The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 372 - The Anti-Natalist Movement

Episode Date: November 15, 2019

Should an NFL player be criminally charged for assaulting someone on the football field last night? Also, the anti-natalist movement is gaining steam. They say life is pointless and has no value. But how is that any different from what pro-abortion people have been saying for decades? And an emailer reveals a disturbing fact about the culinary habits of Nebraskans. Date: 11-15-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Well, thanks for being here, folks. Thanks for listening. And I'm glad to be back at the home base. I've been traveling, doing a lot of traveling in the last couple weeks. Actually, I'll be on the road again next week because I'm going to speak at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. So if you are in the area there, come on out and come and take part in that conversation. But anyway, traveling. I'm not a big fan of traveling, especially on airplanes. I do it all the time, but I'm a very anxious flyer. I must admit. and it was especially bad on the way home, one of the legs of the flight that I was taking. I'm boarding the plane. Captain comes on the intercom. And this is the word he used. He said, we're expecting a pretty bumpy flight. It's going to be unpleasant. He used the word unpleasant.

Now, if you do a lot of flying, you know that pilots of commercial aircraft are notorious for understating things. So you could hit turbulence and plunge 10,000 feet. right into the Atlantic Ocean and they would just come on and say, well, sorry for that little bump there, folks. And so now, I mean, think about Sully, Captain Sully, with the miracle on the Hudson.

If you've ever seen any interviews that he did where he described what happened, now he's talking about, engine goes out, plane is about to explode, maybe, I might have made that part up, and he has to land his plane in the river. But the way he describes it,

his mannerisms, and the language he's using, it makes it sound like he's describing a trip to the DMV. So these are very calm and collected people. You have to be for that job. They don't overstate things ever. So he's saying unpleasant, I am translating that as we are definitely all going to die, although we didn't, thankfully. And it was almost as bad as the time a couple years ago.

I was flying and I was actually sitting next to a pilot, who I guess he was taking this plane to get to a different airport that he could then fly a plane. because if you're a pilot for a commercial airline and you have to fly as a passenger, they put you in coach. He was actually sitting in the middle seat of coach all the way towards the back of the plane.

They can't even give him comfort plus. I mean, this guy's a pilot. Anyway, sitting next to him, we hit turbulence. He's not reacting, which is what you want to see. But at one point, we hit a really bad bump. And he goes, he turns, looks out the window, and goes, whoa, just like that.

That's all he said. But now I'm turning to him and saying, what did you say, whoa for? What's the woe about? We're going to die now. Is that what you're saying? Whoa, because we're going to die. Is that what you're saying?

Anyway. But it all turned out. Okay. So a lot to talk about today. Let's start with this. Another Democrat is being investigated for having a sexual relationship with a staffer. This one is Alcy Hastings, Democrat congressman from Florida. He's apparently had a long-term sexual relation with a woman on his staff.

By the way, he's 83 years old. and Hastings is the same guy accused of sexual harassment by another former staffer and the Treasury, the Treasury, i.e., translated as the taxpayers, paid out almost a quarter of a million dollars to settle that case. But here's the thing I just, because this is in the news, a quick, some fun facts about this Hastings character. He was a circuit court judge back in the 1970s, nominated by Carter. Well, shortly after taking the job, I think he was nominated in 78 or thereabouts, and then in like 80 or 81, he was charged criminally with accepting bribes and with perjury. Allegedly he accepted a $150,000 bribe in order to give someone a lenient sentence. So, I mean, this is just grade A corruption.

That's about as corrupt as a judge can get when you're accepting money in exchange for lenient sentences. He wasn't convicted because his co-conspirator refused to testify against him, but he was impeached and removed from office by the Senate. He's one of only a handful of judges ever to be removed from the Senate. Oh, and the co-conspirator, by the way, he refused to testify again, good friend at least, refused to testify again at the impeachment hearings, and then he went to jail again, and then he was pardoned by Bill Clinton on Clinton's last day in office. by the time that Clinton pardoned Hastings co-conspirator, Hastings was a member of Congress,

a member of the same body that had impeached him for being corrupt. And while he's been in Congress, he's behaved exactly as he would expect someone like this to behave, having unethical sexual relationships, getting sued for harassment, leasing luxury vehicles with tax money, hiring his friends and relatives and nepotism all over the place. So my point is when we talk about the swamp, this is exactly the kind of crap. we're referring to. Hastings has been in Congress, he's 83 years old, been in Congress for 30 years. And he only went to run for Congress as a backup plan after he was too corrupt to be a judge. So you're too corrupt to be a judge in America. Well, then what's the backup plan?

