The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1299 - The Supreme Court Declares That Texas Has No Right To Defend Its Own Borders

Episode Date: January 23, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show the liberals on the Supreme Court, with the help of some of our "conservative justices," have just declared that the Biden Administration has the right to tear down Texas's border fencing, allowing illegal criminals to invade their communities. Our basic right to self-defense and sovereignty is evaporating by the day. We'll discuss. Also, a trans-identifying male golfer competes against women while acknowledging that men do have advantages over women. How does he square that circle? We'll find out. Plus, a CNN reporter is reduced to tears of admiration and awe as she gazes upon Kamala Harris. And in our Daily Cancellation, a flight was canceled last week after a passenger noticed missing screws on the wing of the plane.   Ep.1299   - - -    DailyWire+:   Get 20% off your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY   Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go   Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Hillsdale - Enroll for FREE today at https://hillsdale.edu/walsh   ProVia - Save over 50% Starter Package + Free Shipping + Free Gift https://proviahair.com/Walsh   - - -   Socials:   Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF   Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA   Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA   Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matwals show, the liberals on the Supreme Court with the help of some of our quote-unquote conservative justices have just declared that the Biden administration has the right to tear down Texas's border fencing, allowing illegal criminals to invade their communities. Our basic right to self-defense and sovereignty is evaporating by the day. We'll discuss also a trans-identifying male golfer competes against women while acknowledging that men do have advantages over women. How does he square that circle? We'll find out. Plus a CNN reporter is reduced to tears of admiration and awe as she gazes upon Kamala Harris. And in our daily cancellation, a flight was canceled last week after a passenger noticed missing screws on the wing of the plane. We'll talk about that horrifying story and much more today on The Matt Wall Show. Are you a few years or decades out of school and wondering what the heck did I even learn and what was the point? You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.

Well, if that's you, you're not alone, and it's not too late. Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses. Learn about the works of C.S. Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses. If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and Its Decline with Victor Davis-Hanson. In this eight-lector course, Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats it faces today. Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations. This course is self-paced so that you can start wherever and whenever you want.

Start your free course of American citizenship and its decline with Victor Davis-Hansson today. Go to Hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll. It's easy to get started. It's Hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll Hillsdale. At this point, you don't need to be an avid court watcher to know that the right of self-defense, one of the most fundamental rights that exists, has effectively been suspended in major cities across this country. The cases of Kyle Rittenhouse, the McCloskey's, George Zimmerman, Daniel Penny, George Allen Kelly, Jose Alba, Daniel Perry, and so on.

All make it clear that defending yourself generally means that the government will try to destroy your life and sometimes succeed. At the behest of wealthy foreigners, billionaires like George Soros, who don't live anywhere near the carnage they're inflicting on American cities, prosecutors now seek to make an example out of anybody who takes action to defend their life or property, and they have the full support of Joe Biden's DOJ as they do it. This is the reality of living in any jurisdiction controlled by leftists who can easily select sympathetic juries and secure a conviction. Defend yourself, and you'll be accused of breaking the law. Most people are aware of that now. What most people probably don't know is that conservatives are now helping the left

neutralize the right of self-defense. But yesterday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is proof. That's exactly what's happening. It's undeniable. By a five to four vote with two supposedly, quote-unquote, conservative justices in the majority, the Supreme Court gave the Biden administration the green light to terminate the right of self-defense along the southern border with Mexico. And this ruling is maybe the single most significant attack on your right to defend yourself and your that we've seen in at least a decade. And it's happening because of the quote-unquote conservative majority on the Supreme Court that we're supposed to be so so grateful for.

So here's the upshot of the ruling. Supreme Court allowed the Biden administration to remove razor wire fencing placed by the state of Texas on private property with the consent of private property owners in order to keep hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants from flooding across the border every single month. So to restate, the Supreme Court is letting the border patrol destroy. border fencing set up by Texas. This is the kind of ruling that's so incompatible with the fundamental principles of self-defense and self-determination and common sense and not to mention national sovereignty,

that it defies explanation, really. And appropriately enough, the Supreme Court did not provide an explanation. There was no majority opinion explaining their reasoning here. But if you look at the docket from the lower courts, it's not hard to see what might have convinced the justices. In one filing, the Biden administration's solicitorial. General argued that the razor wire fencing endangered the lives of criminals who are swimming in the water and trying to sneak into this country. If you have the fencing there, it's going to endanger

their lives. So here's what the Solicitor General Elizabeth Preliger told the court. She said that the fencing prevents agents from, quote, accessing or getting near the border along the 2.5 mile stretch of the river and therefore effectively prevented agents from monitoring the border to determine whether a migrant requires emergency aid. Now, what was left unexplained in the Solicitor General's filing is why anyone in the U.S. has any obligation to provide emergency aid to foreign criminals who are trying to invade this country illegally. You're not going to find that requirement in the Constitution or in any federal or state law. It's just invented out of thin air.

We are now responsible for making sure that Mexicans and Haitians and Guatemalans get top-notch medical care as they swim across the Rio Grande, apparently. which is to say it is our responsibility to provide medical care to non-citizens who are injured while in the process of attempting to break our laws. But if it's anyone's responsibility, why isn't it Mexico's or Hades or Guatemala's? Why don't we simply tell them to take care of their own people? There's an idea. And what are they going to say? Well, we can't. That's not practical.

We can't do it. Oh, but it's practical for us? Now, these are all good questions that the Supreme Court decided are irrelevant somehow. Now, it goes without saying that this is the inverse of the right of self-defense. The Biden administration, and now the Supreme Court, is saying that you don't have the right to protect yourself from foreign criminals. Instead, you have an obligation to protect these foreign criminals from themselves. It's obscene.

But obviously, Joe Biden's Solicitor General doesn't mean anything she's saying. It's been clear for months now that the Biden administration wants to tear down the razor-wire fencing so that it can import as many foreigners into this country as possible. This is not about emergency medical aid. Back in October, the outlet Border Hawk captured live footage of federal border patrol agents using heavy machinery to lift the razor wire fencing installed by Texas authorities at Eagle Pass Texas so that hundreds of migrants could stream across. Now, watch this footage, and you will notice a distinct absence of illegal aliens in need

of quote-unquote emergency aid. Watch. I'm a friend Gonzales, correspondent with Butterhack News. These are exclusive imagines of how most crossings of hundreds of migrants are being carried out in recent days at Eagle Pass raising the barbed wire with machinery. This huge caravan of around 300 migrants crossed into Eagle Pass thanks to Border Patrol agents lifting the barbed wire.

