The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 484 - Don't Listen To The Media. Andrew Cuomo Has Done A Terrible Job.

Episode Date: May 11, 2020

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a lot to discuss. First, we’ll talk about the media’s love affair with Andrew Cuomo. He’s being painted as the hero of the pandemic, but the reality is closer to the opposite. Also, some girls are suing to prevent boys from competing in girl’s sports. But the judge has instructed their lawyers that biological boys must be referred to as “female” in his courtroom. We’ll discuss that insanity. And in our Daily Cancellation, I’ll cancel a NYT writer who thinks mothers should be getting paid to be mothers. If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, a lot to discuss. First, we are going to talk about the media's love affair with Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York. He's being painted as the hero of the pandemic. But the reality is much closer to the opposite. And we'll talk about why also some girls in Connecticut, heroic, I think, heroic girls, are suing to prevent boys from competing in girls' sports. But the judge presiding over the case has instructed the lawyers of the girls that they must refer to biological boys in women's sports as, female, which of course destroys the entire case. It's impossible for the girls to make their case if they have to pretend in the courtroom that the boys are female. So we'll talk about that insanity. And in our daily cancellation, I will cancel a New York Times writer who thinks that mothers should be getting paid to be mothers for all the work they do in the house. And I'll discuss that and explain why that doesn't work at all. It makes no sense. But starting with this, The media has smothered New York Governor Andrew Cuomo with fawning praise from the beginning of this crisis all the way to now. The downpour of agilation has not let up at any point.

And they're still saying even now that he's been brilliant. He's a great leader. Maybe he should be the candidate instead of Joe Biden, which that part they're probably right about. But then again, I could pull a crusty old sponge from under my sink. And that would make a better candidate than Joe Biden at this point. In any case, you contrast that with the scorn heaped on, take somebody like Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who we are told is reckless and dangerous and imbecilic and all of these other things. But you can't help but notice a key difference between these two governors that may explain the varied reception they have received. And that difference, of course, is the letter next to their name.

I don't think it's probably not a coincidence, actually, that I call me crazy, but the media has discovered that all of the governors who are doing a great job happen to be Democrat. The governors who are doing a terrible job happen to be a Republican. But there is another difference, especially between the governor of New York and the governor of Florida. And this is one that the media pretends not to notice in hopes that you also will not notice, and that is this. Governor Cuomo has done the worst job of containing the outbreak in his state over,

20,000 people dead, while Governor DeSantis has been among the best, fewer than 2,000 dead, with a population slightly larger than New York State. So this appears to be the general pattern, right? The governors who have presided over the worst outbreaks are hailed as heroes, and we're told that everything they're doing is right and correct, and we should model ourselves after it, while the governors who have been most successful in controlling the spread are cast as villains. And nowhere is this upside-down approach more evident than with government. Governor Cuomo, who is the coronavirus champion, we're told, and yet he's managed to get everything wrong every step of the way. Now, granted, he has faced a greater challenge than any other governor,

you might argue, because his state happens to contain a city with 26,000 people packed into every square mile. Now, that's going to make it a lot more difficult. And also granted that many of his missteps are the same missteps that many other governors and elected officials I've made. It's very clear now that locking everybody in their homes and driving a knife directly into the heart of the economy and embracing a great depression on purpose in order to fight a virus was a very bad strategy and one that may in the end take more lives than it saves. Quamo doesn't then deserve unique blame for the disaster in that way. I mean, he deserves a lot of the same blame that a lot of other people deserve. But he also doesn't deserve unique praise,

which is what he's getting. At best, he has been just as incompetent as everybody else. That's the best thing you could say about him. And I think even that is being too generous. Cuomo not only kept the subway system open, despite it being a known vector for the illness, but he apparently didn't think that he should even give it a thorough cleaning until this week.

We played the video last week, or this past week, I should say. This past week we played the video of they shut down overnight service of the subway, and they brought all these people in and have a hazmat suits to clean the subway system. It's the first time they had done that since this started two months ago. But this is the kind of decision-making we get from Cuomo. Worse, though, Cuomo, as I have been talking about, and I think this is the story of the coronavirus.

This right here is the story that Andrew Cuomo, not just him, other governors too, forced nursing homes to take in coronavirus patients, which is really the equivalent. of starting a campfire on a windy day and a forest full of dead wood during wildfire season. I mean, it is that reckless. In fact, for the record, here is the March 25th, Governor Cuomo handed down his order, commanding nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients.

And here's the order. Not going to read the whole thing, but it says, no resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH nursing homes. solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHS are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.

