Ep. 1350 - New CEO of NPR Is Everything Wrong With The News Media
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the new CEO of NPR is a far left woke activist who rejects the very concept of truth. In that way, she illustrates everything that's wrong with the news media. Also, Joe Biden tells another tall tale, this one about an uncle who was eaten by cannibals. A judge in Indianapolis lets a woman off the hook completely after she confesses to murdering her infant child. And a bunch of grown adults were emotionally devastated by the latest episode of Bluey, which is a show for preschoolers.
Ep.1350
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/3VPYOTo
Watch my new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ramp - Get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.com/Walsh
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
http://www.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
Regina Caeli Academy - Join me at the Courage Under Fire Gala! Use code DAILYWIRE for exclusive access to your tickets at http://www.courageunderfiregala.org
- - -
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 Walsh Show, the new CEO of NPR is a far-left woke activist who rejects the very concept of truth, and in that way, she illustrates everything that's wrong with the news media today.
Also, Joe Biden tells another tall tale, this one about an uncle who was eaten by cannibals.
A judge in Indianapolis lets a woman off the hook completely after she confesses to murdering her infant child.
And a bunch of grown adults were emotionally devastated by the latest episode of Bluey, which is a show for preschoolers, by the way.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
You know, when you're running a business, time is money.
That's why I'm so excited to introduce you to RAMP.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your wallet.
With RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions.
You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting.
RAMP's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time, so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again, and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports.
The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster.
RAMP is so easy to use.
Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000.
And now, get $250 when you join RAMP.
That's all you gotta do is go to ramp.com slash Walsh.
R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
That's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Members FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
If you don't remember Car Talk, it was a radio show that lasted more than three decades on NPR until it ended in 2012.
And the idea was that people called in with practical questions and dilemmas relating to their cars.
And then the host dispensed advice, whether it was about car maintenance or repair or whatever.
And, you know, the show no longer exists because the NPR that broadcast that show for 35 years no longer exists.
The idea of a show that actually addresses people's problems in real life based on knowledge of how markets and automobiles or anything else actually works has been unthinkable to the management of NPR for quite some time.
Shows that cover the news from an objective, factual perspective, to the extent that that's
possible, are also out of style.
And instead, for the past decade, NPR has been controlled, like every other media outlet,
by activists who have devoted themselves to two primary pursuits.
The first pursuit is blanketing the airwaves with identity politics at every conceivable
opportunity.
That's why they run segments on diverse gender representation and dinosaur emojis, for example.
That's a real NPR thing.
And the second pursuit has been shutting down stories that are inconvenient for the politicians who are voting to spend your money to finance NPR's operation.
Infamously, NPR's executive editor, Terrence Samuel, claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop scandal wasn't a, quote, real story.
He said it was a distraction.
And instead of firing Samuel, NPR promoted him.
American University even invited Samuel to deliver a lecture entitled, How Journalism Can Save Itself and Democracy.
Now, it's harder to think of a better way to summarize what NPR has become.
They aren't simply bumbling propagandists.
They're also incredibly self-satisfied and narcissistic.
They believe that they alone can save American democracy.
And they think that, in order to do that, they need to control what kinds of information you can see.
It's not that they thought that the Hunter Biden laptop story was unvetted, or that it was rushing disinformation, or whatever the excuse was.
They always knew that it was factually accurate.
But just because something is factually accurate, in NPR's eyes, doesn't make it true.
According to NPR, truth is subjective.
Whatever's most expedient politically for them is what is true.
And it's true because it's politically expedient.
For a long time now, this position, which really amounts to nihilism, was unstated at NPR, at least publicly.
But now it's explicit, thanks to a new CEO and president by the name of Catherine Marr, who recently took over at NPR.
Marr very clearly does not believe that the truth is objective.
She also doesn't believe that it's worth trying to find out what the truth might actually be.
And this is an extraordinary position for the chief executive of a publicly funded news organization to have, but that's her perspective.
So here's a speech of hers that's been making the rounds this week.
It's from back when she was running Wikimedia, which is mainly known for Wikipedia.
Listen to what she says.
That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth And seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start.
In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that's getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.
Now ...
That is not to say that the truth doesn't exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn't important.
Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things.
But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, One of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience in all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.
And so in the spirit of that, I'm certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you.
But this may not be the same truth.
This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world.
So we all have different truths.
Wow.
So profound.
And this is what passes for good public speaking these days, by the way.
But she speaks in a robotic, sing-songy voice that makes it sound like she's a kindergarten teacher lecturing a bunch of five-year-olds.
She has the tone of someone who believes firmly in the superiority of her own intellect, even though what she's saying is so abjectly stupid.
She says that truth is subjective, and that everybody in the room has his or her own truth.
But here's the problem, of course.
Truth exists.
There is the truth, objective truth.
And truth exists because reality exists.
Either something is a part of reality or it isn't.
When we say that something is true or not, we say it's true.
If we're saying it's true, what we're saying is it's a part of reality.
It's reality.
So to deny objective truth is to deny reality.
And you can't even deny reality without asserting a reality, which is the reality that there is no reality.
So, the relativistic view is not only false, but so false as to be incomprehensible if you think about it for more than two seconds.
Mar's remarks are the same idiot relativism that you can hear from any freshman philosophy student, but she goes to great pains to make her take seem, you know, nuanced and innovative.
She talks in circles and ends up back at just saying, there are many different truths.
And she says this even after acknowledging that the truth exists.
Again, those are two contradictory ideas, but that doesn't bother Catherine Marr for a second.
Like most of our over-educated elite class, she's incapable of speaking without a parade of cliches while making tedious and absurd ideas sound far more complex than they really are.
Also, according to Catherine Marr, we have glorious chronicles to the human experience in many different cultures because we have, she says, many different truths.
But that's actually not what these glorious chronicles show us.
Instead, they show us that the truth is objective, and timeless, and eternal.
