Ep. 1172 - How Porn Is Neutering A Generation Of Men
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is a civilizational crisis happening right now that hardly anyone is talking about. Men are becoming neutered as testosterone levels drop catastrophically. Why is this happening? New research suggests that porn may be a major culprit. Also, Kohl’s goes the way of Target and Bud Light. The New York Times attacks Uganda for a new law that supposedly prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality. But they’re leaving out a very important detail. And the new Little Mermaid movie is out, it’s terrible, and it features a new song that may be in the running for the worst song ever made.
Ep.1172
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 25% of your DailyWire+ membership with code TRUTH: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3lfVtwK
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PragerU - Join Club5: https://donate.prageru.com/give/431495/#!/donation/checkout?c_src=podcast&c_src2=DW
My Patriot Supply - Save $200 on each My Patriot Supply's 3-Month Emergency Food Kit at http://www.preparewithwalsh.com/
CarZing - Get pre-qualified and find the best deals near you: https://carzing.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, there is a civilizational crisis happening right now that hardly anyone is talking about.
Men are becoming neutered as testosterone levels drop catastrophically.
Why is this happening?
Well, new research suggests that porn may be a major culprit.
We'll talk about that.
Also, Kohl's goes the way of Target and Bud Light.
The New York Times attacks Uganda for a new law that supposedly prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality, but they're leaving out a very important detail, as usual.
And the new Little Mermaid movie is out.
It's terrible, and it features a new song that may be in the running for the worst song ever made All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Whether it's a natural disaster, a sudden emergency, or unforeseen circumstances, having a reliable food storage system can provide you with peace of mind and the assurance that you and your loved ones will be well taken care of.
MyPatriotSupply is knocking $200 off their popular 3-month emergency food kit to help you start growing your supply.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and grab this special price before it ends.
Your 3-month emergency food kit provides over 2,000 calories each day for optimal strength and energy in stressful situations.
You can enjoy a wide variety of MyPatriotSupply food from buttermilk, pancakes, chicken alfredo, rice pudding.
Their meals have you covered for every part of your day.
The best part is each meal is actually delicious.
Don't wait for disaster to strike before taking action.
Invest in your safety and your well-being and that of your family by securing your food storage today.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and save $200 on each kit that your family needs.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com right now.
That's preparewithwalsh.com.
When polls show that 9 out of 10 Americans want something, whatever it is, you'd think that would get the immediate attention of the political class in this country.
After all, 90% of Americans don't support more funding for Ukraine, or punting on the debt ceiling, or, you know, hanging pride flags on our embassies.
And yet, in a representative democracy, the leaders of both major parties are on board with all those things.
So, whatever the standard for bipartisan urgency is, it's a lot less than 90% in the polls.
With that in mind, it's more than a little bit strange that for decades, 9 out of 10 Americans, virtually the entire country really, wanted something that our political leaders barely ever talked about.
Polling from Gallup has measured this.
They found that from 1990 to 2013, the percentage of people in this country who wanted children had remained at the same extremely high level.
Americans' attitudes about having children have remained unchanged over the past 23 years.
More than 9 in 10 adults say they already have children, are planning to have children, or wish that they had had children.
The 5% of Americans who do not want children is virtually the same as the 4% found in Gallup, found in 1990.
That was Gallup, that was a decade ago.
Now, reading that, you'd think that every politician would have spent the last 30 years making sure that people could have the families they clearly wanted to have.
You'd think they'd have paid attention to fertility rates, for example, and stayed on top of any downward trend in the birth rate.
And yet, as Americans clearly expressed their preference for having kids, politicians and health experts totally ignored a problem that would prevent many young men from ever becoming fathers.
Starting decades ago, testosterone levels in young men began declining rapidly at a rate never before seen in human history, and without any explanation.
This is another thing that you would think, if you were naive anyway, you would think our political leaders would take note of.
When something is happening in society that has never happened before, we should focus on it, and we should try to figure out why it's happened.
When, for instance, LGBT identities are rising exponentially, seemingly out of nowhere, reaching levels in the population never before seen, or when, as mentioned, testosterone levels are falling through the floor.
All this is historic, and so we should look at it and say, what is going on here?
On that latter point about testosterone, here's the data.
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found that, by 2006, testosterone levels in men had decreased by more than 20% since the mid-1980s, which is a staggering drop.
The authors couldn't identify any reason for the drop.
Quote, We observe a substantial age-independent decline in T that does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle characteristics, such as smoking and obesity.
The authors added, quote, it remains unclear to what these apparent population-level decreases in T are attributable.
Without any real interest from anyone in the public health field, the problem got much worse over time.
In 2020, the journal European Urology found that average testosterone levels had dropped by approximately 25% since 1999.
The researchers found that, quote, testosterone deficiency has a prevalence of 20% among adolescent and young adult males, and that again, there was no clear explanation.
Now, because people were getting a lot fatter in this period, and still are, a lot of media reports speculated that there was a causal connection there, since obesity tends to lower testosterone levels.
But the researchers again determined that that was not the cause of the problem.
Quote, As a consequence of this crisis, which has metastasized, more men than ever in this country are suffering from a series of debilitating disorders that undermine, and in some cases eliminate, their reproductive fitness.
So we're talking about problems like less bone density, less muscle mass, more chronic disease, erectile dysfunction, low sperm count, just to name a few.
We're seeing a dramatic increase in all of these problems right now.
Sperm counts in particular have fallen off a cliff, watch.
We turn now to male infertility.
It is an affliction that many struggle with in silence and we could be headed toward a crisis.
Researchers have found that male sperm count has plummeted by 50% since the 1970s.
But why?
ABC's Trevor Ault has this report.
Dr. Shanna Swan is an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist, the author of Countdown, how our modern world is threatening sperm counts, altering male and female reproductive development, and imperiling the future of the human race.
Her team collected and analyzed nearly 200 studies of more than 40,000 men.
Is that as alarming as it would seem to be?
It's very alarming.
from 1973 to 2011. The a decreased from 99 million
million, a drop of more t that if it were to contin
impact. Is that as alarmi to be? It's very alarming
A lot of sperm, 47 million.
Alarming, yeah.
I mean, the title of the book says it's imperiling the future of the human race, which it is.
I mean, these are the kinds of problems that are rarely talked about, especially among the political class.
And yet, the future of humanity actually hangs in the balance.