Well, you might as well become a congressman. So he's a crook. He's a fraud and he's a charlatan. And he's well known as such. But he's been in Congress of 30 years. In conclusion, the people down in Florida who keep voting this crook into office are absolute buffoons. So nice job to all you folks down of Florida who are voting for this guy. Because there's really, I guess there's just nobody, there's no one else, I guess, right? No one else you could possibly imagine electing for the job. Speaking of the swamp, Democrat Representative Rashida Taleb, ranking member of the squad, probably the Lance Bass of the group, definitely not last in importance, but also definitely not first. So she's sort of vying with Omar for second fiddle to play second fiddle to AOC's Justin Timberlake.

Anyway, she's now subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation because of her repeated requests for money during her campaign to be used on personal expenses. Now, I guess there's a version of doing this where it would be legal. And there's a version where it's illegal. And the line's kind of murky because these people, these people in Congress, they love murky lines. When it comes to their ethical behavior, ethical rules. They want the lines to be as vague as possible. As reported by the Daily Wire, a referral that the committee received from the Office of Congressional Ethics says, quote, Representative Talib's campaign committee, Rashida Talib for Congress, reported campaign disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures

attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes. If Representative Thalib, converted campaign funds from Rashida Taleb for Congress to personal use, or if Representative Taleb's campaign committee expended funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes, then Representative Taleb may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law. The OCE recommended that Taleb be investigated

because there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Tileve converted campaign funds from Rashida to leave for Congress to personally, use or Rashida Thelib's campaign committee expend funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes. So they've got all these messages that she sent asking for money, desperately asking for money from her own campaign. One example of a message says, I am struggling financially right now. I am sinking. This was sent at April 4th, 2018. So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money. But Ryan said that the committee could actually

pay me. I was thinking a one-time payment of $5,000. I think over it said between May and December, she was paid like $45,000 or something like that. A bunch of other messages in that vein. So this is all something to keep in mind when these people are parsing Trump's actions demanding ethical purity from Trump, which I think we all admit they don't. This is Donald Trump, we would not call an ethically pure politician by any means. But, and listen, I think ethical behavior and from our lawmakers and politicians to include the president is obviously important. You know, we don't, I don't think we should give any of these people a pass. We're paying them. They represented us. We give them a lot of power. It's their responsibility to treat that power with the respect and discipline and integrity and honesty that it warrants.

And I say that to everybody in power, Republican or Democrat. I don't care. It doesn't make a difference to me. But the problem is that many of these people in Washington right now are so dirty, so corrupt, so personally dismissive of the rules of ethics and even the rule of law, that very few of them are in a position to accuse anyone else of wrongdoing. You just can't trust them when they say it. You can't trust their motives. And certainly they can't be trusted when they make those accusations themselves. So that's just something as the Democrats continue to wag their fingers at Donald Trump and talk about all the rules of ethics and the rule of law being violated and so on and so forth. Just keep in mind, keep this in mind. Keep in mind who we're

getting this from. And there's your depressing note to start today. Many other things to talk about, including a potential criminal assault that took place during an NFL game yesterday. Is it, was it criminal assault? I mean, can you really charge people criminally for things that happen on a football Field. We'll talk about that. But before we do, a quick word from ancestry DNA. I think knowing your own history, your own ancestry, it isn't just a nice bit of trivia to bring up at the Thanksgiving table. It is that also a great conversation story. But also more importantly, it gives you insight into yourself. It tells you about your own story. Ancestry DNA doesn't just tell you which countries you're from, but also can pinpoint the specific regions within them, giving you

insightful geographic detail about your own history. You can trace the paths of your recent ancestors and learn how and why your family move from place to place around the country, around the world, rather, from discovering origins in over 500 regions to the most connections to living relatives. No other DNA tests deliver such a unique, interactive, completely full experience. Only ancestry DNA uses the world's largest family history database to give a deeper and more detailed DNA story. The process of sending the packet in to get all this information about yourself and your history is very simple, very easy. I've done it myself. And now I'm waiting to get the results back. Can't wait for it. It's going to be very exciting. And if you want to try it,

