The Ben Shapiro Show - The Experts Don’t Have The Answers | Ep. 1005

00:00:00.000 As models predict higher levels of death, there are still no answers on reopening strategy.

00:00:04.000 The costs of shutting down continue to mount, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is hospitalized.

00:00:08.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:08.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:10.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN's Surf the web with peace of mind.

00:00:19.000 Sign up right now at expressvpn.com.

00:00:21.000 Slash Ben.

00:00:22.000 Before we begin, I want to take a moment to give a shout out to all of our advertising partners who helped make this show possible.

00:00:27.000 Obviously during down economic times, it is very difficult for everybody, particularly people who are in the viewing audience and the listening audience to patronize our advertisers.

00:00:36.000 They really appreciate it.

00:00:37.000 We really appreciate it.

00:00:38.000 We got to keep business going in this country and our advertisers make it possible for us to continue.

00:00:42.000 to bring you the news and commentary you want each and every day.

00:00:46.000 Speaking of which, right now, it is fairly obvious that the markets are volatile.

00:00:50.000 We don't know what the future is going to hold.

00:00:51.000 One thing that we can fairly bet is that at some point, the government is going to have to tax or inflate its way out of the debts that it's currently sustaining.

00:00:56.000 This is why you should be diversified at least a little bit into precious metals.

00:00:59.000 Over 26 million people have now lost their jobs, upward of 30 actually, from the economic fallout of coronavirus.

00:01:04.000 of coronavirus, even with the stock market having a slight recovery, we don't know the long-term impact of this many workers being displaced all at once.

00:01:05.000 Even with the stock market having a slight recovery, we don't know the long-term impact of this many workers being displaced all at once.

00:01:10.000 That's only going to be felt over time.

00:01:12.000 We have no idea what's going to happen next.

00:01:13.000 So what exactly would be the prudent thing to do?

00:01:14.000 So what exactly would be the prudent thing to do?

00:01:15.000 Well, diversify.

00:01:16.000 Think of the position you would be in now if you diversified into gold or silver a little bit earlier.

00:01:17.000 Think of the position you would be in now if you diversified into gold or silver a little bit earlier.

00:01:21.000 Well, you can still do it right now, and it's a smart idea to at least be diversified some.

00:01:25.000 Before May 31st, with a qualifying purchase, Birch Gold will help you do this and give you a free emergency kit as well.

00:01:30.000 This backpack is absolutely loaded with everything you can't buy right now.

00:01:34.000 So safeguard your savings with Birch Gold.

00:01:35.000 They will help safeguard your family like they did mine.

00:01:38.000 No obligation.

00:01:38.000 You got nothing to lose to take that first step.

00:01:40.000 I trust the folks over at Birch Gold.

00:01:41.000 I've known them for quite a while.

00:01:42.000 Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, and A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.

00:01:48.000 Don't wait until the market drops again to protect your hard-earned savings and get that free emergency kit.

00:01:52.000 Again, check them out over at Birchgold Group.

00:01:55.000 All you have to do is text Ben to 474747 to diversify today.

00:01:59.000 Again, text my name, Ben, to 474747.

00:02:02.000 That's my name, Ben, to 474747.

00:02:05.000 Ask all of your questions to my friends over at Birchgold Group, and then get started diversifying your asset base.

00:02:10.000 Alrighty.

00:02:12.000 The big question, obviously, in all of this COVID-19 situation is where we go from here.

00:02:18.000 And nobody seems to have a good answer to this.

00:02:20.000 And the easy answer is we just do what the science says.

00:02:23.000 But as I've said, the science doesn't answer these questions.

00:02:25.000 The science is merely an input that you put into whatever formula you are using to determine the output.

00:02:31.000 Science can just give you how many deaths they expect to happen if given particular factors, but they don't tell you how you're supposed to weigh the value of those deaths against the value of the entire global shutdown of the economy.

00:02:42.000 They can't really tell you how many people are going to commit suicide, how many lives will be ruined, how many women will be the victims of domestic abuse because of all of this, how many kids will have exacerbated mental conditions because of all of this.

00:02:51.000 There's no way for the scientists to tell you this.

00:02:53.000 And I understand in difficult situations when we're looking for some level of peace of mind, we want to think that there are these experts out there, this group of unnamed experts who are going to solve all of our problems for us.

00:03:02.000 The fact is, they are not.

00:03:04.000 The unnamed experts are not going to solve all of our problems for us.

00:03:06.000 Hell, they can't even solve their own problems.

00:03:08.000 Example, remember Neil Ferguson?

00:03:09.000 So Neil Ferguson is the guy behind that famous study from Britain that suggested 2.2 million deaths in the United States from COVID-19.

00:03:15.000 Now it turns out that those numbers are probably going to be off by at least one scale of magnitude.

00:03:21.000 Even if the United States were to see extraordinarily heavy levels of death in the United States over the coming year, the numbers are never going to reach 2.2 million.

00:03:29.000 They're just not going to hit 2.2 million.

00:03:31.000 We've seen 70,000 deaths to date.

00:03:33.000 Even if we opened up everything, which nobody is advocating, even if we opened up everything willy-nilly, let all the old age homes just be invaded by COVID-19, the number of dead in the United States is not going to be 2.2 million. 0.82

00:03:43.000 There's There's no other study that supported that 2.2 million number.

00:03:46.000 Okay, well, Neil Ferguson was the one who put out that study over at Imperial College.

00:03:49.000 It was widely derided by people from Oxford University to even the University of Washington as too high.

00:03:55.000 Well, now, Neil Ferguson has been fired.

00:03:59.000 Not because his science was wrong.

00:04:00.000 Not because his studies were wrong.

00:04:01.000 By the way, he had also been the author of a study about HIV-AIDS.

00:04:04.000 that it suggested a death toll way above what it eventually ended up being.

00:04:06.000 He had suggested the bird flu was going to be significantly more deadly than it ended up being.

00:04:10.000 The nice thing about being a modeler is that you never get penalized for having a model that is too dire.

00:04:14.000 You only get penalized for having a model that is too sanguine about the situation.

00:04:18.000 If you're Paul Ehrlich at University of Berkeley and you suggest in the 1960s that billions will die of global starvation, and then none of that materializes, in fact, the opposite happens, you still have a job at University of Berkeley.

00:04:28.000 If you suggest that everything is going to be fine and then a billion people die of starvation, then you lose your job.

00:04:33.000 So anyway, this guy didn't lose his job for the bad modeling at Imperial College.

00:04:36.000 Instead, he lost his job because he broke social distancing rules to meet his married lover, which is just a delicious little side treat in all of this situation.