Sperm counts are down, and with it, so is libido.
A recent Pew study found that 63% of men under the age of 30 are single.
Now, for comparison, just a few years ago, in 2019, that number was 51%.
So it was very high back then, just a few years ago, and now it's even higher.
And these are post-COVID numbers from Pew also, so this isn't because of social distancing or whatever.
Millions of young men don't want to date, or at least they aren't dating, even if they want to.
The relatively few men who are dating and getting married are now doing it much later in life.
According to the Wall Street Journal, from 1990 to 2019, the percentage of people who get married in middle age has increased by nearly 75% for women and 45% for men.
Consequences are what you'd expect.
When people get married later in life, as their fertility declines, birth rates drop.
And they have.
In the 1970s, the average number of children born per woman in the United States was three.
Now that average number is less than two.
In fact, in 2021, the birth rate was just 1.6 births per woman.
Which is half of what it was in the 1950s.
Now that is well below replacement level.
Meaning if this trend continues indefinitely, the U.S.
population will eventually die out completely.
The only reason that overall population numbers are holding steady in this country is due to immigration.
The native U.S.
population in this country is dying out and being replaced by people imported from other parts of the world.
Given the scale of this operation, you might even say that this is a great replacement.
You aren't supposed to say that, of course, but the truth is the truth, regardless.
Well, you'll see a lot of news reports claiming that it's not playing a role at all.
They're saying people don't want children anymore.
But that's not really true.
As the UNC Carolina Population Center found this year, quote, birth rates are falling in the United States, but it isn't because Americans say they want fewer kids.
In fact, young Americans haven't changed the number of children they intend to have in decades, which is very interesting.
So the explanation is not that human nature has changed.
Gallup wasn't wrong all those years.
Human beings still fundamentally desire the same things they always have.
The explanation then has to be something else.
And if you go back to that ABC report we just played, they interview someone who says that she has found the culprit.
Watch.
Dr. Swan says certain chemicals pervasive in our environment are also having an impact.
They're called endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
These chemicals are found in products many of us use every day, from things like electronics to plastics, even cosmetics and food packaging.
Dr. Patricia Hunt, a geneticist at Washington State University, studied their impact and their prevalence.
The reason they're called that is because they have the ability to mimic or interfere with our body's hormones.
These chemicals can alter the formation of organs and organ systems in the fetus and change behavior and influence things like our reproductive ability.
Is it even possible to avoid them or are they that pervasive that it's kind of a foregone conclusion?
It is impossible to avoid them.
So the explanation for declining sperm counts, according to that researcher in the clip, is that there are chemicals in the products that are impossible to avoid.
It's a foregone conclusion that fertility is declining.
You just have to accept it as the price you pay to live in a modern society with things like grocery stores and, you know, cell phones and shampoo bottles.
There's no need for personal responsibility whatsoever.
It's just the way things are, we're told.
Now, to be fair to that researcher, there probably are chemicals in many products that are affecting male fertility.
We're ingesting a lot of chemicals that we shouldn't be ingesting, and that's a problem in its own right.
But as a complete explanation for what we're seeing, intuitively, it doesn't make the most sense.
Like it remains the case that if you, even if you're eating what everybody else is eating, if you spend a lot of time outside in the sun instead of staying inside staring at a screen all day, you'll be more alert, more focused, more engaged.
Everyone knows that.
That's because the sun stimulates your pituitary gland, releasing hormones that stimulate testosterone production.
So if we can have that kind of impact on our testosterone levels just by going outside, what else can we do?
There's new research showing that actually, there is one simple trick that more young men could try, and should.
If they want to preserve their testosterone, they can start by putting down the porn.
Turning off the porn.
Putting the phone down altogether, really, is a good start.
And if our political leaders wanted to take a serious step to increase fertility rates, by the same token, they could start passing laws to help free the population, especially the young male population, from the stranglehold that the porn industry has on it.
Of course, no public health expert, quote-unquote, in America would ever run a study supporting that conclusion.
So this research comes from the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology, where researchers in China Have put together an article called Pornography Use Could Lead to Addiction and Was Associated with Reproductive Hormone Levels and Semen Quality.
The researchers studied hundreds of college students, and they separated the students who had exposure to pornography in early adolescence from those who hadn't.
And the study found that, quote, early pornography exposure was associated with lower adult FSH, progesterone, and prolactin levels in serum.
That's significant because normal prolactin levels are necessary to maintain a normal level of testosterone.
Therefore, as the researchers put it, quote, pornography use at an early stage may affect the function of the HPG axis and subsequently affect the secretion of steroid hormones such as estrogen, androgen, prolactin and progesterone, eventually affecting semen quality.
These effects were not temporary.
The researchers found that quote earlier contact of pornography might lead to the disturbance of sexual hormone secretion and therefore lead to lower sperm concentration in adult semen.
This is one of the many reasons that they ban pornography in China.
So, the question is, have you ever heard of this study?
Probably not.
Because outside of The Sun and the New York Post, which both reported on the study over the weekend, it's hard to find a single publication in any country that's talking about the effects of pornography on testosterone production.
No politician is saying a word about it.
And again, that's odd, seeing as these findings relate to an issue that 90% of Americans care about, which is fertility.
Not to mention, human society fundamentally depends on fertility in order to increase, in order to continue existing.
So I'd say it's pretty important for that reason alone.
And it's not just porn.
There's good reason to believe that any kind of anti-social activity involving a screen will have a negative impact on your body.
We can assume that staring at social media on your phone all day doesn't help your testosterone levels either.
Same for sitting around and watching TV all day, binging Netflix, playing video games, or whatever else.
Seems to be pretty intuitive.
And for some reason, medical experts haven't made that connection.
All the senators and congressmen who want to ban TikTok haven't made that connection either.
But it's obviously there.
The only real solution here lies not with those politicians or public health experts.
After all, you know, I've been far too generous to these people by saying that they haven't noticed the drop in fertility rates and how it's connected to rampant porn use or they don't care about it.
In truth, of course, many of them have noticed it and they're happy about it.
The system wants young people, young men in particular, to be numb, satiated, neutered, Because men who are aware and proactive, men who go out and start families and have lots of kids, these men are threats to the system.
They're harder for the powers that be to control, and they raise children who are the same.
And that's why young men need to realize that what they were told was just mere harmless distractions were in fact hindering them at a biological level From doing what they most wanted in life.