The hundreds of migrants crossed in a few minutes, this being the four massive crossing that are... cameras witnessed in the last days of October. Previously these caravans are sent to uninhabited areas of the Rio Grande where border patrol awaits them with four-leaf tractors. Given these facilities, migrants say they prefer to cross the river instead of processing legal entry. The plan, what is now? Cruiser by the Rio Bravo with his children or CBP-1? Cruiser the river.

And first, in the name of God, it's a time. It's a time. somehow these large groups of migrants are informed about the place and time when the forklifts raised the barbecue wire to cross in drops. And what you didn't hear there, if you're listening to the audio podcast, he was asked to the illegal immigrants, you know, if they would rather just come in legally and go through the legal process or cross the river. And they both said, well, they want to cross the river because it takes too long to do it legally. and this is an argument that apparently we find compelling. Well, it takes them to,

they don't feel like waiting around, so we'll just send in heavy machinery to lift the border fence for them. The only thing missing there was an actual red carpet being laid out for them. Now, as the reporter with Border Hawk notes, quote, somehow these large groups of migrants are informed about the place in time when the forklifts raised the barbed wire to cross in groups. It's almost like the Solicitor General was lying,

But we all knew that. We all know the Biden administration wants to destroy the razor wire for the same reason it sued Arizona for building a makeshift wall out of shipping containers along the border. They want to transform the population. They want to lead all these people into the country with fake asylum claims, give them court dates 10 years in the future and forget all about them. That's obvious. What's less clear by contrast is why Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, two justices who were once we were once told were conservative, would go along with this fraud. Now, right at the outset, it's important to clarify that this case is still making its way through the court system. On February 7th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans is going to hear arguments on the issue of whether the Biden administration has the legal authority to cut razor wire along the southern border. So this is still a live issue. What happened is that before it heard those arguments, the Fifth Circuit entered a temporary injunction prohibiting the Biden administration from cutting any more wire while the case was proceeding. The Biden administration followed an emergency appeal of that injunction because they really want to cut the wire as quickly as possible and get all these immigrants, i.e., future voters, into the country. And the Supreme Court, in a five to four vote, lifted the injunction and allowed the fence cutting to continue.

So basically, the Supreme Court is saying, yeah, just keep cutting the fences until we figure out whether it's legal for you to do that or not. Now, three of those five votes were always in the bag for the Biden administration. That's because, unlike Republicans, Democrats know how to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will faithfully carry. out the objectives of their party. But Republicans are incapable of doing that. So John Roberts and Amy Cody Barrett, who we were told was a major win for conservatives when Trump appointed her. You know, remember, we're still told that this is a grand achievement of Trump's administration

was these three justices, even though only one has proven to be somewhat dependable. But they voted with Cantanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Now, we all know why John Roberts would do that. He's openly admitted that he's preoccupied with making sure the court appears nonpartisan rather than applying the law. But why would Amy Coney Barrett join the leftist judges? Now, whatever the explanation, and I'll get into that in a moment. I have one theory as to why that might be. But this is becoming something of a pattern.

An analysis by the Washington Examiner found that in 2020 and 2021, Barrett voted similarly with liberal justice in just over half of the cases heard. And she's continued to side with them ever since. Last year, for example, Barrett and John Roberts sided with the court's leftists to ban the sale of so-called ghost guns, which is an invented term that's intended to criminalize the transportation of firearm parts. Just a few weeks ago, Barrett rejected a challenge to Illinois ban on so-called assault weapons, which is a category of firearms that also doesn't actually exist. And she also blocked a challenge to Indiana University's requirement that all students and employees take the COVID shot. And as Daniel Horowitz pointed out, during COVID, Barrett had no problem with the state of Illinois locking down its own citizens.

She indicated that under the constitutional police power, states can close businesses and schools to protect public health. What's odd about Amy Coney-Barrant's reasoning is that it apparently doesn't apply to the state of Texas or any citizens living there. They don't have a right to invoke the police power to prevent foreigners from streaming across the border, according to Amy Coney-Barrant. even though many of those illegal immigrants do have communicable diseases, this isn't an invented concern. It's very real. You can go to pretty much any hospital near the border, and you will see that they are completely overwhelmed. Here, for example, is the Yuma Regional Medical Center. Look at this. Dr. Robert Trenzel, I'm the president and CEO, and I've been here for seven and a half years. We have a 406 bed hospital. We've had a significant number.

across the border when it was announced that the borders were open. And we've had a multitude of patients come to our doors and needing medical care. We're the only hospital here, so it's not like we can distribute to other hospitals in the area where the closest hospital that does what we do is 180 miles away. So the hospital's been impacted greatly because none of the migrants have a payer source.

And that's our biggest issue. They've come to our doors and we give them the same level of care we'd give anybody else. If President Biden walked through the door or if a migrant walks through the door, they're getting the same level of care. We don't treat anybody any differently and we take a lot of pride in that. Our concern is that we've delivered over $20 million in uncompensated care to these individuals just over a six-month period. You know, that's an unsustainable model to have that unexpected expense without any revenue to offset it. This is a hospital that was set up for the benefit of American citizens. And because the Biden administration is deliberately flooding this nation with diseased foreigners,

it may have to shut down. And it's losing millions of dollars. And if it does shut down, obviously that would impact the public health in Yuma. But the conservative swing votes on the Supreme Court don't care, apparently. It's all the American citizens who have to endure quarantines and lockdowns in the name of public health. This isn't just happening in border towns, by the way. Hospitals in large cities like New York, which, of course, is nowhere near the border. are also overwhelmed by the surge of migrants. Watch.

We're back now with the record number of migrants crossing into the U.S. pushing resources to the limit in many American cities. Now hospitals are sounding the alarm saying they're also overwhelmed, including some far from the border. Julia Ainsley has our report. Tonight, the border crisis surging. Officials telling NBC news there were over 200,000 illegal crossings at the southern border last month. and a record 3 million migrants crossed the border in the last year.