Different cultures and people across time have different ways of perceiving the truth, different ways of talking about it, and accessing it, and embracing it, or rejecting it.
Yes, that's true.
But the truth itself remains the same.
That's what makes the study of history and different cultures throughout history so fascinating.
It is precisely because all of these different people across time and space lived in the same reality and yet had wildly different ways of existing in it and responding to it.
So that's the difference.
There's one truth, but our perception of it can be different.
But the truth is the same.
Now, Catherine Marr, as Simple as this is, and as easy as it is to understand, you would think.
She doesn't seem to understand it.
Or at least she pretends not to.
She repeats her theory of truth at every possible opportunity.
So here's some more footage from a conference two years ago.
Marr begins by explaining that Galileo was prosecuted for saying that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun, which is a basically accurate, if wildly oversimplified, retelling of that historical episode, although it doesn't prove what Marr seems to think it does.
And then she makes an incredible statement.
Watch.
People resisted the evidence not because it wasn't the truth, but because it challenged their models of how the world behaved, and in doing so, challenged what they believed about who they were.
This medieval intellectual wrestling match reminds us of something, which is that truth, by definition, is malleable.
It changes and is changing.
It has as much to do with what we know, what we can know, and what we don't know, as what we believe and what we uphold in order to make sense of our own lives.
No, it doesn't say that.
It's perception is malleable.
Perception changes, but what is being perceived does not.
She says the truth by definition is malleable.
Well, by whose definition exactly?
You can make the case that postmodernist thinkers and their precursors like Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Rousseau might agree with that statement, but you won't hear that from many traditional thinkers saying that the truth is malleable.
So why should we adopt the postmodern belief And not the traditional one.
There has to be some reason to side with one school of thought and not another.
And in any event, if truth is merely malleable, if there's no knowable, essential structure to what is true, to what is real, then definitions themselves don't mean anything.
They're just language games.
There's no significance to any of it or anything else.
Everything's just a power struggle.
And when you get down to it, that's really what Mar is saying.
She's asserting that the truth is malleable as an act of political will, because she doesn't believe in any objectively true definitions.
She keeps saying, over and over again, the words, the truth, only to make it clear that she has no idea what that is, and categorically rejects it anyway.
And from that very shaky foundation, Marr starts to derive some very shaky corollaries.
At one point, Marr implies that people don't trust the media anymore, not because the media has lied to them, but because people have different mistaken truths that they're ignorantly clinging to.
Watch.
We are awash in mistruths, in half-truths, in campaigns of disinformation, in questions about whether the truth exists at all.
With our Portuguese hosts here, perhaps as a notable exception, and big props up to Portugal, we've seen global distrust and resistance to health guidance against the backdrop of this deadly pandemic that we've all been living through.
Across Western nations, we've seen confidence in the integrity and value of democracy collapse, and an accompanying strengthening of autocratic, xenophobic, and nationalist ideologies.
But, hold on, you just said there are different truths.
Everyone has their own truth.
You just said that.
And now there are mistruths?
How could there be a mistruth?
How could there be something that's not true if we all have our own truth?
Whatever you're saying is a mistruth.
Isn't that just my truth?
What are you talking about?
Well, it's another revealing statement that Marr makes without any justification.
She's implying that democracies aren't or can't be xenophobic or nationalist.
But the Greeks were both.
Greek democracies were very much xenophobic, if that's how you want to put it, and nationalist in nature.
No doubt about that.
So why is democracy the goal here?
Is that even her goal?
Really, her only given justification for thinking our traditional conception of truth is inadequate and needs to be reworked is that the truth we have now is the product of a history which is also political.
History is written by the victors, is one of the many cliches she invokes throughout her speeches, and she says that that excludes various potential sources of knowledge, like indigenous perspectives and practices, or, you know, women with their emotional intelligence.
But that's not incompatible with the reality that the truth is real and is universal, and many aspects of it have been uniquely uncovered by Western thought and science and technology.
Even if you bought into Mar's talking points about a plurality of perspectives being better than one alone for getting at the truth, the fact remains that it took 2,000 years of Western, Eurocentric, supposedly white supremacist, heteronormative, misogynistic history for us to reach the point at which these minor tail-end improvements she's suggesting could be made.
It took 2,000 years of history to create the civilization that Mar is now critiquing.
And if she thinks that this new approach will cause some kind of scientific revolution, it won't.
The more likely outcome is that it will destroy the civilization that was built over those thousands of years.
And that is the point, after all.
This is the essence of what we call wokeness, by the way.
The left likes to put conservatives on the spot by demanding a definition of woke.
Well, here it is.
The rejection of truth as a category.
That's what wokeness is.
When boiled down to its most fundamental part, that's what it is.
As for Maher, it's tempting to dismiss all this footage as the ramblings of a single woman who has no idea what she's talking about, but it's a bit more significant than that.
Maher was selected to lead NPR after an allegedly careful vetting process.
There's no way that NPR didn't scrutinize her beliefs, which Maher has expressed many times over the last few years in public social media posts, numerous speeches, and so on.
Now, on Twitter, Chris Ruffo has exposed some of the more deranged posts from this woman.
There are really too many to mention, but suffice it to say, she's like a woke AI bot that churns out the least original woke liberal woman talking points you can possibly imagine.
She uses the word folks with the X at the end.
She says latinks.
She called Donald Trump a racist and cried with joy when Biden took office, of course.
She wrote that she once dreamed of going on a road trip with Kamala Harris eating nuts and baklava.
She expresses her happiness when she logged into a public Wi-Fi at a COVID clinic and the password was HeSheThey because it recognized the lived experience of non-binary patients.
She calls the Internet sexist.
At one point, she apologized for using the phrase, people who identify as women, because it's a form of trans erasure.
She writes about the importance of transit justice and vegetarian Thanksgiving.
She rants about the male gaze and late-stage capitalism, even as she drew a salary of $800,000 a year.