you can also save big on Ancestry DNA with special holiday pricing and spark those meaningful conversations around the holiday dinner table. Give the gift that can unwrap their history. head to my URL is Ancestry.com slash Matt to get your Ancestry DNA kit on sale today. That's Ancestry.com slash Matt. All right. So this is the thing people are talking about today. Steelers Browns last night. Another horrible Thursday night football game. Not really the point, but it was a horrible game. Browns win at 21 to 7. Just an ugly, bad game. Which is the only way that the Browns can ever win a game because they have been for decades an ugly bad football team. and an ugly, bad football organization. Just an embarrassment to the league. Matched only by the other Ohio team.

No offense to the people in Ohio, but your football teams are terrible. If you live in Ohio, you own two of the worst and most dysfunctional and incompetent professional sports teams in American history. And they're both in your state. That would be the Bengals. And then also the Jets would vie for the title of Most Incompetent. so out there in New Jersey. That's not really the point, though. The point is this.

And this is what happened at the end of the game. I'm going to show you the whole clip if you haven't seen it yet. Watch this. Well, he tackled Rudolph. Rudolph didn't like the way that he was tackled. Oh, gosh. Oh, man. Oh, rips the helmet off Rudolph's head and then eventually swings it and hits him in the head.

And then Ogon Jobi comes up and hits Rudolph from behind. Beyond words, John. Gosh, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen on a professional sports field. You know, Joe, I've been involved with these. So that's Miles Garrett with the Browns there. Mason Rudolph is the Steelers quarterback, and that's Miles Garrett ripping off Rudolph's helmet and smacking him in the head with it. He ripped off his helmet and smacked him in the head with it.

That's amazing. Even more amazing are the Browns fans who have been trying to justify this, and I've seen a lot of them. defending Garrett saying that Rudolph started it, which even if he did start it, and by the way, again, if you're a Browns fan, your organization is an embarrassment to the league. It's one of the worst professional sports organizations in the history of this country. Maybe don't add insult to injury by embarrassing yourselves by trying to justify this. And I mean, I'm a football fan myself, too, but I love the Ravens. Okay, I'm a big Ravens Homer. But,

at a certain point, I mean, they are just a football team, and the only reason you root for them is because you happen to live there. And I admit that for myself as well, so it's sort of arbitrary. You don't have to sacrifice your dignity to defend criminal assault just because the guy who did it wears the jersey that you like, right? You don't have to do that. You really don't. So, but it doesn't even matter, but, but, because it doesn't come completely. close to justifying. It doesn't come close to justifying what Garrett did. But just for the record, Garrett also instigated this. You saw the whole play there. Rudolph had thrown the ball and Garrett continued dragging him to the ground a couple of seconds after the ball left his hands.

That is already roughing the passer, especially these days. But really at any point, that would be roughing the pass. That's pretty egregious. After the quarterback throws the ball, you're supposed to stop trying to tackle him. Garrett kept dragging him to the ground. That's what made Rudolph upset. He starts tugging at his helmet. Rudolph tugs at Garrett's helmet. And then that's where Garrett just goes ballistic, loses his mind, rips Rudolph's helmet off and smacks him with it. Now, Rudolph got lucky here because it was the bottom of his helmet that made contact with his head. But what if the crown of his helmet had hit Rudolph, say, in his temple? That's brain damage, at a minimum.

I mean, that could actually kill you. Garrett could have ended a life last night and also probably the NFL along with it. You're talking about a 6'4, 270-pound, muscle-bound NFL defensive end, swinging a hard object directly at your unprotected head. There is definitely a very plausible scenario where Rudolph is not up and walking around today. He got lucky. So what should happen to Garrett? I mean, obviously at a minimum, he's done for the year.

I think the NFL should go beyond that and suspend them until 2022. Or, yeah, suspend him for this year and next year. You can come back the season after that. Because you just can't have this. People are not watching the NFL for this garbage. This isn't what people want to see. I mean, maybe in hockey, part of the reason people watch is for the fights. That's not why people watch.

watch football. People watch football for football. And the stuff after the whistle, I think that, usually it's just annoying. And you're like, guys, guys just act like adults here. And let's get back to the game. But this goes beyond annoying. This is, this is, well, some people are saying it's potentially criminal. And it does, it does raise a question. I mean, obviously, the, the law is not forever suspended just because you happen to be on a football field. It's not like you walk to a football field and you're walking into some bubble where the law no longer applies. There are things you could do potentially on a football field that would be criminal. It wouldn't just be illegal according to the NFL rule book, but illegal according to the law.

