.
In other words, it was a mostly peaceful insurrection.
But you know, the media is allowed to be absurdly biased and it's allowed to be run by partisan
hacks.
It shouldn't be, but it's allowed to be.
The justice system, on the other hand, is supposed to enforce the law equally and fairly
without respect to politics and ideology, and yet we all know that the Tennessee insurrection
will not be prosecuted like January 6th.
In fact, it almost certainly won't be prosecuted at all.
Just as no other politician, and certainly no other former president or presidential candidate, will be held to the same legal standard that Trump is being held to.
And that's because, again, there is no justice system.
There is a system, yes.
There is the system.
But justice is not its aim.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
This is from the Daily Wire.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis quickly responded to news on Thursday that former President Donald Trump had been indicted by a Manhattan grand jury by calling into question the legitimacy of the case and saying the state will not assist in an extradition request.
DeSantis said in a statement, the weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head.
It's un-American.
The Soros-backed Manhattan district attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct, yet now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent.
Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.
This is a very good statement.
You know, when news first broke a couple weeks ago that Trump might be arrested, and DeSantis put a statement out, or he addressed it, it wasn't even a statement, he addressed it at a press conference.
And I was, if you watch the show, you know I was critical of the way he initially addressed it.
I thought he needed to come out stronger.
And he also should say that he's not going to participate in any extradition.
And now, now that the arrest has actually happened, he has put this statement out.
I think it's an excellent statement.
Now, you know, there are the kind of the Trump lackeys on Twitter that are still complaining even about this.
Okay, this is a harsh condemnation and even saying he's going to go to bat to protect Trump here and is still, you know, they're the mostly the paid Trump supporters on Twitter saying, well, it's not good enough because he didn't say his name.
Say his name!
Well, we know that literally no matter what DeSantis does, they're going to complain.
I mean, he is, after all, inarguably, DeSantis is the most effective Republican governor in the country, and one of the most effective in our lifetimes.
That's not an arguable statement, and no one even does, and yet they still find a reason to hate him, so it's no surprise here.
The fact that he's saying they're not going to participate in any kind of extradition request, they're not going to go along with it, is huge.
Now, on the other hand, it kind of puts the ball back in Trump's court, because what we're being told so far is that Trump plans to surrender.
But he shouldn't.
If we're going to have this fight, let's have it.
We keep hearing how the crossing of the Rubicon, this is a threshold that's been crossed, throwing down the gauntlet, whatever metaphor you want to use.
And I agree with that, and so that means let's have the fight.
Let's do it.
I don't know where it goes.
I don't know where it goes from there.
If you have the governor saying, I'm not going to participate in extradition, you have Trump say, I'm not going to surrender.
Where does that go?
What happens next?
Who knows exactly?
Well, where it goes is someone has to back down.
Or not.
And to me, that's clearly the right move here.
That's how you fight back against this.
That's how you fight back.
You refuse to surrender.
If this is an unjust political persecution, which it is, then you can't cooperate with it.
Now, if you've actually committed a crime, or even if you are Sort of legitimately suspected of committing a crime.
You didn't commit it.
Let's say you're innocent, but you're suspected of committing the crime, and you know that this is a true attempt by the legal system to adjudicate this and figure out what's going on.
Well then, yeah, the right thing to do is surrender.
But in this case, this is entirely just a political charade.
This is a political game, and everybody knows that.
So I don't think you surrender, and I don't think you go along with it.
But then Trump also has to weigh, you know, okay, he could thread on the gauntlet and say, I'm not gonna surrender, I will not go along with this, okay?
Not gonna happen.
If he does that, then there's a chance you don't get the mugshot photo.
You don't get the photo of the perp walk in handcuffs, which are gonna be very powerful political images.
But I think he needs to be willing to sacrifice that in order to have this fight.
That would be my view of it.
Next we have Charlotte Clymer, who's a trans activist.
Interesting thing about Charlotte Clymer is that just a few years ago, he was Charles Clymer, a male feminist activist who, as laid out by Greg Price on Twitter yesterday, is a male feminist.
Who got cancelled by his own side for being a raging, obnoxious scumbag jerk, basically.
His own side cancelled him years ago.
There was even a hashtag that got going called Stop Climber.
Because, this again, people on his side, leftists, who said that he's this creepy male feminist guy who's obnoxious to women, he's an a-hole, and all the rest of it.
So, Clymer then sort of disappears and then reemerges as a woman.
He rebrands himself as a woman.
And now he's a hero again.
He was on the outs as a male feminist, then says, you know what?
Turns out I'm a woman.
I have looked inside myself and discovered as it turns out that deep inside I'm really a woman.
And just like that.
His career as an activist has taken off again.
No one in his side is critical of him.
All the critics, all the people that were criticizing Charles Clymer back in 2015 are gone.
