Ep. 1258 - Now We Know Why They Hide The Nashville Shooter's Manifesto
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, portions of the Nashville shooter's manifesto have finally been leaked, and now we know why they were keeping it a secret. Also, climate protesters attempt to destroy another priceless work of art. What should be done to stop these people? Right now nothing is being done. A female field hockey player is injured by a male player as the madness of allowing men in women's sports becomes clear even to most oblivious among us. And the tipping epidemic is so bad that now Door Dash is using blackmail to coerce their customers into tipping.
Ep.1258
- - -
DailyWire+:
Woke Stinks. We Can Help. Check Out Jeremy’s Deodorant here: https://bit.ly/3Mw5qRu
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! Promo code WALSH https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Tax Network USA - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt!
http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh
Cozy Earth - Use code WALSH40 for up to 40% off your order!
http://www.cozyearth.com
Genucel - Exclusive discounts for my listeners! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
- - -
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
Today on The Matt Wall Show, portions of the Nashville Shooters manifesto have finally been leaked, and now we know for sure why they were keeping it a secret to begin with.
Also, climate protesters attempt to destroy another priceless work of art.
What should be done to stop these people?
Right now, nothing is being done.
A female field hockey player is injured by a male player as the madness of allowing men in women's sports becomes clear, even to the most oblivious among us.
And the tipping epidemic is so bad that now DoorDash is using blackmail to coerce their customers into tipping.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
show.
If you didn't know already, Pure Talk is planning to alleviate ten million
in veteran debt by Veterans Day.
They'll get there by giving a portion of every new order to this cause.
With just one week to go, Pure Talk is 90% of the way there, but they still need your support.
Think about this.
The U.S.
military is made up of 100% volunteers.
These are men and women who willingly sacrifice everything they have for this country.
When they're done serving, they return home to a tight job market, outrageous living expenses.
That's why I'm so happy a private company like Pure Talk has jumped in to help.
When you switch to Pure Talk's lightning fast 5G network, they'll donate a portion of every new order
to this noble cause.
You can make a real difference just by choosing superior cell phone service.
Pure Talk's plan started just 20 bucks a month, offering unlimited talk, text, more data,
and a mobile hotspot.
Just go to puretalk.com/walsh and make the switch.
Let's rally together and show unwavering support for our veterans.
Visit puretalk.com/walsh and switch to Pure Talk today.
It's the right move and it's the American way.
That's puretalk.com/walsh today.
A few minutes before a trans-identified woman named Audrey Hale murdered three nine-year-old children
and three adults in a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee,
Hale sent a private message to one of her friends on social media.
Hale said, quote, Obviously, that message was an admission that Hale's motivations were written down in a place where investigators could easily find them.
And yet, as of early yesterday morning, more than seven months after Hale committed this mass murder, the public was not allowed to see any of that evidence that Audrey Hale said she left behind.
Law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, concealed it.
These agencies admitted that they were in possession of a manifesto and other documents.
They occasionally summarized portions of the material for reporters, and at various points they suggested that they might release them for public consumption, but they never did.
It wasn't hard to guess why authorities might want to suppress this information.
Clearly, the manifesto contained writings that the people in charge saw as a threat to their own legitimacy.
Otherwise, why wouldn't they release it?
Almost certainly, The manifesto demonstrated that the left's sustained attacks on their own chosen enemies were having their intended effect.
But without the documents themselves, we had no way of knowing the extent of the deception that's been taking place for the better part of a year, and what exactly the government was hiding, and why exactly they were hiding it.
Well, all of that changed abruptly and without warning a little over 24 hours ago when Steven Crowder posted several pages from what he said was a notebook that belonged to Audrey Hill.
And in those 24 hours, neither the FBI nor Tennessee officials have contested the validity of Crowder's documents, so they have all but confirmed indirectly that they are authentic.
And that's worth restating.
It was Steven Crowder, not the law enforcement agencies that we fund with our tax dollars and that are sworn to serve and protect us, who finally provided some transparency into one of the worst mass shootings in recent history.
Already that seems like it's a rather damning indictment of the DOJ and of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
And it's bad enough already, but it gets worse.
And first, a quick point of clarification.
The manifesto that Crowder published is not the entirety of Hale's writings.
It's just a short excerpt.
Included in the journal are lines like this quote kill those kids those crackers going to private fancy schools
with those fancy khakis F you want to kill all you little crackers bunch of little
Gay slur that begins with F with your white privileges. I wish to shoot you weak expletives with your mop yellowed
hair Now there's more to it than that
But just take some of those lines in isolation for a second want to kill all you little crackers says the mass shooter
who?
clearly is upset about "white privileges."
With those quotes in mind, let's take a look back at what the director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, a man named David Rauch, was saying about the manifesto back in April.
Watch.
It's been characterized as a manifesto.
I think that's a mischaracterization, personally.
The documents that we have, and I have viewed those, you know, one is specifically a plan, and the other is some Journal type rantings, but nothing, you know, when you talk about manifesto, you talk about something similar, like the Unabomber left behind ideological expressions that none of that has has has surfaced in these writings.
It's really unfortunate mental health.
Issues that you can see as you read through the journals.
So there's two sets of documents, says David Rauch.
There's a plan plus journal-type rantings.
He clarifies that nothing Audrey Hale wrote approaches the depth of the Unabomber Manifesto, for example, which seems fair enough.
Not surprising.
But then he goes on.
He says that Hale's manifesto doesn't contain, quote, ideological expressions.
Instead, he says that only unfortunate mental health issues are evident.
Now, this is, among other things, a scandal.