And now they have to pull themselves out of the digital porn-laced fog that they're in and live a real life with real responsibilities and real relationships.
That's the only antidote.
And it means pursuing marriage and family life and pursuing it early in adulthood.
The overwhelming majority of Americans, that's what they desire.
They've always desired that.
And contrary to what they've been told over and over again, they can still have it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Buying a new car can be a stressful experience for anybody, especially if you're a first-time buyer or you have no
credit.
Before you walk into a dealership and spend the entire day with the crowds, the stress, the potential to not even find the right car, you need to check out CarZing.
CarZing is completely changing the way you buy a car online.
By partnering with credit agencies, lenders, and over 25,000 dealers nationwide, CarZing provides you with everything you need before stepping foot into a dealership.
Once you find the right car at your ideal budget, all you gotta do is bring your saved deal voucher with you to the dealership to finalize your next ride.
It is so simple.
And even if you're not in the market for a new car, you could check out CarZing anyway.
CarZing's online window-shopping experience goes beyond mere images.
You can dive deep into each vehicle's specifications, their features, their performance capabilities, zoom in on the craftsmanship of the interior, marvel at the cutting-edge technology, and admire the meticulous attention to detail that sets these automobiles apart from the rest.
CarZing helps make your experience faster, cheaper, less stressful, Visit Karzing.com slash Walsh today and find the best deals near you.
That's Karzing.com slash Walsh.
So we are T-minus two days from the sacred high holiday of Pride Month, the most important time on the calendar.
Not the only important time, of course.
You know, I mean, don't be ridiculous.
There are other days and other months that matter, such as Bisexual Health Awareness Month and International Transgender Day of Visibility and National LGBT Health Awareness Week and National Transgender HIV Testing Day.
And, I mean, obviously, Non-Binary Parents Day, Lesbian Visibility Day, International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, I mean, of course, Harvey Milk Day, Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness and Visibility Day, Non-Binary Awareness Week, International Drag Day, LGBTQ History Month, not to be confused with Pride Month, International Lesbian Day, National Coming Out Day, National Latinx HIV Awareness Day, National LGBT Center Awareness Day, Asexual Awareness Week is obviously an important one,
International Pronouns Day, Transgender Parent Day, Pansexual Pride Day, and of course Gay Uncles
Day.
Those days are all separate from Pride Month, and they're all really important.
But Pride Month is the most important of all.
And we know we need special, specific days set aside to celebrate LGBT people at least
every other week.
Okay, so like every two weeks we need to have a special day.
You cannot let...
Two entire weeks go by without throwing a parade for LGBT people and giving them a standing ovation and telling them how special they are.
If they have to endure even just three weeks of not being specially celebrated, they will die.
They will die.
It will be a massacre.
It will be a genocide.
Can you imagine going a month?
What if we had to go a month?
What if LGBT people had to go an entire month without having one single day where everybody spent all day telling them how great they are?
It's unimaginable.
It would be a holocaust, is what it would be.
And that's why Pride Month is so important.
And that's also why another company is getting in on the action.
Daily Wire reports, "Kohl's has joined Target and Bud Light in the group of
companies ripped for their woke products as the retailers being
slammed for selling LGBTQ clothing for infants. To celebrate Pride Month in June,
Kohl's is selling onesies with the LGBTQ pride flag on them.
The company's merchandise includes the Baby Sonoma Community Pride bodysuit
set, which sells for $9.99.
The product's description reads, quote, celebrate the joy that comes from living authentically and unapologetically during Pride Month and all year long with this Baby Sonoma Community Pride Bodysuit Set.
The onesie sold at the store for infants as young as three months features adults and children marching and carrying an LGBTQ flag.
So that's what, um, that's what Kohl's is doing.
And this is, again, these are products for babies.
And it's also worth noting, because there are some who are trying to excuse this and say, well, it's just, you know, they're not supporting transing the kids or anything, it's just the pride flag.
And even if that is all that it is, it's still horrifically wrong.
To turn your baby into, like, an advertisement for LGBT pride.
But that's not all that it is, by the way, because the flags that they're adorning these baby onesies with, these are the latest iteration of the pride flag with the trans on it.
So these are trans pride flags that we're putting on babies.
No matter how you slice it, This is disgusting and wrong.
And if you're wondering why they're doing this, I think that should be clear.
But over the weekend, a comedian named Tim Heidecker sent out a tweet that kind of went viral, and he was directing it at me and at others as well.
And I think this tweet was meant to oppose me or debunk my points or whatever, but it only accomplished the opposite.
So here's what he said.
He tweeted, you dumb mother effer.
Matt Walsh, exposing kids to LGBTQ plus is the point.
Normalize this stuff now for them and they won't be so confused, repressed, isolated from the modern world as adults.
Grow up and join the 20th century you total losers.
Okay.
Well, first of all, Tim, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but I should note it is the 21st century, so just a general rule of thumb is that you need to know what century you're in if you want to dunk on someone.
Especially if you're telling them to stay up with the times, and then you don't know what century we're in.
So you're dunking on me back in the 90s, and I'm playing in 2023, so there's a little bit of a disconnect here.
Second, I'm glad that you're finally admitting the truth.
And here, again, we see the familiar flight path of progressivism.
And we've been through this many times, because this is the way that it always goes.
First, you know, they deny it.
So it starts with conservatives pointing out that the left is doing something.
And that's all we're doing, is pointing it out.
We're saying, oh, look at the left, they're doing this.
And then, at first, they'll deny it.
They'll say, oh, we're not doing that.
What, normalizing LGBT?
This is not what this is about.
What are you talking about?
And then they'll admit it, but they'll say, yeah, it's rare, it's rare, it's fringe, you know.
It's like, okay, it's happening sometimes, but it's not a big deal.
And then they go from that to saying, okay, it is happening, and it's happening a lot, and it's good.
And it should happen more often.
That's phase three.
That's not the final phase.
Phase four is to mandate it.
So we go from not happening, okay it's happening sometimes, okay it's happening a lot and it's good, to yes it's happening and it has to happen and you have to participate too.
We're actually on that step now.
The mandating it step is happening right now.
So Tim is still behind the times.
He's stuck on phase 3.
We've already moved on to phase 4.
He's on phase 3 in the 1990s and we're already all way past phase 4, if anything.