They're not saying anything about it anymore because now he's untouchable because he's trans.
Many such cases.
Okay.
This is the safest career path for creepy, obnoxious men on the left is this.
Just come out and say you're a woman.
You don't have to commit to it, okay?
You don't have to actually get the surgery or even take the drugs.
Just grow your hair out, pull it back in a ponytail, and, you know, wear a headband or something, and walk outside and say you're a woman.
That's it.
All the criticism is gone.
Simple as that.
That's the story of quote-unquote Charlotte Clymer, and as this untouchable now He's an activist.
He appeared on MSNBC this week, and I want you to hear this part of him.
Take a listen to this.
I think children are only unsafe at drag shows when a shooter shows up to kill them.
That's right.
That's where the threat is.
I would challenge anyone just to get to know trans people.
We are a vibrant, diverse community, as diverse as anyone else.
You know, I'm from the great state of Texas.
I served in the military.
I go to church every Sunday.
My faith is very important to me.
But God made me in her image.
God made me transgender.
And to see these people so cynically weaponize this and exploit these children's debts and their teachers' debts, It breaks my heart.
I wonder what those families are thinking right now.
What do you feel when you have somebody like Michael Knowles say at CPAC, we need to eradicate transgenderism, and when somebody like Tucker Carlson says that transgender people are at war with Christians?
I can't see Christ in their words.
That's for damn sure.
I can't see where the biblical principles of loving your neighbor and walking the walk with Christ that they can see.
I can't see what they're seeing right now, because that's not of Christ.
It's not.
Here's our expert on biblical New Testament exegesis, someone who's obviously in a position to speak for Jesus Christ.
Let me ask you, Clymer, is it of Christ to be an obnoxious a-hole to the extent that your own side hates you, and then to turn around and appropriate the female identity to put yourself above criticism?
Is that of Christ?
And before we even get to the nonsense, the climber was vomiting out of his lying mouth.
Look at the screen.
Maybe you noticed that on the screen.
Maybe you noticed the words on the screen.
Right there, the headline, Transgender Shooting Suspect Sparks Outrage on the Right.
Well, yes, yes it did.
You got us.
Guilty as charged.
That's true.
Our outrage was indeed sparked by the murder of children.
Yeah, that's us, you know, these conservative snowflakes.
Overly sensitive.
We get very upset when psychopaths go and murder children.
Yeah, we are.
We're very upset about that.
That is always an effective way to make us outraged, is to murder children.
So, you people get outraged by being misgendered, okay?
You get outraged if somebody uses a pronoun you don't like.
We get outraged by the mass slaughter of children.
The mass slaughter of children, by the way, in any form.
So, the mass slaughter of children at a school, we get outraged by that.
The mass slaughter of children at an abortion clinic, we get outraged by that.
And so that's where we differ, I suppose.
That effect is true.
That's one of the major dividing lines in the culture.
Do you oppose the mass murder of children or not?
And there is an entire side of the political divide that not only doesn't oppose it, but openly advocates for the mass slaughter of children.
Especially when it happens in an abortion clinic.
So I do appreciate how MSNBC is admitting.
I mean, they're admitting that only conservatives are outraged by this.
Which is also true.
As for the rest of it, no, God didn't make you transgender.
You know, God made you, since you want to take the conversation in this direction.
And once again, we see this dichotomy here where on the left, they're constantly accusing the right of Bible thumping and of, you know, all of our positions.
We only take those positions because it's what our religion told us.
Meanwhile, as I'm always reminding you, In any of these conversations, whether it's transgenderism, or abortion, or even gay marriage, you know, if there's a debate between the two sides, and religion is brought into it, and the Bible is brought into it, and Jesus is brought into it, 99% of the time, it's the left bringing that into the conversation.
And the game is that they bring it into the conversation if we respond by saying, well, no, because the Bible says this.
Well, stop throwing the Bible at me, you Bible thumper!
Since you bring this up, no, God did not make you transgender.
God made you a male.
That's how you were made.
That's what you were made.
And that's also what you recognized yourself to be until just a few years ago.
That is what you were made to be, and that's what makes transgender— one of the things that makes the transgender ideology so insidious is that it encourages people to reject their God-given nature, what God has actually made them to be.
Which brings us to another point I wanted to make quickly on the trans topic.
We talked about those insurrectionists in Kentucky.
We had them in Tennessee.
We had them in Kentucky.
And in Kentucky, they invaded the Capitol building and they were screaming and crying and all the rest of it.
Shouting slogans.
They also held what they called a die-in.
And so this is where they all just splayed out on the ground.
It looked much like an airport terminal.
People all lying on the ground.
Except in this case, they're pretending to be dead because they're making the point, trying to make the point that You know, those of us who oppose transgenderism, we are killing trans people.
And that we're contributing to a genocide of trans people.