Now a new warning, a thousand miles away in New York City, where officials tell us resources are overwhelmed. Across public hospitals in New York City over the last year, nearly 30,000 visits by migrants and 300 new babies born to migrant moms. Staff here at Bellevue Hospital tell us they're eager to help, but the numbers are tough. This has been the hardest work that I've ever done, but it's been the most impactful work that I've ever done. Most of the visits to the taxpayer-funded legal clinic here are by migrants.

Our clinics are full, and there are waiting lists, and people are turning people away or referring them to other places. So these are hospitals in the largest cities in the United States, which is thousands of miles from the southern border, and they can't handle all of these illegal migrants. How is this not considered a massive threat to public health exactly? where are all the schools of public health that lectured us about the importance of wearing masks, worshipping George Floyd and forcing our children to look at iPads all day? They're all silent, strangely enough. Again, so is Amy Coney-Barrant, who supposedly cared a lot about public health just a few years ago. It's not clear what explains the way Amy Coney-Barrant is voting.

One possibility is that she believes that the Constitution gives total authority to the executive branch to handle immigration matters, to the point where the federal government can totally ignore immigration and asylum laws passed by Congress and import millions of illegal aliens without any vetting whatsoever. That seems dubious, which is probably why four conservative justices didn't go along with that reasoning. Another possibility is that it's not a coincidence that all of the women on the court, plus Roberts, who is close enough, cited against Texas's border wall. The argument against border enforcement has always been a purely emotional one. But so maybe it's not a surprise that all the women on the court, you know, are, find the emotional

argument to be more compelling than most of the men do. But being guided by emotions is one thing, and it's bad enough for Supreme Court justices. The problem is that one of the big problems is that all of the sympathy, you know, all of the sympathetic emotions are being directed towards the illegal immigrants and no sympathy is being directed towards the American families that this invasion is destroying. And that's odd because at this point, the federal government isn't just failing to defend our border and uphold our sovereignty. They're taking active steps to ensure that we have no borders at all and no sovereignty. And very soon, our critical infrastructure will fail because of it. It's often said that

civilizational decline is a choice. And that's true. And we've never seen a clearer case of it than this. There's just no other way to spin the story. When the Biden administration is literally going to court to get permission to destroy border fencing. Without a border, you don't have a country. One of the most basic responsibilities of the government is to ensure that we have a border and we enforce our laws. And our government's not doing that anymore. In fact, they are doing the opposite. They are actively doing the opposite. This is not, we've moved beyond just mere negligence, okay, which is the failure to enforce the border. Now they're actively preventing anyone from enforcing it.

If this continues, the solution is obvious, which is that red state governors will need to ignore the Supreme Court and do what needs to be done to protect their citizens and the border. All of these rules that have sustained this country for so long can be broken. I mean, we've seen that. They all operate in the end on a sort of mutual agreement. I mean, you proceed through traffic lights when they're green on the essential. assumption that everyone perpendicular to you is going to stop on red. But once people start going through the reds in large numbers, you have no reason to pay any attention to your own traffic

light. Everyone's on their own at that point. Once one side decides that law and border no longer matter, then everybody else is released from their obligations to obey the federal court system. I mean, you can't obey it anymore. To obey it is to is to usher in your own destruction. That's what happens. It's happened before in this country's history, and it can happen again. And the thing is, the Supreme Court can't enforce its own rulings. So once red states decide not to go along with them, if the red states say, okay, I don't care what you think, we're going to do it anyway. What happens then?

What happens when federal agents try to destroy border fencing and state troopers stand in their way? Does Biden send in the military at that point? these might not be hypothetical questions for long. The last civil war was unimaginable until it wasn't. That was a lesson this country learned in the middle of the 19th century, and if the Biden administration is somehow still in office after this next election, then just as abruptly, we might have to learn it again. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Are you one of the millions of American men and women dealing with premature hair loss, Maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in the family. Start 2024 off right with a real solution that delivers on his promise without the harsh side effects, unwanted chemicals, and no need for a prescription. Provia uses a safe natural ingredient called Procapable to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and loss. By supporting healthy scalp circulation, the delivery of nourishing nutrients and healthy hair follicles anchoring to your scalp, provia guarantees more hair on your head than in the shower or on your comb. It's effective for men and women of any age and safe on color, treated. and styled hair. It's that easy. Right now, new customers save over 50% plus free shipping on

Provea's introductory package at Proviahair.com slash Walsh. Every package includes a full 60-day supply of Provia serum for daily use plus the Provia superconcentrate for faster, more noticeable results, and every order includes your choice of a free gift right at checkout. Provia works guaranteed or 100% of your money back. Don't wait. Order now and save an extra 10% and free shipping at Provia.com slash Walsh. That's Proviahair.com. We begin with a guy named Haley Davidson, who identifies as transgender and says he's a woman and has been competing against women in golf. And Davidson sat down with Good Morning Britain a couple days ago to talk about his journey

as a golfer in the female circuit. But during the course of this conversation, he made a rather interesting admission. Let's listen. Before the shots she has hit over the years, Haley Davidson never expected to find herself at the center of a political storm around transgender athletes competing against women in elite sport. For a lot of people, because you were born a man, you clearly have an advantage. Do you accept that?

Honestly, I 100% agree. You know, the men do have advantages. You know, say you get a trans person on hormones for a year, no surgery, nothing. Of course, for the most part, the most part, yeah, they're going to have an advantage. I don't believe trans people should be banned from sports, but I do believe there need to be guidelines in effect. Why do you think people have such a big problem with you competing in women's golf in particular?

I don't understand it. I don't get with the fear of me one person is doing. The 31-year-old, who was the first male-born golfer to win a professional women's event, is speaking out exclusively. After revealing, she's received a number of death threats, just days after winning this women's tournament. Are you worried about your safety? A little bit, yeah.

I don't go out and do a ton much because of that. I'm not going out at nights. I watch myself when I sit in a restaurant. I'll always have my back to a wall. Three years on from her gender reassignment surgery, and Haley's determined to keep going and hopes to one day qualify for the Scottish Open. Well, there's a woman, right?

I mean, you look at that person, listen to him, and all you see in here is a woman. who's apparently 31 years old. I know this is rich coming from me as I have looked like I'm 52, you know, my whole life. But 31, like you don't look like a woman, but you do look like a 47-year-old out-of-shaped man. And nobody on earth thinks that Haley Davidson is a woman.

