Ep. 1309 - Why The Criminal Justice System Gave Up On Punishing Criminals
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we know that the criminal justice system has basically collapsed and given up on actually punishing crime. But where and why did this collapse begin? We'll talk about a certain document from the DOJ that helps to answer that question, even though most people have never heard about it. Also, the Biden Administration is now shutting down Native American museum exhibits for fear that they might be offensive to Native Americans. Jay Z wins an award at the Grammys and spends his thank you speech complaining and giving horrible life advice. Plus, a racial justice advocate explains why it's racist to expect black people to show up on time.
Ep.1309
- - -
DailyWire+:
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Get 20% off your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
Windshield WOW - Exclusive Discount for my Listeners! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. http://www.WindshieldWOW.com
- - -
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, we know that the criminal justice system has basically collapsed and given up on actually punishing crime, but where and why did this collapse begin?
We'll talk about a certain document from the DOJ that helps to answer that question, even though most people have never heard about it.
Also, the Biden administration is now shutting down Native American museum exhibits for fear that they might be offensive to Native Americans.
Jay-Z wins an award at the Grammys and spends his thank you speech complaining and giving horrible life advice.
A racial justice advocate explains why it's racist to expect black people to show up on time.
we'll talk about all that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
So have you ever browsed an incognito mode?
It's probably not as incognito as you might think.
And why would it be?
Incognito mode has made big tech companies a fortune by tracking your movements online.
So how do you actually make yourself as invisible as possible online?
Well, you use ExpressVPN like I do.
It turns out that even in incognito mode, your online activity still gets tracked and data brokers still get to buy and sell your data.
One of these data points is your IP address.
Data harvesters use your IP to uniquely identify you and your location.
But with ExpressVPN, your connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server and your IP address is masked.
Every time you connect to ExpressVPN, you get a random IP address shared by many other ExpressVPN customers.
That makes it harder for third parties to identify you or harvest your data.
Best of all, ExpressVPN is super easy to use.
No matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, or smart TV, all you got to do is tap one button for instant protection.
So if you really want to go incognito and protect your privacy, secure yourself with
the number one rated VPN.
Visit ExpressVPN.com/Walsh and get three months free.
That's EXPRSSVPN.com/Walsh.
Again, that's ExpressVPN.com/Walsh to learn more.
But very few people ever take the time to trace the roots of our current state of lawlessness back to its origins.
And the thing is, you don't need to trace the roots very far.
At least, maybe not all the way back to its very origins, because you'd have to go all the way back to the fall of man, but you could go back only a few years and it starts to tell you the story of how we ended up where we are now.
There's a reason why we now live in a country governed by people who don't believe in simply enforcing the law and punishing lawbreakers.
These are people who are operating according to certain particularly crazy beliefs.
And one of those beliefs, as we briefly talked about yesterday, is that deterrence doesn't exist.
Effectively, you cannot deter crime by punishing it.
That's the insane idea that began in our institutions of higher learning, the sort of insane idea that can only begin in those institutions, and filtered its way down from there, as these ideas always do.
Now, it began with the claim first made years ago that the death penalty doesn't deter crime.
You're probably familiar with this, you've heard it before.
Now, this claim is always false for reasons we'll touch on later, but whatever you think of the death penalty, the implication underlying the deterrence argument was never going to stop at the death penalty.
It was always going to go far beyond that, and indeed, we've seen that progression in recent years.
It's no longer, well, the death penalty is pointless because people don't consider those consequences when they commit crime.
Instead, the argument we're hearing today is, All harsh punishment is pointless because people don't consider any consequences when they commit crime.
This is the intellectual origin of the soft-on-crime approach to law enforcement that we're seeing in every major American city in the country right now.
And several years ago, this approach was adopted by the Obama DOJ without any fanfare whatsoever.
In May of 2016, the National Institute of Justice, which is the research arm of the DOJ, published a document entitled, Five Things About Deterrence.
You've almost certainly never heard of this document, but it is essentially the modern manifesto of the anti-incarceration movement in the United States.
It applies the reasoning of anti-death penalty advocates to all forms of crime and to all punishment.
So for that reason, it's a truly remarkable document that even though you haven't heard of, you should.
We're going to go through it today.
Here are the five things about deterrence that the memo highlights and then expands upon.
Number one, the certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
In other words, according to the DOJ, criminals are primarily worried about whether the cops are going to arrest them.
They're not worried about how long they're going to have to stay in prison.
The only thing they care about is whether or not they're going to get arrested.
The question that apparently never occurred to the DOJ is, if the punishments aren't severe, then why would the certainty of being caught deter anyone?
Why would criminals care if they're going to be caught if they know ahead of time that they won't be punished?
The whole reason that being caught is scary is that you will be punished, but if you aren't going to be punished, then being caught is not a scary prospect anymore.
Again, we're seeing this play out in cities across the country.
Sure, the criminals are caught sometimes, but it doesn't matter to them because they aren't punished, and they're back on the street a day later committing more crimes.
So, the argument from the DOJ, which is the very first thing on the memo, all that matters is whether you catch them.
It doesn't matter whether you punish them.
This is what the DOJ is saying.
And it's like saying that home invaders are deterred by guns, but it doesn't matter if it's a Glock or a Super Soaker.
Just as long as it's a gun.
That's all that matters.
Will it kill them?
Will it make them a little wet?
That's not factored in.
It makes no sense.
The DOJ's manifesto doesn't bother to expand on this point in any way.
It just it just says quote research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent
than even draconian punishment
So there you have it Research shows that punishment doesn't work.
Research!
What kind of research?
Well, they don't say.
At least not in that paragraph.
Buried in the fine print on the page is a citation to an article by a public policy professor named Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University.
Now, this is the primary paper the DOJ relies on, along with a couple of others.
Apparently, Nagin has done the research, and he's realized that criminals don't really care about punishment.
They only care about being caught.
But whether or not they're punished after being caught, they don't care about that.
I looked around to see if Negan actually thinks this, and if so, what his logic is.
I came across this clip from many years ago, which I'm going to play primarily because it's kind of hilarious.
I want you to watch as a local news team breaks the news that, according to Daniel Negan's first groundbreaking finding, when you have more police officers, criminals tend to commit less crime.