But should we be trying to normalize different kinds of sexual preferences and gender identities for children?
Should we be doing that?
That is what we're doing.
Tim admits it.
Some on the left admit it.
Many of them admit it now.
Should we be doing it?
Well, obviously not.
To any normal person, they can see that the answer is no, obviously not.
What should we do with LGBT identities as it pertains to kids.
Here's what we do.
Nothing.
Okay, you leave the kids alone.
Just leave them alone and let them be kids.
Let them be children.
That is the correct response here.
But at least we're getting a little bit of honesty.
Similar subjects as we move on to the next.
Ted Cruz posted something yesterday that got a lot of attention and that I have to say I disagree with.
He was reacting to this story from the New York Times.
The story says this.
This is their caption.
The president of Uganda signed a punitive anti-gay bill on Monday that includes the death penalty, enshrining into law an intensifying crackdown against LGBTQ people in the East African nation.
It's one of the world's most restrictive anti-gay measures.
Now here's the response from Ted Cruz, which is very interesting.
He says, this Uganda law is horrific and wrong.
Any law criminalizing homosexuality or imposing the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality is grotesque and an abomination.
All civilized nations should join together in condemning this human rights abuse.
And then Cruz adds the hashtag LGBTQ.
Hashtag LGBTQ.
Now Cruz dropped the ball here, and I'll give two reasons.
First is the big one.
That he is, I assume, inadvertently promoting and going along with misinformation from the New York Times.
And it's misinformation in the form of being misleading in your headline, saying something that's technically true, but leaves out really important details.
And as always, if you click on the article and you read like six or seven paragraphs down, you'll find the rest of the information, but most people don't do that.
They're just going to see the headline.
They're going to see the caption on Twitter.
That's all they're going to see.
That's all they care about seeing.
They're going to form their conclusions, and they're going to go forth and tell other people about what they think they know based on the headline that they read.
So in this case, it is true That the crime of aggravated homosexuality in Uganda carries the death penalty.
That's a factual statement.
But what the New York Times leaves out, and what for some reason Ted Cruz left out as well, is that aggravated homosexuality in Ugandan law refers to rape.
Okay, so, raping a child gets the death penalty.
A disabled person.
You know, anyone who can't consent, a person who's unconscious, they also list.
That's what it is.
Now, there are people who disagree with the idea that we should put child rapists to death.
I don't know if Ted Cruz disagrees with that or not.
But there are many people who would say, yeah, that's exactly what we ought to be doing.
I'm one of them.
And either way, that is what we're talking about.
It is the death penalty for child rapists in Uganda.
And when it comes to that part of it, they, you know, when it comes to that aspect of it, they have a better sense of justice than we do.
This should be happening everywhere.
Of course child rapists should be put to death.
You know, the idea that you can only put someone to death If they also kill their victim, it's absurd, really.
It's an absurd idea.
What, like, child rape?
You haven't done enough damage already?
We need the murder charge on top of it to justify the death penalty?
The death penalty is reserved, or should be reserved, for the worst crimes.
Just the worst and most heinous crimes, whatever they happen to be, if they involve killing someone, oftentimes they do, but not always.
There are certain crimes that qualify, that would go into that category of being the worst and most heinous, and I would hope that most people would agree that child rape is in that category.
And so it ought to be eligible for the death penalty.
That's what that part of the Ugandan law stipulates.
And if you're not including that in your summary of the law, if you're not including it in a caption, if you're not including it in the headline, it is a dishonest headline.
It is intentionally misleading.
And again, it doesn't matter if you then go on to reveal that bit of information later, deeper in the article, where no one's actually going to read it.
The second point for all the rest of it, because yeah, that's not the only thing that the law does, but for the rest of it, it's none of our business.
Like, why is this our business?
Why does Ted Cruz feel the need to say anything about it or get involved?
I mean, doesn't Uganda have the right to make their own laws according to their own culture and their own value systems?
We don't have to agree with it.
It doesn't have to pass the litmus test by our standards.
There are a lot of laws and there are a lot of things happening in this country that other countries will look at and in horror.
And I know this because, as we come up on the one-year anniversary of What Is Woman, I know this because, as you know if you watched that movie, we went to other parts of the world to tell them about some of the things happening here and they were horrified by it.
So I'm guessing, and we didn't go to Uganda, we went to Kenya, but I'm I'm really guessing that if I went to Uganda, if anyone went to Uganda and told them that, you know what happens in America, they sterilize and castrate children to try to turn them into the opposite sex, and that it's legal to do that in most states in America.
If you were to tell Uganda about that, people in Uganda, they would be horrified.
They would condemn it.
I'm sure there are political leaders in that country that have condemned it.
And are aware of it.
Well, is anyone in America?
I mean, the people who support the butchering and castration and mutilation of children in this country, do they care what Uganda says about it?
I mean, if all the African nations get together and condemn the mutilation of children, is that going to persuade the US to change its laws?
I doubt it.
So why should it go the reverse?
And the other thing is, look, it's just the It's just simple fact that because of this sort of thing, because of what we do to children, because we are confused, when I say we, I mean like societally confused about basic facts, like the definition of men and women, and we're butchering and mutilating kids in the womb and outside of it, and we're doing all this, we just don't, we don't have the moral high ground.
I'm just telling you the facts.
In the African countries, they look at us and they hear us sermonizing about, oh, that's not right.
They just don't care.
Because they see what else is going on here and they say, what are we going to listen to those people for?
What the hell do they know?
Oh, you mean those people over there who think that men can have babies?
They're upset about this law?
What do we care about that?
We don't care about that.
They're insane!
You know, you travel across the Atlantic, you go over to that country, it's like a mass hysteria has gripped ahold of the entire country, from the perspective of people outside.
And from the perspective of some of us inside the country, it seems to be happening that way.
So, that's why it just doesn't matter to them.
And I would say we have enough problems in this country, in our own society, that, you know, there's enough for us to work on.
There are enough evils being perpetrated against our own people.
By our own government?
And by our own people that we have plenty to condemn?
And so, contrary to Cruz, I don't think that civilized nations need to join together in condemning this.
What does that even mean anymore?
Are we the civilized nation?
When, once again, we think that men can have babies?
Give sterilizing drugs to 13-year-olds?
That's the civilized nation!
I mean, we're confused about things.