But this is where we have to state the fact, because it's true, that, you know, the greatest threat to the life of a transgender person, you take any individual trans-identified person, The greatest threat to that person's life is that person himself.
If a trans person is going to be killed, most likely he's going to die at his own hands.
The person most likely to kill a trans person is himself.
And that's what the suicide rate tells us.
That's a statistical fact.
You know, the number of trans people who are murdered by somebody else, infinitesimally small.
That's an infinitesimally small percentage.
And as we've talked about, the number of trans people killed, allegedly for being trans, in like an actual hate crime, even smaller.
It's smaller than, you take the infinitesimal, you know, slice of trans death that is murder, it's an even smaller slice of that slice that is an actual hate crime.
But, As everybody agrees and knows, there are trans people and many more trans people being killed every single year.
It's just that in almost all those cases, they're killing themselves.
Because the, you know, the trans suicide rate is somewhere around 40%.
And the rate of trans people who report having considered suicide is much greater.
It's much more than half.
And it depends on what study you look at and which poll or survey you look at, but no matter where you're looking for your data, suicidal ideation among trans people is by far and away the majority of them.
That's where the threat lies.
Those are the people killing trans people themselves.
This catastrophically high suicide rate that is historically unprecedented.
And all of the explanations that the trans activists themselves give for this suicide rate, they're the ones who, they also are the ones who bring that up most of the time.
They're gonna bring up the fact that the trans suicide rate is so high.
All the explanations they give for that high suicide rate make no sense and they fall apart the second you start to scrutinize those arguments.
Because what are they going to tell us?
They're going to say, well, this only is happening because trans people are bullied and persecuted and all the rest of it.
Well, if that was the case, then we should see that as society becomes more accepting of transgenderism, that the suicide rate plummets and that is not happening at all.
In fact, we live in a society right now where trans people are celebrated, are breathlessly celebrated by all of the major institutions in our country, and they're throwing parades in the street, they're celebrating them constantly, and that apparently has done nothing, really, to bring the suicide rate down.
And then you compare that to the experiences of any group of people historically, any other demographic, Who experienced real persecution, I'm talking about enslavement, mass execution, genocide, actual genocides like rounding you up and throwing you into a death camp kind of genocide.
You look at groups of people that experienced those and unfortunately there have been many groups historically who have gone through that.
None of them had a suicide rate of 40% or even close to it.
Or even anywhere close to it.
In fact, in many cases, it was the opposite effect.
In many cases, there's the effect of the suicide rate going down in the face of persecution.
As the people in that group rally around each other and all of that.
So if anything, that's where you see the trend.
It's only with trans people where they allegedly respond to bullying with a 40% suicide rate.
And what that tells you is that it's got nothing to do with anything external.
It's got nothing to do with the environment.
It's got nothing to do with anything that I'm saying or that you say when you criticize trans ideology.
It's rooted in the despair that itself is rooted in a person's inability to accept their own inherent nature.
That, you know, your inability or refusal to accept that breeds despair, and then that is what causes the suicide rate.
All right.
So this is something a little bit different from Fox News.
An artificial intelligence expert with more than two decades of experience studying AI safety said an open letter calling for a six-month moratorium on developing powerful AI systems does not go far enough.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, a decision theorist at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, wrote in a recent op-ed that the six-month pause in developing AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, called for by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and hundreds of other innovators and experts, understates the seriousness of the situation.
He would go further, implementing a moratorium on new large AI learning models that is indefinite and worldwide.
So he wants an indefinite moratorium on all of these AI systems.
He said in a letter, "Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident
that the effects will be positive and their risk be manageable. The key issue is not human
competitive intelligence, as the open letter puts it. It's what happens after AI gets smarter than
human intelligence." He says that Yudkowsky warns that there is no proposed plan for dealing with
a superintelligence that decides the most optimal solution to whatever problem it is tasked with
solving is annihilating all life on Earth.
He also raises concerns that AI researchers don't actually know if learning models have become self-aware and whether it's ethical to own them if they are.
This is what he's claiming, and this is the concern that we're hearing from people now, is that we've got to be very worried about AI, because number one, they could become self-aware, and maybe they already are.
These chatbots and everything, maybe they are conscious, actually.
They have become their own consciousness.
And then, once that happens, then do they form together to become some sort of super intelligence that, as he says, annihilates all life on Earth?
Because maybe the robots would say, well, all these problems that we're supposed to be solving, probably the simplest solution is just to start exterminating people.
On one hand, that's not an implausible theory, because many of these AI systems are being programmed by leftists, and we know for leftism, that is the solution.
These are eugenicists, and this is what they believe.
They believe that the way you solve a lot of these problems is by reducing the number of people on Earth.
They say one of the biggest problems that we face right now, according to them, is the fact that there are too many people on Earth, and so we have to reduce the number, because people are a cancerous blight on Mother Earth.