The news station interviews then a couple of random people who say that, you know, that pretty much checks out.
This is one of the best examples of research telling us something that's incredibly obvious to a comical degree.
But buried in this report, if you listen carefully, is Nagin's second theory, which the DOJ finds so compelling.
Watch.
Now, that event raises a larger question.
Is more police presence a deterrent to people who commit serious crimes?
Well, that's what research done by one criminologist in Pennsylvania is suggesting tonight.
Jerry Askin is here now with that story.
Jerry.
Hey, Kim and Calvin.
Here is research done by Professor Daniel Nagin today at the event for National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.
We asked Sheriff Hemming and many others about the research.
Carnegie Mellon University professor Daniel Nagin is convinced of his findings that better police presence will reduce crime.
If the police are properly deployed, that their presence can have a very substantial deterrent effect.
In other words, stopping crimes before they happen is more effective than the threat of a lot of prison time.
There's little evidence that making punishments even more severe than they already are has an incremental Ron Powell is a pastor at a church on Dotson Avenue, and he agrees with the research.
Because when police are close by, they are less likely to commit any crimes.
Most crimes are done undercover.
The city of Chattanooga is growing its budget to bring in at least 40 more officers by next spring or summer.
They must first finish their academy and field training before hitting the streets.
Ebony Moore is ready to see more officers and believes it will deter criminals.
Yeah, they would definitely be more fearful.
They would be more aware of their surroundings and more aware of everything they're doing.
If I had a police officer on every block, you're going to find it safer than if I had none.
So, the reporter holds up the stack of papers.
Here's the research.
It shows that more police means less crime.
And then you cut to two local residents and the sheriff who say, uh, yeah.
Yeah, you think?
Apparently being a professor at Carnegie Mellon, I guess, isn't what it used to be.
Random people off the street think that your research is incredibly obvious, because it is.
But, you know, they still get the big research grants and everything to go and compile all this paperwork telling us what everybody already knows.
But the key part of that segment, for our purposes, is what Daniel Nagin says in the clip.
He reports that, quote, there's little evidence that making punishments even more severe than they already are has an incremental effect.
Right away, that's actually a different argument from the one that DOJ is making.
The DOJ said flat out that, quote, draconian punishments don't deter crime.
But the argument that this Carnegie Mellon professor is advancing in that clip is that if you make our existing
punishments more severe, then they won't deter crime all that much additionally.
Which are really two different arguments.
And this little inconsistency confused me enough to look up Nagin's actual paper, the one the DOJ cites in its manifesto
on deterrence.
And in that article you'll find two claims.
The first one is the idea he outlines in the video clip that quote
There's little evidence that increases in the length of the already long prison sentences yield general deterrence
effects That are sufficiently large to justify their social and
economic costs In other words, he's saying that existing prison sentences
are a sufficient deterrent and we don't need to make them longer
But afterwards in the paper Negan goes on and says pretty much what the DOJ claims
He says quote I have concluded there is little evidence of a specific deterrent effect arising from the experience of
imprisonment compared with the experience of non custodial sanctions
such as probation It's clear that lengthy prison sentences cannot be
justified on a deterrence based based crime prevention basis
Now those claims don't follow at all His starting point is that we don't need to make prison sentences longer, and somehow, without showing his work, he ends up with a declaration that criminals don't really care about their punishments, and whether they're apprehended, as though apprehension without punishment matters to anyone, so we might as well just sentence everyone to probation.
Like, that's what he's saying.
It doesn't make a difference whether you give them probation or you send them to prison, it's going to have the same effect.
The technical term for this kind of argument, from an academic perspective, is that it's garbage.
It's a clearly absurd claim, but it's the basis for the DOJ's entire argument against deterrence.
This is the document that the DOJ cites to justify its policy of releasing as many criminals as possible, or at least criminals who share the DOJ's politics.
You know, those are the ones that they tend to prefer.
So it's hard to overemphasize just how truly bizarre and incredible this is.
But it gets weirder.
Citing Nagin's research, the DOJ goes on to claim that, quote, sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime.
Again, that's a direct quote from a document produced by the DOJ in 2016.
Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime.
And they're saying that because some random Carnegie Mellon professor wrote it down a few years earlier.
Again, they don't really clarify this point.
Here's the extent of the DOJ's explanation, to a point that should be shocking coming from the DOJ.
Prison doesn't deter crime at all?
Prisons are pointless?
Quote, "Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences,
particularly longer sentences, are unlikely to deter future crime.
Prisons actually may have the opposite effect.
Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the
threat of future imprisonment."
Now, if this is true, it's an argument for giving out even longer sentences, not shorter ones.
In fact, this is a solid reason to be much more generous in handing out life sentences.
Because if you give a life sentence, and actually make it a life sentence, meaning that the person isn't released after 25 years or whatever, but they're really there for the rest of their lives, then the deterrence issue, at least for that individual, is a moot point.
He's gone.
He's off the street for good.
But the DOJ doesn't mention this possibility in the memo at all.
They don't mention that, well, you could just do that.
Instead, they go the opposite way.
They conclude that we should let people out of jail sooner.
After just telling us that jail only makes criminals more dangerous, well, we should just have the sentences be shorter.
The rest of the DOJ document continues along these lines.
The third bullet point in the DOJ's document says, quote, police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
This was the earth-shattering revelation that shocked those news reporters.
Those latter two bullet points contradict everything we know about the human condition.
Obviously, longer, harsher prison sentences deter more crime.
There's no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.
Now, those latter two bullet points contradict everything we know about the human condition.
Obviously, longer, harsher prison sentences deter more crime.
This is a basic fact of human psychology.
People are less likely to do something if the consequences are very bad.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And the worse the consequences are, the less likely they are to do them.
Now, that doesn't mean that nobody will do the bad thing.
It doesn't mean that everybody will respond to incentives like a rational person.
It just means fewer people will do it.
And it's impossible for a reasonable person to deny this, because it is, again, a basic fact of human behavior, well established over the course of thousands of years of human civilization.
In fact, it may be one of the best established facts of human behavior.
That's why they have no way of disproving it.
All they have are a bunch of, you know, some random studies done by quack sociologists or whatever, which are supposed to outweigh the collective experience of all mankind for the past 10,000 years.