Because now that portions of this manifesto have been published, we can reasonably conclude that the head of Tennessee's top investigative agency has been misleading the public for months.
He was suggesting that somehow it's not an ideological expression to say that white children should die because they have white privilege.
That can't possibly be a reflection of some deeply held ideological belief, says David Rauch.
It has to be a sign of mental illness and nothing more.
Now to be as fair as possible to Rauch, it's possible that You know, if we see every other page of the Manifesto, or of the journal-type writings, whatever you want to call it, doesn't matter, and we see all of that, and all the other documents, then, when we look at all of it in its totality, maybe we come, conceivably, to different conclusions.
How different?
What conclusions?
Well, we don't know.
Without seeing all the documents, there is some uncertainty, admittedly, but it's not our fault that that uncertainty is there.
And indeed, that has been the defense that we've seen pop up in the media.
That there's more to it.
That all this is being selectively leaked.
All yesterday, a self-described investigative reporter at News Channel 5 named Phil Williams was essentially running cover for the FBI on this story.
He lashed out at MAGA keyboard warriors, as he called them.
He also insisted that Steven Crowder was misleading the public by only releasing a few pages of the killer's journal.
Quote, multiple sources have told me that selective leak of the three pages of the Covenant School shooting manifesto is extremely misleading.
People who have read the whole thing say there's something in there for everybody.
Another says she hated everybody.
And he went on and on posting arguments like that all day.
But there's an obvious response to this whole line of argument, which is this.
If it's true that Crowder released, as they say, misleading portions of the manifesto, then there's a very easy solution.
Give us the full story.
Release the whole thing.
When the government refuses to be honest, when they don't tell the whole truth, we are left to speculate and fill in the gaps.
That's especially true given that for the past several months, Roush and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation repeated their misleading claims about the manifesto over and over again, all the while refusing to produce the manifesto itself so that the public could actually make their own determination about what it says and everything else.
For example, back in April, News Channel 5 reported on Rauch's meetings with Tennessee sheriffs, and according to News Channel 5, quote, Rauch said that what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target, but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive.
Rauch told sheriffs that the reviews so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious, or social issues.
In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.
To the extent authorities offered any motive whatsoever, it was that Hale had some personal problem with the school that she once attended.
As NBC News reported more than two weeks after the shooting, quote,
"Authorities initially believed the shooter might hold resentment toward her
former school, but they have not provided any details."
So the authorities in Tennessee had no problem implying that Audrey Hale's school might bear
some responsibility for the shooting.
There was a lot of speculation online, if you remember at the time, that Audrey Hale had been mistreated somehow by somebody at the Covenant School.
And that was the speculation.
It's because of leaks like this one.
The police had no issue with spreading those rumors.
But they somehow forgot to mention the fact that Hale wrote about killing white people because of the color of their skin.
That went completely unmentioned.
So again, remember, from the authorities, there were details about these writings that were leaked out to the public, or just stated outright, but this detail they never mentioned.
Why is that?
A few other important details went unmentioned also.
In the documents published by Crowder, Audrey Hale mentions that she filmed a 10-minute final video before the massacre.
Hale also mentions, quote, there were several times I could have been caught, especially back in the summer of 2021.
Now, what does any of that refer to?
Does the FBI have a 10-minute video of Audrey Hale elaborating on her motives?
Did law enforcement investigate her back in 2021 and conclude that she wasn't a threat?
I don't know, but these are important questions.
But the FBI and Tennessee officials are refusing to answer any of them.
Is this a big part of the reason why they didn't want to release Hale's writings?
Along with being ideologically inconvenient, do they implicate law enforcement for failing to prevent this attack?
Did law enforcement have a chance to prevent it and then failed?
Again, we can only speculate.
That's the theme here.
Speculation.
In fact, yesterday the FBI told my producers that they're refusing to comment on Audrey Hale's entire case.
They have nothing to say whatsoever.
They won't say a single thing.
Why?
Well, because there's pending litigation against them.
That's the answer they gave.
Now, to understand what a laughable justification that is, consider that the litigation they're talking about is a lawsuit that was filed because the FBI was stonewalling journalists and their initial request for information.
The lawsuit was filed by the Tennessee Star and other entities in federal district court.
The litigation stands to unearth the entire Audrey Hale manifesto, in addition to any other communications or directives that state officials at Tennessee might have received from the Biden administration.
Merrick Garland's DOJ is fighting that lawsuit, claiming there's a pending enforcement proceeding that prevents them from releasing the manifesto.
But that's nonsense, of course, because the government can't point to any enforcement proceeding in this matter whatsoever, and that's because Audrey Hale is dead.
Who is the enforcement proceeding targeting exactly?
She was killed by the police officers who ran into the school and shot her at great risk to their own lives.
No accomplices have been identified in the past seven months, much less brought up before enforcement proceedings.
But this is the excuse we're hearing not just from the FBI, but from local police also.
And local officials in Nashville.
They're all saying that they can't release the writings because the writings are the subject of litigation, except that the litigation is over the fact that they won't release the writings.
So they could release the writings and end the litigation.
Their excuse is not only absurd, but insulting to our intelligence.
So what's going on here exactly?
Think of it this way.
If the Biden administration, for whatever reason, wanted to mock the deaths of Christians and make it very clearly that only left-wing activists are entitled to the protection of the rule of law, what exactly would they be doing differently?
Recall that it was just three days after the men, women, and children were executed in the Covenant School when the White House issued a proclamation about a Transgender Day of Visibility.
The proclamation lamented the, quote, epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls, in particular women and girls of color.