Did you get that? It's not just that they were forced to take in COVID-19 patients, but the nursing homes weren't even allowed to require testing before bringing the people in. Now, it has been well known from the beginning that nursing homes are particularly, vulnerable to outbreaks and their residents are most at risk of fatal complications from the illness. Nearly 5,000 residents have died, nursing home residents have died from coronavirus in New York alone.

And that's just what we know about. They added another 1,700 deaths last week that they hadn't told us about in New York. So are there more deaths they haven't told us about? I think probably so. And many other states across the country, well over half of all fatalities have happened in nursing homes. That's why I say this is the story right here of the coronavirus. It's this. It's what's happening in nursing homes.

And what's happening is a travesty and a tragedy and an outrage, a moral outrage. Because our elected officials tasked with protecting these people have failed. And protecting them should have been pretty easy to do because they are contained in isolated areas already in a medical or at least semi-medical environment. So it shouldn't be that hard to protect. them. Yet our elected officials failed miserably. They didn't just fail. They took active steps to put these people in harm's way, and thousands upon thousands of people died as a direct result of that. Cuomo's decision to forcibly introduce the infection into these facilities, while also refusing to provide protective gear, because he said, quote, that's not our job.

It was asked about, should we, should you, shouldn't you at least send protective gear if you're going to send the COVID-19 patients in a nursing and he said, that's not my job. I don't have to do that. That decision, all of this together, can be directly blamed for many deaths. How many? Who knows? Thousands. The nursing home mandate is a, is a breathtaking scandal in and of itself. But you're not going to hear much about it on the news, because the news media has already settled on it. It's Cuomo, their narrative is Cuomo the Corona Conqueror. And you especially won't hear about it on CNN. a news network that has enlisted Cuomo's admiring younger brother to conduct its interviews with the governor. You know, in the middle of all this, you've got a governor, his state's hit worse than anybody else's.

He has made some, to put it mildly, extremely controversial decisions in the midst of this. And CNN, which is supposed to be a news organization, when they want to bring him on to talk to him about it, They have his younger brother interview him. And these segments, of course, receive fawning approval too from the media. The media loves it. But something tells me, I mean, imagine if you think about the reception that these Cuomo v. Cuomo chat sessions get. And people talk about how great they are and cute and wonderful. Something tells me that the people impressed by that would not be nearly as impressed if Fox hired, let's say, Don Jr.

to do cutesy little interviews with his father about the coronavirus or about anything else, in fact. So, look, as I said, obviously we cannot blame Cuomo for every death in his state. But we can ask whether there's any good reason to praise his performance. I see compelling evidence that his leadership has been a huge failure. Where is the evidence that has been a smashing success? I don't see that evidence. Maybe a different way of phrasing this question is, if Cuomo's leadership during this crisis has not been a failure,

what exactly would failure look like, if not like this? We'll have more to say about this in just a second. A couple other points about all this. But before we do, let me tell you about our very good friends at Rock Auto. If you're looking for car parts, if you're looking for great selection and great prices, then Rock Auto is the best website that there is. for it. I mean, period, hands down, it's as simple as that. That's why I'm always telling you about Rock Auto.com, because I really believe in it. I use it all the time myself. Rockotto.com is so much

easier than walking into a store, dealing with all the questions, not finding what you need, paying higher prices, cut out the middleman, cut out the trip to the store, especially these days, and just go to Rock Auto.com. Always offers the lowest prices possible, rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear. So they're not going to charge you more because they think they can get more out of you. They're going to charge you as low as they possibly can. Rock Auto.com is a family business, which I love, serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. Go to rockato.com to shop for auto and body parts for hundreds of manufacturers. Go to rockato.com right now. See all the parts available for your car truck, right Walsh in there.

How did you hear about us box so that they know that we sent you? Okay, a couple of addendums here. A couple of by the ways. First, this mandate with the nursing homes was finally reversed just a few days ago. But the reversal itself makes the original mandate seen even worse. So here's the Daily Wires report. It says on Sunday, Cuomo reassured New Yorkers that the state would no longer send coronavirus patients to nursing home facilities. According to reporter Zach Fink, quote, reversing his March 25th directive, forcing nursing homes to readmit residents who were treated at a hospital for COVID-19. Those residents can only come back if they test negative for the virus.

per ABC news, Cuomo said, now we're just not going to send a person who was positive to a nursing home after a hospital visit. He said such patients would be accommodated elsewhere, suggesting they could be directed to sites originally set up as temporary hospitals. What do you know? You think? I mean, in New York, you had all this extra, you had ships coming in, you had temporary field hospitals, I mean, all this stuff, all this extra space.