There are many more examples.
Chris Truffaut's feed has categorized many of them.
And to burnish her intellectual credentials even further, Marr even sat on a panel with Lizzo at a TED conference where tickets cost more than $10,000.
I guess that's that late-stage capitalism we always hear about.
And the name of Lizzo's talk was, quote, The Black History of Twerking and How It Taught Me Self-Love.
But Marr doesn't need lessons on self-love.
She has that covered.
What she's looking for now is power.
In a video posted by the Atlantic Council and unearthed by Ruffo, Maher explains that the First Amendment, which you'd think journalists would support since it's the one thing keeping journalists out of prison, but she says it's not a sacred constitutional principle.
Instead, she says it's a challenge to be overcome.
Watch.
The number one challenge here that we see is, of course, the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very important that platforms have those rights to be able to regulate what kind of content they want on their sites, But it also means that it is a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where does bad information come from and sort of the influence peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
You know, the only people who view the First Amendment as a challenge are government censors who want to shut down any dissent by force.
And now that she's running a state-funded media outlet, that's exactly what Mar is.
She's a state-funded censor.
To that end, she no longer believes in transparency.
The irony is that when she was running Wikimedia, Mar kept talking about the importance of showing people everything that's going on inside the company.
Every edit on Wikipedia, she said, is public for a reason.
Disclosure is sometimes painful, she said, but it's necessary.
Transparency is key, she said at the time.
But apparently this is one of the malleable truths that she has decided to discard, because as you probably heard, she just forced out an NPR whistleblower who wrote a damning column in the free press about the organization's corruption and its overwhelming political bias.
And she suspended this 25-year veteran of NPR without pay, because he pointed out that the organization is now completely one-sided, which it clearly is.
For example, the whistleblower wrote, quote, Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom.
In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans.
None.
That's the kind of transparency that the new NPR CEO appreciates.
Or used to appreciate, but not anymore.
She's happy to talk about how NPR employs too many white men, But she definitely doesn't want to talk about political bias or how useless NPR has become because of it.
It used to be that NPR at least pretended to be embarrassed about this sort of thing.
In 2011, NPR's CEO at the time, Vivian Schiller, resigned after a Project Veritas thing exposed what she thought about the conservatives in the Tea Party movement.
And to summarize, there's a whole video you can watch, but just to summarize, she didn't like them.
As maybe you would expect.
And Schiller had to resign once her views came to light.
Because back then NPR believed that the appearance of fairness was at least a little bit important.
But that was back at the tail end of the car talk era of NPR.
Now they believe their CEO can categorically reject the idea that there's any truth to report on in the first place.
This is a belief system that's now very much in vogue in newsrooms all over the country.
It's a big reason for the rise of transgenderism, COVID hysteria, all the media's lying we had to endure under the previous administration, This is the belief system that insists that men can become women because the meaning of the words men and women are subjective.
And it's a belief system, the belief that rejects truth, is a belief system that will spell the end of Western civilization unless we reject it.
That is, of course, the point of everything that Mar and her, everyone in her club is saying.
In the absence of truth, there's only a struggle for power.
And right now, though hopefully not for very much longer, it's people like Catherine Marr who have that power.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Similarly, if you're hiring for your business, you want to find the most talented people for your open roles before the competition scoops them up.
The best way to do that is with ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter helps you find qualified candidates fast, and right now, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Immediately after you post your job, ZipRecruiter's smart technology shows you qualified people For that role, once you've reviewed your list of qualified candidates, you can swiftly invite your top choices to apply.
This streamlined process encourages them to apply sooner, allowing you to fill that role faster.
Amp up your hiring performance with ZipRecruiter and find the best talent fast.
See why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh and try it for free.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Joe Biden is back to his old tricks again.
He was in Pennsylvania yesterday where he addressed reporters after visiting, I guess, a war memorial.
And that's when he made a startling claim.
He said that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.
And I know that when you hear that, you immediately think to yourself, as I did, well, that's what Biden's uncle gets for visiting Haiti.
But this actually didn't happen in Haiti, surprisingly and allegedly.
So here's the full story as Joe Biden tells it.
Boese, he was shot down. He was in the Army Air Corps before there was an Air Force. He
flew single-engine planes, reconnaissance flights over New Guinea. He had volunteered
because someone couldn't make it. He got shot down in an area where there were a lot of
cannibals in New Guinea at the time. He never recovered his body, but the government went
back when I went down there and they checked the pounds and parts of the plane and the
life. So he was eaten by cannibals in New Guinea, which, you know, that's a tough break.
It happens, though.
It happens to the best of us.
Who among us doesn't have a relative who, at least one relative, was eaten by cannibals in New Guinea?
I personally lost two uncles and three cousins that way.
I mean, it does happen.
Now, needless to say, of course, Biden is lying here.
The military says that his uncle was shot down over the Pacific, like the ocean, and died that way in the ocean.
There's no record of any Biden family member ever being consumed by cannibals at any point.
So this is another tall tale from Grandpa Joe.
And it's a shame because I have to say, you know, Biden is useless in almost every respect.
Worse than useless, in fact.
But he's pretty good at this.
He's pretty good at making up these kinds of stories.
He has a lot of great stories.
And like so many great stories told by elderly men, you know, they are all at least somewhat dubious.
But that's what a man his age should be doing.
It's just like telling stories, and you never know.
Some of the stories are true, a lot of them aren't.
There's a kernel of truth to some of it.
This is what he should be doing.
He should be sitting on a rocking chair on his front porch, spinning yarns for his grandchildren.
Hey, kids, did you hear about the time that my great-grandfather was captured by pirates or whatever?
This is what he should be doing, telling stories While rocking on his rocking chair, waddling around the house, whatever.
And instead, he's the leader of the most powerful country in the world.
All right, Fox 59 has this report.
An Indianapolis mother is found not guilty after being accused of neglect resulting in the death of her two-month-old daughter.