The White House went on to talk about a shooting at a nightclub called Club Q that happened a year earlier that was supposedly an instance of anti-LGBTQ MAGA Republican violence, even though the shooter in that case, if you might remember, identified as non-binary.
Classic MAGA Republican voting bloc, I guess.
The point is Club Q was on the mind of the White House in late March of this year.
They were thinking about that shooting in November of 2022.
As for the Christian children who were massacred a few days earlier in March of 2023, well, they were barely mentioned.
And certainly they didn't get a whole proclamation from the White House.
The Biden administration was not openly mourning them.
Instead, Karen Jean Pear took to the podium to explain that the real victims of all this are so-called trans children.
Watch.
And we've been very clear about these anti-LGBTQ bills that we're seeing in state legislatures across the country, in particular these anti-trans bills, as they attack trans kids, as they attack trans parents.
It is shameful, and it is unacceptable.
As you mentioned, tomorrow is Trans Visibility Day, on a day that we should be lifting up our trans kids, our trans youth, and making sure that they feel seen.
We're seeing more and more of these hateful, hateful bills.
That's an incredible clip, and there are many more like it.
You probably remember this footage of the left-wing activists who stormed the Tennessee Statehouse shortly after the killings of the Covenant School, and they were holding up seven fingers in remembrance of seven victims at the Covenant School, including Audrey Hale as a victim.
Watch.
Every death is a tragedy, y'all.
I'd say there were seven victims.
I'd say there were seven victims.
[crowd noise]
Yes, seven victims because the woman who murdered all those people is a victim, according to These protesters.
As insurrections like that were taking place in state houses all over the country, as dead Christian children were being mocked, while trans activists once again played the victim, Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray were deliberately concealing the shooters' motivations.
And that's clear now.
There's no denying it.
They were conspiring to lie about one of the most heinous mass shootings in modern history.
And they did it, apparently, to protect the narrative that the Biden administration began telling years ago, which is that white supremacy is the single greatest domestic threat this country faces.
Anything that does not fit into that narrative is not allowed to see the light of day.
This has been the marching orders followed at every level from the DOJ down to local officials here in Nashville.
So what do we make of all this?
I think there are two points to keep especially in mind.
First of all, We don't know what else Hale said in her writings.
Were they mostly rambling and incoherent?
That seems likely.
In fact, that's true even of the small portion of the writings that were leaked.
The rambling and, you know, the ramblings of a crazy person.
Was she motivated primarily by an animus towards white people despite being white herself?
Again, we don't know for sure.
But it also seems likely that anti-whiteism was not the sole driver of this massacre, or even the main driver.
But what we can very safely assume is that her anti-white rhetoric is certainly a major factor in why they chose to keep this material a secret.
The powers that be do not want us to have any conversation about the catastrophic results of the rampant, ubiquitous anti-white rhetoric coming from every corner of society.
The fact is that You can go to any major institution, any university, any major media outlet, any corporate HR seminar, any left-wing protest, etc., and you will hear whiteness talked about like it's a disease, a scourge, a cancer to be eradicated.
And this idea is entirely mainstream.
Open, rabid, genocidal hatred of whites has been judged completely acceptable by the system.
No matter how much that all did or didn't play into the attack at Covenant, the fact is that they don't want us to talk about this problem or have any conversation about race that doesn't involve casting white people as the cartoon villains in the story.
And second, this is very important to restate and emphasize.
When a mass shooting or terrorist attack is carried out, the public has a right to know everything about it.
How did it happen?
Why?
What motivated the killer?
What intelligence or law enforcement failures led up to it?
All of these questions should be answered as quickly as possible.
And if the shooter dies or commits suicide in the process of the crime, then there's no conceivable reason to not release all of this immediately.
Because there's no criminal case.
You're not putting anybody on trial.
That person is dead.
So tell us everything and tell us right away.
The government has no right to keep this a secret.
Government officials have no right to decide what bits of information are relevant to us.
They should release all of it and let us decide what parts matter and what parts don't.
That is our determination to make.
We should not be in a position where we have to trust these people to use their judgment to decide what we need to hear.
It's not good enough for them to say, well, you guys don't need to know about that.
Why should we trust you about what we need to know?
The other option is secrecy, and lies, and cover-ups.
And that's the option that our leaders choose nearly every time, and especially in this case.
And when they choose that option, we are left to speculate, left to theorize, left to wonder, and fill in the blanks.
They leave us to speculate, and then they blame us for speculating.
That's the way they've rigged the game.
There's not a lot we can do about it, but we can't ignore their moral lectures and their manipulations, and we can rest assured in the fact that we deserve to know the truth.
It is really that simple.
And now, in this case, we know at least some of it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
I know many of you might be dreading the stress of filing your taxes.
Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process, but if you fail to file, you'll start to pile penalties on your tax debt.
That's why you need to check out Tax Network USA.
The team at Tax Network USA has a track record of success.
They've reduced tax debts for numerous clients, totaling over $1 billion.
Whether you're looking at a $10,000 or a $1,000,000 tax debt, they can help you with a settlement.
Doesn't matter if you haven't filed in one year, five years, or even a whole decade, Tax Network USA is equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
The expert attorneys and tax professionals at Tax Network USA can help resolve all tax cases, no matter how they started.
Don't let tax debt control your life any longer.
Take the first step toward resolving your tax issues by visiting taxnetworkusa.com slash Walsh.
That's taxnetworkusa.com.
I sure want to start with this from the AP.
It says, two climate change protesters were arrested Monday after they smashed a protective glass panel covering a famous Diego Velazquez oil painting at London's National Gallery, according to police.
The two activists from the group Just Stop Oil targeted Velazquez's The Toilet of Venus, also known as the Rokeby Venus, with small hammers.