Does this cross that line? I would say, I mean, yes, I would say it does. Now, yeah, you could say that, well, a lot of the things that happen in the context of a football game, if you did them out on the street, you'd go to jail. Like, for example, you know, if you just ran up and tackled somebody on the street, you're going to go to jail, that's assault. You do it at a football game, and it's part of the game. That's true. But that's the stuff that happens between the whistles.

And that is the point of all of that is if you're on offense, you're trying to advance the ball to the end zone. And if you're on defense, you're trying to stop the other team from advancing the ball. And so everything you do is in that vein. Now, sometimes people go too far. That's where they get penalties. But something that happens totally apart from the game. It's got nothing to do with the game. Whistle has already blown.

Okay, now I think you're in the realm where what you do could actually be criminal. And I think that, yeah, if you do something after the whistle, completely egregious, has nothing to do with the game, and you do something that could potentially give someone brain damage, or worse, then, yeah, I don't see why you shouldn't be criminally charged. Why? If, if Miles Garrett had waited until after the game and come up to Rudolph in the parking lot and smacked him in the head with a hard object, would anybody dispute that he should be, that he should be prosecuted for that? Of course, we would all agree. No, no one, how, how, how, could you possibly disagree, right? Unless you're just going to say that, well, he's an NFL player,

so it's okay, unless we're going to say that NFL players are totally exempt from the law, which often that's the way it works out, but that's not the way it should be. So if that exact thing would be, we would all agree should make him subject for prosecution in the parking lot, then why wouldn't it on the football field after the whistle blows? Yeah, you don't. You don't You can talk about slippery slope. You don't want to end up in a situation, obviously, where after every play, you've got to bring the lawyers in to see who committed a crime. Clearly, that's not where we want to go. That would just destroy the game.

But you could say, okay, it's illegal, criminally illegal, to smack somebody in the head with a hard object on a football field. You could say that without then destroying football itself. because all we're saying to the football players is, you know, you get a lot of leeway, especially during, especially between the whistles. Just don't try to literally kill somebody. If you do that, then, okay, now the fact that you're wearing an NFL jersey isn't going to protect you. Okay, do you want to be depressed? If so, this next segment is for you. I thought maybe you were looking forward to being depressed. The Guardian has a lengthy article today with this headline says, I wish I'd never been born. the rise of the antinatalists. Adherence view life not as a gift in a miracle, but a harm and an imposition.

And their notion that having children may be a bad idea seems to be gaining mainstream popularity. Continuing from the article written by Rebecca Tujoos Dubrow, the Guardian says, in February, a 27-year-old Indian man named Raphael Samuel announced plans for an unusual lawsuit. He said he was going to sue his parents for begetting him. It was not our decision to be born, he told the BBC. human existence is totally pointless. Samuel recently told me over Skype from Mumbai that his is a good life and he is actually close to his parents. His complaint is more fundamental. He believes it is wrong to bring new people into the world without their consent. He wanted to sue his parents for a symbolic amount of money, such as a single rupee, to instill that fear among parents in general, because now parents don't think before having a child. Samuel subscribes to a philosophy called antinatalism. The basic tenant of antinatalism is simple, but for most of us, profoundly counterintuitive.

that life, even under the best circumstances, is not a gift or a miracle, but rather a harm and an imposition. According to this logic, the question of whether to have a child is not just a personal choice, but an ethical one. And the correct answer is always no. Continuing a little bit later on in the article says in 2006, the South African philosopher David Benetard published a book, which is widely credited with introducing the term anti-natalism. in better never to have been born the harm of coming into existence, Benatar quotes the Greek tragedy in Suffolkles, better to have been born as best,

but if we must see the light, the next best is quickly returning whence we came. And he also quotes the text of Ecclesiastes, which, by the way, Ecclesiastes is not an antinatalist text. Let's be clear about that. These quotes suggest that the sentiments at the heart of antinatalism has been around for a very long time. In modern history, another strain of thought emerged, warning against the dangers of population growth.