So, in a certain way, you can anticipate AI being programmed that way.
But, I still am not terribly concerned about AI wiping out all life on Earth, okay?
That's not the risk.
But I am still worried about AI.
I think it's a very serious concern.
My worry, though, is not that it kills people, okay?
But that it makes life for people miserable.
It doesn't kill humans, instead it kills the human spirit.
That's what we should be concerned about with AI technology and with much of modern technology.
It doesn't mean we want to live in the Stone Age.
But this is the downside.
It's not a sci-fi movie where a chatbot becomes... Look, none of these chatbots are self-aware.
And Siri on your iPhone is not self-aware.
That's just not happening.
As far as we know, it's not possible for inorganic matter to develop consciousness.
There's no indication at all that that's even physically possible.
All we have are the sci-fi films and books that we all grew up with, all these stories, and so even these scientists and these AI theorists, they are heavily influenced by fiction.
And so they're coming up with this story that's really rooted in that.
So that's not going to happen, okay?
The robots are not becoming self-aware.
They're not going to band together.
It's not Terminator.
They're not going to try to enslave us.
But what is going to happen, and what is happening right now, is that this technology makes human beings increasingly useless and obsolete.
Okay, by taking away jobs as we get self-driving cars and you don't need people driving cars anymore, you don't need truck drivers, you don't need, you know, so we get rid of that, get rid of that.
And as the chatbots and these kinds of systems are able to start like composing,
in fact, I just read the other day that BuzzFeed has already started using AI to generate its articles,
which means we don't need BuzzFeed writers anymore.
And I know that that in and of itself seems like more of a perk than a downside,
that we're getting rid of BuzzFeed writers, but it just shows that this is the trend,
making human beings obsolete, taking away jobs, taking away work, making, you know.
And then also, kind of paradoxically, at the same time, also making life far too easy.
It takes your job away, it's not easy, but in general, kind of like all this technological advancement,
removing all resistance from life, prioritizing efficiency and convenience above everything else.
You don't have to work for anything.
It's all just handed to you.
And I think that also breeds boredom, which breeds despair.
So it's kind of on a deeper level, but I think that's what we need to be concerned about when it comes to AI.
I also wanted to mention this from Daily Wire.
An anthropology researcher at the University of Pittsburgh was incredulous after champion female collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines pinned him on a basic question about the biological difference between men and women, which prompted raucous laughter from students.
Gaines, a recent University of Kentucky graduate who tied for fifth place with transgender-identifying swimmer Leah Thomas at the NCAA Championship last year, recently delivered a talk at the University of Pittsburgh about men and women's sports to a room of packed with students.
Gabby Yearwood, a senior lecturer at the school's anthropology department, rejected the notion that researchers can use skeletal evidence to determine a deceased person's sex.
So this is...
This is always going to be one of the many kind of mic drop rejoinders that you can have if you're on the pro-sanity side in the gender discussion, is by asking, look, however somebody identifies, they die, they're dug up, their bones are dug up by archaeologists or anthropologists.
A hundred years from now, what are those scientists going to say about that person's sex?
And that's definitive because they will be able to determine based on that the sex, the gender identity won't mean anything anymore.
But this person tried to claim the opposite.
Let's watch this moment.
I actually have a question for you.
You being an anthropologist, which anthropology is the study of human civilization.
So if you were to dig up a human, Two humans, and a hundred years from now, both man and woman, could you tell the difference?
Strictly off of bones.
No.
I'm sorry to see you guys.
I'm not sure why I'm being laughed at if I'm the expert in the room.
Have any of you been to archaeological sites?
Have any of you studied biological anthropology?
I'm just saying... I've got over 150 years of data.
I'm just curious as to why I'm being laughed at.
I actually...
I believe it or not, I have put a lot of research into this.
I'm not comparing myself to you.
I'm not comparing myself to you.
I'm just telling you that I have considered all viewpoints.
Okay, he never explains how that could possibly be the case.
Well, no, you can't tell the sex at all.
His reasoning, his defense of that is, well, I have a PhD, so I'm the expert, so this is what I say goes.
This is kind of the Tony Fauci approach.
You know, we've heard from Fauci that he is, I am the science, he says.
I'm the science.
If you disagree with me, you disagree with science.
I represent science.
And this is how they all feel about themselves.
They get the credentials, they go and they get the expensive piece of paper, and now they represent science.
So science is not What it actually is, which is a process of understanding the physical world.
That's all that science is.
It's the process by which we come to understand phenomena in the physical world.
That's science.
That's what it actually is.
But to these people who call themselves scientists, science is whatever they say.
It's their own viewpoint.
and they are sort of avatars for science itself.
But this is just total nonsense.
I mean, he is denying... He's denying, like, the entire history of anthropology and archaeology.