And by the way, these random studies contradict the random studies I cited earlier, the one that CBS News reported back in 2007.
And that's a cue that it's a good idea to ignore all these studies and just use common sense.
The DOJ is stacking a handful of research papers against the totality of human experience, and they expect us to believe the research papers instead.
Which is also how they come up with the ridiculous proposition that the death penalty doesn't deter crime.
And this is something that people have cited and said this as fact for years now.
And it's completely ridiculous.
Obviously, people are less likely to do something if you kill them for doing it.
Like, the idea that that's going to have no impact on whether people do it, whether you kill them for doing it or not killing it, and the rate of that thing being done will stay the same, it's insane.
It's, like, psychotic.
But people just say this like it's a fact.
Now, if the death penalty in its current form is less effective as a deterrence than it has been in the past, which isn't to say that it's not a deterrence at all, that's only because we put so much time in between conviction and punishment so that the punishment loses a lot of its societal impact, though not all of it.
And again, the DOJ's arguments are all assuming that deterrence is somehow the only relevant goal, but long prison sentences have another important goal, which is incapacitation.
You know, they remove...
The violent criminal from the public so they can't hurt anybody else.
Later on in the document, the DOJ does briefly touch on that goal, the goal of incapacitation.
And here's what they say, quote, "Individuals grow out of criminal activity as they age.
A more lengthy, severe prison sentence for convicted individuals who are naturally aging
out of crime does achieve the goal of punishment and incapacitation.
But that incapacitation is a costly way to deter future crimes by aging individuals who
already are less likely to commit those crimes by virtue of age."
This is how the DOJ views criminal justice.
They actually say that sending criminals to prison for a long time might be pointless because they'll grow out of being criminals anyway.
Yeah, they'll grow out of it.
You know, the carjackers and murderers and armed robbers, they'll grow out of it.
It's just a phase.
Boys will be boys.
This is the type of thinking that is directing the Justice Department from the very top.
Directing the justice system from the very top.
And the mental rot goes all the way down from there.
But the DOJ does make one point that makes sense, which is that it's impossible to say
which criminals are likely to re-offend and which criminals are likely to age out, to
quote unquote, of a life of crime.
That's true.
Really, it's impossible to conduct a fully accurate study of deterrence.
There's no way to fully quantify the number of people who would have committed a crime
had the punishments been softer, or the number who did commit one because the punishments
were too soft.
Like, this would require not only self-reported data, which is notoriously unreliable, but also a person's speculation about their theoretical mental states in some other possible universe.
There's just no way to compile that into a statistic and call it science.
So we ultimately have to fall back on the whole history of human society and our own basic common sense intuition about how human beings operate and what sort of things incentivize and disincentivize them.
And all of that points back to a simple and straightforward conclusion.
If you want less crime, you have one choice.
It's the choice that academics and quote-unquote public health experts and politicians have avoided making for decades now.
You have to punish criminals, and you have to punish them severely.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Keeping windshields clean is always a pain, especially in the winter.
That's why I'm so grateful to have Windshield WOW.
Windshield WOW is an innovative windshield cleaning device that uses two magnetic cleaning paddles, one on the outside, one on the inside of your car, to clean both sides of your windshield, all from the outside.
Being able to clean both the front and the inside window at the same time is a game changer, which I had one of these years ago.
Seriously, all you gotta do is push around the outside paddle and the inside follows automatically, leaving your windshield squeaky clean.
We had a big snowstorm here in Nashville, and with all the dirt and salt piled up on the roads, washer fluid just couldn't do the job.
Luckily, I had a Windshield WOW in my trunk to save the day.
That's what's awesome about the Windshield WOW.
It's so easy to throw these in the back of your car, so you can always have a clean windshield.
So, what are you waiting for?
Go to windshieldwow.com.
Use code WOLSH to check out for a special discount.
That's windshieldwow.com.
Use code WOLSH.
Here's a story that caught my attention from the post-millennial, and, um, Reading now of the article.
The Biden administration has issued new federal regulations that mandate museums to get consent from Native American groups before displaying or performing research on cultural items.
The New York Times reports that the rule is part of the National Park Service new regulations for the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act and provide a step-by-step roadmap with specific timelines for museums and federal agencies to facilitate disposition or repatriation.
These regulations have caused the Museum of Natural History, founded by President Teddy Roosevelt, to close two major exhibit halls that house Native American artifacts and objects on the eastern woodlands and the Great Plains.
The new rules offer systematic processes through which museums and federal agencies must defer to the Native American traditional knowledge of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations.
This went into effect on January 12th, so it just went into effect.
In taking the drastic action, museum president Sean Decatur sent a letter to staff explaining why that research and information would no longer be available to museum visitors.
Quote, the halls we're closing are artifacts of an era when museums such as ours did not respect the values, perspectives, and indeed shared humanity of indigenous peoples.
Actions that may feel sudden to some may seem long overdue to others.
10,000 feet of exhibition space will be closed to the public because of this plan to stop showing Native American art and artifact out of concern that sharing the history of Native Americans would be offensive to Native Americans.
Decatur said that some objects may never come back on display.
But he said that others may after they get clearance from the Native Americans or whatever.
Let's just track this.
Let's go through the timeline here, okay?
It began with the mascots.
Right, we're told that we can't use Native American imagery or mascots or references or names or whatever for sports teams because that's offensive to Native Americans somehow.
We need their permission, right?
We need their permission to have mascots that have something to do with Native Americans.
Now, we still have not applied that to anybody else.
Nobody has asked for my permission as a person of Irish descent.
for Notre Dame to continue calling itself the Fighting Irish and to have the drunken leprechaun
Irish guy mascot Nobody's asked me about lucky charms. No one's asked me
about that as far as I know nobody's consulted any person of Irish descent about that
so Native Americans are they're special, you know
They're put in a special category and we need to treat them with kid gloves.
Something that is fine for everybody else is not okay for them because of how special they are.
So we ended up getting rid of most of those mascots and team names.
Notice every step along the way, as always, they say that, well, it's just this.
This is all we're going to do.
You know, we just want to get rid of the mascots.
It's offensive.
And then we'll stop.
That's it.
It's just that's all we got to do.
So, like, don't make a big deal out of it.