Most of it wasn't used. So maybe use some of that. space rather than sending COVID-infected people into nursing homes so they can infect hundreds of other people and then a bunch of people will die. You know, how about that? Now, Cuomo also released a new set of nursing home regulations telling Twitter that, quote, all nursing home staff must now be tested for COVID twice a week. This rule is not optional.

It's mandatory. He said, quote, this virus uses nursing homes. They are ground zero. They're the vulnerable population in the vulnerable location. Okay, so the nursing homes are ground zero. The virus uses nursing homes. We've known this from the beginning. So why did you send people?

Why did you create more ground zeros? If you know the virus uses nursing homes, which we have known since early March, if not earlier, why did you send the virus into nursing homes to be used? Another note, other states have done this, as I mentioned, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, they have all sent COVID-infected elderly people into nursing homes. And thousands upon thousands of deaths can be traced back to these mandates. The point is, for all this talk about killing grandmas, if you go to a park, if you go to the beach, we're told that what you're going to hear from the

pro-lockdown camp is that you're killing grandma. Well, no, no, he, that doesn't kill grandma. Okay, you go to the park or the beach. The virus probably isn't going to be spread anyway. But even if it is, if grandma's not at the beach, she's not going to get it. Okay, if she's staying isolated in her home, she's not going to get it. It doesn't matter what you do. Okay?

I mean, you could go to the beach and be coughing directly in people's faces. Please don't. But you're only going to give it to grandma if grandma's there. Or if someone else gets it and then goes and visits grandma. But it's very easy to not, we can isolate grandma. If grandma wants to be isolated, she can be isolated. Now, if grandma decides that she doesn't want to be isolated, I think there are a lot of grandmas who are saying,

including my own parents, by the way, who are grandmas and grandpas, you know, like, I don't know, 20 times over by now. And what they're saying, and I've heard this from a lot of older people. people is basically, you know, it's not like they're suicidal. They don't have a death death wish. But at the same time, first of all, you don't need to shut down the whole economy for our sake. You don't need to create a great depression for our sake. Okay, we don't want our children and grandchildren to be destitute to keep us safe. And also what I'm hearing from, from older people is, you know, I don't have a, it's not like I got 50 years left

on earth. I want to go live my life. I want to see my family. I want to do things. I don't, I don't want to hide in my house for the next two years waiting for a vaccine. So the point is, grandma might make the decision, might say, I want to go out. I want to go to the beach. I think it's a very low risk going to the beach, even for grandma. I think she'll probably be fine. But regardless, she's an adult. She makes that decision.

Okay? And she should be able to make that decision and take the relatively moderate risk. Again, the only way that you as an individual put grandma in harm's way is if she chooses to go out and about. if she isolates in her home, she's fine. But if you want to know something that really did kill grandmas, you want to talk about who the real grandma killers are? Here it is. The grandma killers, they are not sitting on a park bench.

They're not in, you know, sun tanning at the beach. They are sitting in governor's mansions, passing down edicts and mandates, requiring that nursing homes accept COVID-infected people. They're the grandma killers. Who's the grandma killer? Andrew Cuomo is a grandma killer. All right. Let's go to headlines, because there's a bunch of interesting stories we've got to talk about.

But before we talk about any of that, I got to tell you about, I'm very happy to tell you about Bambi. You know, when running an issue, when running a business, I should say, HR issues can kill you. And especially these days, you know, added problems like that dealing with HR. It's a very complicated time. That can be very difficult and it cause a lot of extra problems. And that's why it's so important if you're running a business, you know you've got to have a very good HR department. Wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, all of that stuff you're dealing with. And HR manager salaries aren't cheap, by the way.

You know, the average salaries, we're talking to $75,000 a year. A lot of companies don't have that kind of money. So Bambi, spelled B-A-M-B-E, was created specifically for small business. You can get a dedicated HR manager. You can craft HR policy. You can maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month. Rather than $75,000 a year, we're talking $99 a month. With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength,

just like that. And your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, real-time chat, from onboarding to terminations that customize your policies to fit your business. This is all about what you want to do. You're not fitting into their mold. They're fitting into your mold. Month to month, no hidden fees. you can cancel any time, go to Bambi.com slash Walsh right now to schedule your free H-R audit.