You could go to an uncontacted, primitive tribe in the Amazon, where everybody, you know, where they wear loincloths, and they live in mud huts, and they don't know about germs, you know, they don't know about washing their hands.
And if you went and talked to them, they would at least know that men are men and women are women.
They would know that at least.
And we don't even know that.
We're the civilized nation?
We used to be.
Not sure we claim that anymore.
And whatever we call ourselves, I think we have enough problems that we need to be paying attention to our own business.
All right.
Jonah Goldberg is the Never Trump conservative guy.
He caught some flack from Media Matters, which is rare for him these days, but he got in trouble because during a conversation about the Target and Bud Light boycotts, he sort of mildly and meekly suggested that maybe the criticisms that some critics of the trans agenda have, maybe these criticisms aren't totally unjustified.
He sort of suggested that.
Media Matters didn't like it, but I think that the clip is useful to us for a different reason, and we can learn something from it.
Let's watch.
Look, I hate the whole story, because I hate misinformation, I hate threats of violence of any kind.
I have no real problem with boycotts, though, you know, when they're based on sort of bad info, it's a different thing.
At the same time, I think Naira makes a very good point here, probably doesn't agree with my conclusion from it.
Target, as your own reporting just said, has had LGBTQ stuff for years.
The issue here for a lot of people is the T. It's not, you know, I don't think there's any such thing as a gay bathing suit or a lesbian bathing suit or anything like that.
But the issue of transgender stuff does rile people up, particularly when it has to do with kids.
And some of the misinformation was based on kids, and we should acknowledge that.
But I think there is a tendency to sort of want to have it both ways where they want to say this is this is about trans issues but whenever there's criticism about trans issues they fold it in with homophobia and criticism of gays and lesbians and they use the whole you know alphabet of the acronyms on it and it it tends to obscure the fact that there are specific issues having to do with transgenderism that are different than issues having to do with gay marriage and all these other issues that the
that gay Americans have won those battles.
This is a different battle, and we need a little more clarity.
We just had a segment about anti-Semitism.
Well, you know, we talk about anti-Semitism.
We don't talk about anti-Abrahamic religionism or anti-monotheism,
because you're talking about a specific group.
And I think that there's a lot of squeamishness about actually talking about why transgenderism
is seen as different than these other sort of forms of identity.
It's a good point.
Go ahead, make your, go ahead.
I mean, I do think that this is a conversation we should have.
We should probably have a trans person on to have this conversation.
So, so, so.
All right.
So that was the pathetic display all around.
Let's recap.
First, Jonah Goldberg chimes in, and the setup, by the way, from Jake Tapper is that the Target and Bud Light boycotts are so stupid, and aren't conservative stupid, and the whole issue is stupid, and everybody is stupid, and hey, Jonah, what do you have to say about these stupid people?
But instead, Jonah kind of vaguely pushes back and points out that people have specific criticisms when it comes to the trans stuff, and we should be honest about that.
And then Jake Tapper jumps in, stammering, terrified.
He didn't realize that his guest would engage in this blasphemy against the holy, blessed trans people.
And then he insists that we shouldn't even have this conversation without having a trans person monitoring it.
Well, we need to have a trans monitor.
We can't even talk about this.
I'm so sorry that we're talking about this.
We should have a trans person.
We should have 50 trans persons for every non-trans person if we're going to talk about trans people.
And then he goes to his left-wing guest, his farther left-wing guest, who is much safer and says all the talking points that you're supposed to say.
So, that's what happened.
And two points about this briefly.
Starting with Tapper's claim that you need a trans person involved in the conversation.
And of course we hear this kind of thing a lot.
But the answer is no, you don't.
Actually, actually, trans people are the least qualified to talk about this because they're clearly biased towards validating their own self-identities.
So, when we're talking about transgenderism and you have a trans person involved in the conversation, we know what they're going to say.
They're trying to validate their own claim that they're making about their own identity.
And so, for that reason, the perspective is kind of useless.
We already know that.
Like, we know.
So you are... Okay, in order to have this conversation, we need to bring someone on who is personally, deeply invested in having one particular viewpoint and cannot possibly abandon that viewpoint without their entire perception of themselves coming crumbling down.
Really?
In order to have a...
You know, a fruitful conversation, we need that perspective?
Why?
And as for Jonah Goldberg, this is exactly why you can't take this kind of mild, middle-ground, centrist approach to transgenderism.
This is why it doesn't work.
This is why the extreme, quote-unquote, absolutist position that you get from somebody like, well, me, is really the only way.
I mean, it is.
And yes, I'm biased in saying that, defending my own point, but I think I can logically defend it.
It's the only way.
The only opposition that works is the absolutist, fundamentalist opposition to transgenderism in principle.
That's the only opposition that really exists as opposition.
Goldberg, because he's committed to this middle ground shtick, he can't come out and just say the truth.
So he can get close to it, he can talk around it, he can say, well, you know, there are some criticisms that might be valid and people should be able to say, but he can't actually say what the criticism is and defend it.
And the criticism of the trans stuff, The reason why this criticism is valid, and the reason why people are always 100% justified in not wanting transgenderism promoted by major corporations or by anyone, and why people are 100% justified in not wanting it promoted, especially to kids, the reason is that transgenderism is fake.
It's not real.
It's not true.
It is not a valid state of being.
Nobody can be transgender.
It's all fake.
It's all untrue.
So a trans person is making a factual claim about themselves that is not true.
If we did have the trans-identified male in the conversation, he would be defending a factual claim about himself that is observably, absolutely, incontrovertibly untrue.
The male claim that he's making is that he's a woman.
And that's just, it's not true.
So that's why there are a lot of other things that come from, there are things that are, that grow from the root of this untruth.
The damage that it causes to children, all the things that it does to appropriating womanhood and destroying women's sports and the privacy issues in the bathroom.
These are all, to switch analogies, these are all further upstream.
Right?
But it starts with the fact that it's just not true.
The trans person is making a claim that is not true.
And any corporation, anyone who promotes this stuff, is promoting something that is deeply, fundamentally, absolutely untrue.
And there is no way around that.
That is the criticism.
But Jonah Goldberg can't come out and say that.
He's not going to say it.
He knows it.
He knows it.
But he's not going to come out and say, look, this transgenderism stuff, it's just all fake.
It's not true.
It's not real.
Yes, a person can claim that they are transgender, they can identify that way, but they're not actually that.
They can't be that.