And so there have been people talking about that. And anyway, I mean, it's depressing, but I'm not going to read this entire article, but to see where the culture is headed and where some people are headed philosophically, I think I would recommend going to The Guardian and reading this article. Now, on one level, it seems that antinatalism is really just depression, self-loathing, and nihilism dressed up as a philosophy. On another, though, it seems that this is really the pro-abortion position taken to its logical end. And what I mean is antinatalism rests on the claim, the assumption, the conviction, that life has not been.

no inherent meaning, no inherent purpose, no inherent value. I mean, that's what they're saying. It's totally pointless. That's what the guy filed a lawsuit said. And that's also really what the pro-abortion position rests on too. So all the clump of cells stuff is about, it's about claiming that life has no inherent value. Value is not inherent. Now, you could try to invent some kind of value for yourself, some sort of purpose or point. But, but, you can try to invent some kind of value for yourself, some sort of purpose or point. at bottom really comes down to it. There is no objective point or purpose. That is what the pro-abortion movement, even if it doesn't explicitly say it, it's what it implicitly says. And in fact, the pro-abortion movement needs that to be the case in order for their position to work.

They need it to be the case that life has no inherent value. Now, what they will try to do is they'll try to get away with something like, well, the quote-unquote fetus has no value, but certainly people who are born have all the inherent value in the world. But that doesn't really work. Inherent value means existing in something as an essential attribute, something that is essential to the very nature. If something isn't inherent to you, it is essential to your very nature. in other words it kind of gets down to the very core of your being and if that's the case

that means inherent value things that are inherent they can't be gained they can't be lost you don't develop them gradually they just are so if we have inherent value inherent objective value then we must have had that value from the very moment of our conception when I when I give talks pro-life talks the way that I try to illustrate it the illustration I often use is okay think of yourself in your current state as you are right now and you would probably say of yourself right now that you have inherent value you have inherent dignity human rights all that stuff great you know that's what you would say about yourself right now I assume, unless you're an antinatalist. Now, rewind the clock back 10 minutes, but you still had

inherent value 10 minutes ago, right? You didn't have any, you didn't have any less of it then than you do now. Everything's the same. Inherent human dignity and everything. Okay, now rewind the clock back 10 years. Same story. Go back to when you were 10 years old. Same story. That was you. You had inherent value, inherent dignity. Go back to when you were one year old. Still, you know, still, you, still inherent value, inherent human dignity? Okay, great. Now go back to the moment that you emerged from your mother's birth canal and stop the tape right there. Who is that? Well, that's you. You had inherent value, inherent dignity. Now, rewind the clock another 10 seconds, just 10 seconds. 10 more seconds back. What happened in that time? You changed locations, yes, but

it's still you, right? Ten seconds before you were born, that was still you. And so whatever was inherently true of you when you were born must have been inherently true of that person that existed 10 seconds before birth. And then you just keep going back all the way to conception. There is an unbroken chain of euness connecting the you of today to the you that was conceived in your mother's womb. whatever is therefore, whatever is inherently true of the you of today must be inherently true of the you that was conceived in the womb. And so, the only way to justify abortion is to say that, well, we don't really have inherent value. Because I can't have inherent value without the me in the womb also having it.

And that's why, even if pro-oborts are not as direct about it and they don't want to come out, and say it or admit it, at the end of the day, it's the same idea, where life has no real actual value. And in fact, according to the pro-abortion position, our value, whatever value we have, and I'm sure antinatalists would say the same thing. Whatever value we have rests on or depends on how useful our lives are to those around us. And that's why I will say, well, an unborn child fetus has no value because he's dependent entirely on his mother for survival. And then once you're out of the womb, you're not as dependent, although you're still dependent for a very long time. And then you start introducing things like euthanasia at the end of life. And what you've got,

as we kind of whittle away from both ends of the spectrum, where we say, well, very early on in life, you're way too dependent, you're no use to anybody, so you have no value. Then towards the end of your life, it's the same idea, so you have no value. Might as well just put you down, put you out of your misery, like an old dog. And what we're doing is we're whittling away. And we're making, we're making the value of human life not only not inherent, but in fact contingent upon things like self-sufficiency, your usefulness to the people around you, that sort of thing. That's what, and that's how antinatalists look at it. So when The Guardian says this is a growing movement and it's becoming more mainstream,