00:04:47.000 So Neil Ferguson had stumped for vast lockdowns across the UK, except when it applied to his married lover, who is the mother of two, who had stopped by his apartment and they did not engage in social distancing.

00:04:58.000 According to the UK Telegraph, Neil Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus.

00:05:07.000 The woman lives with her husband and their children in another house.

00:05:11.000 So, good times over in Great Britain.

00:05:14.000 And again, that doesn't mean that his models were necessarily wrong. 0.98

00:05:18.000 What made the models wrong is that the models were wrong, not that the man was shitting a married woman during his off hours.

00:05:23.000 But it does speak to the idea that there are a lot of experts out there who are telling you to social distance, who are telling you that it's imperative that you lock down, who are not, in fact, obeying these rules themselves.

00:05:31.000 The name Chris Cuomo springs to mind, lecturing everybody about not leaving home while biking around and presumably infecting everybody within a six-foot radius.

00:05:39.000 In any case, There are new models out, and the new models are suggesting elevated levels of death.

00:05:43.000 That, of course, is not a surprise. 0.99

00:05:44.000 And anybody who's telling you that it's a surprise is being a fool. 0.99

00:05:48.000 Of course, there are going to be elevated risks of death when you start to reopen the economy. 0.99

00:05:52.000 Everyone recognizes this.

00:05:54.000 Every single human recognizes this.

00:05:55.000 But if you recognize this, then people yell at you.

00:05:57.000 Because we're supposed to believe that there is a policy out there, a unicorn policy, that allows us to not completely tank the entire world economy, Until the end of time, and also saves every single life.

00:06:09.000 That's not a possibility.

00:06:10.000 And if you mention that there are trade-offs to policy, as I've been saying for a while, and this is my bugaboo right now, is that nobody will honestly discuss the trade-offs to policy. 0.98

00:06:16.000 So instead, we have stupid conversations about, if you don't like my policy, it's because you want people to die. 0.99

00:06:22.000 Like, I'm sorry, that is complete idiocy. 1.00

00:06:24.000 And nobody actually believes that. 0.99

00:06:26.000 Nobody actually believes that.

00:06:27.000 Let me give you an example of this kind of logic that is being used right now, and then we'll get to some of the new studies.

00:06:34.000 So, Andrew Cuomo yesterday, he was talking about how you make the calculation in New York to reopen.

00:06:39.000 And he said that a human life is priceless.

00:06:42.000 Well, on a moral level, of course a human life is priceless.

00:06:45.000 Of course a human life is priceless.

00:06:47.000 But on a political policymaking level, we make risk calculations about the risks we are willing to undertake in public life literally all the time.

00:06:55.000 All the time.

00:06:56.000 Every element of policy is like this.

00:06:57.000 If Andrew Cuomo really believed in public policy terms, not in moral terms, in public policy terms, that you have to mitigate the risk to every human life down to zero, he could never discuss reopening because there is no bar that would be low enough to clear for that.

00:07:12.000 There's a cost of staying closed.

00:07:13.000 Cuomo yesterday suggesting a human life is priceless, period.

00:07:16.000 But if that were the case, you could never reopen, including in upstate New York, including in rural areas, because any time you tell people they can leave their homes, you've increased their risk.

00:07:23.000 So here is Andrew Cuomo yesterday.

00:07:24.000 This is, again, the if it just saves one life logic is not political logic.

00:07:29.000 It is it is simply posturing in demagoguery.

00:07:32.000 Here is Andrew Cuomo yesterday.

00:07:33.000 There's a cost of staying closed.

00:07:37.000 There's also a cost of reopening quickly.

00:07:42.000 That is the hard truth that we are all dealing with.

00:07:47.000 Thank you.

00:07:48.000 And let's be honest about it.

00:07:50.000 And let's be open about it.

00:07:52.000 And let's not camouflage the actual terms of the discussion that we're having.

00:08:00.000 And the question comes back to, how much is a human life worth?

00:08:05.000 To me, I say, the cost of a human life, a human life is priceless.

00:08:11.000 Period.

00:08:13.000 Okay, but he doesn't actually believe that.

00:08:15.000 Nobody believes in public policy terms that a human life is priceless.

00:08:15.000 Right?

00:08:19.000 Truly.

00:08:20.000 Now, a human life is priceless in moral terms, meaning that we have to prohibit murder, right?

00:08:25.000 We have to prohibit, people have said, when I point this out, in public policy, we actually calculate the value of human lives on actuarial tables, right?

00:08:31.000 We actually do this.

00:08:32.000 It's called quality-adjusted life years.

00:08:34.000 It is a chief factor in every calculation we ever do about public policy.

00:08:39.000 Because if we actually believed that every human life was quote-unquote priceless in public policy terms, we would put you in a plastic bubble and leave you there and feed you through a feeding tube, presumably.

00:08:50.000 When it comes to protecting human life from others' predations, that would be like abortion, for example, then of course there's no countervailing cost in terms of stopping people from killing other people.

00:09:00.000 You may think that there's a priority to a woman being able to kill an unborn child. 1.00

00:09:04.000 I do not think that that is a priority.

00:09:06.000 I think the priority is saving the person's life.

00:09:09.000 That's it.

00:09:10.000 There's a trade-off, but the trade-off there does not look like the trade-off with regard to destroying the entire American economy, for example, which would involve the deaths of presumably hundreds of thousands or millions of people and cost you hundreds of millions of people as well.

00:09:24.000 When you outlaw murder, there presumably is a countervailing cost to outlawing murder, namely the murderers go to jail.

00:09:30.000 But that is not a cost that stacks up against the loss of human life.

00:09:33.000 When it comes to public policymaking, every human life is priceless in the sense that you cannot deliberately take the life of another human being.

00:09:40.000 But in terms of what levels of risk are we willing to tolerate as a society in order to live free, there the answer is, well, it's not quite priceless because you are then asked to value your own life.

00:09:51.000 And we as a society are asked to make the decision as to what levels of risk we're willing to tolerate for everybody in the public sphere.

00:09:57.000 This is the question of public policy.

00:09:59.000 And so it is a cop out for Andrew Cuomo to say, every life is priceless when it comes to policymaking.

00:10:04.000 Because again, he doesn't even believe that.

00:10:05.000 If he believed that, then he wouldn't be opening up at all.

00:10:07.000 There'd be no situation under which you could open up.

00:10:10.000 And so this has become the go-to argument of people who don't even want to have a discussion about reopening or how to reopen in a responsible fashion. 0.97

00:10:18.000 This is how you end up with this idiotic tweet with 30,000, 34,000 retweets from Kumail Nanjiani. 0.51

00:10:26.000 A guy from Silicon Valley, I guess he's in one of the new Marvel movies, if eventually we go back to the movies, he tweeted out, after weeks of careful preparation, planning and strategizing, most of the country has landed on the following approach. 0.98

00:10:36.000 Let's just open it all up and see what happens.