Inside a home on Burton Avenue in August 2022, police found a two-month-old girl unresponsive.
The newborn child, identified as Alona Lacey, died on the scene.
Five months later, in January 2023, the girl's mother, Dasha Lacey was charged with causing her child's death.
Before announcing his verdict, Judge Mark Stoner told the suspect she was a bad parent and she was not innocent.
The judge believed she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but because she wasn't charged with that crime, he instead found her not guilty of neglect resulting in death.
Court records show that the mother gave a lengthy confession in which she tearfully admitted she smothered her daughter in the couch cushions because she was high on meth and wanted the child to stop crying and be quiet so she could get some sleep.
At the end of her trial, Judge Stoner chastised Lacey, saying her actions were reckless.
Stoner, though, insisted prosecutors didn't prove that she intentionally harmed her daughter.
Stoner told prosecutors that they charged the suspect with the wrong crime.
So, alright, so this sounds really bad.
I mean, it sounds really bad.
Not just the crime itself, which is obviously heinous, but...
The fact that she was found not guilty sounds bad.
The woman killed her infant child, admitted it, said what the reason was, not that there could possibly be a justifiable reason obviously, but the reason is she was annoyed that the child was crying, and yet she's found not guilty by the judge.
Sounds terrible.
Well, wait until you hear what the judge said to the woman as he was releasing her back out into society.
Because, as bad as it sounds, it's even worse than you think.
Listen.
The court accordingly enters judgment of not guilty, reluctantly.
I do hope that you will take the opportunity To get the counseling that you need.
To get the counseling for the children that you need.
That you learn from this behavior and hopefully the rest of the community learns from this behavior.
That you cannot go out and party on the weekend and be with children.
Toxicology report did show meth in Daisha Lacey's system, but Judge Mark Stoner said if she had been charged with reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter, he could have found her guilty.
But she's not guilty of neglect of the defendant resulting in death.
I hope you learn from this behavior, young lady.
Me and your mother are very disappointed in you.
You do it again, you're gonna go to your room without supper.
Run along now.
Do better next time.
I mean, this judge is scolding this woman like he's a disappointed father talking to a mischievous five-year-old.
Or maybe the father of a teenager.
Well, I hope you learn from this behavior.
You cannot go out partying on the weekends.
Learn from what behavior, your honor?
Oh, murdering her own child?
That's the behavior you want her to learn from?
Then even worse, he says, I hope the community learns from it.
No, the community doesn't need, the rest of us don't need to learn this.
We know, we know that.
We know you don't murder children.
I mean, as cynical as I am, as little faith as I have in the criminal justice system, if you played me just the judge's speech to the woman, without context, And then you told me what crime she committed.
I would not believe you.
I wouldn't believe it.
I would say, no way.
Things cannot be that bad.
No, there's no way.
I mean, surely, surely this woman was arrested for vandalizing someone's mailbox or something.
That has to be it.
I wouldn't believe it.
I don't want to believe it.
Even now.
I wish that I could choose to not believe it.
I wish the truth was malleable, as Catherine Marr of NPR says.
I wish that we did all have our own truth.
Because if I had my own truth, certainly my truth would be that this doesn't happen.
This does not exist.
This cannot exist.
This can't happen.
And yet, and yet it is true.
And, you know, there's only one point I want to make here, only point that I think it's necessary to make, because I don't need to explain, I think, why this is insane, why this is unjust, why this woman deserves the death penalty for her crime, and why this judge deserves, you know, things that I, well, we'll move on.
I don't need to explain that.
Because I think you all know that.
So here's the only point that I do want to make, and this is important, which is please do not go around saying that this judge is soft.
That he's too sensitive, that he's a bleeding heart liberal, or whatever.
That's not what's happening here.
Okay?
That is not the case.
That judge actually is callous.
That judge is a hard-hearted, callous, cruel, absolutely monstrous, despotic tyrant, is what he is.
Okay?
It is not an overabundance of compassion for the woman that brings him to that conclusion.
That is not what's happening.
And even if it was, it still would not be, of course, justified, and it would be just as heinous as it is now.
But what motivates it is his utter and complete disregard for the victim, okay?
It is his total lack of compassion for the victim, the child.
His lack of compassion both for the current victim and for future victims, because there will be future victims.
I mean, this woman Is free.
She murdered a child and she's free to go.
It's like it never happened.
And so she's going to have another child, right?
I mean, just think about that.
She's almost certainly going to go out and have another child.
So what happens when the new baby makes the mistake of crying, as all babies do?
It's going to happen again.
We know that.
That child was not this ghoulish woman's last victim.
And the judge knows that, too.
The judge absolutely knows that.
He doesn't care.
You know, he's not sensitive.
He's not overly sensitive.
He is the most callous, most cruel monster that we have seen sitting at the bench in a very long time.
A sensitive, loving person would throw this woman in prison for as long as they possibly could.
That's what you do if you have any love in your heart at all, any compassion for past and future victims, for the innocents.
The innocent people, that's what you would do.
And those are the people that these judges and the court system and the judicial system generally is supposed to be protecting.
Protecting society, protecting innocent people, that's your job.
And he doesn't do it, and the reason he doesn't do it is because he just doesn't care.
There's an absolute sociopath who will release this murderous monster out into society.
And he'll sleep like a baby tonight.
He won't even think about it.
He'll sleep fine.
And when that woman does go on to kill someone else, he won't have a moment of self-reflection or remorse at all.
Guaranteed.
None of these people ever do.
Here's a video posted by Libs of TikTok with this caption.
The caption is, this extremely bizarre video was shown to fourth graders at Bramlett Elementary School in Georgia.
It depicts a dog who thinks he's a cat to promote LGBTQ inclusivity and acceptance.
This is what they're teaching to your kids in school, pure propaganda.
The school did not respond to our request for comment.