They want to change Redskins because it's offensive and they want to call it something else.
They want to change it to the lamest name ever conceived.
It's fine.
But don't make a big deal because it's just that.
It's just a mascot.
What do you care about the mascot so much?
Well, then they quickly moved over to other depictions of Native Americans.
We had to take the Native woman off of the Land O'Lakes box of butter.
Like, we had to get rid of Native imagery in all of these kind of commercial areas, even where it's not cartoonish or funny.
It's not supposed to be a joke.
Land O'Lakes butter, it was literally just a depiction of a Native American woman.
Just like sitting there.
There's nothing offensive about it.
It wasn't cartoonish.
It wasn't a caricature.
But even there, just the depiction itself is offensive.
Now, I want you to think about this for a second.
Okay.
Where else have you heard of anything like this?
Where it's now offensive to simply just depict, in any context, someone else.
Really, we have turned Native Americans into these deity-like creatures.
So we are adopting the same reverence for Native Americans that Muslims have for the Prophet Muhammad.
So it's just like in Islam, there are no depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
We're doing the same thing with Native Americans.
There are no depictions.
You can't depict them.
These are sacred beings.
These are sacred beings, and to depict them at all is crass and exploitative.
What, does that apply to, like, other people?
Well, no.
Okay, so you can't have the Native American on the butter box, but you can have anybody, like, if it was just a white woman, it'd be fine?
Oh yeah, of course.
But why is that fine?
I thought you just said it's exploitation.
So it's only exploitation for them.
Because they're special, you see.
And that was all bad enough.
But that, you know, of course the left argued, that's it.
That's all we're doing.
You know, you can't do mascots.
We're not going to really explain why.
It doesn't make sense.
You can't have them in any kind of commercial depiction.
Again, we can't explain why, but just go with us.
We stopped there.
That's it.
That's the end of it.
Okay.
Well, now we've moved to museum exhibits, okay?
Now they're saying you can't even have Native American references and depictions and artifacts in museums.
The one place where they always said, well, of course there.
Of course there.
Obviously.
It's not like we're gonna start taking them out of museums.
Well, now they're taking them out of museums too.
Like, these are places that exist to preserve history.
And somehow to preserve the history of native societies is offensive to them.
Or at least we need to get their permission.
Whose permission exactly?
Whose permission are we getting?
Tell me.
What special communal board or individual decides whether, they talked about the Great Plains, so the Great Plains artifacts can't be displayed.
And again, by the way, we're not just talking about, like, you go to the Smithsonian and they have, you know, wax figures and that sort of thing, and these displays of native... They're not just saying you can't have that, because that'd be crazy enough.
They're saying just artifacts.
Like, if there was an arrowhead, a 180-year-old arrowhead from the Comanche tribe that they found on the Great Plains, you can't even show that.
Why?
Because he didn't get permission.
From who?
From the guy who died 180 years ago whose arrowhead it was?
Whose permission are you asking?
Well, you gotta get permission from some native person.
You gotta find some woman working in a cubicle, some middle-aged woman working in a cubicle in Iowa somewhere.
With native ancestry.
We had to get her permission.
Who the hell cares about her permission?
She doesn't own it.
She has no relationship to it.
Now, if you have a family heirloom in your house that has been passed down through the generations, yes, you own that.
And I would be very much against the Smithsonian barging into your home and taking your family heirloom.
I'd be very opposed to it.
But that's not what these are.
These are artifacts that have been found and they've been given to the museum.
And now, it's like, we're saying that random people, because they can supposedly trace their heritage back to people related to that artifact, they get to decide if anyone gets to look at it.
Okay?
And aside from the question of ownership, Since when do we allow ethnic groups to have absolute say on how their own history is told?
And I asked that question, and these days I think the question itself will seem like absurd to some very stupid people, because they'll say, well of course we should have let them decide.
No!
That's not how it works.
History is not owned, okay?
You don't own the history of your own ethnicity.
You don't own that.
It's a thing that happened.
You don't get to take ownership of it.
Anyone else can talk about it.
They can write about it.
They can give their own perspective on it.
They can research it.
It's not an object that you own, you lunatics.
Whatever happened, happened.
Okay, nobody owns history.
You don't get to decide what we say about it, or remember about it, or what artifacts we get to look at, just because you had an ancestor 200 years ago tied to that history, supposedly.
And the really absurd thing is, you know, they usually say that the As the saying usually goes, the winner gets to write the history book.
Right?
Well, we have flipped that completely on its head.
Because the Indian tribes lost.
They lost the Indian Wars.
I mean, they lost one battle after another.
Just nothing but taking L's, frankly.
Like, it was hundreds of years of losing.
And they were conquered.
And they lost.
And now we've decided that the losers get to have total control.
Over how their own history is told.
This is the price we're supposed to pay for the unforgivable white sin of bringing civilization to the new world.
Because we're supposed to be pleading forgiveness for the fact that we don't all currently live in a world that's 3,000 years in the past, that people are still getting scalped, right?
And your mother and your daughter could be kidnapped and enslaved by a raiding party at any time.
Because that's the world that the Indians all lived in.
Every single one of them.
Every single one of them, okay, lived in a violent, brutal, war-faring society.
And our great sin is making sure that we don't live in that world anymore.
Like, the fact that we all live in a world that none of us would want to live in.
None of us would want that, okay?
And so we're supposed to Be distraught with guilt over that.
The sin that Western civilization committed by not holding itself back and leaving this entire hemisphere alone forever.
I mean, this entire hemisphere was about 5,000 years in the past.
It was living about 5,000 years behind pretty much the whole rest of the world.
And The implication is that the whole rest of the world was supposed to just kind of sit there and wait.
Say, hang on guys, we'll let them catch up.
No, no, no, don't go over there.
Don't, no, don't, that whole, whole thing, they own all of it.
Everything on that side of the Atlantic, they own everything.
We can't go over there.
The whole thing.
They're about 5,000 years behind.
Give them about 5,000 years.
They'll catch up.
They'll be fine.
That's what people, that is basically the claim now.
And it's so crazy that you can't even.
I hardly put it into words, even though I've been putting it into words for a long time.
And now, for that sin, we've lost the right to look at Indian artifacts in museums.