And you can go, if you want to check the facts here, you can go on Google and just look up countless, hundreds of stories, thousands of stories of scientists digging up some ancient bones from centuries ago and all the things they're able to tell about that person.
Because, as it turns out, You know, your sex is a reality that is, it's not just, as we have been trying to establish, it's not just about hormones.
It's not about one individual thing.
If you are a woman, then your entire body is, you know, attests to that fact.
And as long as some part of your body remains, then they'll be able to determine your sex.
Alright, one other thing before we get to the comment section.
Unilead has this.
Just a few decades ago, humans took a giant leap for mankind and stepped foot on the Moon.
Now, NASA is planning to leap even further.
Today, the Space Agency announced the establishment of a new Moon-to-Mars program office at NASA Headquarters in Washington, which will be tasked with paving the way to getting humans on Mars.
It comes following the initial establishment of the Moon-to-Mars program, which plans to send the first woman and first person of color to the surface of the Moon and help use what we learned there to prepare for the trip to the Red Planet.
Unfortunately, our trip to the moon has to be delayed a little bit because we need to check this box of getting a woman and a black person on the moon.
Once we've done that, then we can actually proceed with actual space exploration.
But the idea of going to Mars, I don't have to tell you that I love the idea.
I think it's worth all the money that it will cost, and then some.
I think that a new space age, an actual new space age, which is not just billionaires, you know,
flying up and orbiting the earth one time for a sightseeing tour.
I mean, that's good for them, but that's not space age.
I'm talking about a new space age of discovery.
I think that that would be a part of how we save our civilization.
And I really mean that.
And I don't mean that it saves our civilization because we can set up colonies on Mars or whatever,
because that idea I've never totally understood.
Who would actually want to go live there?
I know that I wouldn't.
So the idea that, well hey, life on Earth is unlivable.
This is a theory.
Life becomes unlivable in the future.
So let's go to a place where it's negative 80 degrees on average and the atmosphere is toxic and you can't breathe it.
And once every few years there are massive dust storms that cover the entire planet.
Let's go there instead because the Earth is unlivable.
I've never understood that.
No, my point is that it saves humanity.
By giving us something to strive for, giving us something to dream about and reach for, giving us something to do as a civilization.
And it turns out that it's not just individuals that need things to do with their lives.
An entire civilization needs that too.
You need something to point towards and strive for.
You need goals, right?
And right now we really don't have any.
So I think that this could help with that.
It would also give us a triumphant moment.
Like, to actually land on Mars.
So for the first time, human beings stepping foot on another planet.
This would be a triumphant victory.
This would be a historic moment.
And in a good way.
Because we haven't had that.
I don't think in my lifetime we've had that.
Not very many, anyway.
These days, if you hear about, this is a historic moment, history will remember this moment.
It's almost always something terrible, like the first President of the United States to be arrested.
Historic moment!
Yeah, it's historic, sure, but it's a historic shame.
It's not a historic triumph, and we haven't had that.
We haven't really had that since the moon landing, which I wasn't alive for.
And that would give us that.
So that's my pitch for landing on Mars.
Also, it would just be really cool.
Let's get to the comment section.
Hard Rock Music Fan says "Best cancellation ever."
These people on airplanes somehow managed to even be worse than the types of travelers on buses somehow.
I actually prefer to sit in the middle seat and I'm still okay with these rules.
Perfectly rational and acceptable.
But I'm sorry, you prefer to sit in the middle seat?
You prefer it?
What kind of freak are you?
This is actually, you should be on some kind of registry somewhere.
I mean, no offense, I don't mean any offense by that, but this is, that is not, that's a, You know, we talk about a lot of many different forms of perversion, but that's a deep one right there.
You prefer to sit in the middle.
How could you prefer it?
It's objectively the worst place to be on the plane.
So you prefer to have less space?
And someone says you could have more space or less space.
I'll take less.
I'll take less personal space.
I prefer to have less.
I prefer to be sandwiched in between two smelly strangers.
I want that.
That's what you're telling me.
Like, do you prefer it when you go to a restaurant and they spit in your food?
Would you prefer that?
Anyway, thanks for listening.
Max says, Matt's clearly never had his flight delayed repeatedly over the course of a day with the travel agency unable or unwilling to provide for alternative accommodations.
People will sleep at airports because they're not at home and nowhere near their home.
Get over it.
Okay, Max, first of all, there is no flying or airport scenario that I have not experienced, okay?
I practically live in airports these days, and so I've been through all of that.
It's no excuse.
I have been dead tired, gone like two hours of sleep in four days.
Just walking like a zombie through airports and I don't sleep because I'm a grown man, an adult.
It is shameful and disgraceful to sleep in front of strangers, especially in an environment that's not made for it.
And also, travel agency?
What?
Do you use fax machines too?
You have a travel agency?
Do those even exist anymore?