Okay, so this is, apparently, according to Libs of TikTok, this was a video that is shown at least to one group of public school students.
Let's watch a little bit of the video.
Hi, I'm Gulliver, and this is Emmett.
Hey!
Oh, hi.
I'm Barry.
Oh, hey.
We are so excited you are here.
We could use another dog.
Oh.
Yeah.
Nice collar.
Oh, thank you.
I like it.
So what do you want to do first?
Find a chew toy?
Oh, chase our tail?
Oh, I know.
Let's sniff.
No, actually, I like to play with yarn.
Yeah, it's fun.
Or I like to clean my paws like this.
And you clean your face too.
Or we could practice purring like this.
[meowing]
Yeah, yeah.
And we could try to meow.
[meowing]
Like that.
It's great fun.
You should try it.
Why not?
Yeah, let's go.
Excuse me, would you?
I just have to go for a second.
I'll be right back.
No problem.
Miss Madison?
Miss Madison?
Oh, hey, Gulliver.
You're back.
Did you find Barry?
Yeah.
We've got to talk.
He seems like a nice guy.
Oh, great guy.
Great guy.
He thinks he's a cat.
He thinks he's a cat?
Yeah.
He's over there talking about yarn, purring, woof, and licking.
Well, that's okay, isn't it?
I think you should talk to him.
About what?
Well, about being more like a dog.
Gulliver, you're really struggling with this.
It's weird.
It's not weird, just different.
I couldn't ask Barry to change who he is.
That would make him really sad.
Gulliver, accepting people for who they are is a very important skill.
We accept you for who you are.
That's different.
I'm a dog who acts like a dog.
That's normal.
Not normal, just more common.
I don't understand.
It's okay to ask questions.
It's not normal, it's just more common.
Yeah, well that's what normal means.
Okay, a common thing is normal.
That's what that means.
So this is really an amazing video, and the thing that makes it remarkable is that the video wants to be pro-trans propaganda.
That's quite explicitly the intention.
But accidentally, it disproves the point it's trying to make.
It proves the point it's trying to disprove and disproves the point that it's trying to make.
And in fact, I could take this exact video, I could take this exact video and make no changes to it.
I might swap out the actress there because the acting was a little bit subpar.
So I might, that's the only change I'll make is I'd put in a different, I'd recast the role of the teacher there.
But everything else would be exactly the same.
And I could use it as a teaching tool to show why trans ideology is false.
And it works much better as an argument against trans ideology than it does as an argument for it.
Why?
Well, because in that little skit with the puppets, the dog identifies as a cat, but is clearly not really a cat.
It's not like he is a cat, but the other dog is too bigoted and so can't see his true cat nature or something like that.
No, this is a, or it's not like a cat walks up and the dog wants the cat to be a dog and so tries to put him in this box.
That's not what's happening.
This is a dog in the story that they have chosen to tell.
This is a dog who thinks he's a cat, but isn't.
In fact, they've even, they've added in details again that like, almost little subtle details that would make it a pretty smart metaphor to disprove trans ideology.
So they have him imitating a cat In ways that are not very convincing.
So like he tries to do the meow, but it's supposed to be funny because the meow comes out like a wolf, like a dog bark.
Which is a good metaphor for when men try to imitate women.
Is that they do it in this kind of, they know some of the behaviors and some of the mannerisms, they're supposed to be aping and they try to do it.
But even in their way of, they try to be women.
In ways that only a man would.
So their fact that they're actually men comes out in their imitation of women.
And so even that seems to be, like I don't even know, from the perspective of a pro-trans person, why would you include that detail?
Why would you have the little detail where he meows but he still sounds like a dog?
Unless you're trying to make our point.
I don't even know what, how does that, in your own mind, how do you think that proves your point?
What point are you even trying to make?
I don't even know anymore.
Um, and so, what do kids learn from this?
Kids learn from this that trans people are confused.
That a trans person, a man who says he's a woman, is just like a dog who says he's a cat.
And why does a dog think he's a cat?
Well, because he likes yarn, and he likes to purr or whatever.
Things like that that, of course, Okay, well maybe you'll have some dogs that are a little eccentric and do enjoy things that usually cats enjoy, but it's still a dog.
So you know what this is?
This is actually, this is Johnny the Walrus.
They've actually stolen from me.
I think this is plagiarism.
This is the plot of Johnny the Walrus.
It's with puppets and we've made it dogs instead of humans.
But it's essentially that.
This is the point I was making in Johnny the Walrus with my children's book, my of course renowned, critically acclaimed children's book, best-selling children's book, is what they've done with this video here.
So that's how absurd trans ideology is and how incoherent it is that you can't even propagandize for it effectively without accidentally Making the opposite point it's it's not pot like whatever you do whatever and you especially You especially can't come up with an analogy.
This is by the way This is a good it's a good indication that your point is wrong If you can't come up with any analogy that actually works because any analogy that they try to reach for to express Their you know Transgenderism or trans ideology whatever analogy they choose it always ends up Just communicating the message that, oh yeah, well, a trans person is just someone who's claiming to be something that they aren't.
Someone who's confused.
Now, on the other end of it, those of us who are on Team Sanity and are opposed to trans ideology, we have a never-ending supply of analogies.
And this one works, too.
But, you know, it's ample.
Anything.
Anything in the world you could pull from for an analogy to illustrate your point.
With transgenderism, if you're pro-trans, there's really nothing.
Whatever analogy you go for, whatever you reach for, is going to end up, again, proving the point that you are trying to debunk.
So, it's really pretty fascinating.
Alright.
New York Post finally has this report.
That nobody's going to care about, but I'm going to read it anyway.
Another special cosmic event is to occur this year, and it would be a once-in-a-lifetime viewing opportunity, according to NASA.
It's a nova explosion located in a star system 3,000 light-years away from Earth, and astronomers predict that it will be visible to the unaided eye sometime in 2024.
So we already had the eclipse, and now we're going to have this.