And the last thing that I'll say here is that if there are artifacts or exhibits that deal with a certain ethnic group, And the people in that ethnic group don't want us to see it?
That's all the more reason why we should.
Because, like, not only should we not give ethnic groups, like, the veto power over what museums say about them and their history, but actually, if they want to veto it, that's all the more reason why, like, that's the most important thing we should see in the museum, actually.
So if there are Indian groups coming in and saying, oh, no, no, we don't want that.
You can't show that.
No, everyone needs to see that, whatever it is.
Whatever it is you're embarrassed about, we should all see it.
Because you don't get to do that.
You don't get to go in selectively and say, I don't like that part of our history.
You're not allowed to talk about that now.
And of course, the ultimate effect here, ironically, is that Native Americans are just being completely erased.
While we hear so much about representation and visibility, we're actually simply erasing Native Americans from the culture completely.
And we're doing it at the behest of Native American activists who are asking to be erased.
Think about it, a decade ago, right, a decade ago, Indians were like a hundred times more visible in our culture than they are today.
It took this age of representation and visibility to make them invisible.
And to do all of that again in the name of tolerance, tolerance for the very people whose likeness and history we are throwing into a giant black hole to be eradicated and forgotten.
It is amazing.
And of course I say all that with a certain amount of willful naivete because what I actually realize is happening is that they're not just erasing the history and then leaving a blank space.
No, the point of erasing it and not letting us talk about it or see it or see it in a museum is so that you can then recreate a different history.
So the whole, like, the noble savage myth, this sort of, like, idea of natives that you find in the Pocahontas movie in the 90s, right?
Totally, a total cartoon.
No bearing on reality.
But that's what they want.
They want to create that.
So, I know what they're embarrassed about in the museums, like all evidence that this was a primitive, violent world when it was dominated by native tribes.
They don't want any evidence of that.
They don't want you to know that.
You're not supposed to know that.
And they want to get rid of all that.
I want to mention this too.
This is from CNN.
And...
This is from CNN, but last week headlines like this were everywhere, reporting the same alleged fact.
Here's the headline.
Nearly 65,000 pregnancies from rape have occurred in states with abortion bans, according to a new study.
Okay, 65,000 pregnancies from rape have occurred in states with abortion bans.
And again, headlines were all over the place, reporting this exact study.
Reading a little bit.
Tens of thousands of pregnancies have resulted from rape in states where abortion is not a legal option, researchers estimate in a new study.
In the study published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers from Planned Parenthood, Resound Research for Reproductive Health, and academic institutions across the U.S.
used a combination of federal surveys on crime and sexual violence to estimate that there were about 520,000 rapes that led to 64,565 pregnancies in the time since abortion bans have been enacted in 14 states, ranging by state From four to 18 months ago.
So, this is research done in part by Planned Parenthood.
I mean, right there you could just stop.
Like, any news organization that cites as fact a study on abortion done by Planned Parenthood, an organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars on the line.
Okay, they stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars every year from abortion.
And any news organization that uncritically reports on a study from them should be ignored forever.
And of course, we already know that CNN should be ignored for a lot of other reasons, but it gets worse than that, right?
But that's the story.
65,000 pregnancies from rape in states that have outlawed abortion, according to the study.
And you know what I say about studies.
Basically, at this point, I would say that nearly every study that makes it into a mainstream media headline is bogus.
There might be exceptions to that, but it's pretty safe to assume that if you see any headline that ends with the words, study says, or according to new study, just ignore it.
You can just ignore it, and 99% of the time, you'll have done the right thing.
And this one especially, that's the case.
Which you should already realize, because number one, it has to do with abortion, and the media is incapable of being even vaguely honest about that subject.
And number two, how in the world would they even know this?
I mean, how would they know the precise number of pregnancies from rape in these states?
Where did they get these numbers?
How could they possibly have these numbers?
And have them so soon, especially?
Well, I'll tell you where they got them.
They made them up.
I mean, they actually just made up the numbers.
That's what they did.
They simply did something they call a study, and the study consisted of inventing numbers and using those invented numbers to invent more numbers.
That's the study.
And a number of people have looked into this and exposed the hoax, which again has been
reported by every major media outlet.
Michael J. New in the National Review has a very good write up about it.
So you could go read his piece if you want.
But the basic point is this.
First, the author of this study isn't basing it on actual hard data about rapes and conceptions
Instead, he's looking at general figures and just extrapolating how many rapes and conceptions probably took place in those states during this time, theoretically.
But in order to get to 65,000, he needs to use the highest estimates possible, okay?
So he starts by using a CDC survey from 2016.
That said that 1.4 million women were forcibly raped in that 12-month time span.
Now, the problem is that that number is 10 times higher than FBI statistics, and three or four times higher than the DOJ's statistics on that same subject.
And as the National Review explains, you know, you have a number of different estimates.
One of them is 10 times higher, and This study decides to reach for the highest one.
Why do they reach for the highest estimate?
Well, because it's the highest.
And this is a study funded by Planned Parenthood.
They already know what conclusion they want to draw.
Like, there's zero chance that Planned Parenthood would fund a study on this subject, and then the result of the study would be, oh, you know what?
Actually, there have not been that many rapes or conceptions because of rape.
But that result, that cannot be the result.
You go into the study knowing, funded by Planned Parenthood, that can't be the result.
It has to be that there have been tens of thousands of rapes because that's the result they want.
And that's the methodology.
The actual methodology is, well, comb through and look for the highest figure you can from any source available and assume that it's true.
So what's next after that?
We need to know, so you've got your estimate of the number of rapes.
We need to know how many of these theoretical rapes resulted in conception.
So the study takes this 1.4 million figure.
It's a very high estimate from the CDC in 2016.
Contradicts what other government agencies have estimated.
And from there the study estimates that 12.5% of rapes result in conception.
Which is also the highest available estimate.
And it's much higher, so about more than twice as high as what other research has said.
Other research has put the figure at about 5%, which is also probably high.
And so, from these two arbitrarily chosen very high estimates, he then declares that 65,000 pregnancies from rape have happened in states with abortions.
Which, by the way, if these numbers are true, that would mean As this debunking article explains, it would mean that if you extrapolate from there
And you have that many rapes and that many result in conception.
It would mean that 10% of all abortions nationwide prior to Roe were due to rape.