And that is the absolutist, you know, what is called extreme position, but it's not extreme at all.
It's just, it's basic logic and truth.
And there is no way of engaging on this issue Without acknowledging that.
Our dispute with the trans agenda is that it is pushing something that is completely untrue.
That's our dispute.
There is no other dispute.
Like, if it's not untrue, then there's nothing to argue about.
Either it's untrue, either it's false, Or the critics of trans ideology are wrong completely about everything.
Because if it's actually true, then yeah, why can't you promote it?
Then promote it to kids.
If it's true, like, if it's actually true that a male can be a woman, then yeah, I guess we should tell kids that.
We should tell everyone that.
Everyone should know that if it's true.
But it's not.
All right.
One other quick thing.
The singer Jewel performed the national anthem at the Indy 500, and it has divided the public.
And this is a—so I have to get up on my soapbox.
I've been on a soapbox.
I'm just switching soapboxes to a different one, you know, as we shift soapboxes throughout the show.
But this is important.
So we're going to play a little snippet of this.
This is the anthem that she performed, and there are some people that loved it, said she had a beautiful voice, it was great.
Other people that thought it was an atrocity.
I will tell you what the correct position is after we watch a little bit of this.
Go ahead.
Performs our national anthem.
[MUSIC - "THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER"]
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
♪ Baby ♪ Whose broad stripes and bright stars
So I'm going to deliver the verdict here.
This is, uh, uh, this is, this is bad.
Um, this is bad.
This is treason.
You know, I think you can make an argument that we would arrest people who perform that.
I think if you, yeah.
Okay.
I'm committing to this.
It just popped in my head.
I think that if you perform the national anthem with an acoustic guitar, you should go to prison and be executed.
Um, yes.
I'm calling for the execution of Jewel for performing with an acoustic guitar.
Maybe not that far, but at least, look, at least a steep fine.
Okay, we'll settle.
We started with execution.
We'll go down.
I think a steep fine for performing the National Anthem with an acoustic guitar.
Look, she's an obviously very talented singer, and she has a beautiful voice.
That makes the offense even worse, because she could have performed it traditionally, and it would have been a very good performance.
Any attempt to turn the national anthem into an acoustic folk ballad will always be terrible.
And I'm not saying that because I have some sort of prejudice against acoustic folk ballads.
I don't.
I love that kind of music.
I mean, an acoustic folk ballad, you take someone with a great voice and they're just strumming the acoustic guitar and singing a song, as long as it's not the anthem, I will almost always—as long as it's not the anthem and it's not happening in church, okay?
As long as that's not the case, I will almost always like the song.
I love all those kinds of songs.
If it's not the anthem, it's not in church.
So I have no prejudice against that genre of music.
I very much enjoy that music, but that's not the national anthem.
And you need to stop trying to make the anthem, you know, sound modern or whatever.
It's supposed to sound like an anthem.
Like, the National Anthem is a certain song, and that's what it is.
And so if you do it another way, you're not performing the anthem anymore.
You're doing something else.
It doesn't even—it looks almost weird when someone's performing the anthem that way, to have people in a stadium standing there with their hands on their heart.
It looks strange.
Because she's not performing the anthem.
This is just her.
She's made it about herself.
This is a singer going out and saying, well, I'm not going to just perform the anthem because that'd be boring to me.
And I want this to be a moment for me.
And so I'm going to put on a pop performance or an acoustic folk performance.
And that's all it is.
It's just a little musical number.
It's not really the anthem anymore.
And so it looks, the optics look strange.
It's like, can you imagine people at an acoustic folk concert standing there with their hands on their hearts?
It doesn't make any sense.
The anthem is supposed to sound a certain way, and that's what it is.
If you do it a different way, it's not the anthem anymore.
It's not supposed to sound like a song on your Spotify playlist.
Yeah, the actual national anthem, it's not really catchy.
In no other context would you listen to a song like that.
You're not going to put it on your Spotify playlist and listen to it in the car while you're driving along on a road trip.
You're not going to do that.
But it's not that's not what that's not its function.
The song has a certain function.
And this is not it.
So that is incorrect.
Life in prison.
We're back up to that for that performance.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
Do you know that name?
They're the sweet baby gang Our country might be headed in the wrong direction, but PragerU
videos can help save the future of America PragerU makes educational pro-American content that's been changing people's minds for over a decade.
Their impact is pivotal in these times.
My friends at PragerU, they're reaching millions of people with their educational videos, but they have a long way to go.
You can help PragerU reach thousands more people by joining Club 5 for just $5 or more per month.
Go to prageru.com slash club5 now to join.
Your gift will ensure that PragerU has the support it needs to be here for the long haul.
Changing the culture in all the ways they know how to do.
What are you waiting for?
Join a movement with thousands of fellow Patriots in the fight to save America.
You'll receive a free PragerU bumper sticker plus an e-book of scripts from PragerU's five-minute videos.
When you join Club 5 today, that's PragerU.com slash Club 5 today.
So I wanted to share something with you briefly because I also want to get your opinion on this.
As you know, One of the great joys of parenthood is trolling your kids, and if I ever write a parenting book, which I may one day, I would probably call it How to Troll Your Kids, because it's one, it's an important part of parenting, it's fun, it teaches them good life lessons, and you never know when an opportunity will present itself.
So, example, yesterday I'm in my kitchen, I'm eating a piece of cheese, as I often do, And my three-year-old daughter comes in and says, "Daddy,
what you doing?"
And she likes to ask me what I'm doing, even when she can clearly see what I'm doing.
So this is, you know, 50 times a day I'm doing something, and she says, "What am I doing?"
And then I say, "I'm doing the thing that you can see me doing."
And these are the kinds of conversations that you have with a three-year-old.
So I said, "Well, I'm eating cheese."
And she said, where'd you get the cheese?
And I said, I got it from the sky.
It fell from the sky and I caught it.
And now I'm eating it.
And she said, without a hint of skepticism, by the way, she would roll with it.
She said, well, had that happened?
And I said, it was from a plane.
They tossed it out of a plane.
And she said, why did they do that?
And I said, it's a, well, it's a cheese plane.
And they fly by and they throw cheese from the cheese plane.
Everyone knows this.
You didn't know that?
It's a whole thing.
Fast forward to five minutes later, and I can put the picture up on the screen.