00:10:38.000 Not a single governor has settled on that approach.

00:10:41.000 Not one.

00:10:42.000 Not one.

00:10:43.000 There are zero people who have settled on that approach.

00:10:46.000 I mean, this is, like, come on.

00:10:48.000 Come on.

00:10:49.000 Nobody's talking about this.

00:10:50.000 But the way that people talk about this, in order to avoid the discussion, is by suggesting that the alternative to lockdowns are completely opening it up without thinking about how to protect the elderly, without thinking about how to protect nursing homes, without thinking about how to protect the vulnerable.

00:11:02.000 Literally no one is discussing that.

00:11:04.000 No one.

00:11:06.000 But at some point, one of the conversations that we are going to have is, again, what level of risk are we willing to tolerate?

00:11:10.000 And in past episodes, I've talked about the need to make those risk calculations with regard to everything from the number of kids in public schools to the speed limits, right?

00:11:22.000 If you wanted to prevent deaths and every life were quote-unquote priceless in public policy terms, you would lower the speed limits to two miles an hour.

00:11:29.000 Because elderly people and 16 and 17 year olds are disproportionately killed in car accidents.

00:11:33.000 We don't do that.

00:11:34.000 We tolerate a certain level of risk in life.

00:11:36.000 Toleration of risk in public policy does assume that we can value certain economic costs against the additional risk that people are going to hurt themselves.

00:11:47.000 This is why you buy insurance.

00:11:49.000 Insurance companies do this for a living every single day.

00:11:51.000 This is what they do.

00:11:53.000 Okay, so this raises a question about the new model.

00:11:55.000 So this is really interesting stuff.

00:11:57.000 There is a new model that is out from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

00:12:01.000 This is being reported by CBS Local.

00:12:03.000 They say governors in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware have a lot to consider before fully reopening.

00:12:08.000 If they open too quickly, that could result in more deaths, according to a new model from the Wharton School.

00:12:12.000 Reopening states' economies certainly comes with a cost, and that could result in more deaths.

00:12:17.000 But some economists argue not only can you put a value on human life, but they urge elected officials to do just that when making policy decisions.

00:12:22.000 Right, because literally every policy decision does calculate out how much it is going to cost to do X, right?

00:12:29.000 And that cost can be calculated.

00:12:32.000 The entirety of human life cannot be reduced to a dollar number, obviously.

00:12:35.000 But when you are talking about reducing economic activity to dollar numbers or quality of life to dollar numbers, you are now taking a bunch of things that are larger than dollar numbers and you're reducing it to dollar numbers so that you can actually make a calculation.

00:12:47.000 Because otherwise you simply cannot do public policy.

00:12:49.000 So, Alex Arnone, a senior analyst at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, he says, the economic costs have been enormous.

00:12:55.000 We are suffering really significant, unprecedented costs as a result of these policies.

00:12:59.000 So, they put together this model.

00:13:00.000 Here is what their model says.

00:13:02.000 Scenario one.

00:13:02.000 You can put that graphic back up, because it's actually a useful graphic.

00:13:05.000 Scenario one.

00:13:07.000 States continue their stay-at-home orders.

00:13:09.000 Everybody stays home.

00:13:10.000 So, what they would forecast is 117,000 deaths by the end of June.

00:13:13.000 This is if everybody stays home, right?

00:13:15.000 Social distancing is not a thing because everybody stays home.

00:13:17.000 We don't have to worry about people getting back out.

00:13:20.000 So this would be 18.6 million jobs lost.

00:13:23.000 And by the way, the jobs lost plus whatever cost we then take on at the federal government level.

00:13:28.000 We've already spent $7 trillion. $7 trillion.

00:13:31.000 In reality, you have to figure that if everybody stays home and we lose 18.6 million jobs on a permanent basis, it's not going to be $7 trillion.

00:13:39.000 It'll be $15 trillion.

00:13:41.000 We're gonna double our cost.

00:13:42.000 But let's assume that those $7 trillion are enough to tide us over for all of the job loss, the 20 million's job lost, if the stay-at-home orders continue until the end of June.

00:13:52.000 So 117,000 deaths, that's scenario one.

00:13:54.000 Scenario two is the partial reopening, right?

00:13:56.000 That is social distancing, 25% reopening of restaurants, we keep the theaters closed, we keep all the public events closed, They say that by the end of June, we'd have 162,000 additional deaths.

00:14:07.000 With 14 million job losses.

00:14:11.000 Right, so that would be 162,000 deaths.

00:14:11.000 If we partially open.

00:14:16.000 And then they say scenario three is all the states fully reopen, right?

00:14:19.000 This is the willy-nilly Kumail Nanjiani suggestion that people are going for.

00:14:23.000 There'll be 350,000 deaths and 500,000 jobs lost.

00:14:24.000 So we would only, we'd save about 18.1 million jobs, right?

00:14:28.000 We would lose an additional 232 million lives and we'd save about 18.1 million jobs.

00:14:30.000 We would lose an additional 232 million lives, and we'd save about 18.1 million jobs.

00:14:36.000 So for every life lost, so you get about 18.1 million divided by 232,000.

00:14:45.000 Basically, for every life lost, you would save 78 jobs under that calculation, right?

00:14:50.000 That's the calculation.

00:14:51.000 So this is the Wharton School calculation.

00:14:54.000 Now, the more interesting calculation comes about when you look at what they value human life.

00:14:59.000 Okay, so pre-COVID-19, the Center for Disease Control did this, right?

00:15:02.000 The Center for Disease Control actually had calculations where they determined the quote-unquote value of human life in economic terms, like how much it costs to the economy if somebody dies when they are young, for example.

00:15:11.000 And other federal agencies, their baseline was roughly, on average, $10 million a person.

00:15:17.000 That a human life is worth that $10 million.

00:15:19.000 That is the calculation, not from me.

00:15:22.000 This is from the CDC and other federal agencies.

00:15:25.000 So if you actually use that calculation for a second, what that would suggest is that even if we only spent $7 trillion, which we are not going to under scenario number one, and we saved approximately 232,000 lives from scenario three, where everybody just goes willy-nilly back out to work, That would mean that you're spending about $60 million per life in order to save each one of those lives based on the economic cost, which is six times what the calculation is for the CDC in terms of value of a human life.