But the Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion institute, says that only 1% of all abortions are due to rape.
So according to the Guttmacher Institute's own figures, this study has multiplied the number of pregnancies from rape by about 10 times.
So what does all this mean?
It means that Like, there's no news here.
The study isn't even a study.
It's just bad math that somebody scrawled on the back of a napkin.
It is a dubious assumption built on a series of other dubious assumptions.
And yet the media reports it.
As fact.
With no skepticism.
And that's the way that news works now.
And why nobody trusts it.
Okay, finally wanted to mention this.
The Grammys happened a couple nights ago, and apparently, all things considered, I guess, I didn't watch it, but it looks like it wasn't a bad, wasn't a terrible show as these things go.
They actually had some real musical performances, I think.
And as far as I saw in the clips circulating, it actually was like a relatively decent display of actual musical talent at the Grammys, it seems like, which is pretty shocking.
Still not going to watch it, but, you know, credit where it's due.
There was one embarrassing moment, though, which came to us courtesy of Jay-Z.
He received some kind of Lifetime Achievement Award or something, and when he got up to receive it, he took the time to complain, of course, as one does when they win an award.
And here's what he said.
I don't want to embarrass this young lady, but she has more Grammys than everyone and never won an album in a year.
So even by your own metrics, that doesn't work.
Think about that.
The most Grammys, never won Album of the Year.
That doesn't work.
You know?
Some of you... Some of you gonna go home tonight and feel like you've been robbed.
Some of you made it, Rob.
Some of you don't belong in the category.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
No, when I get nervous, I tell the truth.
What a great guy.
Up there, he's winning, I think it was a Lifetime Achievement Award or something along those lines, and he takes his time to complain and then randomly insult the other people that have been nominated for awards.
These are just the worst people in the world.
You know, you turn on these shows and you see, these are just the worst human beings that the world has to offer.
And yet they're winning accolades.
So Beyonce has won like 30 Grammys or something like that.
I think a little bit more than 30.
More than anyone.
And yet he still complains that she hasn't won more.
She's still being persecuted because although she's won more than anyone, And probably didn't deserve any of them.
She hasn't won Album of the Year, and so she's still put upon, still persecuted.
The most Grammys out of anyone, not enough.
Not enough adulation, not enough admiration, not enough recognition.
It's just funny when they keep trying to do this with Beyoncé in particular, they are determined to turn her into a victim somehow.
This mega wealthy superstar celebrity who's won more award recognition than any musical artist in history.
I mean, really think about that.
There have been, and there are a lot of terrible musicians these days that are not even really musicians.
But you think about all the true geniuses that we've seen in the music industry over the last 70 years or so.
And Beyonce has won more than any of them.
But it's not enough.
Still complaining.
Kind of amazing.
But then, Jay-Z keeps talking, and he says something as he continues.
After he's done complaining and insulting people, he gets into a little effort to be inspiring.
And what he says there, I think, sort of shows what the problem is, what the real problem is.
So, watch this.
But outside of that, outside of that, you know, you gotta keep showing up.
And forget the Grammys for a second, just in life.
As my daughter sits and stares at me, nervous as I am.
Just in life, you gotta keep showing up.
Just keep showing up.
Forget the Grammys.
You gotta keep showing up.
Until they give you all those accolades you feel you deserve.
Until they call you Chairman.
Until they call you a genius.
Until they call you the...
Okay, so he says, keep showing up, keep trying until they give you the accolades you feel you deserve, until they call you a genius.
So notice the mentality there.
It's not keep showing up, keep working hard until you've achieved something meaningful in the world.
That's not what he's saying.
It's keep showing up until they give you recognition.
Like keep pursuing those ego strokes until your ego has been stroked enough.
This mentality may have driven Jay-Z to become very successful, financially anyway, and ridiculously wealthy.
I think he's like a billionaire now or something.
But this is terrible advice for pretty much everybody else.
Because if you're driven by a need for recognition, most likely you'll never achieve anything.
Think about how passive that is too.
Keep going until they, until they give you what you deserve, until they recognize.
Who's they?
It's like they, it's like other people out there have the key to your happiness.
And you gotta keep proving yourself to them until they give you, until they unlock, until they use the key and unlock your happiness for you.
And the thing is that that is what motivates a lot of people.
And every once in a while you'll have somebody motivated that way who does succeed enormously.
But most people won't.
And if that's what drives you, most likely it will drive you right into a ditch.
And you'll never get past, you won't get past the first mile, right?
You'll barely even get out of your driveway before you're in a ditch, if that's what drives you.
And I encounter people like this all the time in my business, as you might imagine, who have this obsessive need to be recognized and credited and applauded.
Give me the credit.
Give me the recognition.
Not just people in front of the camera, either.
I mean, at every level of the business, you run into this.
Naturally, any kind of business where you are around cameras and TVs and stuff, it's going to attract that kind of mentality even more.
And here's the thing, the vast majority of the people I meet who are like this, I need credit, I need recognition, I need to be applauded, I need this.
The vast majority are not successful and probably never will be because their motivations are all entirely wrong.
If you want to achieve anything worthwhile in life, you have to find a way to forget as much as possible about recognition.
Not worry about that.
Not worry about who gets the credit, right?
And pursue greatness because it's greatness.
You see all the time, you see people who are basically on the first rung of the ladder, or haven't even made it on the first rung yet.
And they're down there screaming, recognize me!
Where's my credit?
Why aren't you saying nice things about me?
Give me applause!
And they're going to be there whining forever.
They're stuck in this paralysis that their need for approval has put them in.
Now, again, there will be exceptions.
Jay-Z, extremely rich.
Not a key to success for most people.
And the thing is, even if you do succeed with that mentality, as Jay-Z has just showed you, you still won't be happy.
So you might be an exception, and maybe this obsessive need to be recognized does actually.
Because the other thing is, if on top of that you also have enormous skill and talent and all that, and an ability to focus obsessively on what you want in life, you might still succeed.
You'll never be happy.
You will never be happy.
Because he and his wife have been called geniuses many times.
Unduly.
They've been given every accolade.
Every award.
Every crown you can give someone.
They've been given all of it.
And it's still not enough.
Still whining.
Still just whining.
Not happy.