My daughter is standing outside, staring up at the sky on our back patio, looking up to the heavens, waiting for cheese to fall from the sky.
And she was out there for several minutes, hoping that the cheese would come.
And this presented a quandary for me, because either I could tell her that I made the whole thing up and it's a joke, or I could say nothing and let her live for a time in a world where cheese planes exist.
You know, and I chose the latter option, as I usually do.
And now, just like that, my daughter lives in a cheese plane world, and I think that that's a great blessing.
It doesn't last long, especially, you know, the trolling of the kids doesn't work as well when you have kids that are older and they're on to your games.
And so now she has an older sister, and she told her older sister later that night about the cheese planes, and her sister was super skeptical about it.
And she asked the younger one, she said, well, how do you know he got it from a plane?
And she said, I saw him eating the cheese.
And then my older daughter, great critical thinking skills, said, well, just because you saw him eating it doesn't mean you know where it came from.
He could have gotten it from the fridge.
And so just ruining the whole thing.
Now I just have to decide how committed I'm going to be to this bit.
Because if I'm really committed to it, then, you know, when I get home from work tonight, I could have my daughter come outside and then I could go up to the upper story window and throw cheese out just to keep the story going.
We'll have to think about it.
Of course, I shared this because I thought it was funny on Twitter, and then you had a bunch of people, you're lying to your kids.
You're going to ruin your kids' lives.
You're lying to them.
Never lie to your kids about cheese planes.
You've destroyed them.
I always wonder, people like this, I have to assume that they don't have kids?
Once you have kids, the people that take jokes, you know, the parents, you play a joke on your kids, and people that take it really seriously, oh, you're going to scar them for life, they'll never trust you again because of the cheese plane.
Your daughter's going to be 25 years old and a therapist telling them about the cheese plane ruse.
I have to assume that people that react this way don't have kids, because when you do, you realize that this is just, like, it's...
This is how you get through it and you have fun.
This is parenting.
This is what it is.
Either that or they have kids and I would never want to live in those households.
I cannot imagine how miserable it must be.
Those are houses where they don't even have cheese planes.
Anyway, tough transition here.
A couple of comments about the new Indiana Jones movie.
We put this up on YouTube, the clip, and read a couple of these comments.
One comment says, I'm a woman and I'm sick of it.
Women don't become stronger by making men weaker.
Snuffing out someone else's candle doesn't make yours shine brighter.
I guess this is referring to the fact that they're replacing Indiana Jones.
Well, Indiana Jones is a doddering old 85-year-old geezer in the film, because that's what Harrison Ford is, because he's 80 years old.
And they're replacing him with his goddaughter, who is a feminist and is much more competent, and he has to rely on her to be bailed out.
Chris says, as a kid, I watched a ton of movies.
As an adult, I'm like, okay, I'm not watching this movie due to its obvious feminist woke agenda.
And then Wilco made a point that I think is good.
He says, I miss the times when movies had a good storyline and dialogue instead of random CGI effects.
Well, yeah, there's that, but then also, and maybe it's my imagination.
It could be.
But is it just me, or are the special effects actually getting worse in movies?
Maybe it's me being jaded in general, but, you know, movies are becoming more and more reliant on special effects.
Now some of the, especially the Marvel movies, like the entire movie is nothing but green screen.
You watch it and this whole thing happened in front of a green screen.
At no point were they outside at all for anything.
And, but it looks worse than it did back 20, 25 years ago.
To me it does anyway.
Maybe it's because they don't use practical effects anymore, it's all CGI.
But not only are they relying more on CGI, but it even looks worse somehow.
And another comment says, the wokeness isn't even the worst part of this one.
They made Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, Temple of Doom in 1984, Last Crusade in 1989.
They were great movies and a great trilogy.
Then they did a cash grab almost 20 years later with the abomination Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
That movie was so insanely bad that it instantly killed the franchise forever.
Anyone who goes to see subsequent Indiana Jones movies after seeing such a horrifically bad installment deserves to be punished.
I agree, and that's why I said if we want to put a stop to this, everybody complains about the crap that Hollywood puts out.
And that it's lifeless and that it only exists to make money.
Movies have always, movie studios have always been interested in making money, obviously.
But now that's the only reason the stuff exists.
There is no, they're not even trying to tell an interesting story anymore.
Everyone knows this.
We talked at the beginning about things that 90% of Americans agree on.
I think this would be like 100% of Americans.
100 out of 100 Americans would probably agree that Hollywood puts out crap and there's too many sequels and too many remakes and all the rest of it.
And yet they still go out and support the films that they know will be bad.
You know, if you, along with tens of millions of people, watched Netflix's hit show Making a Murderer, then you're going to love Daily Wire Plus's new exclusive 10-part docuseries with Candace Owens called Convicting a Murderer, which is coming this summer.
When leftists are confronted with the truth, their only response is to scream in your face or run away.
I've personally been confronted with that.
So is Candace Owens.
She is unafraid to call out the mob and expose the truth.
When Candace found out that key facts may have been omitted in Netflix's series, she set out to uncover the truth behind the notorious Stephen Avery case, and the result is Convicting a Murderer, which is a great series.
You'll not want to miss it.
And right now, there's never been a better time to become a Daily Wire Plus member.
You can sign up now for Convicting a Murderer, and you'll receive an early bird discount of 25% off your Daily Wire Plus membership when you use code TRUTH at checkout.
You'll also get all the other premium content from Daily Wire Plus, including The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, What is a Woman?, and the largest collection of content from Jordan Peterson, including his series on the book Exodus, which you don't want to miss.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member and see the truth when it finally comes out.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, after months of anticipation, the new Little Mermaid film finally released to theaters over the weekend.
As expected, the film is garbage, and I can offer that review despite not seeing it, for the same reason that I don't need to go order a Whopper at the new Burger King down the street in order to assess the quality of the food.
I already know that the fries will be lukewarm and soggy.
The bun on the burger will also be soggy.
The mayo will be scalding hot because they put the whole thing in the microwave.
And the entire meal will be 3,500 calories, but I'll still be hungry 45 minutes after eating it because the food is made out of congealed grease and has no substantive nutritional value.
I also know that the employee who serves me the food will scowl at me because he hates every customer who commits the sin of trying to patronize the establishment where he works.
He'll also speak in a barely audible mumble so that I have no idea whether he even got my order or not.