Uh, maybe that's your problem.
Maybe that's why you're running into problems, because you're using a travel agency from 1982.
Dovin says, Matt, I feel like you're starting to get the same disconnect from people that the people in MSM have.
I work full time making $19 an hour at 22 years old in my area, northern Arizona, making 19 as FU money.
I'm having minimal expenses to the point I only pay for what I absolutely have to.
And I still live not even paycheck to paycheck, but worse.
My family's the only reason I'm not homeless.
All I've ever wanted in life is to make a family and have kids, but at this rate I might be able to afford to feed a child at 35.
Our values are changing because liberals offer values more accommodating to people struggling through no or little fault of their own.
Not to even mention the fact that a damn speeding ticket for going 10 over is a $300 ticket.
The margin of error for us broke boys is so small, almost any fine from anywhere is enough to take from what's served for dinner.
It takes us half a year to recover from a $1,500 car repair bill.
My point of all this is don't give people like me s*** on your show for not wanting kids when the problem is those of us that want them literally can't.
Okay, well, Davin, you're 22 years old.
It's not a competition, but when I was 22, I was more broke than you are right now.
And I also lived alone.
I wasn't homeless.
I just didn't live in any kind of luxury whatsoever.
So, you're 22.
That's, you know, being broke and just, like, working paycheck to paycheck and struggling to get by.
That's what you're supposed to do at 22.
It's better to have that at 22.
As opposed to, you know, having life be too easy.
Like, this is the time.
And, right, you're not, you don't have kids yet.
You're not married yet, I assume.
And so you're in a position where it's okay for you to struggle because you don't have dependents that are depending on you.
You're only 22.
So, you know, when I talk about the value of having a family and having kids, That could still very much apply to you.
You're only 22 years old.
So you don't need to write off having kids at 22 because you're struggling right now.
And I understand, again, I understand the struggles.
I went through it myself at your age.
What I'm trying to tell you is that you're very, very young.
You got a long, you're just, you're just starting the early phases of young adulthood.
You just got started.
You just became an adult.
Practically like yesterday, okay?
And so, you don't need to write off any of this.
And you say, at this rate, you won't be able to have kids until you're 35, you won't have the money to afford them, but there's no reason why it has to continue at this rate.
Okay, you're making 19 bucks an hour, 22 years old, and you're assuming that your rate of pay and your salary is going to just continue rising at a rate commensurate with what's happened so far, but that's not the way it has to work.
You're just establishing yourself right now and building, you know, you're in the early stages again of building your life as a young adult.
So there's no reason why at 22 you have to consign yourself to this notion that you won't be able to start a family at all or maybe not until your mid-30s.
So take heart is what I'm trying to say.
And also, I very much disagree with the idea that liberals offer values that are accommodating to people who are struggling.
Liberal values, left-wing values, these are anti-human values.
They don't accommodate anyone.
They don't care about anyone.
Gregor says, I don't really agree with Matt's defense of asking for the manifesto here, but not in other cases.
Instead, I would make this argument.
We don't need the manifesto when there's a common understanding that something could exist.
The racist who shot up the supermarket, everyone who watched the video gets what that was about.
Publicizing the manifesto adds nothing and risks copycats.
On the other hand, if there's a refusal to acknowledge an obvious motivation, then the manifesto is critical, especially if it leads to the predictable and clearly dishonest, don't-believe-your-lying-eyes defense.
Here, the motivation is clear.
The transness is a part of the equation.
Christianity is part of the equation.
Both of these are denied by one side of discourse.
This denial is just a smokescreen defense, only possible while the manifesto is locked up.
Well, I don't think that—you said you disagreed with my argument, but I think you basically restated my argument.
I concur absolutely with you.
Yes, that is—maybe you've put it together more succinctly than I did, so I'll give you credit for that.
But that is the reason for releasing the manifesto, okay?
That's why there's nothing inconsistent in saying That in some of these past mass shootings, there was no reason really to release the manifesto.
I still don't think, like, I'm not in favor of the government hiding these sorts of things at all.
So, when there's any kind of mass shooting, and people are killed, and the person who did it has written out their reasons for doing it, there's no scenario where I would be okay with government authorities hiding that from the public, because the public has a right to have access to that.
But in other cases, I think there's no reason for the media to go out of the way to publicize it or dissect it too much because, as you say, it's like an established thing.
Nobody denies it.
Whereas in this case, there are people who just fundamentally deny That this radical trans agenda and the rhetoric that we hear from institutions about the trans issue, that it has the effect of radicalizing people and encouraging violence.
There are people that deny this absolutely, and so that's where the manifesto comes into play.
And finally, Becca says the plane etiquette was hilarious, much needed after all the horrible things currently going on.
It wasn't supposed to be funny.