That's Bambi.com slash Walsh. B-A-M-B-E-E-E-com slash Walsh. Okay, your headlines. Number one, if you listen to the show for a while or you've read my pieces on the Daily Wire, then you have heard plenty about the situation up in Connecticut where a couple of male runners who claim to be girls have been dominating the girls' track and field circle. These quote-unquote transgender girls, i.e. boys, would be mediocre sort of middle-of-the-pack runners if they were competing against their own kind, which would be the boys. If they were doing what they were supposed to be doing and not cheating, they wouldn't be running in the states or even the regional championships, probably. Their times are not impressive for boys. But against the girls, their girls,

almost unstoppable. Fortunately, some real girls, some quite brave real girls, are fighting back and they're filing a lawsuit, God bless them, to try to protect women's sports, you know, because the adults, most of the adults in this country are too afraid, too afraid to fight back against this, too afraid to be being called a bigot. If we're going to have women's sports, if girls' sports are going to exist, somebody's got to stand up and do this and fight for it. And so it falls on these teenage girls to do it. I mean, think about all the parents across the country who have their kids in these sports and then have their daughters in these sports and then the boys start invading.

And think of all the parents that just tolerate it. Rather than standing up and saying, no, this is not going to happen. I mean, banding together as parents and saying, we are not going to allow this. We're not going to have our, we are not going to put our kids, our girls, our daughters in these sports to take a part to be a part of this spectacle, this charade. No, parents don't do that because they're afraid. You know, they're more afraid of being called a bigot than they are determined to protect the dignity of their own and safety of their own daughters. So these teenage girls, though, they've stepped up. They filed a lawsuit trying to bar boys from competing.

in girls' sports. But now, the attorneys of the girls filing the lawsuits are trying to get the judge presiding over the case recused, or trying to get him to recuse himself. And the National Review explains why. It says, during an April 16th conference call,

Judge Robert Chitigny chastised the ADF attorneys for referring to the male athletes seeking to compete in the women's division as males. According to a transcript of the call obtained by National Review, you, this is what Chitigny said. Okay, I'm reading now from what this is what the judge said to these lawyers. He said, what I'm saying is you must refer to them as transgender females rather than as

males. Again, that's the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client's legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as transgender females is consistent with science, common practice, and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as males, period, is not accurate. Certainly not as accurate as I think it's needlessly provocative. I don't think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn't a case involving males who have decided that they want to running girls events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to running girls events.

So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed interveners as males. Understood? Okay. You can see why they want the judge to recuse himself. because the whole point of the lawsuit, you idiot in a robe, the whole point, you moron, is the whole case the plaintiffs are making is that the so-called trans girls are not female. That's the point. That's the case you're presiding over. If they're female, then there's no case.

Okay, and if these girls are, and the lawyers are required to pretend that boys are female, then they are not able to make their case. They have no language with which to make their case. The case is gone. So this is madness. He says right there, this isn't a case involving males who've decided they want to run in girls' events. That's exactly what this case is. That's 100% what's going on here.

So the judge presiding over the case is denying what. the case actually is. He's already issued his decision. He said, oh, they're females. Okay, well, if they're females, then there goes that. But they're not females. Okay, they're not. Not by the science, not by common sense, and not by human decency. Because to deny common sense, to deny science, to say things that are manifestly untrue, and on top of that, to force girls to participate in this charade and to take their medals and achievements away from them, none of that is consistent with human decency. And the incredible thing is, this is what I'm always saying about this issue. This judge, Robert Chitigny, I don't know anything about him, okay? I don't

know anything about him, but he's a judge, I know that. So, you know, he's an adult, so that tells me he's an adult, at least, and he's probably on the older side as a judge. So I could pretty much guarantee that Chitigny has lived most of his life knowing that boys are boys and girls are girls. Most of his life, he has known and never questioned the fact. You know, if I had talked to Robert Chitigny seven years ago, and I asked him, you know, if a person has a penis, is that a boy or a girl? He would have said, he would have looked at me in a very confused way, and then he would have said, that's a boy. Okay?

So he's lived his whole life, knowing this. And then at a certain point, he changed his mind, along with a lot of other people. They decided that, oh, you know what? No, no, no, never mind. Actually, men can have babies. Girls can have penises. Yeah, you know what? It's like a, it's like a, you know, you could take the parts off, swap them, switch them.

People are like Mr. Potato Head dolls now. You just take off the different parts, swap them out. Doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Parts don't matter. doesn't matter, chromosomes don't matter, DNA doesn't matter, reproductive organs don't matter. I mean, what does matter then?

And then we go back to that question. I mean, I still haven't got an answer to that question. What is a woman then? You tell me, Robert Chitigny. What's a way? Define, define female. Forget about define the word woman. Okay, Chitigney, you say that these boys with X, with X, Y, chromosomes, and penises,

you say that they are females. Okay, define the word female. You big dummy. Define it. You can't. I mean, you can. If I'd asked you five years ago, you could have offered me a definition.

But you know that's a definition that would exclude these guys. So give me the new definition. You've decided somehow living your whole life, knowing the truth, and then all of a sudden you decided that these definitions don't work anymore. What's the new definition?