You know, nobody does. He doesn't even think that. He's not even really making any attempt to appear that way. I mean, at least grow your hair out. Like, it makes the smallest bit of effort. Not that makes you a woman even slightly, but like, you're just doing nothing. You're not doing anything at all to even pretend to appear as a woman. You put on some hoop earrings, and that's it.

So nobody thinks it. Everyone knows it's a farce. Everybody knows that this is, without exception, right? every single person. And if you're on the left and you see a clip of what I'm saying right now, well, you too. You also know when you look at that person that that is a man. You know that. You know that. I know that you know that. We all know it. So this is not a debate between people who believe in the farce and people who don't believe in it. It's a debate between people who willingly go along with the farce and want the rest of us to go along with it and those of us who

are not willing to go along with it. And that's the entire debate. Now, before we break down what Davidson said here, let me give you the rest of the story, because later in the interview, Davidson said this. My whole philosophy behind all this is I don't believe trans people should be banned from sports, but I do believe there needs to be guidelines in effect. Going back even four years ago or even before I had surgery, I definitely had an advantage. I would 100% agree with that. But the difference is now that years have gone on, three years after surgery,

my physical capabilities now compared to back then are night and day. So again, honestly, I 100% agree that men do have advantages. Say you get a trans person on hormones for a year or no surgery, nothing. Of course, for the most part, yeah, they're going to have an advantage. Okay. So he's a transidentifying male athlete who admits that males have advantages. He also says in the same interview that we just heard these says that he can't figure out why people are mad at him for competing against women. Well, you just said it, dude.

You explained why. Yourself, you explained it. You explain why people are mad. They're mad because men have advantages, as you just acknowledged. I mean, these people are so fundamentally dishonest that they can't keep their own narrative straight. They contradict themselves 10 different times in a 30-second span. It's amazing. Now, Davidson claims that he personally no longer has those advantages because he got the surgeries.

And he takes the hormones. And his capabilities now are severely diminished. which think about that for a moment. Okay, really think about that. This is a guy who got the gender transition procedures and now says about those same procedures, and he says this as if it's a positive. He says this as a selling point

that he is significantly weaker and less physically capable than he used to be. And he also, I don't even say it as a joke. Like he looks like he has aged. He started taking the hormones or whatever a few years ago. And they really quickly showed that picture of what he looked like before. And before, yeah, he looked like a 27-year-old dude. And now he's 31, and he looks like he's aged 20 years.

So this is a medical, quote-unquote, procedure that even according to the people who get it, destroys you. It destroys your body. That's what he's saying. He's saying, don't worry, my body's totally destroyed. Yeah, I'm useless now. So it's all good. It has the effect of vastly diminishing your physical capabilities,

which is just another way of saying that the procedures are harming you. They are making you weaker, more brittle, more frail. And that is needless to say the exact opposite of what medicine, real medicine is supposed to do. I mean, do no harm. That's right in the Hippocratic oath. Medicine is supposed to do the opposite of harm you. and so if you're doing something that is harming you physically, then that's not medical. And then the people who've been harmed use it as a selling point.

No, it's okay, guys. I'm a real woman now. I'm so much weaker and feebler than I used to be. Seriously, I'm totally debilitated. Look at me. Just like a woman. Now, I mean, the irony is overwhelming, but ignoring all that for a moment, let's put all that to the side. it is true that Davidson has made himself weaker, has enfeebled himself with these procedures, but he's still a man and still has advantages. He's still bigger on average than women. He still has the skeletal structure of a man. He still has the heart of a man.

He has the lungs of a man. A man's physical advantages over women are not based solely on testosterone. That's only one part of it. His whole body is designed to be stronger and faster. And a man who has transitioned still has his body. And just pointing out that you have disabled yourself in one particular way, as if that makes you a woman, it's like, it's no different than if the guy cut off one of his legs and then said, well, I'm a woman now. Because I can't, I'm not as fast as I will because I only have one leg.

So it's basically, you know, one-legged man is basically a woman. None of this is insulting to women, by the way. Not at all. Like, it's not the least bit of, a man saying that he's a woman now because he's so much weaker than he used to be. That's not insulting, is it? So he still has a man's body, which means he has many advantages. But all of that is irrelevant also because, and this is why, you know, I think people on the right have made a mistake. on this particular issue by focusing so much on the question of physical advantage.

And I can see why this is a mistake that's easy to make. I mean, I've just been talking about it for the last eight minutes, but it's easy to make because the claim they're making about how men don't have an advantage, it's so ridiculous that you can't help but engage them and say, what are you talking about? That's insane. But I do think it's a mistake to make that the focus of our argument against men competing against women in sports. If we make it all about, well, you have advantages.

Because if that was the only thing, if that's all that matter, it was just about the advantages, then yeah, they'd have an argument that, okay, well, just give the man enough drugs that he's like a shell of himself physically, and then he won't have the same advantages. But that doesn't work because the primary reason, really the only reason, the only reason that should matter, why men don't belong in women sports, is that men are not women. That's it. That's all. Advantages, no advantages, it doesn't matter. You're just not a woman.

You could be the weakest, most pitiful, most out of shape, most physically pathetic man in the world. and you still would not be, should not be allowed to compete against women because you aren't one. And that's all there is to it. Like, I don't care if my 10-year-old daughter could beat you an arm wrestling as a man. You're still a man. You might, you're a pathetic man. You're embarrassing to be around and to look at, but you're still a man. And that's it.

That's the end of our argument. That's our entire argument, actually. You can summarize it in one sentence. Men should compete against women because they aren't women. That's it. That's all there is. And maybe you could even make it more specific. Men should not compete against women as women because they aren't women.

Now, if you wanted to have some co-ed league, if you wanted to create a co-ed tennis league or men and women are competing against each other we could debate how valuable that really is or whatever but that's that's there's there's there's nothing fundamentally dishonest about that it might be kind of pointless

and it might be silly but that's not what's happening here like they're not trying to make co-ed leagues they are effectively doing that but they're not saying they're doing that they're making them co-ed while claiming that it's not And so it's that the lie. It's the crazy, insane lie at the core of all of this that is the whole reason we oppose it.