00:15:50.000 Now, again, maybe that valuation is wrong, but we should at least acknowledge that the valuation that we are using in unspoken fashion is way higher than any other valuation ever used in human history when it comes to policymaking along these lines.

00:16:03.000 If you were to do a partial reopening and you were to lose an additional 45,000 lives, You would still be spending about 42, and let's assume it would cost $5 trillion, which of course is not true.

00:16:14.000 But let's assume it would cost $5 trillion.

00:16:16.000 You're still spending about $42 million per life saved.

00:16:20.000 Then scenario three is you spend $0, right, because presumably most people keep their jobs.

00:16:25.000 And so you're coming in underneath that $10 million.

00:16:27.000 So the answer, if you were looking to spend about $10 million to save each life, would be somewhere between the partial reopening and the full reopening.

00:16:35.000 It is also necessary to look at how much money you would have to spend per job saved.

00:16:40.000 So in terms of amounts of money that you'd be spending per job saved, if you were looking at the amounts of money, $7 trillion, right, over the 232,000 additional lives, then what you would be looking at presumably is per job saved you'd be spending Not all that much money, right?

00:17:02.000 You'd be spending a lot less money per job saved in terms of the worst case scenario.

00:17:07.000 So, is this a case for the worst case scenario?

00:17:09.000 This isn't the case for reopen it all up.

00:17:09.000 Hell no!

00:17:11.000 Because again, there are certain basic things that we obviously should be doing.

00:17:15.000 It is also necessary to mention in these models that these models only go through June, so the numbers could balloon way further than this, right?

00:17:20.000 This is only through June.

00:17:22.000 It is also necessary to mention that there's no guarantee that the lockdowns through June end up with a lower total number of deaths.

00:17:28.000 Remember, everybody keeps talking about that flattening of the curve stuff, right?

00:17:32.000 The flattening of the curve was designed, again, to prevent the overwhelm of the healthcare system.

00:17:37.000 So I'm gonna draw the curve for you one more time because people seem really not to understand this in the media.

00:17:41.000 Okay, the flattening of the curve was supposed to prevent the curve from being overwhelmed.

00:17:47.000 It was not supposed to change the area underneath the curve. 0.96

00:17:49.000 Okay, and this is why everybody is being kind of dumb about all of this.

00:17:54.000 So, this is what the curve was originally supposed to look like, right? 0.95

00:17:57.000 Here was the big curve.

00:17:58.000 This is the big curve right here.

00:17:59.000 If you can watch this, you can see it.

00:18:02.000 On the left hand, let's see, it would be your left hand side of the page.

00:18:05.000 On your left hand side of the page, you can see the big spike.

00:18:08.000 The line is the medical capacity.

00:18:10.000 And then here is the lower curve.

00:18:11.000 The lower curve is supposed to stay below that line.

00:18:14.000 Great.

00:18:15.000 The actual area, the shaded area that I'm about to shade in right here, that is the number of deaths total.

00:18:21.000 That is the number of deaths total.

00:18:23.000 Or the number of infections total, rather.

00:18:27.000 So the number of infections total is going to be the same over time.

00:18:32.000 Recognize that.

00:18:33.000 So if this thing is as deadly as it's going to be and we don't overwhelm the healthcare system, what people were worried about was specifically This area above the line, these would be excess deaths.

00:18:43.000 But in terms of total number of infections, the total number of infections is going to be exactly the same.

00:18:47.000 So when we look at those models that look through June, that is not enough.

00:18:50.000 You would actually have to look at the model through the extent of the year and then decide on economic costs here.

00:18:54.000 These are all the calculations that actually go into the calculations, but it's important to note them because no one is willing to discuss this stuff out loud. 0.99

00:19:00.000 It is politically unpalatable to discuss this stuff out loud, which means that the policy is going to end up being really stupid. 0.97

00:19:06.000 That's what it ends up meaning. 1.00

00:19:07.000 That the policy is going to end up being super dumb. 0.94

00:19:09.000 Because if you can't discuss out loud the actual considerations that are going in, what you end up with is, on the one hand, the posturing of people who suggest that they're going to save every life, Andrew Cuomo is not going to save every life, the dummy just started cleaning the subways five seconds ago. 0.92

00:19:23.000 It's May, guys.

00:19:24.000 It's May.

00:19:25.000 They shut down everything in March except the subways, the chief incubator for this thing.

00:19:29.000 They only started cleaning the subway systems at night now, like yesterday.

00:19:33.000 But he's saying he's out there saving every life.

00:19:35.000 Of course that is not true.

00:19:36.000 Of course that is not true. 0.97

00:19:38.000 But we've reduced our conversation to the dumbest possible point.

00:19:41.000 We're gonna start having to have these tough conversations about when to reopen, what the actual costs are, what are the monetary costs, whether we are using anything besides gut.

00:19:49.000 It's so funny, people say data and science and Trump is using his gut about reopening.

00:19:53.000 I'll tell you who's using their gut about reopening.

00:19:54.000 People who refuse to even have the conversation about mathematical values that are used in every other actuarial investigation of every other policy in human history. 0.92

00:20:04.000 Frankly, it's ridiculous. 0.98

00:20:06.000 It's ridiculous. 0.97

00:20:07.000 You have to make these calculations because there is no other way to make the calculations. 0.80

00:20:10.000 Otherwise, you are just reduced to, my gut is, that we should just stay in.

00:20:13.000 Until when?

00:20:14.000 I don't know.

00:20:15.000 Meh.

00:20:15.000 Until what happens?

00:20:16.000 What are the costs?

00:20:17.000 Well, it doesn't matter.

00:20:17.000 Every human life is priceless.

00:20:19.000 That is not policymaking.

00:20:20.000 That is posturing.

00:20:21.000 Political posturing.

00:20:22.000 Okay, we'll get to more of this in just one second.

00:20:24.000 First, Let's talk about the reality, which is that the future is really, really unpredictable.

00:20:29.000 And this is why you need life insurance.

00:20:31.000 Very important for you to ensure against the possibility of bad things happening in the future.

00:20:35.000 You know who can do that life insurance for you?

00:20:36.000 Life insurance companies who do actuarial calculations about how much to pay you in case, God forbid, you should plot.

00:20:42.000 You can take advantage of their acumen by going to policygenius.com.

00:20:46.000 Policygenius.com is an insurance marketplace.

00:20:48.000 There's a big demand for life insurance right now, so if you're looking to get life insurance, here's how they can help.

00:20:53.000 Policygenius compares quotes from the top life insurance companies in one place.

00:20:56.000 It takes just a few minutes to compare quotes from the top insurers to find your best price.

00:21:00.000 This doesn't just save a lot of legwork.