I would totally agree. In fact, I would argue that it's been mainstream for decades now. It's just that now people are being more explicit about it. Okay, let's see, I've had this in the queue all week to talk about. The Daily Mail has an article. It says, the Irishman, you know, the movie, the Irishman, the Martin Scorsese movie, The Irishman viewers are left baffled as lead actress Anna Pacquin speaks only six words in her entire 10-minute airtime during three-and-a-half-hour film. I guess some feminists are trying to make this into a sexist thing. They're saying Anna Pac-quin, lead actress in the film, doesn't talk enough. Which, first of all, if you're in the film for 10 minutes and it's a three-and-a-hour film, you're not a lead actress.

So that's the first thing. Second, it's a film with Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Peschi. Pretty much every legend that is still alive that has been in a mob movie anytime in the last 50 years is in this movie. So I don't think anyone is going to a three and a half hour Martin Scorsese movie with De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino wanting to hear Anna Pacquin talk more. I don't think anyone's going to walk away. There's no way you could walk away from me. that film, after having a watch it for three and a half hours, saying, you know, it was pretty good, but I just wish I heard more from Anna Pacwin. That's really why I was here. It's completely desperate to

find sexism, whatever they can. But Anna Pacquin, by the way, for her credit, has just dismissed all this and said it's ridiculous, and she was very happy to just be in the film. Because I can imagine that if you're an actress or an actor, and Martin Scorsese comes to you and says, hey, do you want to be in my movie with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino and Joe Pesci? you're going to say yes. Give me two words, and I'll be there. All right. Finally, let's go to emails Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. This is from Rachel says, hi, Matt. Coming from Kansas, I can assure you that the Midwest is not responsible for the abomination that is the Monte Cristo sandwich.

Like you, I had been spared of knowledge of this offense of the taste buds for most of my life. This so-called dish darken my world when I started dating my now husband who comes from the West Coast. His utter wrongness concerning Monte Cristo's palatibility is one thing I must overlooked to keep our marriage working. As for the Midwest, our culinary shame consists of pairing chili with cinnamon rolls, pairing chili with cinnamon rolls. It is a combination I find bizarre and frankly as unpleasant as the Monte Cristo. In my opinion, sweet taste do not work with meat or cheese. I'm happy you were able to salvage your meal with Chick-fil-A, the best fast food out there. Chili and cinnamon rolls. Now, I know what they do in Ohio at Cincinnati,

where they put chili on spaghetti. And that's bad enough because chili is not a pasta sauce. Okay? It's its own dish. If you're having chili that you think could be improved with spaghetti,

then you know what that is? That's just bad chili. It's the same thing I say about French fries and ketchup, by the way. If your French fries need ketchup, what does that?

It means that the French fries are not cooked well or not seasoned well. If you've got well-seasoned, well-cooked french fries, you're not going to sully them with ketchup, which is,

for children, by the way. No self-respecting adult should ever use ketchup in any circumstance. Once you get over the age of 13, ketchup should be illegal. Speaking of things that should be illegal, chili and cinnamon rolls. Where is this happening? Is this all across the Midwest? Is it in one particular state? Who is doing this? Who is responsible? Who started this? You can't just do that. You don't have the right to do whatever you want with chili. And I'm really tired of this. Chile is a specific thing. And it should be respected.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to do whatever you want with chili. To deface it and desecrate it and blaspheme it in whatever way you want. It's not covered in the First Amendment. Nothing gives you the right. That is disgraceful. I mean, when you say pairing, do they combine it? How does the pairing work? I know there are people who put cinnamon in their chili.

It's another thing they do in Ohio. The Midwest, listen, I don't mean to dump on the Midwest again. And I've been harsh on Ohio today, especially with the Browns and Bengals. But I mean, and I like the Midwest. Okay, let me just say that. I've been the Midwest, a bunch of other. People there are very friendly. All the stereotypes about people in the Midwest are the nicest people in the world.

That's been my experience. They're people there are ridiculously nice. So much so that as a cynical person from the East Coast, when I go to the Midwest, I almost get suspicious when they're, when they're so friendly. When someone walks up to me a stranger and they're so nice, I immediately think, like, what's your angle? What are you getting at here? Why you're being so nice? What do you want from me? That's what you get from living on the East Coast.