Everything else is downstream of that. All right. Camilla Harris is out on the campaign trail. I want you to listen to this. I can't even call it an interview. Whatever this is, this exchange between Harris and a CNN reporter. Listen. Let me ask you one more.

question. I'm struck just in your presence. I was watching you on stage, watching the reactions from the crowd, looking you in the eye with your passion that you are displaying and talking about so many issues. And yet, you hear candidates suggesting that a vote for President Biden, because of his age, is somehow a vote for you. And that is hurled as an insult. It's intended to demonstrate some negative viewpoint towards you. What is your reaction to this thought that with your background in particular, with your career, that there is some thought that you are incapable? Well, I think that most women who have risen in their profession,

who are leaders in their profession, have had similar experiences. I was the first woman to be elected district attorney. I was the first woman to be elected Attorney General in the state of California, and I'm the first woman to be vice president. And I love my job. I'm struck in your presence, she says. She is in awe. She practically has tears walling up in her eyes.

She's in awe in the presence of Kamala Harris. I mean, you cannot. overstate just how laughably ridiculous that statement is when applied to Kamala Harris of all people. One of the most unimpressive people in a government filled to the brim with midwits and mediocrities. It's like saying you're, I don't know, you're struck by the beauty and grandeur of a potato. It just doesn't, how can you have that emotion in the presence of that thing? It's like You're staring at a potato on the table, sobbing in tears, tears of joy as you stare at the potato. I can't, how do you conjure up those emotions in the presence of something like that?

But never mind all that. You are a reporter. You are a journalist. And yet this exchange, it's indistinguishable from like what you might hear a reporter in North Korea say to the Supreme Leader of North Korea. the total lack of skepticism, of criticism from the media to our political leaders continues to be shameful and disgusting to behold. And I know that we talk about it all the time. Everyone complains about it.

So it's nothing new. But it's only getting worse. And honestly, it's a problem on both sides. It's worse on the left. But you could find it all over the right, too. you know, if you're a Republican politician, you know where you can go. You can't go on CNN, but, well, some Republican politicians can even go on CNN and get, and get, and get lavish praise as well.

But, you know, you know where you can go in media. Somewhere in Fox News, and you can get, you can get coverage that is almost as fawning as that. How many people in media can you name that we can rely on to hold a politician's feet? to the fire regardless of party or politics? How many? Like how many people are in media right now, reporters, journalists who actually not only are willing to be skeptical of politicians and to hold their feet to the fire and hold them accountable, but like enjoy doing it. Because that's the thing that that should propel you to get into that line of work in the first place. Should. Of course, it's clear that's not what's happening. Is there anyone? That's an honest question. Is there anyone, is there

anyone you can think of in media who is in a position of interviewing politicians and stuff all the time and covering the news and you could rely on them, no matter who the person is, they're going to ask tough questions. There might be a few, but it is a vanishingly small number. And but this is even worse than usual. And actually, the framing of the questions is kind of funny that we just heard because it's sounds almost passive aggressive. It's not because this person really is, this reporter actually is like the president of the Kamala Harris fan club. She's the president and also the only

card-carrying member. But it does sound passive aggressive. You know, she's saying, you know, everybody, everyone in the world apparently thinks that a big argument against Joe Biden is the fact that you're second in line. Why does everyone think that? It sounds like a, passive aggressive kind of argument or question. And of course, Kamala immediately reaches for the sexism card. She says it's because she's a woman, when in reality it's because she's an insufferable, incompetent, phony, fraudulent woman who has never accomplished a single thing in her life on her own merit. That's the part that people don't like. It's not the woman part. It's all the stuff that comes before that. It's all the additional descriptions that we can apply to you

before we get to woman. But she says it's a woman, which is, of course, the expected response. And it seems to me like this kind of self-victimization, the pulling the sexism card stuff, it's becoming more and more common. We talked a few days ago about how Republican women are doing this constantly now.

Nikki Haley, Nancy Mace, Marjorie, Taylor Green, just in the last week have had their own moments where they say, I'm only being interrupted because I'm a woman. What, a woman can't speak? So here's another question. We just have that question about are there any truly honest journalists left? Is there a female politician in existence who will not pull the sexism card when given the chance?

Maybe there is. So I'm sincerely asking for an example. Because there are plenty of black and racial minority politicians on the right anyway who will specifically repudiate the racism card. The Vecra Amoswami did it many times. Even somebody like Tim Scott. Now, he'll play the race card sometimes, but on occasion he'll also refute it, I guess depending on how he's feeling that day. But the whole, you're attacking me because I'm a woman thing, I'm genuinely asking, is there

a single female politician who doesn't make that move when given the opportunity? Is there a single female politician who, if you ask her, do people doubt you because you're a woman will respond by saying, what? No, but women are not persecuted in this country. Women are doing fine. Women, in fact, are doing better than men by every available metric. The whole women are being oppressed thing is done. It's over. If you want to make that claim, you have nothing to hang it on. Is there any female politician who will say that? I hope there is. But this stuff is so pervasive now. I don't know. Marsha Blackburn. She's one.

I've never heard her play the sexism card. So there's one. We got one. Does she stand alone? I don't know. Okay. Well, staying on Kamala Harris just for a moment to quote Willie Brown. She also appeared on the view where she enjoyed being the smartest person in the room for once,

which is a joke that I have just stolen directly from the Babylon B, full on plagiarism. But she was on the show, and she tried to explain what she's, thinks is the top concern of parents everywhere. And here's what she says. What they are telling me in state after state is that they are concerned about the future of our country. Many of us often think about the future of our country in the context of our children. And so they talk about their concern that if their daughter is going to college, will she go to a state where she will have access to the health care? she might need, including reproductive health.

So this is the top concern of parents is that, is quote unquote reproductive health. We know what that means. And that, of course, is a horrific thing to say that the top concern of parents is that their kids are able to kill their own kids. And listen, maybe that's true for some parents. Maybe there are some mothers who will say to their college-age daughters, hey, you know, you can't go to college there because if you conceive my grandchild there, you will not be able to immediately kill him. I'm sure there are some parents who do say that, or words that mean the same

thing, to their kids, but it is just horrifically demonically evil. And this is why we can never surrender this issue or de-emphasize it or stop talking about it or any of the things that the cowardly conservatives in our midst wants us to do. This is something that some conservatives who are maybe what we would call casual pro-lifers, but are not really invested in the movement, this is something they don't understand. And if you're in that category, if you're one of these pro-life casuals who now have the opinion, especially as we get into the election, sees, oh, you know, let's not go too far. Let's not talk about it very much. You know, having a heartbeat bill. It's way too far. We can't do that.