And what was the scientific discovery? What was the epiphany moment for you when you realize that, oh, you know what, actually, men can give birth? When did that happen? Did you read a scientific study of some kind? Did you make a discovery in a laboratory? Can you tell us about it? No. The point is that Chitigny and all the rest of these people, they are, the word coward doesn't even come close to describing them.

and that's why I just have no respect for this kind of cow I mean cowards of this magnitude I just have no respect for them at all nothing but scorn and contempt can I heap upon them you are such a coward that you have abandoned reality because you're afraid of people yelling at you and calling you a transphobe all right let's move on to number two in fact we might revisit this now that I now that I think about it, I could do a whole monologue. Maybe we will revisit this in greater length later in the week. Okay, number two, Justin Trudeau, who's increasingly looking like a character from the Count of Monte Cristo, recently started a rather weird initiative. I can't quite figure this out, but watch this video from Trudeau.

Hey kids, I know we're all going through a difficult time right now, and it's not made any easier by the fact that you have to do your homework around the kitchen table. I think parents across the country are discovering a new appreciation for the incredible work that teachers do. Well, as a teacher, I want to help. If you've encountered challenges or problems that are really tough and you need a little extra help with, why don't you reach out by responding to this message or using the hashtag? Our friends and I will be happy to try and help you out because, after all, the way we're going to get through this is by pulling together.

So the Prime Minister of Canada wants to help your kids. do their homework. Why? Who knows? And why would a child send a tweet to the prime minister of Canada rather than just like asking his parents or even asking Google? You know, who knows? If I wanted to find something more sinister in this, I could. You know, it's sort of my specialty anyway. And here it's rather obvious what the potentially sinister element of it is that You have the government trying to step into your kitchen and perform the basic duties and functions of a parent. You have them trying to breed dependency of a child on the state rather than on the parent. So I could interpret it that way.

And that may be not totally off base, but really, mostly, I think Trudeau is just kind of goofy. And that's what this is all about. Okay. By the way, I did look up while that was playing. I looked up Robert Chitigny, just because I was curious. And it said he's, I think, 68 years old. So I'm guessing that well into his 60s, he was quite sure that men have penises. I'm guessing that.

And I don't know. I could be wrong. And I will eat my words if I am. But I'm thinking if I look back through his opinions and decisions and everything he said publicly, I'm not going to find anything from him, certainly under the age of 60 of him, speculating that maybe somebody with a penis can be a girl. I'm guessing that. So, I mean, that just puts, and really, you know, I'm ranting and raving him, calling him

stupid and a dummy and all this, and you might think, well, that's very insulting and mean. Actually, I think it's quite generous. Quite generous. Because if you think this, I mean, if you think that a boy is actually, you know, is a female, you're either a very, very stupid person, very stupid. or something else. Talk about sinister, or there's something more sinister going on,

where you know the truth, but you're denying it, even as a judge, and trying to force this untruth, this falsehood, even on these girls who are just trying to defend their basic rights. And that's something a lot worse than stupidity.

Okay, number three, the AP issued some recommendations a few days ago, updating us on the politically correct term for a woman who sleeps with a married, man. And here's what they said. They said, we now say not to use the archaic and sexist term mistress for a woman in a long-term sexual relationship with and financially supported by a man who was married to someone else. Instead, use an alternative like companion or lover on first reference, provide details later. And here we see how the goal of politically correct language is always

to obfuscate, right? Where the goal of language generally is to communicate. meaning. The goal of politically correct language is essentially the opposite. Because normally we call a mistress a mistress and not a companion or a lover because first of all, companion and lover are both positive terms and decent people don't think of marital affairs as positive things. And so we have a different word for it. But then also, if you call a mistress a lover or a companion, you're going to have to say more to explain what you mean. And you're going to have to constantly add qualified Whereas the word mistress gets the point across without all the extra baggage and confusion. And that's why we have different words for different things.

The idea is to get the point across in the least confusing way. And so we say mistress, we know what you mean. We say companion or lover. I don't know. There's a lot of really essential information that is not included in that phrase that now you're going to have to explain. And every time the word comes up, you're going to have to qualify it in a certain way so that it doesn't. get confusing. But, yeah, there's the AP. Number four, Yahoo News reports, a top scientist who fell ill with COVID-19 has said the world will never return to normal unless there is a coronavirus vaccine. Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, spent a week in the hospital after contracting the virus in March. The Belgian virologist who led the Joint United Nations program on HIV-AIDS, said, climbing the flight of stairs still leaves him breathless.