So a lot of nice things to be said about it. But when it comes to the food, you just, there's got to be an intervention. I think the other regions of the country need to sit the Midwest down and say, you know, listen, there are some great things about you. We don't deny that. But when it comes to the food, you're really getting out of hand, especially with chili. Let's go to Joel, says Matt, Aloha from the sandwich aisles, also known as Hawaii. Question for you. New York is recognizing 31 genders. I hear you and the other Daily Wire show host talk all the time about gender instead of sex. that giving the leftist validation for the corruption of the language? The leftists have taken the word sex and are making people say gender when they really mean sex. Heck, over here in Honolulu in front of the Hawaii State Library, we have a statue of former Hawaii representative Patsy Mink, one of the few responsible for authoring Title IX, which talks about sex discrimination, but it has been corrupted on the statute base to say gender discrimination. I don't remember law

being passed saying that gender and sex are the same thing, although the leftists are pushing it that way. Going forward, might it be better to use the correct term of sex instead of using gender and rob the leftist of their attempted language heist. Yeah, I agree with you. I kind of use the, it's sort of a lazy thing. I use the terms interchangeably because they really do mean the same thing. The distinction between sex and gender is absurd and arbitrary. Really, gender originally is a grammatical concept. So language, you could have gender. You could have gendered language and words with certain, but, but, um, like in, in, uh, in Spanish, you know, you have masculine, there's a lot of masculine and feminine words and so on. So that's, that's,

that's where, where gender originally applied. Taking it and saying that a person has a gender is a pretty new thing. And, um, I agree that it's probably better if we go back to just talking about sex. So that, that's something that I, sometimes I use it because, just to distinguish what I'm talking about, because it might be confusing. otherwise. So, for instance, if I'm talking about the left's theory of gender or their assault on gender. I say gender instead of sex, because if I said sex, you might think that I'm in intercourse and something like that. So that's where I use it just to distinguish it in that way. But I agree that this is, listen, the left has run the culture for so long, and they have done so much

to corrupt our language that even people who are aware of it and opposed to it, we can sometimes fall into using the language that they've assigned us to use. And so that's why we have to be more discerning and thoughtful in the way that we speak. Making sure that we're not accidentally surrendering the argument just with the language we choose to use when we talk about it. So I agree with you there. All right, I think we'll actually wrap it up there. Okay, this is one more food thing. From Jason says, I was a huge fan until today.

You've crossed Midwestern lines with your negative cheese talk. I checked the Bible and I quote, Thou shall eat copious amounts of cheese. I was dedicated a soldier to your future dictatorship, but now I will lead the rebellion against you for the line you have crossed. Said in Greta Thunberg voice, how dare you, how dare you? Jason, look, and I got a lot of emails on the cheese thing. I'm not against cheese.

I am a cheese proponent. You're not going to find very many people who are bigger fans of cheese than me. But I think the cheese is sort of like peanut butter. And cheese is a lot better than peanut butter. Don't get me wrong, peanut butter is overrated. But I only compare them because they are both used, I think, too often as a culinary crutch.

They are introduced into dishes where they don't belong. and they tend to take over, and they're very bossy, and they want to make it all about them. And so that's my thing with cheese. Cheese has every right to be as confident as it is, because it is delicious, but sometimes you introduce it into a dish, and all of a sudden it's all about the cheese. Same thing with peanut butter. You know, people put peanut butter in, you know, all kinds of desserts and cookies and, you know, things.

Put little peanut butter and chocolate chip cookies, and they mix it together, and it's like, I just want the chocolate chip cookies. Now you've made it all about the stupid peanut pot. So that's my only plum cheese, is that you don't, and with the Monte Cristo thing, you've got French toast, confectionate sugar, and you put cheese in there. You didn't, I mean, take the, actually with the Monte Cristo, take the cheese out, and then the meat just put it off to the side, maybe fry it and put it to the side. Now you've got yourself a good breakfast dish.

It's good to go. You throw the cheese on top, and it's just completely. refusing and gross. But thanks for the email. And thank you for everybody for watching. Hope you guys have a great weekend. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.

And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple, podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven Show.

Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling, technical producer Austin Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer, Mike Coramina. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019. If you prefer facts over feelings aren't offended by the brutal truth and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro show.

We'll get a whole lot of that and much more. See you there.