Photos show the protective glass panel punctured with several holes.
Just Stop Oil, which has previously led similar protests targeting famous artworks and public buildings, said Monday's action was to demand Britain's government immediately halt all licensing for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK.
Just stop oil so protesters hammered the glass panel then told people the gallery women did not get the vote by voting It's time for deeds not words Yes, we want deeds not words and in order to you know bring about change and so the deed of destroying a painting will result in In global temperatures cooling down, I guess, is the logic.
I don't quite understand it, but that's their logic.
I think we have the clip of them carrying out this vandalism.
Women did not get the vote by voting.
It is time for deeds and not words.
It is time to just stop oil.
Politics is failing us.
Politics failed women in 1914.
If millions will die due to new oil and gas licences.
Millions!
If we love history, if we love art, and if we love our families, we must just stop oil.
Millions will die because of oil licensing.
I don't know how that could possibly be the case.
It seems absurd.
But he was yelling it.
He yelled it very loudly.
And he emphasized millions.
When he said millions will die because of oil licensing, I was skeptical.
But when he shouted millions, that's when I knew he was serious.
That was the argument that won me over.
I didn't believe it the first time, but when he shouted it, well, that's how you know.
Now, we talked about a similar thing yesterday.
In that case, it was the protesters vandalizing statues.
But when it comes to cultural vandalism, This is even worse than the statues because they are destroying, or at least attempting to destroy, priceless historic works of art that have been loved and admired for centuries.
And the fact that this is allowed to happen is the greatest outrage of all.
And it really is allowed.
Like, these climate alarmist dweebs, they just waltz into these museums With their dumb little t-shirts on.
And everyone knows what they're going to do.
And they just start casually defacing art worth millions of dollars.
And again, everyone knows what they're going to do.
And they simply do it.
This could easily be stopped.
That's a theme in Western civilization right now.
Bad behavior that could easily be stopped.
But the people in charge of stopping it either lack the will or the competence or both.
And usually it's both.
That's why these museums should not be trusted with this artwork at all anymore.
They are not stewards of the work like they should be.
They sit back and just watch as the work that they've been entrusted with is defiled.
And that's totally outrageous.
I mean, I firmly believe, I said yesterday that the protesters who vandalized statues should go to jail for 10 years, and I certainly believe that.
I think lethal force would be justified to protect these paintings.
It would be totally morally justified.
Especially if everybody knows that going in, if that's the policy.
You go in and you start vandalizing a priceless work of art, they're going to use lethal force to stop you.
And so if you decide to do it, then you brought that, no one feels sorry for you.
That totally, that's on you.
The only downside to using lethal force is just that it might damage the painting even more.
That's the only reason that I could see to not do that.
But the point is that that kind of measure, morally, would be more than justified to protect These things from these scumbags, these despicable slimy little worms who've never contributed a single thing of value to human society and never will.
And these are the people destroying what has value.
This is another theme in Western civilization right now as it falls, okay, that you have non-contributing parasites whose only function is to destroy what is good and worthwhile and valuable.
That's all they want to do.
That's all they're interested in doing.
Think about the looters going into a local business and cleaning it out.
People who contribute absolutely nothing to society, taking from the people who do, and taking just for the sake of taking, but destroying for the sake of destroying.
It's just not sustainable.
It's not a sustainable arrangement.
The contributors need to clamp down on and punish The destructive non-contributors while there is still something left to protect.
You know, it's like, imagine playing a football game.
Imagine two teams on the field, 22 guys on the field, playing the game.
And these are the guys that are actually in the game, contributing to the team.
But then imagine a bunch of people on the sidelines who are standing there, allowed to, you know, stand there and throw rocks and stones at the players and trip them as they run down the field, interfere in the game that they aren't even playing in or contributing to.
They're not even on the team.
But you couldn't play the game that way.
It'd be impossible to play.
You can't allow that.
It destroys the game.
When people who have no stake in it are allowed to interfere just to amuse themselves, it ruins everything.
That's why you can't allow it.
You just can't.
I mean, that's why if someone, during a game, someone runs onto the field, disrupting it, they get tackled and dragged out.
Because we can't play when you're here doing this just for your own amusement.
And yet we have people in our society who essentially for their own amusement are wreaking destruction and trying to destroy what is of great value.
And they are allowed to continue doing it.
The other thing about these climate people especially is that I mean, they really hate humanity.
I've said this before, but they want to save Earth, supposedly.
But for what?
To what end?
Supposedly, you're out to save... Putting aside the fact that even if Earth is hanging in the balance, which it isn't, This would not result in saving it.
This is not a rational strategy for saving Earth from whatever catastrophe you think is about to happen.
But putting all that to the side, whether Earth is in danger or not, what makes Earth valuable, what makes it worth saving, is that it's our home.
It is what the human species calls home.
And so they are actively trying to make human life worse.
And that's why things like destroying a painting, I don't know, if you take a very materialistic, kind of mechanistic view of life, you might look at a painting and say, oh who cares, it's just images on a canvas.
It's much more than that.
Art is part of what makes life worth living.
It's part of what gives meaning to life.
It's beauty.
Our capacity to create and appreciate beauty is part of what makes human life worth living and it's part of what makes human life special and distinct from any other known species in the universe.
We're the only known species that can do anything like create art.
Which is why it's just, of all the things that these people could go out to destroy, it's very telling that they choose that.
They go for the things that set the human species apart.
They go for the things that make human life worthwhile.
And that's what they hate.
Because in the end, these are just nihilists.
And you know, if the Earth does need to be saved, I'll tell you one thing for sure, Nihilists are not the ones that we want out there trying to save it.