It's not only serious, but when it comes to behavior on planes, or really any time I'm dissecting etiquette, I'm never more serious than in those moments.
So just to be totally clear.
And you're also banned from the show, obviously.
Do you need a new show to watch?
I'm sure you do, considering that other than Succession and a handful of alien documentaries, most of what's out there is absolute garbage.
Well, not a handful.
I mean, all of the alien documentaries are great.
So that, and Succession, a couple others.
So if you like good shows, you should check out Season 2 of The Search with Ben Shapiro.
A couple weeks ago, Ben was joined by comedian Russell Brand, and this week he sits down with the always enjoyable Megyn Kelly.
Here's a look at their latest episode.
When you first get married and your spouse is sick, you're like, oh my god, I'll take care of you.
I feel so bad for you.
Now, when you have kids and obligations, they're like, why do you get to be sick?
I need your wife here right now, because every woman out there knows that the man flu is way, way worse than the woman flu ever is.
In fact, there's no accident, I did not get the flu.
Because the guys get all the illnesses and the mothers are not allowed.
We have to build up our immunities before we get married and have children, otherwise the whole family collapses.
[Laughter]
[Music]
[Music]
The Search is not an interview show, it is a conversation show.
There is a difference, and you see the difference when you watch the show, which you should.
The episodes are unscripted, they're loose, they're entertaining.
To watch the now-streaming episode with Megyn Kelly, become a DailyWirePlus member today.
You'll get exclusive access to The Search, plus all of DailyWirePlus' hit shows and movies, like, of course, What Is A Woman?
Good one for Trans Day of Visibility, by the way.
Join today by going to DailyWirePlus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
We've been following on this show the efforts in California to instate a policy of reparations for black residents of the state attempting to right the wrongs of slavery by, according to the proposal, giving each black resident $5 million.
But as I asked a few days ago, why $5 million?
Why not more?
I mean, if we have decided to enter into a fantasy world where it's wise or even possible to hand multi-million dollar checks to millions of people as payment for wrongs that they never personally suffered, why limit it to just $5 million?
Well, now the activists in the state are actually asking the same question, predictably.
From Fox, quote, "Activists on Wednesday demanded that the state of California pay millions of
dollars to each black resident in reparations as a way to make amends for slavery and subsequent
discrimination, dismissing the idea of payments of five million per person as nothing and too little.
The demands were made at an in-person meeting of the California Reparations Task Force,
which was created by the state legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020."
The committee was hearing comments from the public as it considers final recommendations to submit to the California legislature, which will then decide whether to implement the measures and send them to Newsom's desk to be signed into law.
So here's a clip of just one of the activists who is not satisfied with $5 million.
Here's what he proposes instead.
Preparations are overdue for all foundational Black Americans.
Foundational Black Americans that were killed for nothing, babies taken away from mothers, fathers killed for protecting their families, and families broken up on purpose for a profit.
Medical genocide, unjust laws, and just plain-out brutality.
Foundational Black Americans have helped every culture to get on their feet.
Now it is foundational Black Americans' turn to do the same for ourselves.
Not just for my generation, but also for the elders that took the time and did the research and educated us and taught us our true history.
Also, for the future generations to come that will lead us into the future with their heads held up high.
I believe that $5 million in reparations is too little for the work that Foundational Black Americans have done for this country and as well for other countries.
I believe that $7.6 million is a number that can be used very wisely in our Foundational Black American communities.
Forty acres is also still a good idea, and instead of a mule, we would like a tractor.
I also believe that we should know the name of all the companies that participated in the slave trade so we, Foundational Black Americans, can start up our own companies.
$5 million isn't going to cut it, but $7.6 million, now that would be useful.
That extra $2.6 million, that makes all the difference.
The oppression doesn't really start wearing off until you get into the $6 million range, and by the time you're at $7.5 million, it's almost entirely gone.
And by that I mean it's not gone at all, because as we know, you know, since we're talking about foundational black Americans, whatever that means, we do know that one of the foundational beliefs of the modern left-wing race hustler is that America is systemically inherently racist in ways that are mostly invisible.
And that black people will always be oppressed no matter what happens.
Barack Obama is oppressed.
Oprah is oppressed.
We know certainly that Colin Kaepernick and Meghan Markle are oppressed because they keep telling us so.
Which means that even $7.6 million wouldn't actually do a single solitary thing to heal the alleged racial wounds that these activists are allegedly suffering from.
By their own logic, reparations are pointless.
In fact, they are most pointless by their own logic.
Of course, that's only one argument against the reparations idea.
There are many more and better ones.
I've outlined most of them on the show at various points in the past, but today I'd like to talk about and call attention to a different argument against reparations.
One that is, by our culture's standards, rather unspeakable.
Which doesn't mean that it's wrong.
In fact, it normally means precisely the opposite.