That's where it leads.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
Luke says, I love that Trump never built the wall.
Mexico never paid for it.
Republicans still insist it suddenly just fell over when Joe Brandon got elected.
But Trump won and no one seems to notice they're always campaigning on a lie that
they'll solve a crisis they need to campaign on. I don't disagree with some of that.
He didn't build the wall.
Of course, Mexico didn't pay for it.
And that's true.
If the implication of your statement is that we shouldn't vote for Trump, but there's no point in voting for him, then I think that's very stupid.
Yeah, he didn't build the wall.
I mean, there was some of the wall that was built, but not anywhere close.
You know, we were told, big, beautiful wall across the entire border.
Mexico will pay for it.
Didn't happen.
And that's true.
It's true that it didn't happen.
If your conclusion from that fact is that, well, I might as well not vote for Trump, well then that's incredibly dumb.
Because although there's reason to have low confidence that it will get done if Trump is re-elected, if he's not and Biden is elected and those are the only two options, There's zero chance that happens.
In fact, with Biden, it's the opposite, where he will go, as we've seen, and tear down existing border structures and not replace them with anything.
So Biden will actively prevent the border from being enforced, and that we know for a fact.
With Trump, you know, the excuse for Trump that you so often hear is that he tried and they blocked him, and he got blocked at every turn and he tried.
And that's the excuse generally given for everything.
And it's sort of true.
Like, he was blocked.
It's not good enough.
I don't accept that excuse.
Like, I don't even accept that excuse, for the most part, from my own kids.
You know, when I give them a task, or they promise to do something, and they're like, I tried.
I'm like, no, you need to do it.
You need to do it.
I definitely don't accept that from presidents.
I don't accept it from adults in general, and I don't accept it from presidents.
It's like trying does not help us.
I don't care about your trying.
It does nothing for me.
It doesn't help.
You need to just do it.
You need to find a way to do it.
So that's my attitude about those excuses.
I don't find them compelling.
I don't find them convincing.
But the other option is someone who there's not even going to be an attempt.
Like, we know what that's going to be.
In this case, the best we can hope for is to send the message to the Trump administration this time around that failure is not an option.
We're not going to accept any excuse.
Do I have confidence that most people will take that approach and be that firm and that harsh and will say, listen, no excuses.
I don't want to hear you tried.
You got to do it.
Do I have confidence that people will say that?
I don't.
But this is the situation that we're in.
I don't know what else to say.
Brian Crastenstein says, tell me exactly what you want Biden to do this very moment.
Don't just tell me secure the border or deport immigrants.
Like, what actual changes do you want him to make?
Note that it has to be legal.
What do you mean, don't tell you secure the border or deport immigrants?
That's what I want him to do.
Tell me what you want Biden to do except for these two things that he obviously needs to do and isn't.
Except for that.
Except for the two things that will solve the problem.
Except for solving the problem.
What do you want Biden to do to solve the problem?
I don't know.
Nothing?
Except for that, nothing, I guess?
Yes, secure the border and deport immigrants.
Enforce the laws that are currently on the books.
In fact, you could start by just, before we even get to enforce the border and deport immigrants.
Stop actively preventing the border from being enforced.
Stop actively tearing down barriers on the border, as the Biden administration is doing.
So the thing that he's doing right now, he could stop doing that.
That's one thing.
And then the other two things that you mentioned, that for some reason you've ruled out ahead of time, those are the answers.
And finally, Matt, the great Christian again calling for asylum seekers to be expelled from the country just as Jesus would have wanted.
Yes.
I mean, I know you say that sarcastically, but that's basically correct.
Great Christian?
I never called myself a great Christian.
But the other part of it?
Would Jesus want us to enforce the border and deport illegal immigrants?
Yes.
Because it's the law.
And it's a good and just and moral law.
And when we don't enforce a good and just and moral law, people suffer greatly.
And so would Jesus want, does Jesus want us to enforce what are good and just and moral laws for the sake of public order and the well-being of our citizens and our families and our children?
Does Jesus want that?
Yes.
Of course.
Good point.
Well guys, this is a no-brainer.
If you want to protect your kids from the leftist indoctrination that's rampant in the mainstream media, this is how you do it.
Start a 14-day free trial to BentKey, the new kids entertainment app from The Daily Wire.
BentKey is the only streaming app that offers high-quality family-friendly shows that reflect your values.
BentKey features amazing characters and timeless stories that will spark your kid's imagination and curiosity with hundreds of episodes that your kids will love and you can trust, with new episodes streaming every Saturday morning.
Remember Saturday morning cartoons?
Well, they're back and they're better than ever.
Don't take my word for it.
See for yourself.
You could try BentKey for free for 14 days.
No catch, no gimmick, no hidden fees.
Just awesome content your kids will love and you can trust.
All you have to do is use code UNLOCK at benkei.com.
You'll get 14 days of unlimited access to Benkei's World of Adventure.
Go to benkei.com, use code UNLOCK at sign up to start your trial today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Lives on TikTok dug up another good one for us.
This time it's a self-described racial justice advocate named Ali Henney, who apparently has been hired to give workshops on anti-racism in the past, and in a video which has gone viral this week, Henney explains how punctuality is a feature of white culture, and it's racist for white people to expect that non-white people will show up on time to things.
Listen.
As a racial justice advocate, I'm often invited to give talks or to do workshops where I talk to white people about race.
A big part of my practice is to offer real-life stories, examples, that type of thing, that help white people to be able to identify white supremacy in everyday life.
My husband's family is white, and I often use the cultural differences between my family and his family as a way to help white people see their whiteness.
There's one example that I use that always gets a ton of pushback.
My husband and I were late to our first Thanksgiving with his family.
I say late because it started at 12.
We got there at 1210.
But whenever we got there at 1210, everybody was already sat down and eating.
I didn't know that.
I use this illustration to point out that different cultures have different understandings of time, lateness, and what it means to be polite.
Without fail, a white person will push back and say that lateness is impolite.
I always use this as a teachable moment.
I usually ask a series of pointed questions that challenge their assumptions.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work.
But by the end, they're able to identify how white cultural dominance works in this one small area of life, which opens the door for them to start peeling the onion.
Oh, she didn't know that.
She didn't know that if something starts at 12 and you get there 10 minutes after the thing starts, you're late.