Alright.
National Review has this story.
A female field hockey player in Massachusetts suffered significant injuries after a ball struck by a male opponent hit her in the face.
The player, whose identity has not been revealed, sustained significant facial and dental injuries, according to Bill Rooney, the superintendent of Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School, in a statement obtained by the Sun Chronicle on Friday.
The shot was taken by a male member of the Swampscot field hockey team.
A senior Swampscot male player, believed to be named Sawyer Gruthuis, struck the ball, sending it hurtling into the face of the unnamed female athlete, a senior Dighton Rehoboth player, The Chronicle reported.
After the play, coaches ran out into the field to give medical attention to the girl, who could be heard screaming in pain in video of the incident posted to social media.
We have a clip of that.
that. Let's watch that.
OK, so there's the male male player hitting the girl in the face.
Going back to the National Review article says under Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic
Association rules, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment can be applied to allow
male participation on female teams. The handbook in section 43 says, according to the Chronicle,
that the association seeks to ensure that underrepresented sexes are given an equal
opportunity to participate in athletic programs.
Title IX does not require schools to offer identical sports for boys and girls, but an equal opportunity to play.
Thus, schools are well advised to offer sufficient program options to boys and girls with sufficient number of roster spots across the various athletic seasons.
So, this is just the latest.
There was another case that I can't remember if we talked about on the show or not, but There was another case somewhat recently, I think it was in volleyball, of a woman suffering injuries after having been spiked in the face with a ball by a male player.
We're starting to see this.
We're not starting to see it.
I mean, you can go back several years before this, when they first started introducing men to some MMA leagues.
And you had men like, quote unquote, Fallon Fox out there just brutalizing women.
And obviously when you introduce men into female combat sports, injury is like the whole point.
You're going to have injury right away.
But what we're seeing here is even in something like field hockey or volleyball, what makes this significant is that you might think Yes, it's crazy to introduce males into any female sport, but it's especially dangerous in certain sports.
But maybe you would think, well, something like field hockey or volleyball, of all the sports, that's going to be the least dangerous place to have males, even though it's still crazy to have them there.
But you find that even in those kinds of sports, it is still dangerous.
It is always going to be dangerous because the difference between males and females is so vast Men and women are so different.
Men are so much bigger and stronger and faster that you put them into an athletic competition of any kind against women and you're going to have serious injuries.
And it's only going to get worse until people start to wake up to this madness and have had enough of it.
Which I think more and more people are.
So that's kind of the Silver lining, hate to talk about silver linings when someone's been injured, but it's a terrible thing that she was injured.
Silver lining, however, is that this is just yet another case that, you know, average people who maybe are still not very plugged in, they see something like this and any normal person, doesn't matter if they identify as left or right, doesn't matter, maybe they don't identify either way, they're not political people, they hear about a case like this, A male playing against females in female sports.
Female gets injured.
Any normal person hears that and says, this is nuts.
We can't allow this.
This is crazy.
This has always been kind of the baked-in catch-22 for the trans activists, is that they've been pushing for certain things.
Working towards a goal.
But the moment they achieve the goal, now it becomes real.
And everyone can see how crazy it is.
If they couldn't see it before, now they really see it.
So it's the kind of game that the moment you win, you start to lose.
Because there might have been before any of this really started catching on.
I think there were a lot of people, even when it came to the men and women's sports thing, there were a lot of people, I know that many people took the view that, hey, you know, I don't love it, but hey, it's not a big deal.
You know, if a man, if you got a man that identifies as trans, wants to compete against women, it wouldn't be my choice, but it's not hurting anybody.
That was the view a lot of people took.
And because of that, You know, that kind of milquetoast, trying to find the middle ground view.
Trans activists were able to just run roughshod over the culture and achieve all of these victories.
But now that they have it...
Now many of those people who were in the middle, now they're seeing it in actuality.
Now it's not theoretical anymore.
It's not just like, well, what would it be like if a few men were... Now it's okay.
It's actually happening.
And now we have the visuals of it.
And unfortunately, I wish it wasn't this way, but there are many people that they need the visuals.
Thinking about things theoretically, they struggle to do that.
Thinking about things in the abstract, they struggle.
But when you see it in reality, they see how utterly ridiculous it is.
And that's why, one of the big reasons trans activists are losing a lot of ground, thankfully.
All right, before we get to the next segment, here's an important story from the New York Post.
It says, sorry lovebirds, failing this exam could mean your relationship is flocked up.
It's the New York Post.
Hopeful honeys are putting prospective partners to a viral test, praying that their sweeties pass, I can't even read this article.
Why, I can't read it.
And I want it because it's such an important story.
Praying their sweeties pass with flying colors, and if they don't, that means it's time to fly the coop.
Gen Z wingwoman, I can't read it.
I can't read it.
I can't read the story.
I just can't.
I can't.
Like, why?
This is not journalism.
Look, I understand it's an article about a TikTok trend, and so you might think this is not a time for serious journalism, but how do you put This is supposed to be a news article, and they put, like, seven bird puns into the first two sentences.
I can't get past it.
Anyway, the point is that there's this new trend that apparently is very popular.
It's called the Bird Test.
I think we have a video of someone... Yeah, we have a video of someone on TikTok explaining what the... It's a relationship.
This is relationship advice.
We always get good relationship advice from TikTok.
So here's the trend.
Here's what's called the Bird Test.
Let's listen.
Apparently a lot of people don't know what the bird test is which I'm sure there's like a better name for it
But that's wild to me because I live and die by the bird test
Research has shown the single biggest determining factor in whether a happy relationship will last
When one partner says, oh that's a beautiful bird outside, does the other partner respond with something like, wow that is beautiful?
or do they blow their partner off and ignore the bird?