00:21:01.000 You could save $1,500 or more a year by using Policygenius to compare life insurance policies.

00:21:06.000 Once you apply, the Policygenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape for free.

00:21:10.000 They're in contact with life insurance companies every day, monitoring developments and helping customers navigate every single step.

00:21:15.000 There's no reason to wait on something as important as life insurance.

00:21:18.000 Head on over to PolicyGenius right now.

00:21:20.000 They will find you the best rate and handle the process completely.

00:21:23.000 You can stop worrying about life insurance, get back to you.

00:21:25.000 Baking your sourdough bread or adopting a pet or something.

00:21:28.000 But you can get rid of the life insurance thing on your insurance checklist right now by going to policygenius.com.

00:21:33.000 Head on over to policygenius.com.

00:21:36.000 So, President Trump is getting all sorts of flack for mentioning the fact that it is indeed time to open and that we are going to have to figure out how to reopen in decent fashion.

00:21:44.000 Texas Governor Greg Abbott is taking a hit.

00:21:46.000 So here is Trump yesterday mentioning, yeah, we can't keep this closed forever.

00:21:49.000 It's kind of time to open.

00:21:52.000 I'm viewing our great citizens of this country to a certain extent and to a large extent as warriors.

00:22:00.000 They're warriors.

00:22:02.000 We can't keep our country closed.

00:22:03.000 We have to open our country.

00:22:05.000 One day, they said, we have to close our country.

00:22:08.000 Well, now it's time to open it up.

00:22:10.000 And you know what?

00:22:11.000 The people of our country are warriors, and I'm looking at it.

00:22:14.000 I'm not saying anything is perfect.

00:22:17.000 And yes, will some people be affected?

00:22:19.000 Will some people be affected badly?

00:22:19.000 Yes.

00:22:21.000 Yes.

00:22:22.000 But we have to get our country open, and we have to get it open soon.

00:22:26.000 Okay, Trump is correct about this, and he says the shutdown is going to kill people, too.

00:22:29.000 Yes, this is also true.

00:22:30.000 This is obviously true.

00:22:31.000 Apparently, the call-ins to suicide hotlines are up 1,000%.

00:22:35.000 Apparently, people are not going in for chemo treatments.

00:22:38.000 Those quote-unquote elective surgeries that actually help people's quality of life, including the elderly, those are not being performed.

00:22:43.000 Medical personnel are being laid off across the country when these hospitals are not even near capacity because people are not performing elective surgeries.

00:22:49.000 Here's Trump mentioning all of this, but apparently it's very bad to mention this. 0.82

00:22:52.000 If you mention this, you're a bad, bad man.

00:22:53.000 President Trump's a bad bet. 1.00

00:22:54.000 Like, this is the dumbest form of our political conversation. 1.00

00:22:57.000 It is so stupid because no alternative has actually been provided. 1.00

00:23:00.000 None. 0.96

00:23:01.000 I'm sorry.

00:23:01.000 Lockdown is not an alternative.

00:23:03.000 Full-time lockdown forever until the end of time with no schooling, with no summer camps, with no work.

00:23:10.000 None of this is a reality.

00:23:11.000 But it's very easy to sit in your corner and just shout, you don't care about human life, you don't care about human life.

00:23:16.000 As we'll see in a second, there's an actual New York Times columnist who's suggesting the problem here is American freedom.

00:23:19.000 I have a feeling this person had a problem with American freedom long before the pandemic.

00:23:23.000 Here is President Trump talking about how the shutdown will kill people too.

00:23:26.000 The fact that we're letting people go and go to their jobs, they have to do it. 0.97

00:23:30.000 You know, if they held people any longer with the shutdowns, you're going to lose people that way, too.

00:23:36.000 And you already have, I'm sure.

00:23:38.000 But between drug abuse and, I mean, they say suicide, a lot of different things.

00:23:44.000 There's no win, just so you know.

00:23:46.000 There's no great win one way or the other.

00:23:50.000 Okay, so, President Trump is right about this.

00:23:52.000 Also, the Texas governor, Greg Abbott, who's ripped up and down because he was on a phone call, apparently, and on this private phone call, Greg Abbott suggested that, you know what?

00:24:00.000 If we reopen, that's going to add risk.

00:24:02.000 Yeah, no bleep, Sherlock.

00:24:03.000 Like, this is the basic premise of a lockdown.

00:24:05.000 The whole pro— If going back to work doesn't add a risk, why did we lock down?

00:24:11.000 Seriously, like, that would be the question.

00:24:12.000 The counter question is, Were we not supposed to expect additional risk when we go out?

00:24:17.000 Of course we're supposed to expect additional risk.

00:24:19.000 The question is, which populations are least likely to suffer from the additional risk?

00:24:22.000 I will give you the answer.

00:24:23.000 Young people, healthy people, children.

00:24:25.000 That's your answer.

00:24:26.000 Those people are not very likely, when I say not very likely, I mean exorbitantly unlikely to die of COVID-19.

00:24:32.000 And to pretend that everybody is equally susceptible or that you cannot open in a responsible fashion, namely by starting by protecting nursing homes, which have been responsible for 40 to 50% of all deaths in the EU and in California.

00:24:44.000 In New York, a lot of people have been dying in their apartments because nursing homes in New York City are not like a huge thing.

00:24:48.000 They're kind of bigger across the state because of the heavy population.

00:24:52.000 But the fact is that if you protected the nursing homes, you would lower the number of deaths across the United States overall, and certainly in Europe, by anywhere from 20 to 50 percent, which would be near miraculous.

00:25:05.000 But Greg Abbott was being ripped up and down for recognizing that there are additional risks when you open things up.

00:25:10.000 Again, why is any of this a shock?

00:25:12.000 And when people are ripping on Abbott for this or ripping on Trump for this, it's because they do not wish to come to the grips with the reality of public policymaking. 0.94

00:25:19.000 Instead, they're involved in this idiotic political calculation that suggests that we are all supposed to pretend that public policy has no trade-offs. 0.95

00:25:26.000 This is my bugaboo. 1.00

00:25:27.000 It drives me up a wall.

00:25:28.000 It's what makes nonpartisan issues like risk calculation into partisan issues, when you suggest that people actually want people to die in order to reopen the economy. 1.00

00:25:36.000 Absolute idiocy. 0.99

00:25:37.000 Here is Greg Abbott yesterday. 0.99

00:25:40.000 How do we know reopening businesses won't result in faster spread or more cases of COVID-19?

00:25:48.000 Listen, the fact of the matter is pretty much every scientific and medical report shows that whenever you have a reopening, whether you want to call it a reopening of business or just a reopening of society in the aftermath of something like this, that whether you want to call it a reopening of business or just a reopening of society in the It's almost ipso facto.