Now, you might think that this is just the dictionary definition of late.
You might wonder what she could have imagined late means if it doesn't apply to a circumstance where she is arriving to a thing after the thing has already started.
Had she never encountered the word late before?
Was she unfamiliar with the concept?
Had she lived her whole life and never been introduced to the concept of being late?
She says she had a different concept of time.
Well, what is her concept?
Now, it's true that time is relative in the sense that you can have a gravitational time dilation effect where time slows down as the force of gravity grows stronger.
But I don't think Einstein's theory of relativity ever suggested that time is relative depending on the culture you grew up in.
But before we expand on that idea, let's listen to the Racial Justice Advocates follow-up video where she responds to some of the criticism she has heard against this idea.
Listen.
Hey, this is my own comment and is in reference to the video that I did about punctuality in white culture.
I'm pretty sure if you tap it, it'll take you back to the original video.
But I wanted to expand on this a little bit.
Specifically, I wanted to challenge white people to expand their thinking on this topic.
The most common type of comment that I saw in the original video was some version of, I'm white and I'm always late.
I don't think that people were trying to refute the premise of the original video, but I do think that white people were trying to distance themselves from this particular feature of white culture.
Here's where I want y'all to dig a little bit deeper.
This is something that I notice white people do a lot whenever we talk about whiteness.
There's an acknowledgment that a certain type of whiteness exists, but also an attempt to say, oh no, I'm not that type of white person.
Here's the problem with that.
A lot of times whenever you try to distance yourself from an aspect of whiteness, you're actually reinforcing that aspect of whiteness.
So going back to the original example, when you say that you're white, you're still operating under dominant culture constructs of time and punctuality.
You're still being white about it.
Here's what you missed.
There are people who view the world very differently from you, and so you have to train your brain to be able to see things from a different perspective.
You know, this is something that I notice black people do a lot.
That's why I really want to challenge black people to dig a little bit deeper.
I need you black people to listen and learn from me about how you should be behaving.
Because, you know, really, you're being a little black about it right now.
See, it sounds bad when I speak that way to black people, and it's no different when this woman speaks the same way to white people.
Okay?
Just exactly the same thing.
Like, we don't need your lectures.
Especially when you're scolding us for objectively positive traits like timeliness and punctuality, which is an unintentional compliment that plenty of us don't actually deserve anyway.
But this idea that basic etiquette and politeness and professionalism are constructs of whiteness or white culture is pervasive.
We can't even give this woman credit for having the originality to come up with something so wacky on her own.
She's just repeating the sort of drivel that she's picked up from the anti-racist racket.
You probably remember that infamous chart put together by the Smithsonian claiming that things like hard work and professionalism are white constructs.
The museum took that chart down in embarrassment after people noticed it and reacted the way normal people react to insane things like that, but the idea hasn't gone away.
In fact, just a few months ago, Time Magazine published an interview with someone named Leah Goodridge, who's the author of a UCLA Law Review article titled, Professionalism as a Racial Construct.
And the claim is that standards of professionalism, of which timeliness and punctuality are usually a part, are thinly veiled excuses to be racist.
So, You know, our friend Allie Henney didn't make this up.
She's not innovative enough to come up with her own ways to be dumb.
Instead, she's parroting the dumbness she's heard elsewhere.
But that doesn't make it any less dumb, of course.
And the first problem with the race hustlers' claim that punctuality is a feature of white culture is that, in most other circumstances, race hustlers tell us that white people don't have a culture.
Just a few days ago, at the start of Black History Month, Twitter was full of these anti-racist types informing us that white people don't get a history month or any other specific cultural recognition because whiteness is not a culture.
That's what they say.
Kassim Rashid, who's a left-wing activist who's currently running for Congress, announced that, quote, there's no such thing as white culture.
He said that, you know, there could be Italian culture and French culture and Irish culture and so on, but not white culture.
Now, of course, If that's true of white people, then it's just as true of black people.
White is an umbrella that includes many different people from many different countries, separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles.
Black is also an umbrella that includes many different people from many different countries, separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles.
People can have different opinions about whether it makes sense to talk about the culture of an entire race of people, regardless of their nation of origin.
But wherever you land on that question, the answer has to apply to white and black equally.
But left-wing race activists answer this question like they answer every question, depending on the ideological needs of the moment.
And for somebody like Ali Henny, white people have a culture, when it comes time to scold them for a perceived flaw, But white people definitely do not have a culture in the sense of something that should be celebrated and preserved.
In fact, I feel quite sure that she would cringe in horror if a white person ever said to her that we should preserve and celebrate white culture.
In that case, she would say, white culture doesn't exist, you can't even preserve it.
So white culture only exists when we're criticizing it.
In other words, white is not a culture unless you need white to be a culture for the purpose of lecturing white people.
Yet, if we are apparently recognizing white as a culture for the purpose of this discussion, I would not personally include punctuality as a unique feature of it.
As much as I appreciate the compliment, nobody I work with would be able to stomach my hypocrisy if I said, oh yeah, we white folks, we're always on time.
Always.
That's one thing about us white folks.
We're never late.
I haven't been on time to record my show, for example, one single day since approximately 2019, and I'm not even joking.
Now, although I do appreciate the excuse that this TikTok racial justice advocate has now given me, if anybody complains that I'm late, I can now accuse them of upholding white supremacy.
I never thought of that before, but come to think of it, I think she's right.
Indeed, my chronic lateness is really just my own personal effort to de-center my whiteness.
So if anybody complains about it, I can say, well, excuse me for de-centering my whiteness.
And really, anyone who does complain about it is essentially, for all intents and purposes, morally speaking, Adolf Hitler.
That is the inevitable conclusion that we must draw.
Either that, or the expectation that you show up on time is simply a basic standard of conduct that applies to everybody.
And if you fall short of that standard, it's not because you're unfamiliar with the customs of white people, but rather because of your own personal shortcomings.
Now, I can see why Ali may prefer the latter option.
May not prefer the latter option, I should say.
And, you know, the one about the shortcomings.
I don't prefer it either.
But at least I have the courage to admit my own shortcomings.
Even if I won't do anything to correct them.
But that much cannot be said about Ali Heni, the racial justice advocate.