[music]
Is that a woodpecker?
[music]
Woah.
You pass.
You pass.
Hey y'all.
What up?
That means we're gonna be in love forever.
[MUSIC]
All right, so that's the bird test.
The Byrd test basically, from what I gather, is if you tell, if you're in a relationship and you tell You're, you know, this is mostly women who are doing this.
Obviously, if you tell your boyfriend or husband that there's a bird outside and they go and they want to go look at the bird, then that means that they are taking, then they pass the test because they are taking an interest in the thing that you are interested in.
And if they don't, then they fail the test.
That's the bird test.
So you go to your significant other and you say, oh, there's a bird.
And if they jump out of their seat and run, let me go see the bird.
Where's the bird?
Then they pass the test.
And that means you should stay in the relationship.
A few problems with this.
First of all, I would fail the bird test in a second, and I've been married for 12 years, so very successfully married.
I would fail the bird test.
If I'm in the other room and my wife yells, hey, come here and look at this bird!
I'm gonna say, can you take a picture or something and send it to me?
Why am I getting out of my chair to go look at a bird?
Like, why am I, why would I even look over?
It better, if I am making any physical effort to go look at a bird, it damn well better be an impressive freaking bird.
I mean, this better be, there better be an ostrich in the front yard if you're bringing attention to a bird.
It better be like a, I don't know, a penguin fighting a bald eagle if you're making that big of a deal about it.
A woodpecker?
Who cares about woodpeckers?
But you know, the main problem with the bird test is that it is a test.
Okay?
And this is so much of the relationship advice you get out there.
It's like stuff like, even if it's not the bird test, it's a little test.
Well, if you do this and your partner, quote-unquote, responds this way, then that means they passed the test.
Now, it's bad enough to bother your boyfriend or husband about a bird.
But to do it as a test?
It's not even sincere.
This is not a sincere bid for connection.
It is manipulation.
That's what it is.
It's a test.
And I can tell you this, if I get the sense that I'm being tested, I'm not playing along.
I'm not doing that.
Now, fortunately, my wife doesn't play those games, which is good, because I would never play them.
And so this is a lot of the advice together.
This is not how you form or maintain a meaningful relationship.
You don't do it by testing.
You're in a relationship with them.
They're not your student.
You're not giving them pop quizzes all the time.
So, the bird test.
The bird test fails the moment you conduct it, I think is the point.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Cozy Earth sheets are the softest, most luxurious sheets I've ever owned.
My wife and I have their white bamboo sheets on our bed.
These bamboo sheets are temperature regulating, help us both sleep better every night.
If you're a hot sleeper and your spouse is a cold sleeper, you'll need these sheets, especially on these cold winter nights.
Cozy Earth sheets offer an array of sizes and 11 colors to match your unique style and preferences.
Their sheets are made to withstand the test of time.
My Cozy Earth sheets get softer and softer with every wash.
But don't just take my word for it.
They have over 5,000 happy customer reviews on their site.
What are you waiting for?
Cozy Earth offers a 100-night guarantee, so there's no harm in trying them out.
Make every night a cozy one with Cozy Earth.
Right now, you'll save 40% off your next purchase with promo code WALSH40 at cozyearth.com.
That's promo code WALSH40 at cozyearth.com.
Jen says, Have you no respect, no common decency?
The police, church, school, and parents of victims fought to keep the manifesto private because it's so detailed they feared a copycat.
But sure, release it all just so some grifters can make a paycheck.
J2CP says, The victims' families have the right to determine whether the manifesto should be released or not.
They have to relive the events upon its release.
Just because people want to play MAGA GOTCHA is useless.
The victims' families make the call.
Craig says, sorry, but that's totally wrong.
The police and government have to make these decisions as it's their job to do so.
That's why we elect them in the first place.
Okay, a few things.
First of all, not to get into semantics, we do not elect the police.
In fact, many of the government officials making decisions like this, like FBI officials for example, we don't elect them.
They're not elected.
And second, Even if we did elect them, it is not the government's job to decide what information we should know.
Now, I realize the government has been doing that job for so long that we assume it is their job, but it isn't.
Okay?
That is certainly not a duty of responsibility or power that you can find outlined in the Constitution, for example.
Deciding what information the public knows.
Now, sure, if we're talking about the nuclear codes or something, or if we're talking about actual classified state secrets, then in some of those cases, sure, they're not going to publicize it.
But outside of that, I mean, pretty much everything outside of that, the government has no right to withhold that information.
If they're only withholding it because they think, well, because they're speculating about the way people would react or how upset they would get, right?
That is not a valid reason.
I just reject the idea that the government has that role.
And to reiterate, I realize this sounds radical because we're so accustomed to the government assuming the responsibility of deciding what information we should know.
But what I'm trying to tell you is that that is actually not... You need to rethink the way you think of the government if you think that's one of its fundamental duties.
It's not.
So, that's the first thing.
And second, as to the families, I understand that many of them don't want the manifesto released, and I understand why they don't want it released.
Because, as one of the comments says, they don't want to relive that horrible day.
God forbid if my own child was a victim, no, I wouldn't want anything to happen.
That puts it back in the news or remind, you know, not that I would be able to forget it, but I wouldn't want anything to happen that brings up that subject again, you know?
So I totally understand that and I'm as sympathetic to that as anyone could possibly be.
Can't imagine being in their situation.
It's just, it's unthinkable.
It's unthinkable to be in the situation of losing a child.
It's an unfathomable thing.
However, I'd say two things to that.