And what is with the rest of you, conservative? Why can't you just stop talking about? Well, what you don't understand is that those of us in this movement, we are here because we have seen what abortion is and we can't unsee it. We can't. And when I say we've seen it, I don't necessarily mean that we have personal experience with it, although there are plenty of post-abortive women who are in the pro-life movement. And I don't necessarily mean that we've seen the victim images of what the babies look like after having been killed by abortion, although most of us have seen those. What I mean is that we have intellectually allowed ourselves to face abortion and see it for what it is, which is the actual killing of human life. so that when we say abortion kills babies and you say abortion kills babies,

we really mean it. Okay? And once you do that, once you see it for what it is, you can't unsee it. You can't pretend you didn't see it. So once you really say, you really truly say and see and believe that this is the violent destruction of human children,

There's no coming back from it. You can't. Because then you have realized that this is the greatest evil being perpetrated in the world today. And you will never be able to convince yourself that the economy or taxes or whatever are more important. You cannot do it. It's not possible. So that's that's the difference, right? is someone someone who's really in the pro-life movement and someone who's just casually Republican doesn't really care the difference between us and you is that on abortion we basically say the same things

but we believe it you only pretend to and so the disconnect between our two factions can be explained that way because once you really believe that this is a Holocaust of the unborn

that has claimed 60 million lives, like the idea that we should move on from it is absurd. It's like if it wasn't so morbid, you would laugh at it. Move on. What are you talking about? To what? What's more important? And you can't answer that. So that's what we are. Okay. Finally, this weekend, And I happen to see a post pop up on my Twitter feed from a guy named Joseph Massey, who's apparently a poet. And I don't know anything about Joseph Massey's work, but I do know that he's a poet who knows how to spot bad poetry, at least, and is willing to call it out when he does. And that already puts him ahead of, like, 99% of people working in the arts generally any art today. So Massey posted a poetry sample from a guy named Jason Allen Paizant who just won the T.S. Eliot Award for poetry.

And I don't know anything about the T.S. Ellate Award, but I do know that it comes with a $25,000 prize and also the prestige of winning an honor named after one of the greatest poets of the 20th century. So this is an award-winning poet, right? And 25,000 might not seem like a lot compared to like what other people in other arts make. For poetry, that's, you know, that's, you might as well have won 25 million. So does Jason Allen Paizant deserve to be recognized this way? Well, here's the sample of his work that Joseph Massey posted. And this is a piece called And You. This was written by, again, an award-winning poet. So this is like, this guy's at the top of the game for poetry these days.

And here's a poem. I will recite it to you. A little poodle runs to show you love. You like the feel of the animal's body on your leg. It's something of an acceptance. So you smile and are not the least bit bothered. You even hope it'll jump. Though the lady yells, no jumping, Sam, no jumping. And when she adds, you know he just loves everybody, why should you suddenly feel tears coming? It's just that everybody. How do you explain? How do you explain? this. There's nobody to explain it too. Why she needed to take away from you this one feeling of special. How could she know it was the most human moment of your day, the most human moment in weeks? Now, the less discerning listener may be fooled into thinking that that poem is better than it really is because of my beautiful raw, nuanced performance, which elevated the material. But if you can look past my unmistakable talents as a slam poet, you'll see that this is just absolute drek. And, you know, we're looking entirely past the fact that nobody should ever under any circumstance write the phrase, you like the feel of the animal's body on your leg.

That's weird enough. But even without that one particularly creepy note, the rest is like vapid and empty. It would be a compliment to call it a rudimentary or juvenile. poem. It doesn't even meet that standard, I would say, because it's not poetry. I'm not a, I'm not a poetry expert, I admit, but even I know that there is supposed to be formed to poetry. You can't just write a run-on sentence and then break the lines up randomly and throw in a few arbitrary semicolons and call it a poem. But that's what passes for poetry these days. It's the same strategy used by the award-winning, highly touted, you know, most praised poet of our time,

Amanda Gorman, who's performed at Joe Biden's inauguration, same exact thing. That's what poetry is now. You just, you write a run-on sentence. No rhyme, no form, no rhythm, no substance, none of that matters. It's any sentence at all. And, but you break it up, like, not even in a way that gives it rhythm, but just, just make sure you break up the lines before a sentence ends. And then, and then like, so you have a whole sentence, and then the last two words the sentence are on the line underneath it before you start the next sentence and then, you know, and you repeat that. And if you do that, that's, that's poetry. That is, it's, that's brilliant. You'll win awards. It's brilliant. People will watch. And, and it's,

it's similar in some ways to what we just said about, about the, uh, the, uh, the trans agenda where, like everyone knows. No one would see poetry like that and actually think that it's good. You know, that thing about the poodle, no one is going to hear that and say, well, that's amazing. That's the best. I've never, that's incredible. That is art. No one thinks that. But the difference is that there are, that some people have been convinced, and we find this in all the arts, you know, films, everything, music.

People have been convinced that they're supposed to pretend they like it because it will make them seem sophisticated. And so it all rests on that as the celebration of mediocrity in every facet of life continues. Like the bland, the ugly, the insipid, the uninspired, all elevated everywhere you look. But the good news is that it means that any one of us now can be a genius artist if we want to be. Let's get to was Walsh wrong? First comment says both Matt Walsh and Moms for Liberty missed the most. important point, the books aren't being banned. They're just not going to be at school libraries. If parents want those books for their children, they can easily buy them from Amazon and give it

to them. I don't think I missed that point. I think I've made that exact point many, many times, but you are exactly right, of course, that for all the talk of book bans, you know, if you didn't know any better and you heard that there were book bans, if you just climbed out of a cave and you didn't know anything about modern American culture, and the first thing you did was read an article and NBC News about the proliferation of book bans, then you would imagine that there have been laws passed saying that all of these books are not allowed to be in publication. They're not allowed to be sold or rented out or anywhere, because that's what a book ban means. It means that the thing is banned.