Bill Cook says, unfortunately, we don't know the timing of this as well as we know the eclipse.
But when it happens, it'll be something you'll remember.
The Tae Cornea Borealis, nicknamed the Blaze Star, is one of ten known recurrent novas in the galaxy.
A typical nova consists of a star, like a red giant, a star bigger than the Sun, and a white dwarf, which is a star about the size of Earth.
And that red giant is dumping material on the surface of the white dwarf, and they're orbiting each other.
And they're real close together.
When enough material is dumped on the surface of the White Dwarf, the temperature gets so hot that it starts a thermonuclear runway on the surface of that White Dwarf.
And then there's an explosion, which apparently happens every 79 years or so.
Anyway, this is fascinating stuff.
And what makes it so mind-blowing, as we always have to remember, is that this star explosion actually occurred, because it's 3,000 light-years away, and it's going to be visible this year.
So it actually occurred 3,000 years ago.
And so when you view this event in the night sky, you'll be gazing back in time 3,000 years.
So this happened 1,000 years before the birth of Christ.
This happened 1,100 years before the first Mayan pyramid was built, and 500 years after the last Egyptian pyramid was built.
So it's a long time ago.
This is time traveling.
It's time traveling.
You're traveling back in time.
To witness an event from history, and this is something you can actually do without getting in a time machine.
You can just go outside and look and you can see it.
Think about that.
It's just, it's extraordinary.
And you think about the scale of an event like this, when we, if we can see it from 3,000 light years away, so there's 6 trillion miles in a light year, so 3,000 times 6 trillion, do the math on that, so that's, you know, 18 quadrillion miles or whatever it is, and the fact that we can see Something that far away is staggering.
And of course, we can see stars every night in the sky that are farther away than that.
And this is the world we live in.
This is the universe in which we reside.
And it's also why there's no excuse to ever be bored.
Like, only idiots are bored.
If you're ever bored, then you're stupid.
You have to be a child or stupid to be bored.
You should never be bored.
How can you be bored when there are mind-boggling realities like this to contemplate?
I don't get it.
How can you not fascinate yourself just with your own reflections about the immensity of the universe and the mystery of it?
I give the same speech to my kids all the time.
They say, oh, Dad, I'm bored.
Oh, really?
You're bored?
You can go outside at night and look up at the sky and see things that are trillions of miles away, and you're bored?
That you're bored?
No excuse to ever be bored, especially, again, if you're an adult.
One thing for children, but adults should never be bored because reality is far too fascinating and exciting to justify boredom.
And yet so many people are.
In fact, a lot of people are bored right now, at this very moment, listening to me drone on about this.
But if that's the case, then shame on you.
Regina Chaley Academy is an accredited pre-k through 12 classical homeschool hybrid academy for Catholic families in cities across the U.S.
They provide in-classroom lessons two times a week and in-home lesson plans that support parents the other three days a week.
Regina Chaley Academy, with your support, has provided nearly half a million dollars
in student tuition assistance for the 2023 to 2024 academic year.
Your participation in the Courage Under Fire Gala, a significant event in our mission to evangelize,
will help us continue to provide tuition assistance in the future.
Come and join me on May 24th in Nashville, Tennessee for a night of encouragement and camaraderie.
I'll be speaking alongside Dr. Abby Johnson and Father Callaway on how to have courage
and stand up for the truth.
No matter what adversity you face, we'll be joined by some of the most influential leaders
in the conservative movement for a night of connection and inspiration.
VIP tickets will have access to an exclusive meet-and-greet with all speakers, and if you can't attend, please consider donating today to support families and continue to train the heart, mind, and the soul.
Every dollar counts.
For tickets, visit CourageUnderFireGala.org and use code DAILYWIRE at checkout.
That's CourageUnderFireGala.org and use code DAILYWIRE.
Can't wait to see you there.
You know, it's been two years of fighting the left and building the future with great products, and we're only getting better.
Jeremy's second generation razors are here.
Same mission, better razors.
You'll immediately notice the totally reconstructed ergonomic handle for superior durability and improved coated stainless steel blades that last longer.
Plus, Enjoy more flexibility for a close shave without nicks or cuts.
For those who meticulously craft their masculine look, introducing Jeremy's new Precision 5 razor, completely transformed with a precision trimmer and enhanced comfort thanks to the improved lubrication strip.
Experience an exceptionally smooth and close shave with added durability to withstand those accidental drops.
And if shaving feels more like a chore, meet the brand new Sprint 3 with open blade geometry for a swift, clean shave, allowing you to get back to your manly pursuits in no time.
Razor's not made in China.
Razor's made right progress that isn't progressive.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to upgrade to your new second generation Razor today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
It began with reports that Bluey had gone woke, one of the last holdouts, one of the last remaining un-woke kids shows.
One of the very few to stave off the woke virus had finally succumbed to the contagion.
That was the claim, anyway.
It was helped along by various leftists on Twitter and TikTok who were anxious to believe that the show had taken this turn.
It all stems from one brief scene in the most recent episode, which is apparently the season finale, where a character is supposedly revealed to have two moms.
Here's a woke TikToker Explaining.
Watch.
Bluie has officially confirmed their first LGBTQ plus character or characters should I say in the new Bluie episode The Sign.
Now I must admit this is kind of like a blink and you'll miss it sort of moment because I know when I first watched the episode I missed it.
It wasn't until I went back and watched it with subtitles and then actually listened that I noticed that we have our first gay couple.
They're two lesbian mums and they are the mums of Pretzel.
So if you go all the way back into the Calypso scene, when Pretzel is talking about his guinea pig running away, he says, my mums.
And the subtitles also have it as mums as well, confirming that, yeah, he has two mums.
And that's our first real actual, like, gay couple or lesbian couple, LGBTQ plus couple that we've had confirmed in the show.
And I love it.
I think it was a really nice and organic way to do it.