00:26:11.000 That's true.

00:26:14.000 He got ripped up and down for even acknowledging this.

00:26:15.000 We're supposed to pretend that it's not going to lead to an increase in spread.

00:26:18.000 Yes, we get it.

00:26:19.000 So what's the alternative?

00:26:20.000 Again, I keep asking this to people.

00:26:22.000 I've provided several different possibilities here.

00:26:25.000 None of them involve full lockdown forever.

00:26:27.000 Those possibilities range from the controlled avalanche strategy proposed by Israeli scientists in which we protect the elderly, we protect the most vulnerable, and everybody else is encouraged to actually go into the population and interact And to obtain an immunity to it, because if you are young and healthy, again, it is very unlikely this does severe damage to you, and you move toward herd immunity.

00:26:44.000 That's basically Sweden's strategy.

00:26:46.000 In controlled fashion, meaning that you still do some social distancing, but the reality is that over time you actually want people to get this so it moves through the population, get herd immunity.

00:26:54.000 That's possibility number one.

00:26:56.000 Possibility number two, you go out, you continue to socially distance, you wear a mask, you do protect the nursing homes, the economy really takes a hit, like a more severe hit than it would otherwise.

00:27:05.000 And it takes longer to reach herd immunity, but at least you haven't killed that many people in terms of the increased risk in the amount of times it takes to develop a therapeutic or vaccine.

00:27:14.000 That you're hoping for a real change on the ground.

00:27:16.000 Those are a couple possibilities.

00:27:17.000 I'll tell you what's not a possibility.

00:27:18.000 Keeping it going like this.

00:27:20.000 And you know who's not evil?

00:27:21.000 I'm sick of the media portraying people as evil this way.

00:27:23.000 You know who's not evil?

00:27:24.000 The person who wants to go back to work. 1.00

00:27:25.000 This is such crap. 1.00

00:27:26.000 It's utter, absolute, nonsensical crap. 1.00

00:27:29.000 It's not only quote-unquote rich and white people who will do well reopening. 0.99

00:27:33.000 Okay, so the former Obama CDC director said that the only reason people want to reopen is because they're rich and white. 1.00

00:27:40.000 What absolute, sheer, unmitigated garbage. 0.99

00:27:42.000 You know who's getting this right now? 0.99

00:27:44.000 Like right now?

00:27:46.000 A lot of the essential workers, you know what's happening with the essential workers?

00:27:48.000 Many of them are disproportionately, essential workers, particularly in the healthcare industry, like nurses or delivery people, disproportionately minority and poor.

00:27:57.000 Those people are already out interacting.

00:27:59.000 Those people are already getting COVID.

00:28:00.000 The people we're talking about going back to work are largely not blue collar workers.

00:28:04.000 And the people who are finding it very easy to stay shut down forever are people who can sit in their basement with a step and repeat behind them on CNN and get paid.

00:28:12.000 I have it easy.

00:28:13.000 I can lock down basically forever.

00:28:15.000 I can.

00:28:16.000 I mean, the reality is that my job does not require me to leave my house.

00:28:20.000 But let me tell you a story.

00:28:22.000 That ain't true for 90% of the population.

00:28:24.000 It is not rich white people who benefit from the ends of the lockdown.

00:28:28.000 The rich white people are rich.

00:28:30.000 They have money.

00:28:32.000 The people who benefit from the end of the lockdown are all the people who are losing their jobs.

00:28:35.000 All the people who can't keep their small business afloat.

00:28:38.000 This is the most demagogic nonsense.

00:28:40.000 Dr. Richard Besser, former acting director of the CDC.

00:28:44.000 What's not being done?

00:28:45.000 We don't have the testing capacity now to know where this disease is.

00:28:48.000 We haven't scaled up the thousands and thousands of contact tracers that we need.

00:28:53.000 We don't provide safe places for people to isolate or quarantine if they're identified as either having an infection or being in contact.

00:29:02.000 We are saying, if you have money and you're white, you can do well here. 0.81

00:29:06.000 If you're not, good luck to you. 0.98

00:29:10.000 That is such nonsense. 0.98

00:29:11.000 It's such absolute nonsense. 0.96

00:29:13.000 We should be protecting people.

00:29:14.000 If they get sick, they should be able to go home.

00:29:16.000 They should get paid leave from the government, unemployment insurance, or whatever it is.

00:29:20.000 No one wants people to die.

00:29:22.000 We have to acknowledge that there are trade-offs to public policy, but apparently we're never going to acknowledge this. 0.99

00:29:26.000 And this is how you end up with the stupidity of a Dallas salon owner getting seven days in jail for reopening. 0.97

00:29:31.000 Okay, in Texas, where Greg Abbott is supposedly willy-nilly reopening everything. 0.99

00:29:36.000 That's not what's happening.

00:29:37.000 That's not what's happening.

00:29:38.000 There's a woman named Shelly Luther.

00:29:39.000 She defied local and state orders and a judge's restraining order. 0.97

00:29:42.000 She operated her business during the pandemic.

00:29:44.000 What exactly did she do? 0.97

00:29:46.000 She went into her salon, Salon a la mode, and she opened it.

00:29:50.000 And she was taken into custody.

00:29:51.000 Her business was deemed non-essential, which of course is nonsense.

00:29:54.000 The government should not be able to deem your business non-essential.

00:29:56.000 It was forced to close March 22nd after the county enacted its stay-at-home order.

00:30:01.000 She reopened the salon April 24th, tore up a cease and desist letter from the county judge Clay Jenkins.

00:30:06.000 The temporary restraining order was signed April 28th.

00:30:09.000 I've never been in this position before.

00:30:11.000 since the county stay-at-home order was set in March.

00:30:13.000 She said that she applied for one of the federal loans, but it didn't receive it for weeks.

00:30:17.000 She said, I couldn't feed my family.

00:30:18.000 My stylist couldn't feed their families. 0.99

00:30:19.000 So before Luther was sentenced to a week in jail, the judge gave her an opportunity to apologize and promise not to reopen her salon until she was allowed to do so.

00:30:29.000 And here was her answer in court.

00:30:32.000 I've never been in this position before, and it's not someplace that I want to be.

00:30:39.000 But I have to disagree with you, sir, when you say that I'm selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish.

00:30:50.000 I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they'd rather feed their kids. 1.00

00:30:56.000 So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision, but I am not going to shut the salon.

00:31:05.000 Okay, and she, by the way, she was willing to socially distance inside the salon. 0.71

00:31:09.000 She was willing to do mask wearing inside the salon. 0.88

00:31:12.000 The only difference between what she was jailed for and not being in jail was one week.