It means it's prohibited. Okay? Like, if any other area of life, if you hear that the thing is banned, it means it's prohibited. banned, that's what it means. But if the banned thing is being given away for free as it is at a library, then it's not banned. It's the opposite of banned. Giving something away for free is the opposite of banning it. It's like the exact opposite. So none of these books have been banned. There are no book bans, period. They don't exist. It's not a thing. It's not true. It's Totally false. It's a lie. All of these books that are allegedly banned are available anyway.

You can get them on Amazon. You can get them at the library. They're everywhere. The only question is which books are in schools. And as I have explained, and I know I said again yesterday, there's only a small selection of books that will be in schools. Most of the books that have ever been written will not be in any particular school. So schools are making decisions about what, of the books to put in. Does that mean that they're banning every other book that's not in their library? Of course not. It's just that a school is a particular kind of place and it's specifically has kids. And so it's an educational place for kids. And so you're looking for books that are educational for kids. And any book that is not educational for kids is not going to be in your

school library or at least should not be. It doesn't mean that it's banned. And I think anyone with two brain cells understands that. In DeSantis, we had the best candidate since Teddy Roosevelt on a silver platter, but the demoralized GOP prefers bread and circuses over competent leadership. I will never unite with the Maga cult and their own orange geriatric. My principles and love for God won't allow it. Listen, I agree that in DeSantis we had, whether he would be the best candidate since Teddy Roosevelt,

I'm not sure if I would go that far, but especially as a candidate. Like, in many ways, just as a candidate, you know, he's sort of the opposite of Tedd Roosevelt in certain ways. But I agree that he would have been, you know, this is the great frustration for a lot of DeSantis supporters. And I appreciate, you know, I've seen some Trump supporters who are not supporting the DeSantis in the primaries who've been gracious, you know, and then I've seen others who have certainly not been gracious and want to rub it in the faces of the DeSantis supporters, but, you know,

and if that's the approach you want to take, then you want to be childish and stupid, then, you know, you're perfectly, you're allowed to be that way if you want to be. It's certainly not constructive at all, but maybe if you want to actually understand why there are Sanders that feel this way, it's because they see in Ronda Sanda Sanda. The same thing I saw, which is that he clearly would be a great president.

There's just no, even the people who decided during the campaign that they hate Ronda Santis, even they, most of them won't deny that obviously would be a great president. He's been a great governor. No one denies that. Even his most fervent haters on the right

will still admit that he's been maybe the best governor we've seen in a generation at least. And so if you're good in the executive branch in Florida, like all points, now it's to be a great president is a tougher task. It's a bigger ask. But all available evidence points to him being a really good president.

And so that is the frustration that people have. And I think it's obviously understandable. Now, with that said on the other end of it, you know, you're saying I'll never unite and this and that. Okay, well, then you are going to help Joe Biden get four more years. Like, that's it. That's what you're going to do. And if it gets four more years, I'm not going to say it's going to be entirely because of you and your one vote that you have withheld. But that is you are now part of a movement that is helping Biden get elected. Because that's the reality, you know.

And I believe at the end of the day in facing reality for what it is. I'm a big believer in that. We have to operate within reality. And we can be disappointed that the reality is not what we want it to be. but then, but after you have been disappointed and you have vented your frustrations, okay, but now it's time to face reality for what it is. And the reality is, Ron DeSantis is not going to be president 2024. He's out of the rates.

It's not going to happen. That's not an option. It's not in the realm of possibility. It's just not. The only possibility is that it's going to be Trump or Biden. That's it. That is the reality. And what I hear from this comment is that,

You want to live in a fantasy world. And, you know, take your ball and go home. And I can never support that. Because you must realize that, like, of the two options, obviously Trump is superior to Biden. The four years before Biden, clearly much better than the years we've had under Biden. And it's a, so it's a simple choice or it should be. And you say your principles, but I don't see this as principles. I see this as a temper tantrum.

And maybe in this exact moment, he just dropped out a couple days ago. I can be sympathetic with that. You know, I can sympathize with feeling emotional about it. But I hope you come to your senses quickly and start operating actually on principles and not resentment and emotion, which is what's coming through. in your comment. If you're a man listening right now, and the biggest concern on your mind is what to buy for your wife on Valentine's Day, your priorities are out of order. In fact, as I've said before, men don't buy Valentine's Day gifts in January. I've made this very clear. If you want the truth,

men don't buy Valentine's Day gifts more than 72 hours before Valentine's Day. I've been very clear about this. However, there's only one reason to buy one now, and that is if you're giving your money to us. Because Jeremy's is offering a 20% discount on all Valentine's Day bundles. So right now, Jeremy's has a 20% discount on all Valentine's Day bundles. So you can get her chocolates, raisers, even the leftist tiered tumblers, all together for 20% off. I would wait until January is up because you know what happens if you buy it in January. I've already explained this.

But still, I'm being forced to read this. I don't know what's happening in your life to make Valentine's Day so urgent, but lucky for you, 20% off is happening now. Go to jeremy'sraisers.com and order your Valentine's Day bundle if you're ready to face the consequences. Now, let's get to our daily cancellation. A few weeks ago, as you may remember, we were talking about DEI destroying the airline industry and how these forced diversity policies have left us with incompetent pilots flying planes that have been shoddily assembled. And at the time, I said that things are getting so bad so quickly that soon enough, we're going to find ourselves

at a point where the passengers will have to inspect the planes themselves before takeoff. Kind of like how you quickly rifle through your bag of fast food as you pull out of the McDonald's drive through just to make sure they got the order right. Inevitably, of course, They will have gotten the order wrong in about five different ways, and you'll have to decide if it's worth getting back in line to complain about it. And then you'll decide that's probably not. So you'll just take whatever wrong order they gave you. These are the kinds of decisions you'll one day have to make as an air traveler, I predicted. And by one day, I meant apparently in about 12 days because the day has finally arrived.

Like two weeks after I said it, here we are. From the New York Post, quote, a New York-bound Virgin Atlantic flight was canceled just moments before takeoff last week when an alarm. passenger said he spotted several screws missing from the plane's wing. British traveler Phil Hardy 41 was on board flight Vs 127 at Manchester Airport in the UK on January 15th, when he noticed the four missing fasteners during a safety briefing for passengers and decided to alert the cabin crew. Quote, I'm a good flyer, but my partner was not loving the information I was telling her and started to panic and I was trying to put her mind at rest as much as I could. Hardy told the Kennedy News Agency of the moment he spotted the missing.

fixings, quote, I thought it was best to mention it to a flight attendant to be on the safe side. Engineers were promptly called out to carry out maintenance checks on the Airbus A330 aircraft before its scheduled takeoff to John F. Kennedy International in New York City, according to a Virgin Atlanta rep. Okay. Now, the concerned traveler, Hardy, took video of the engineers working on the wing of the plane, which, by the way, is just something you never want to see at all. Like, you don't want to see while you're sitting in the plane. Anyone fixing the wing.