Number one, this is all the more reason to have released it to begin with.
Okay, so if this information coming out now means that the families tragically are being made to relive this, I blame the officials who hit it to begin with.
It should have just all come out in the beginning when it was already in the news and everyone was talking about, tell us then, just tell us what happened.
That's it.
That's what we want.
What happened and why did it happen?
These are simple questions.
This is not people demanding information they don't have a right to or demanding private information.
What happened and why did it happen?
Say it then, in the beginning, and then it's not reliving a year later.
And also, second to that is, I state again, the public, the community, the public also just has a right to know.
A horrendous crime has occurred.
People have a right to know what happened.
And the demand for it to be released is obviously not any kind of criticism of the families or any statement about the families at all.
It is a statement, number one, about what the public has the right to know.
Number two, it's a statement of not, we don't, it's not about the family.
We don't trust government officials.
Because whatever the families think about it, ultimately it's the government officials, right, who make the decision to not release it.
And I don't trust them.
So you're asking me to trust them.
Government officials are telling us that, oh, we're not releasing it, the reason we're not releasing it is because of respect for the families, this and that.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the families.
I don't have any sympathy for the FBI or government officials, and I don't trust them.
I have no reason to trust them.
And the public cannot be, it's not fair to expect the public to trust them.
Where we have to say, well, if there's a reason we need to know, they would tell us.
I can think of many examples, recent examples, where there's information the public needed to know or had a right to know and wasn't told.
Many examples, going back to COVID and before that and since then.
So, that's what it comes down to.
Well, if you can believe it, Thanksgiving is just two weeks away.
Just in time for the holidays, GenuCell is offering their best sale of the year.
Right now, you can get 70% off GenuCell's most popular package, which now includes GenuCell 3, their newest under-eye treatment.
GenuCell 3 will have you looking 10, 15, even 20 years younger.
It uses advanced technology to deliver complex vitamins and minerals directly to your face for instant hydration.
Say goodbye to fine lines, crow's feet, under-eye bags, and dark spots.
The GenuCell experience is like no other.
But don't just take my word for it.
Genucel will have you looking and feeling your absolute best, guaranteed, or your money back.
No questions asked.
You deserve to look and feel your best this holiday season.
Go to Genucel.com slash Walsh to get this incredible holiday discount for 70% off their most popular package, which includes the Genucel 3 and the Dark Spot Corrector.
Get results.
In 12 hours or less, the immediate effects are included for free.
Genucel.com slash Walsh for 70% off today, plus free priority shipping.
That's Genucel.com slash Walsh today.
Also, we made Jeremy's razors because we were fed up with the nonsense being shouted from the woke left.
It's not just razors.
Degree, Dove, and Native have all joined the woke culture, but we're not here to complain.
We're here to create alternative quality products that match your expectations and resonate with your values.
That's why we asked The obvious question after releasing Jeremy's Razors, what do you want from Jeremy's next?
You made it clear with no need for us to call in specialized research teams to find out what you wanted, that you wanted Jeremy's to make deodorant.
We're proud to once again give you exactly what you asked for, introducing Jeremy's deodorant, which I...
Hold in my hand, keeping you safe from the unpleasant smell of the woke and any other smells as well.
We stick to the ingredients that you can trust and pronounce, like coconut oil and shea butter.
Ingredients that make you smell great, but are not toxic to masculinity.
With no room for aluminum, uh, I don't know, phthalates?
Anyway, it's got none of that either.
Continuing along, we care about what goes on your body.
That's why our Jeremy's deodorant is made up of simple ingredients, no greasy surprises, and no residue.
It's all new, and it's available now.
So go to Jeremy'sRazors.com to get yours today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Everybody wants a tip now, everywhere you go, no matter how mediocre their performance.
You've heard me talk about this problem enough that you certainly don't need to hear me talk about it again right now.
I have made my case.
Everyone understands that when it comes to tipping, I am at the tipping point.
But I need to broach the subject one more time for what I promise will be the last time, at least for this month, for two reasons.
First, so that I could make that tipping point joke.
That objective is complete.
Second, because of this story, which I find so annoying that I am compelled by forces, forces of nature outside of my control, to talk about it in the Daily Cancellation.
The story is from CNN.
Thinking of skipping on a DoorDash tip?
Do so at your own risk, warns a message being tested by the food delivery provider.
If you try to place an order through the DoorDash app without leaving a tip, you may get this pop-up.
Orders with no tip might take longer to get delivered.
Are you sure you want to continue?
The note goes on, dashers can pick and choose which orders they want to do.
Orders that take longer to be accepted by dashers tend to result in slow delivery.
In other words, Tip your drivers or be prepared to wait a long time for a cold meal.
Customers are then given the option to add a tip or continue without one.
So, this is how bad the tipping plague has gotten.
Every time I think it couldn't get worse, it gets worse.
Now companies are using blackmail to bully you into tipping.
And they're demanding the tip before the service is rendered.
And we'll get back to that in a second.
NBC had a report on this new system from DoorDash, which it's rolling out as a trial balloon to see just how much customers hate it.
And customers will hate it, and they'll do it anyway.
NBC spoke to a DoorDash driver who made his case for why we should tip him.
Here's what he said.
It hurts your feelings.
It hurts your feelings more when they tip you a penny.
The food delivery service added this pop-up disclaimer as part of a pilot program.
Five miles.
And maybe there's a dollar tip, maybe.
But it's just like, I don't know.
Are you going to take that order?
No, I'm not going to take that.
Definitely not going to take that.
It hurts his feelings when you don't tip.
So make sure you tip or the man on the bicycle might start crying.