00:31:17.000 Because by the end of the week, guess what Texas is doing?

00:31:19.000 They're opening up all the salons with social distancing and with mask wearing.

00:31:23.000 This is just, this is nonsense. 0.75

00:31:25.000 I'm sorry, this is absolute nonsense.

00:31:26.000 And it does betray, for a certain group of people in the United States, a real Feeling that is antithetical to freedom itself.

00:31:36.000 I'll give you an example of this from a columnist at the New York Times momentarily.

00:31:40.000 First, let us talk about the simple fact that the job market right now is a bit of a mess.

00:31:45.000 If you need a job, the best place you can go is ZipRecruiter.

00:31:47.000 And if you are looking to hire, ZipRecruiter is going to be the best way for you to find the best qualified employees.

00:31:52.000 ZipRecruiter is doing deeply important work right now at a time when the job market is in complete flux.

00:31:56.000 As we move back into normalization, ZipRecruiter is going to become more and more important.

00:32:01.000 Go register over there right now at ziprecruiter.com slash worktogether.

00:32:04.000 ZipRecruiter's app will send you up-to-date job openings so you can be one of the first to apply.

00:32:08.000 And if you're actively hiring, ZipRecruiter will invite candidates to apply to your most urgent roles, making it faster and easier to reach the people you need.

00:32:14.000 By connecting people who need jobs and companies that need people, ZipRecruiter is working with all of us so we can continue to move forward.

00:32:20.000 So, we should work together.

00:32:22.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash worktogether.

00:32:24.000 Deeply important to get people who need jobs connected with people who want to hire them.

00:32:27.000 ZipRecruiter is doing that every day. 0.98

00:32:29.000 They can make your business better.

00:32:30.000 They can make your job experience better by allowing you to get the job that you need.

00:32:34.000 Go check them out right now at ZipRecruiter.com slash worktogether.

00:32:38.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash worktogether.

00:32:41.000 They are focusing on the important things in the middle of the most volatile job market in American history.

00:32:45.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash worktogether.

00:32:48.000 Alrighty, we're gonna get to more of this because, again, Undergirding a lot of the arguments or non-arguments about public policy here?

00:32:55.000 is an actual antipathy toward American freedom.

00:32:58.000 I'll give you a perfect example of this in just a moment.

00:33:00.000 First, I want to take a moment to tell you about The Daily Wire's newest, most exclusive membership tier, the All Access Insider.

00:33:05.000 The All Access Insider membership tier is our premier level of membership.

00:33:09.000 All Access members get the benefits of our other membership tiers, including an ad-free website experience, access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, access to the show's mailbags, and the full three hours of The Ben Shapiro Show, along with dedicated editorials from moi.

00:33:22.000 All Access members also get other amazing benefits, including, of course, the singular, irreplaceable Leftist Tears Tumblr.

00:33:27.000 They also get to join live, exclusive online Q&As, our Daily Wire discussion feature available on both the website and the Daily Wire app.

00:33:34.000 You also get to participate in All Access Live, that is our brand new interactive programming featuring one of the Daily Wire hosts as we hang out with you each night and we're just goofy at 8 p.m.

00:33:41.000 Eastern, 5 p.m.

00:33:42.000 Pacific.

00:33:43.000 Earlier this week, it was me wearing a Darth Vader mask and singing show tunes.

00:33:45.000 I know.

00:33:46.000 I know things are getting weird out there.

00:33:47.000 I will be joining you again this Friday afternoon.

00:33:49.000 So head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join the Daily Wire's All Access Club with a new membership or an upgrade.

00:33:55.000 Get 10% off with coupon code Shapiro.

00:33:56.000 That is dailywire.com slash subscribe.

00:33:58.000 See you there.

00:33:59.000 You are listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:34:03.000 All righty.

00:34:09.000 So when I said that there are people out there who seem to be rooting for the lockdowns because they don't actually like freedom very much.

00:34:16.000 Charlie Warzal is an opinion writer at large for The New York Times.

00:34:18.000 He has a piece today titled, Open States, Lots of Guns.

00:34:21.000 America is paying a heavy price for freedom.

00:34:24.000 And he uses the same logic with regards to coronavirus that he uses with regard to guns.

00:34:29.000 Namely, you shouldn't be able to own a gun as a normal law-abiding citizen because apparently this raises the risk of gun violence in your state.

00:34:38.000 He mentions a tweet from a friend of mine, actually my editor over at Broadside Books.

00:34:44.000 Eric Nelson is my editor.

00:34:45.000 He tweeted, someone poke holes in this scenario.

00:34:47.000 We keep losing 1,000 to 2,000 a day to coronavirus.

00:34:49.000 People get used to it.

00:34:50.000 We get less vigilant as it slows very spread as it very slowly spreads.

00:34:54.000 By December, we're close to normal, but still losing 1,500 people a day.

00:34:57.000 As we tick past 300,000 dead, most people aren't concerned.

00:34:59.000 Wurzel said, this hit me like a ton of bricks because just how plausible it seemed.

00:35:04.000 The day I read Nelson's tweet, 1,723 Americans were reported to have died from the virus, and yet their collective passing was hardly mourned.

00:35:10.000 After all, how to distinguish those souls from the 2,097 who perished the day before or the 1,558 who died the day after?

00:35:17.000 And then he says, there's a national precedent for Nelson's hypothetical, America's response to gun violence and school shootings.

00:35:23.000 He says, as a country, we seem resigned to preventable firearm deaths.

00:35:26.000 So just like The reality is that the that freedom of guns means that some people get bad guns, but also that you can protect against bad people.

00:35:36.000 He thinks that that is bad, right?

00:35:37.000 The American freedom to keep and bear arms is bad because according to him, it means more dead Americans.

00:35:42.000 Now, you can make the counter argument, which is that the people who have guns are getting them in many cases and using them for crime are not people who tend to abide by the law in the first place.

00:35:50.000 That banning assault weapons isn't going to be effective.

00:35:52.000 But even taking his logic, even taking his baseline logic, which is that additional risks in American life come with additional American freedoms.

00:35:59.000 The end point of his logic is that if you want no risk, there can be no freedom.

00:36:03.000 And he's okay with that.

00:36:05.000 That's actually what he's okay with.

00:36:07.000 He says, left to their own devices, states are opening up many anxiously and with little idea as to how it'll play out.

00:36:13.000 The White House could lean on governors to slow the reopening process or urge caution until we can fully establish test and trace strategies that have worked in countries like South Korea.

00:36:21.000 Instead, the administration seems to be cheering on the reopening while internally preparing for a substantial increase of loss of lives.