But you especially don't want to see it when it looks like this. Watch. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla,

each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic, like a lingering touch. Solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein. No, he's just spread it about. First of all, as a casual viewer who was not at all an expert in

aircraft engineering or any other kind of engineering, it did appear to me that he removed the screw from one hole and then screwed it into a different hole. And maybe I'm misinterpreting what we just watched there, hopefully I am. I must also say that it's rather disturbing to see the guy using a regular Phillips screwdriver. I guess I always assume that they use very powerful, like industrial grade electric screwdrivers that you can't even find at lows, you know, to fasten all the screws and bolts on the plane. But watching the guy, apparently spreading the screws around, because he doesn't have enough, and using a regular manual screwdriver that he found in his junk drawer, I, like, I, like, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,

He looks like me clumsily trying to assemble a side table from IKEA. And I'm terrible at assembling anything that is not made out of Lego blocks. So it's deeply concerning that I can relate so much to a video of a guy working on the wing of a passenger aircraft. And it gets worse. Here's more from The New York Post. Hardy said airline staff repeatedly reassured him there was no safety issue with the wing. But his fear was heightened given the recent ordeal in which in Alaska Airlines plane lost its door plug and a chunk of its fuselage flew off mid-fing. flight. Both Virgin Airbus stressed there was no impact to the safety of last week's aircraft

despite the missing fixings. The Virgin representative said the flight ended up being axed to provide time for precautionary additional engineer maintenance checks, which allowed our team the maximum time to complete their inspections. The safety of our customers and crew is always our top priority and it was not compromised at any point. We always work well above industry safety standards and the aircraft is now back in service. This is according to Neil Berth, the Airbus, local chief wing engineer for a 330 added that the affected panel was a secondary structure used to improve the aerodynamics of the plane. Okay, got it.

They canceled the flight and brought a team out to fix it, but there was no problem and nobody's safety was in jeopardy. Makes total sense. Besides, I mean, we didn't even need that panel, you know, the one that was only partially screwed on. We didn't even need it. That panel was lame anyway. That panel?

Who needs it? Matter of fact, we don't want that panel. We wanted to fly off. It was supposed to become dislodge mid-flight. You see, that was supposed to have it. It was going to be an exciting surprise for the passengers. And now you've ruined it, you party pooper, you dork all worried about the screws. This appears to be the excuse they're going with.

Now, prefacing this again with an admission that I am not an airline safety expert, but then again, apparently nobody is anymore, I have to ask, even if the panel was not structurally necessary to keep the plane in the sky? Wouldn't it still potentially jeopardize passengers on the plane, not to mention people on the ground, to have a large metal chunk fly off the aircraft when it's 35,000 feet in the sky and traveling 400 miles an hour? Like, I don't know. Perhaps I'm just naive. And even something like helping the plane be aerodynamic, isn't that like important? Isn't it, oh no, that's fine. It's just to make the plane aerodynamic. What happens if the plane is not aerodynamic?

Oh, well, you know, it crashes. Oh. So this is where we are. We have officially moved into the phase where you need to check yourself to make sure all the pieces of the plane are screwed on properly. You know, maybe you should actually bring your own screwdriver

too in case the airline can't find theirs. Because I assume they all have one. You only have one screwdriver. Maybe bring a couple rolls of a duct tape as well just in case. Now, look, it's easy to blame the situation on DEI, and we should. There's simply no question we've seen a rapid decline in standards and quality as DEI has taken over every industry. And if you're prioritizing anything but skill and merit in your hiring process, if you're doing anything but trying to get the most competent people, regardless of demographic, then you will end up lowering the standards.

It doesn't matter what the DEI apologists say. It doesn't matter what these industries claim. You know, of course, none of them are going to come out and actually admit that they're lowering the bar in order to get. more people who are not white males involved, but that's what has to happen to achieve the goal, and it is what is happening. There's no way around it. But it's also true that this problem is bigger than DEI, and you can trace its roots to long before DEI existed as a concept. The diversity police are exacerbating the problem. They're spreading the disease around and making it worse, but the fundamental sickness runs deeper than DEI. As I've been talking about for

a long time, a large number of the workers in basically every field that exists do not take pride in their work anymore. I mean, that's what it comes out. The basic effort to do things correctly, just for the sake of doing them correctly, that is becoming a rare mentality. You know, we complain about this in the customer service industry all the time. As a customer, no matter what store or business you're dealing with, it's very hard to find someone who cares about providing you with good service or solving whatever problem you're having. And most of the frustration you experience as a customer

is due to the fact that you're dealing with people who just, they just don't care about your problem. It doesn't matter to them. And maybe they'll help you solve it. Maybe they won't, but they don't care. And that's it. You rarely get the sense that any of the customer service representatives you're interacting with are emotionally or mentally invested.

in the interaction you're having with them, or in ensuring a favorable experience for you. And this is why customers everywhere are frustrated all the time, which makes them rude, which makes customer service representatives ruder in turn, and the cycle goes on. But, you know, this is not a dynamic found only in the customer service realm. I would argue that you can find it everywhere, in every field, in the field that I'm in, definitely, in every industry. Like, just ask yourself how often in a given week or month, you encounter someone and you think to yourself, wow, this person really takes pride in their craft.

This person really cares about their craft. Now, you do run into people like that, but they always stand out like shining diamonds in the rough. Because most people don't take pride in their craft or really don't have a craft at all. This is the thing underlying the problem that DEI has made significantly worse at every turn. And why does this underlying problem exist? Where is it coming from? Well, that's a whole other conversation entirely. For now, the point is simply that people are demoralized and checked out,

which is really annoying when you're trying to order fast food or you're in the checkout line at Walmart, but it's terrifying when you're sitting on an airplane and getting ready for takeoff. Which is why the, well, I guess the airline industry is once again today canceled. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk to tomorrow.