And anyway, it goes on to say that a vaccine is needed for people to live normally again. My only point here is that we're hearing this more and more. First of all, this is a massive shifting of the goalposts because before we were told it was all about flattening the curve. We have done that. Now they're saying, never mind, it's about waiting until there's a vaccine. But second, this is a matter of choice. I mean, there is no requirement. If we all decided we wanted to get back to living our lives normally, we can live our lives normally.

Yes, there is the added threat of COVID-19, which is just added on to all the other threats that come with living your life normally. And people are going to die, just like people die every day regardless. It doesn't mean it's not sad. Doesn't mean we don't take steps to mitigate it. But just living your life normally comes with certain risks anyway. And so we're going to make the decision to start that and to start living or not. But it's totally a matter of choice. Number five, finally, a restaurant, speaking of living your life normally,

a restaurant in Colorado called Castle Rock's C&C Coffee and Kitchen, open for Mother's Day. And this is what it looked like at that restaurant. Take a look at some of the footage here. People packed in pretty tight. I only play this to make the point that, you know, when I look at the surveys and I look at the polls, I'm told that people are still very afraid. and even if you open up all the stuff, people aren't going to show up

because they're too afraid. And I believe that there are probably a large preponderance of people who are afraid and aren't going to show up. But I don't know. When we look at the experience of states that have started to reopen

or some of these companies that have defied the stay-at-home orders or the lockdown orders and have opened up anyway, when we look at that, anecdotally, it seems like there are a lot of people who are, if you open up, you know, they will come.

like field of dreams. If you open, they will come. That seems to be the case. So this argument that it doesn't matter, there's no reason to open because even if we do, no one's going to show up. That's not what you see

in these kinds of videos. That's not what I have observed just in my own experience. We were out, we were out for Mother's Day. Happy Mother's Day, by the way, to the ladies out there. We were out for Mother's Day yesterday,

and we went to a kind of a park area, and there was an outdoor, there was a food concession stand and it was right next to the beach. And there was a ton of people out. There were a lot of businesses that were closed, but people couldn't go to those businesses. But it seems to me, based on my experience,

that people are doing as much as they can to live their normal life. And so I think if we open things up, businesses are going to find that there is plenty of business out there. There are plenty of patrons out there who would like to come and visit. Okay, let's go to your daily cancellation. We put it off for long enough, but we have to get to this.

And before we do that, before we do that, I'm stalling, not very well. Right now, we are offering you an incredible deal. For the first time ever, you can purchase the highly coveted leftist-tears Tumblr. A leftist-tears Tumblr will actually be, or leftist tear actually, will be shed for every one, Every one of the tumblers that's purchased. I'm botching this. The whole point is that you can buy a Leftist Tears Tumblr, okay? You don't have to actually become a member.

You can buy them. DailyWire members get many amazing benefits, including, of course, the singular Leftist Tears Tumblr. You also get an ad-free website experience, access to our live broadcast and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro show, access to the mailbag, and now exclusive election insight op-eds from Ben Shapiro.

DailyWire members also get to ask us questions during backstage, and our All-Axcess members also get to participate in the All Access Live. But the Leftist Tears Tumblr now is not only given to people in that category. If you are one of the peons who is not a Daily Wire member, how dare you? Well, you can at least buy it. It's available for purchase.

This is the first time we've ever done something like this. So you really want to take advantage before it's too late. I'll do better next time. I didn't get a lot of sleep last night if you can't tell. I have no idea. Anything I've said so far. I have no idea what I've said. I blacked out as I say it.

So hopefully it went okay. Now for your daily cancellation, we are canceling Kim Brooks of the New York Times. She finds herself on the metaphorical chopping block for this editorial in the Times this weekend, just in time for Mother's Day. The title is, forget pancakes, pay mothers. Forget pancakes, pay mothers. Why pancakes? Anyway, that's the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever heard. I don't want pancakes, pay mothers.

I mean, even if I agree that we should pay mothers, why can't we have pancakes too? I don't understand. One lesson from the pandemic, child care is work, and it should be compensated. So basically Ms. Brooks has found herself because of the lockdowns actually performing the full-time duties of a mother, apparently for the first time. And after a few weeks of that experience, she's decided that she needs to be paid for it. That's her revelation, that she needs to be getting paid to do this stuff. So let's read a little bit from this article. It says, after just six days of sheltering in place, I found myself thinking about all the

women I'd taken for granted. I started with Griselda, who cared for my kids when they were babies a few hours each week. I thought about Beth and Perrine and every babysitter and cleaning lady I've ever used. All the women I'd paid to come into my home over the past 13 years so that I could leave it and do other things. side note here i think that every child should have a nanny called griselda or at least if if you're going to get a nanny for your kid she should be called griselda even if that's not her name