It is one of those really subtle ones that I feel like a lot of people will miss, but in general, I thought they handled it really well, and it was just a natural way to be like, yeah, some people have two mums, and that's just part of real life.
But what did you think?
Let me know in that comment section down below.
Did you notice that he said mums the first time you watched it, or did you need to re-watch it to see it, or did you not know until you saw this video?
And also, what other kind of families do you want to see in the future in Bluey?
Because yes, there will be a future and we do have one more episode to come in this season.
The sign was not the finale.
Now, there's some disagreement about whether the show really intended to convey that the character has two moms.
Scholars have debated this point fiercely.
Some have insisted that this was meant in the way that people say pops, like just kind of a slang way of referring to one mom.
I don't know if people say mums to refer to one mom in Australia.
I don't know.
They have all kinds of weird words they use down there.
Um, or maybe the character didn't really say moms at all.
You know, it's difficult to tell exactly.
Or maybe, and this unfortunately is probably the most likely scenario, uh, is, is, maybe it's precisely what it sounds like.
That they are introducing a character with two moms, in which case, in which case, my kids, of course, will be done with Bluey.
And the left will cry, as they always do, but they'll say, well, but some people have two moms!
It's part of life!
Why shouldn't it be represented in the show?
The problem with that argument is that, no, it's not part of life.
Nobody has two moms.
Nobody on the planet has two moms, or has ever had two moms, or will ever have two moms in the future.
Every child has one mom and one mom only.
There cannot be a second mom.
A child's mom might be shacking up with some other woman, but that other woman is not the child's mom.
A kid's show that goes along with the fiction that children can have to moms is a kid's show that is trying to confuse kids and indoctrinate them into an ideology that doesn't represent reality, but rather distorts and subverts it.
And if Bluey has gone down this road, I'm sure that will be obvious in the coming episodes, because once a kid's show crosses the woke threshold, as we've seen, it's not long before they have episodes featuring drag queens and gay pride parades, which is what happened with that other children's show featuring a blue dog.
But let's put the wokeness question to the side for a moment, because there was more bluey news this week.
Bluey also trended this week as legions of adults gushed over the season finale.
And not because of the possible lesbian mom reference, but because the episode itself touched them so deeply.
They said that it was affecting and moving and emotional and devastating and profound.
These are grown adults, I remind you, discussing a cartoon show for small children.
Here's the USA Today headline, quote, "Parents are sobbing over 'Bluey' episode 'The Sign.'
Is the show ending? Here's what to know about the poignant season 3 finale and what may be ahead
for 'Bluey.'" According to USA Today, the plot of the episode revolves around the father dog,
Bandit, getting a new job that requires the family to move to a new town.
And Bluey doesn't want to move, and neither does her mom, and therein lies the emotional pull of the episode.
But by the end of the episode, spoiler alert, Bandit decides at the last minute that he isn't going to move, and Bluey and the mom dog are very happy.
And this is the poignant plot that USA Today refers to.
So let's go to the article now to find out how grown adult human beings Reacted to this.
Quote, needless to say, some parents were in their feelings after such a heart-stirring finale.
Quote, now that's what we call a stellar season finale.
Also, how dare this show for preschoolers make adults get all emotional?
Jazz Tenke, an editor at Variety, posted on social media site X. Pro wrestler and father Johnny Gargano posted on X that the new episode is straight up Avengers Endgame level for all of us fans.
Quote, what a fantastic emotional rollercoaster.
It's like watching Spongebob as an adult, except it rips your heart out.
No, I'm not joking.
Bluey is so much more than a kid's cartoon.
On Instagram, influencer Bethany Kratt joked that Oppenheimer was cool and everything, but did you see the Bluey episode, The Sign?
You can't tell me these Bluey episodes aren't cinematic masterpieces, Kratt wrote, adding that her family dog is named after the character Bandit.
They generate more feelings and emotions than any movie ever has, and I feel like I need to give my therapist a call to unpack things after each one.
By the way, here's the picture that the Bluey fan Brittany Bailey provided showing her husband weeping as he watched the cartoon.
So this is a, this is a, there you go, this is a grown adult man sobbing uncontrollably over an episode of a cartoon show aimed at preschoolers.
And the kid's not even paying attention!
You know, look, the kid's looking at it, he's bored by it.
And the grown adult man is watching, he's absolutely...
Absorbed by it, and he's breaking down in tears.
This is perhaps, look at this image here, and I don't mean to pick on this guy, I don't know anything about him, he might be a nice guy, but this is perhaps the least manly image that has ever been captured on film.
It is modern masculinity personified.
Now, before we analyze this any further, let's just watch the climactic scene where Bandit changes his mind about the move.
This is the scene that absolutely wrecked so many adult Louis fans.
And I have this clip because it was posted to Twitter by a guy named John Cartwright, another grown adult male, who posted it with this caption.
It's absolutely crazy to have this air with all the other toddler shows.
It's on such a different level.
The clip, we should note, has been viewed 20 million times, with thousands of comments from other adults calling the scene incredible and beautiful, a masterpiece, heart-wrenching, and so on.
Many adults are treating this scene Like it's one of the most profound pieces of art they have ever seen in their entire lives.
That's not an exaggeration, and they're not being ironic.
They really mean it.
So, let's watch a little bit of this.
Here it is.
I feel it in the morning I feel how low it lies And then I hear you call it And then I start to rise I feel it in the morning I feel how low it lies
And then I hear you call my name And then I start to rise
And when I hear you call Like you were always there
I rise until I'm hanging in the middle of the air And when I hear you call
I split like I'm a snake With golden light like fingers
I get the idea.
It's so beautiful, so beautiful.
It changed my life.
It's life-changing.
I've never seen anything as beautiful as this in my entire life.
That's basically it.
The scene, you know, that ripped the hearts out of so many adults.
It's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in their lives.
Bluey's dad changes his mind about moving, and he rips the for sale sign out of the yard, and the family is happy.