And then when the food comes out, it'll be clear that he didn't get the order right, but I'll just leave with the wrong order because it's not worth the trouble of trying to get a practically catatonic customer service worker to correct the mistake without making additional mistakes on top of it.
That is the Burger King experience, no matter which location you happen to be patronizing.
And the same goes for Disney's cash-grab remakes, and for almost everything that Disney produces, even if they aren't remakes.
Because after all, it's not like Disney only makes remakes.
They also make sequels, and they make sequels to remakes, and they make remakes of sequels.
Altogether, Disney is the fast food of the cinematic world.
They churn out the same sludge over and over and over again.
There is no creativity.
There is no artistic inspiration.
Nobody involved has any love or interest for or in the projects that they're working on.
That's the point.
Nobody involved in it actually cares about the story.
The people involved in the Little Mermaid remake had all the creative passion as the guy working the fry machine at the Burger King.
It's the same kind of thing.
Disney isn't trying to tell great stories anymore.
They're just pumping out content for the masses and things for us to mindlessly consume.
That's all they care about.
That's how I know The Little Mermaid is bad.
Because there is not one single person involved in the project who cares about making it good.
I also know it's bad because the reviews say so.
And it's not that I trust what reviewers say, of course.
It's that I trust what they don't say.
You can't tell much about a movie by reading what the critics write, but you can often tell everything you need to tell by reading what's in between the lines.
And in this case, the reviewers have generally agreed that The Little Mermaid is derivative and pointless and unnecessary and dull and it has dreary animation and some subpar voice acting, yet they've given the film high marks anyway based on the sensational performance of the lead actress, Halle Bailey.
The critics, they wouldn't dream of outright panning a film starring a black little mermaid.
They have to find a way to like it, otherwise they'll be racist.
And these are always the most damning reviews.
Not the ones where critics give the film a thumbs down, but the ones where they're contorting themselves into all kinds of ungodly shapes in order to find a way to not give it a thumbs down.
Though some critics were more forthright in their criticism.
The New York Times review from film critic Wesley Morris does praise the movie, of course, for its diversity and noble intentions, but it says that it's missing some things.
Specifically, Morris laments that the story lacks, quote, joy, fun, mystery, risk, and flavor.
And that all makes sense so far.
The Disney content engine is specifically designed to avoid risk and instead produce fun content that is entirely devoid of fun.
But Wesley goes further.
He also says that kink is missing.
Yes, Wesley Morris of the New York Times feels deeply wounded that the new Little Mermaid movie is not kinky.
It apparently does not highlight any deviant sexual practices.
There are no fetishes put on display, or even discussed.
And Morris is surprised by this, I guess.
Those of us who have seen Disney's trajectory in recent years may be sort of surprised by it too, but the difference is that we are pleasantly surprised, whereas Morris grieves.
He can't believe.
He's so sad that there's no kinkiness in Little Mermaid.
Now this criticism is bizarre and gross, to say the least, and it was originally going to be the actual subject of this cancellation, but plans changed when I stumbled upon something else related to the new Little Mermaid.
Apparently, Disney did not simply remake their own film shot by shot.
They did change a few things.
They made the cast more diverse, of course.
They also added a couple of songs.
They changed some of the original songs to make them more politically correct and inoffensive to the modern ear, but they also added one or two new numbers.
One of the new numbers is a song performed by the Seagull character, voiced by a comedian who goes by the stage name Awkwafina.
Now, this song has gone viral over the past couple of days, but not for the reasons that Disney would prefer.
I'm not going to make you listen to very long.
I can only play a very short snippet of this.
Anything longer will violate copyright laws, also probably the Geneva Convention.
But here it is.
is listen.
What?
Hey, have you not heard that scattlebutt?
Your butt?
No, the gossip, the buzz, the who said what, who does that, yeah, the scattlebutt.
Well, I was flying over land and sea and ear to the ground.
Then I came flying here for you to see and hear what I found.
Remember that swamp?
Remember my song in the swamp when I was like, wah, chicka, wah, wah, chicka, wah, wah?
I remember.
Well, ever since, the what's-his-name, the guy with the hair and the shirt?
The prince?
Yeah, the prince has been dropping hints He wants to, you know when humans dress up nice like they're
penguins In some ways this is an appropriate song for the Little Mermaid
because listening to it makes me want to throw myself into the sea
Words cannot capture just how terrible it is.
If I heard this song, and then over the next 12 hours, my house burned down, and I lost my job, and I was diagnosed with a terminal illness, The song would still be the worst thing that happened to me that day.
If I had a time machine, I would go back in time and kill the person who invented music before they could invent it, just to prevent this song from being made.
It would be better to erase music from human history altogether than to allow this song to exist.
This song, you know what it sounds like?
It sounds like what might happen if you put a group of deaf schizophrenics into a room with a keyboard and a bunch of pots and pans and recorded the random noises that they produced.
And what makes this so especially sinister is that little kids will watch this movie and the intelligent children with good taste will hear that song and they will cry and they will turn to their parents and say, why is this happening mommy?
Please make the bad sounds go away.
But the less discerning children might like the song and then they'll spend the next seven months listening to it on repeat as their parents slowly go insane.
There will be parents who play this song in the car in order to satisfy their whiny kids, which will create extremely unsafe road conditions.
I mean, texting while driving is dangerous.
Driving under the influence is even more dangerous.
But most dangerous of all is to subject yourself to psychological torture while trying to drive a minivan full of kids down the highway.
That's what's going to happen now.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't like the song.
And the most damning thing I can say about it is that it perfectly represents the modern Disney.
When people utterly bereft of creative skill try to create something of their own, this is what you end up with.
It's like if one of the, to go back to the Burger King analogy, it's like if one of the teenage fry cooks at Burger King actually tried to make a unique dish using the ingredients available in the kitchen.
You'd end up with some ungodly abomination that makes the soggy Whopper look edible by comparison.
So there's a reason these companies just stick to the formula.
All they have is the formula.
They don't have the ability to do anything different or interesting.
Disney has chased all the real artistic talents away.
They're left with a woman who borrows her stage name from a bottled water company.
And this is what you get from her.
There are creative people left in the world.
There are artists out there who make great films, make beautiful music, other forms of art.
They do exist.
Good art still exists.
It's just that you're not going to get it from Disney.
And that is why Disney is, in the end, once again, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
Let's move over to the Members Block.
You can become a member today by using code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