A guy named Wilford Riley, who's a college professor with a decent social media following, who also happens to be a black man, made this point on Twitter yesterday.
Here's what he tweeted.
An awkward historical fact, which genuinely complicates the reparations debate, is that Black Americans are just obviously better off on average than we would have been had our ancestors never come to the United States.
Pointing out something this self-evidently true isn't justifying slavery, which was obviously terrible for slaves and existed globally in 1850.
But no one arguing for that $5 million today in L.A.
is or has ever been a slave.
Pro-POC affirmative action has been the law since 67.
Now, he's not the first person to make this point.
I remember hearing Dinesh D'Souza articulating the same point years and years ago.
And the only thing that makes the point controversial is the insistence by disingenuous idiots to misconstrue it.
They will say, as was referenced, that you're justifying slavery or defending it, perhaps even advocating for more of it.
That is obviously not the point.
The point is that the push for reparations rests on the notion that black Americans are in a considerably worse spot today than they would have been had their ancestors never been brought here as slaves.
They say that we must repair this damage, damage that black Americans are currently experiencing, they say, to the tune of $5 million or $7.5 million or maybe $75 million.
Black Americans today are the furthest removed from that historic atrocity and yet should be paid the most in restitution for it.
That's the claim.
But this is a false notion.
In fact, it seems rather clear that black Americans are doing better here today than they would be had their ancestors generations ago never been brought to these shores.
We can prove this point by simply asking which African country anyone asking for reparations would prefer to live in.
The answer, of course, is none of them.
Now, you might offer the rebuttal that if slavery never existed, if we're reimagining history without that institution at all, then Africa itself would be in a better shape, better place, and better shape, and maybe indeed black Americans would be better off there.
But this seems highly unlikely, and it also ignores the fact that Africans participated in slavery and the slave trade as much as they were victims of it.
Not to mention, if we're reimagining the world without African slavery, then we have to also imagine it without all other forms of global slavery, since African slavery was merely one variety, one offshoot of this global institution.
And now we have totally, in that point, rewritten the history of the world in a way so dramatic that it's absolutely impossible to say which individuals today would end up worse or better in this alternate universe.
I mean, if you go back in time and get rid of slavery from the entire world, you have just... it's impossible to say what the world looks like right now.
Actually, what we can say is that we'd all end up worse.
All of us today would be in a worse spot.
If slavery never existed at all across the entire globe.
Because a change that significant would likely shift the course of events in a way that would mean none of us would even exist.
It would be a world full of other people who are not us.
So I know that I benefit today from virtually everything my ancestors did and everything did to them.
Because if any of that had not happened, there's a very good chance that I never would have come into being.
And as I see it, I benefit from being if the other option is not being.
So where do we land after all of this?
It's absurd.
Once you get into this conversation of, well, let's get rid of this whole huge part of history and then try to figure out the equation of who's better off, it becomes immediately ridiculous.
And what does that mean for the reparations discussion?
Well, it means that the discussion is totally incoherent and stupid.
It means that any reparations plan is an arbitrary policy resting on a whole series of totally unsupported and wildly speculative assumptions about the way things would be right now if they weren't the way that they actually are.
And the best we can say about that assumption, the assumption that blacks in this country are worse off today because of slavery, is that it is a baseless theory.
But what we can really say about it is that it's a dubious conclusion based on fanciful and pointless hypotheticals.
So, maybe this all brings us to a different conclusion.
Whether you're black or white, if you want reparations for the wrongs committed against your ancestors who you never met, You can have them.
You can have your reparations.
In fact, you have them right now.
Your reparation is that thanks to the way history unfolded, good and bad, you now get to live in the most advanced and prosperous civilization in history.
And you get to enjoy a life, a life of luxury and comfort that would have been unthinkable to the vast majority of humans who ever lived, and even live today.
If you are listening to my words right now, and you live in America, congratulations, you are in the 1%.
You are probably in the 1% of the 1%.
And of all the people who have ever existed on the planet, you are easily wealthier and more comfortable than 99% of them.
You also have more freedom than 99% of them, more opportunity than 99% of them.
In fact, no matter who you are, you are virtually guaranteed a stable and successful life if If you simply graduate high school, refrain from committing any serious crimes, refrain from using hard drugs, work moderately hard, and get married before you have children.
That's it.
Do all of that.
We're talking about the bare low-effort minimum.
Do all of that, and you will certainly not end up homeless.
You will certainly not starve in this country.
You will certainly not die of exposure or malnutrition.
And you have an extremely high chance of living a well-adjusted, relatively happy, and comparatively prosperous life.
Doesn't mean you're going to be a millionaire.
Doesn't mean you're going to be wealthy by American standards, but you'll be a comparatively prosperous life.
The world has never given more in exchange for less.
That is a fact.
And that is your reparation.
So, by all means, go and claim it.
Or else, you're cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today and for this week.