Which is maybe the best case against tipping that I could possibly make.
I'd want to give that guy an anti-tip if that's possible.
I want him to pay me money.
That's what should happen there.
I wish there was a negative tip option for somebody like that.
By the way, business is booming for DoorDash.
They had 540 million orders last quarter, which is a 24% jump year over year, according to CNN.
Revenue is up 27%.
And yet, DoorDash, like so many other multi-billion dollar companies, expect us to pay their employees for them.
Something that you would think we're already doing by paying for the service in the first place.
But no, DoorDash demands that we pay for the service and then also pay extra for the worker who is performing the service.
This is why it ultimately costs you $87 to have a hamburger and fries delivered to your house from a restaurant three miles away.
Because you're paying for the food, and you're paying for the service, and you're paying for the worker rendering the service, and these are all three separate charges, and then you're also paying the government.
So just to get the hamburger, you gotta pay for the- you're paying the restaurant, you're paying the company, you're paying the worker, you're paying the government.
It starts to feel excessive to a lot of people, which is why they may choose not to tip.
But now DoorDash is actively threatening you with deliberately poor service if you attempt to order a pizza without having to mortgage your house to pay for it.
This is how insane this situation has become.
And DoorDash and Uber Eats, they're perfect little microcosms of the tipping problem as a whole.
The incentive structure has been thrown wildly out of balance.
Now, it used to be that you would tip, in certain limited circumstances, as a reward for exemplary service.
Now, you're not only expected to tip everyone in every service job, but you're also expected to tip before the service has been performed.
You know, you may tip your DoorDash driver 20% only to get your order 30 minutes past expected delivery time anyway, and your food is cold, and someone took a bite out of your sandwich, and you already tipped him.
The tip has become an act of coerced generosity, which it never was before, and it was never meant to be.
The same thing applies even to coffee shops and other places that now ask for tips.
The first problem is that they're asking for a tip in the first place.
The second is that most of the time they're asking for the tip before they have completed the service that they're supposed to perform.
They haven't even given you the coffee yet and they're asking.
So it's not even like it's bad enough to ask for a tip when all they're doing is just handing you a coffee.
They're asking for the tip before they even do that.
So they could figure out a way to screw that up and you've already tipped them for it.
Just the other day, I went to a coffee shop, ordered a regular coffee for myself, and then a fancy specialty coffee for my wife.
And, you know, she always wants a fancy coffee.
I always tell her, look, fancy coffee is going to take longer.
Can I just get you a regular coffee?
It's all the same anyway, it's just caffeine.
She wanted the fancy coffee, fine.
Employee flips over the dreaded iPad with the tip amounts, and there was no friendly request for a tip.
No friendliness at all, actually.
She barely said a word through the whole transaction.
She didn't say anything.
Like, totally, and then just flipped it over and walked away.
Like, really?
And then expecting me to reward her for doing as close to nothing as she possibly could.
Although to be honest, I think I'd prefer that they just silently flip the screen over than do the other thing that they usually do, which is...
You know, they flip it over and they say, it's going to ask you a couple questions.
No, no, it's not going to ask me a couple questions.
It's going to ask me one question.
And you and I both know what that question is.
Stop trying to disguise your panhandling like it's some kind of survey you're conducting.
Imagine if a homeless guy with a sign begging for money walked up to you, shoved the sign in your face and said the same thing.
It's going to ask you a couple questions.
Anyway, I wanted to go hit the no-tip option, as I always do these days, but because I'm dumb and clumsy, I accidentally hit the wrong button and I tipped a dollar, tragically.
And this, again, was before the service had been completed.
I did not have the coffee in hand at this point.
And 20 minutes later, after having already tipped accidentally, but still, I'm still standing there waiting for my wife's fancy coffee.
Which was not nearly so fancy that it had to take 20 minutes to make.
I had tipped ahead of time for a service that ended up being extremely poor.
This is how it goes now.
But when you think about it, the epidemic of tipping is not happening in a vacuum.
It didn't come out of nowhere.
It's just the latest iteration of forced charity in our culture.
This is essentially the welfare state now making its way into the service industry.
You know, we have lived in a culture of entitlement for a long time.
It's no surprise that it's manifesting itself in this way now.
And the biggest problem...
With the forced or coerced charity, whether it's a government entitlement program, or a pop-up on DoorDash threatening you with cold food if you don't tip your driver ahead of time, or a sullen, scowling cashier flipping an iPad over expecting a tip for doing literally nothing.
In all of these cases, the coercion tactics may prove profitable for those wielding them, but they don't do what willful, voluntary charity and generosity does.
When somebody chooses of their own free will to be generous, free of any emotional blackmail or coercive tactics or force, their charitable act naturally breeds gratitude and connection and appreciation.
When somebody is generous to you because they chose to be generous, it lifts both you and them up in ways that go beyond the financial.
But that's not how it works when somebody is forced or manipulated or pressured into charity.
In that case, it makes the giver understandably bitter and resentful, while the receiver only becomes more entitled and spoiled.
Everybody is worse off.
The giver most of all, because he's the one losing money, but both parties, giver and receiver, both walk away from the exchange with a negative attitude about it.
That's why, as I have often remarked, we're seeing tipping go up while quality of service goes down.
The more that service workers are tipped, the more lazy and entitled they seem to become.
And the more annoyed and broke their customers become.
Everybody loses in the end, even if the service worker makes a few bucks out of the deal.
Companies like DoorDash are driving this problem, maybe more than anybody else.
And that is ultimately why DoorDash is today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
The 2024 election gets closer and closer as Democrats panic, and the Biden administration begins its slow collapse to the pro-Hamas left.