you should give her a new name grisel which you can do with nanny so you can call them whatever you want they're the hired help okay says if someone has had asked me why i paid these women to do things that i could do myself particularly when i made so little money with the time they freed up i'd say that I did it because I wanted to work, because I needed to work, not just out of economic necessity, but also out of a need to feel like a human being. The implication here was that when I did the child care and house work in cooking and laundry, it was not work but something else. Well, no, that's not the implication at all, but we'll get to that in a second. Now, for the first time, everyone is doing the work we don't call work when women do it. We watch Jimmy Fallon play

with his daughters while filming the Tonight Show and think, maybe it's work after all. Another side note, if you're having any revelations at all about parenthood from watching Jimmy Fallon, I don't know what to say, aside from I feel bad for your kids. But a little later on it says, I came close to applying to medical school, but instead I had she's going into her background and blah, blah, blah. So I was going to apply for medical school. Instead, I had a baby, then another. My children's father made enough to support us, but not enough to provide for the childcare

we need when I returned to school or take a full-time job. And so throughout my 30s, I found myself largely occupied with keeping a home and raising my children. This work, despite bringing joy and meaning to my life, shared many of the qualities of the menial jobs I'd done before. But there was one important difference, the work I've done as a mother I've done for free. Now we get to the really unshocking part of this, okay, the part that you saw coming a mile away. Get ready for this. You saw this come. You knew this was happening. She says, I've been thinking about this a lot lately because when the pandemic exploded, I happened to find myself in the middle of a divorce. I wouldn't recommend this timing.

You know, funny how that happens, right? A woman who thinks that she should be paid to perform the basic duties of motherhood happens to find herself in the middle of a divorce. It seems that this has a tendency to happen to selfish people, does it just happens. It's not their fault. It just happens. They're just walking along one day and boom, splat. They fall into a divorce.

Never saw it coming. Like a puddle on the sidewalk. They fall into a puddle of divorce. Oh, no. Look where I happen to find myself. How did this occur? I have no idea. Because it couldn't possibly be that their own attitude.

and approach and their whole view of and approach to life led them directly to this inevitable conclusion, could it? No, it couldn't be that. Okay, well, so, all right, we'll read a little bit more of this. She says, and yet our entire economic system hinges on the willingness of women to do this work for free. Caretakers who work outside the home are poorly paid, but those who care for their own kin in their own homes aren't paid at all.

They receive a wage of zero dollars and zero cents, no health insurance, no sick leave, no paid time off, no 401k. For a long time, I tried not to think about it. One of the ways I was able to not think about it was because I could pay other women to lighten my load. For the time being, those days are over. Maybe that's for the best. In 2012, the Marxist feminist, Sylvia Federici, you're also, this is the other part of this. You're not surprised to hear that she's quoting Marxist Feminist. Published a collection of essays, says, Revolution at Point Zero Housework Reproduction and Feminist Struggle about a largely forgotten movement, the campaign for wages for housework. Federici writes, to say that we want wages for housework is the first step toward refusing to do it.

It's what makes invisible visible. She says, in other words, if garbage collectors and grocery store workers and hedge fund managers expect to be paid for their labor, why not those who create and sustain the human race? Why can't we imagine some form of universal basic caretaker income to support the work of mothers or fathers or other extended kin to do at home? Okay, yada, yada, yeah, yeah. You get the idea. So let's talk about this for a minute. Why shouldn't mothers get paid? Well, the first answer I'd give is that they do in some form. If a mother stays at home and has a working husband, then she gets paid by the husband's employer, you know, indirectly. Not directly, but the effect is the same. So I would never say that I pay my wife to take care of our kids because that would be demeaning as hell, and I'll get back to that in a minute. But all the money that I make goes into a joint account and she has access to it and can use it and does whenever she wants. So I don't think that's an issue. Working mothers get paid by their employers. And most of the mothers who neither work nor have working husbands get paid by the welfare system.

So most mothers are getting paid as far as I can see. Second point. What about the duties of fatherhood? Why are they always left out of these discussions? So my wife does more cumulatively in terms of parenting and household duties because I'm working during the day. But when I'm not working, I'm on the scene. I'm helping. I'm doing things. So if we're paying mothers to be mothers, it seems only fair that we pay fathers to be fathers. Yes, my employer pays me, but my employer pays me to be an employee.

When it comes to the stuff that is specific to being a father, no one's paying me for that. That's not fair. That's not fair. Someone has to pay me. Why am I doing this otherwise? to paraphrase the article. Third point, who is going to make these payments? The grocery store clerk, you see, gets paid by the grocery store. Simple enough. He, the clerk, accepts the conditional responsibility of ringing up people's food purchased, you know, the people's food purchases for seven or eight hours a day.