The end.
I don't want to overanalyze this scene, there's been enough of that already.
I will say that first of all, and I don't know what led up to this and everything, I didn't watch the episode, but just as a real estate note here, you cannot back out of selling your house at the last minute like that, it's a violation of your contract.
You'll probably face a lawsuit.
So I don't know if that's going to be the first episode of the next season, is a bandit facing a major lawsuit because of families like homeless.
They were going to move in.
They already sold their house.
Now they got nowhere to go.
You refuse to move out of your house.
Maybe they're squatters now.
They refuse to leave.
It's like that's what happens in the next season.
The next season is Bluey's family becomes squatters.
And second, this is actually a terrible message for children.
It's actually an awful message.
This is the worst, it's the worst, well, I'm not going to say it's the worst message I've ever seen in a children's show, but it's not great.
Because sometimes families have to move.
You know, I've had to move my family several times.
It's difficult for kids, yeah, it is.
That's why it would be more useful for parents if the show ended with the family actually moving and Bluey learning to love the new house and the new neighborhood.
Because in real life, your dad is not going to change his mind and dramatically rip the for sale sign out of the yard on the day that you're supposed to pack up and move.
And if he did, by the way, Your mom in the front seat would not be ecstatic with glee.
She would be incredibly pissed off that her husband just made this decision without consulting her at all.
She didn't even mention it.
They didn't even ask her.
In real life, if you're supposed to be moving, kids, you're moving.
It's happening.
And these kinds of shows are supposed to be made for children to teach them helpful little life lessons.
But the lesson taught here is not helpful at all.
In fact, the lesson seems to be, if your daddy really loves you, he won't make you move.
So, thanks a lot, Bluey.
Thanks a lot.
But that's not the point.
The point is that, again, fully grown adults are treating this episode of a preschool children's show like it's the most beautifully devastating work of art they have ever laid their eyes on.
And I can maybe excuse some of this to some extent for women.
Like, my wife would probably cry if she watched that scene, but she cries when anything vaguely sad or heartwarming happens on screen.
I've seen her tear up watching a 30-second life insurance commercial.
Women are emotional in that way.
My wife would certainly not cry over that scene and then declare that it was an artistic masterpiece.
Instead, she would maybe tear up a little bit and she would say something like, oh, that was kind of sweet, and then she'd move on with her day and that would be it, right?
I can excuse women crying over a sappy scene in a children's show about a cartoon dog, but not then acting like the children's show about a cartoon dog is a work of cinematic brilliance that puts Citizen Kane to shame.
Yet the greater problem here is the men.
We have grown men not only weeping over a cartoon, but then announcing it publicly to the world without shame, and then saying they're going to talk to their therapist about it.
That's how affected they were, is that they're going to talk to their therapist about Bluey.
Now look, you may think that I have gone too far at times in my demand for stoicism from men.
Even if you think that, you must admit there should be limits.
Now, I personally believe that as a man, your wife and your children should almost never see you cry.
Only in the most extreme circumstances, in response to the most devastating tragedies, should they witness such a display.
A man should have, and I don't say that ironically or to be funny, that's what I really believe.
A man should have control over his emotions and should not show weakness, especially in front of people who depend on him to be the strong and confident one.
And if you cry as a man, especially in front of your kids and your wife, you make them feel vulnerable.
You make them feel like you don't have control over the situation.
And again, only in the extreme circumstances should you put your family members In a spot like that.
You do it too often, or you do it for frivolous reasons, and they will start to feel unsafe and unsecure, and they'll lose respect for you.
Your wife will lose respect for you.
Like, for a woman, and some will say this out loud, most won't, but this is what they all think, for a woman to witness a man crying for a dumb reason is the most repulsive thing that they could possibly witness.
It's disgusting to them.
It really is.
Like, a deep, primal level.
It's revolting.
So it's just something you should realize.
Now, perhaps you think that I'm too stringent in this regard.
Fine.
We can debate that another day.
What we should be able to agree is that whatever the appropriate circumstances for men to cry, that umbrella, however wide or narrow it might be, does not cover a children's show about cartoon dogs.
We must have some standards here.
And by the way, it's not like anything really tragic or profound happened in the episode.
They just decided not to move.
Really?
That's an emotional rollercoaster for you?
Is that the characters were gonna move and then didn't?
Really?
Now, I can see why a child might find that plot to be, like, really emotional.
But an adult?
Here's the thing.
We live in a culture where adults are profoundly moved by children's entertainment.
That is not because all of these adults are deeply emotional people.
Now, they may be emotional, but not deeply.
There's no depth there.
They are shallow.
They are superficial.
They have grown physically, but not mentally or emotionally.
Like, if you as an adult are really deeply stirred by something like that, By this corny, over-the-top, very emotionally manipulative, they've got this song playing.
The song is way too much, it's way too far for this scene.
And if you can be manipulated that easily as an adult, then that's because you are a shallow person.
And that's why adults still respond to children's entertainment the same as they did as children.
It's like being an adult.
Who still prefers microwaved chicken nuggets and a juice box over a nice home-cooked meal.
It's like if you go to someone's house and they're serving up a delicious home-cooked meal, but maybe there's some kids there and they're just making microwaved chicken nuggets for the kids and giving juice boxes, and you said to your host, oh, can I have those instead?
Yeah, the Tyson chicken nuggets that came out of the microwave.
Can I get one of those?
It goes beyond just, well, people have different tastes.
You shouldn't have that taste.
That's a wrong taste to have.
That's embarrassing.
It shows a simplicity, but not the good kind of simplicity.
This is the simplicity of someone whose palate hasn't developed, whose tastes and interests haven't matured.
They've become adults, but they have not put away childish things.
And now they're weeping over preschool entertainment and declaring it the greatest piece of art since the Sistine Chapel.
It is embarrassing, even if they don't realize that they should be embarrassed.