In exchange for that, he gets X amount of money. He agrees to that going in. If he doesn't like the job, he doesn't like to pay, he can quit and go on strike. but the system makes sense. Grocery store pays clerk with the money they get from the customer. So I, as a customer, in helping to pay the clerk's salary, why am I doing that? Because the clerk is helping me. And so it's a whole system that makes a lot of sense.

People may not always feel that it's fair for everyone involved, but it's a sensible system. We understand how that works. Who is supposed to be making these payments to mothers? Well, of course, we know the answer. I am. and you through our taxes, right? That's what we're talking about. So this money is supposed to come from the government, which means it's coming from me partially. But here's the thing, and excuse me if this sounds harsh. Why should I pay you to raise your own kids? That's not a service you're providing

to me. You check out my grocery at the grocery store. You're providing me a service. By raising your own kids, you're not providing me a service. Why would I pay you for that? Why would I pay you for that any more than I would pay you to fix your own car? And by the way, what about the husbands that work on their family car? I mean, I'm not the handiest guy, so I don't really do that. But there are plenty of husbands who do. Better men than me. Are we going to pay them a mechanic's salary?

No, we don't. Why don't we? Because they're doing it for themselves. It's not a service they're providing to society or to anybody. It's something they're doing for their own sake or for the sake of their family. USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a quote at USAA.com slash bundle.

Restrictions apply. And what's the other option? If the clerk doesn't like what he's getting paid, he can quit. He can go on strike. Is that the other option as a parent? You can go on strike, quit. Leave your kids starving and dirty in the glass. No, that's not an option. If you do that, we'll haul your butt to jail. You'll go to jail for that.

You're not going to go to jail if you refuse to work as a clerk. You might get fired. But somebody in your house has to care for your kids, or you have to hire somebody who will. If you don't, you go to jail. Why? Again, because it's your duty. It's your responsibility. Not conditionally, not contractually, but naturally. It is what society expects you to do. demands that you do. It is what your children need you to do. We don't pay people to do that kind of thing. That's really basic.

Just like we don't pay you to put on your own pants in the morning. It's quite the opposite. If you don't put on your pants in the morning and go outside, then you might face some penalties for that. Again, why is that? Well, for the reasons that I've given, but for another reason to. And see, this is the strange thing about feminists.

They tend to be skeptical. of capitalism, but at the same time, they idolize it. They make a religion of it, right? All at once. So while being skeptical of it and complaining about it, they also idolize it and make a religion of it, which is the same thing they do of masculinity, by the way. They hate masculinity. They denigrate masculinity. They also idolize masculinity, and they want nothing more than to be men. But you look at it here, because these are people who think that a kind of work must be less valuable, less important, less dignified if you aren't paid to do it. Like somehow the act of making money, of profiting off of a thing, imbues it with dignity. Now, I would say the opposite is true. I would say that the

things we do for free, as it were, the things that we do because they are our natural duties, the things we do out of love and service to our family, those are far more dignified, far more important. And they exist in a realm above and beyond the marketplace. I get a very important. I get paid for the duties I perform at my job because it's merely a job. I don't get paid to go home and be a father because that is my calling. That's my vocation. That's my identity. It is many things, but job is not one of them. There is a difference between work and a job. Now all jobs involve work, theoretically speaking, but not all work is a job. Some work is above a job, is, is greater than job, is, is, transcends the label of job.

And that's the point. And that's why I say it's degrading. You know, if I were to come home and, you know, my wife had fed the kids for the day and clean the house and done all that stuff, and I would have pulled out my wallet and say, oh, nice job, here's $100. That would be incredibly demeaning. That's not, that's, people want recognition and gratitude for the things they do. and we should give that to each other as spouses and within the family. But not in the form of cold hard cash, you know, it's just like most of the time, the things that we do for love, as I said, are the things that we do in fulfillment of our natural duties.

Those are beyond the job, and they are beyond being paid for. And you can't quantify it anyway. It's literally priceless work. There are a lot The things you do at a job, that's not priceless. We can put a price on that. The things you do for your kid, your spouse, those are priceless. You can't put a price on it.

And that's the whole point. All right. So that's why, in fact, you know, because this is a distinction lost on modern people generally, especially feminists, I think that's why I'm going to cancel. I was going to cancel just the author of this article, but I think instead I'm going to cancel all of modern society, which I think probably covers everything

and maybe it's the last cancellation we need to do because just modern society is canceled. Although I'm going to keep doing them anyway, because they're fun. We'll leave it there. Thanks everybody for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Happy belated Mother's Day.

And 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. Tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcast, Spotify. Wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. 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. Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020. 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.