00:36:27.000 An internal document based on modeling by FEMA projects the daily death toll will reach about 3,000 on June 1st, a 70% increase from the May 1st number of about 1,750.

00:36:36.000 Along the same lines, on April 30th, the day after Trump told Americans the virus was going to go, it's going to leave, it'll be gone, NBC News reported the federal government had ordered more than 100,000 body bags.

00:36:46.000 And then he, again, likens this to gun control policy, suggesting, well, if we just ban the freedom to keep and bear arms, there'd be less gun deaths.

00:36:53.000 Same way if we just ban freedom totally, then presumably there'd be less coronavirus deaths.

00:36:58.000 All right, so I'm going to take up the other half of that argument.

00:37:00.000 Which is, freedom does come with additional risk.

00:37:03.000 Freedom comes with additional risk.

00:37:05.000 And that's what freedom is called.

00:37:07.000 That is a reality.

00:37:09.000 And that doesn't mean that we should not mitigate that risk.

00:37:13.000 I've been in favor of bans on... Even using his logic, I've been in favor of bans on machine guns, for example.

00:37:13.000 Right?

00:37:19.000 And I've been in favor of federal criminal background checks when you purchase a gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer.

00:37:24.000 Even the NRA is for that.

00:37:26.000 Okay, but what he is talking about basically is, you know what would be great is if we banned all guns, presumably by the same logic, if we banned all freedom, there would be no coronavirus deaths.

00:37:34.000 Just in terms of numbers, by the way, I think that it is important to mention right here.

00:37:37.000 That if we lose 2,000 people a day from coronavirus for the next several months, which again, there are very few projections that expect this, but let's say that that happens.

00:37:47.000 This will be a horrible, terrible thing.

00:37:49.000 That also does not answer the question as to whether we will lose that many people in total over the course of the next 12 months from coronavirus.

00:37:57.000 There is no alternative being provided.

00:37:59.000 I mean, the fact also remains that in the United States, we lose approximately 2,000 people every single day from both heart disease and from cancer.

00:38:07.000 About 600,000 people die every year from heart disease and another 600,000 people die every year from cancer.

00:38:12.000 But he says, the idea of freedom, I mean, this is really the root of the debate.

00:38:16.000 Charlie Warsaw writes, the idea of freedom is an excuse to serve oneself before others and a shield to hide from responsibility.

00:38:23.000 If that's how you think of freedom, we should end freedom.

00:38:26.000 Now, I think that people can be both free and virtuous.

00:38:26.000 We should unfree them.

00:38:29.000 People can be free and they can attempt to mitigate risk for others.

00:38:32.000 This is why I think that we should tranche populations and people who are healthier should go back to work first. 1.00

00:38:36.000 And if we think that there's a therapeutic or a vaccine on the way in fairly short order, we should socially distance in order to restart the economy, but also ensure that we don't have a vast spread before a vaccine can be developed.

00:38:48.000 I'm all for these things.

00:38:49.000 But according to Charlie Warzel, the American people cannot be trusted, and thus freedom must be ended.

00:38:54.000 You can't be trusted with a gun as a law-abiding citizen, because the very presence of a gun means the presence of freedom, and the presence of freedom means more people dying from gun violence.

00:39:02.000 And the same thing is true of coronavirus.

00:39:04.000 The presence of freedom means more people going out and acting stupidly, and that means we cannot have freedom at all. 0.87

00:39:10.000 Well, that is an argument that, as we used to say in law school, proves too much. 0.96

00:39:15.000 It proves too much.

00:39:16.000 It is an insane argument that essentially argues for the ending of all American freedom.

00:39:21.000 And again, we're beginning to see this in some of the petty authoritarianism that just cannot last.

00:39:26.000 Yesterday, there was tape coming out of a Texas SWAT team raiding a restaurant that was open.

00:39:31.000 Again, I don't see any evidence in this protest that people were violating social distancing protocols. 0.94

00:39:36.000 The Hector County Sheriff arrived in a freaking tank with a gun turret on top. 0.93

00:39:42.000 Just solid, solid stuff. 0.98

00:39:43.000 You're the one with the shirt!

00:39:44.000 Keep your hands up!

00:39:45.000 Where is it?

00:39:46.000 You with the hat and green shirt!

00:39:47.000 Keep your hands up!

00:39:48.000 I can't see them!

00:39:52.000 I mean, they're going in with actual guns blazing.

00:39:55.000 To people who have an open business.

00:39:59.000 This is- I'm sorry, do those people look like they're super close together to you, or do they look like they're 10 feet apart?

00:40:03.000 Media guy, get back! 0.73

00:40:03.000 Media guy in white shirt, get back! 0.73

00:40:12.000 Alright, I mean, if this is what- if this is what coronavirus lockdowns look like in the end, There's no policy that's been proposed that makes this look okay.

00:40:21.000 None.

00:40:22.000 None.

00:40:23.000 And there's no timeline.

00:40:23.000 And there's no endpoint.

00:40:25.000 And there's no actual discussion of the data.

00:40:26.000 And there's no discussion of any of this.

00:40:27.000 Because everybody who wants the lockdowns and is comfortable with curbs on American freedom is just shouting at the moon that every life is priceless without recognizing that every single element of public policy is based on the premise that risks to life are calculable when it comes to freedoms and prosperity and all the things that actually make America worth living in.

00:40:46.000 And meanwhile, you got Democrats who are taking advantage of the situation to say that the federal government should bail them out.

00:40:50.000 So California, as they call for a full lockdown, see this is one of the issues here, is that states are now looking to the federal government to bail them out.

00:40:56.000 So as the lockdowns continue in states like New York and in California, they're looking increasingly to the federal government to bail them out.

00:41:01.000 California has now borrowed from the federal government to make their unemployment payments.

00:41:06.000 Well, why should the federal government fill in California's holes when it comes to their own unemployment system?

00:41:11.000 Truly.

00:41:12.000 It's because California is incredibly irresponsible with its own spending.

00:41:15.000 You know how I can tell this?

00:41:17.000 Here's what the Wall Street Journal reports.

00:41:19.000 About 3.7 million people have filed unemployment claims in California since mid-March.

00:41:23.000 California had about $1.9 billion in its unemployment trust fund in mid-April, down from $3.1 billion at the end of February, the month before the coronavirus upended the U.S.

00:41:32.000 economy.

00:41:32.000 The state's Labor Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

00:41:37.000 California serves as an early sign of the potential magnitude of federal assistance that could be required if states are to continue paying out jobless benefits.

00:41:45.000 It is one of more than 20 states and jurisdictions that entered the current economic crisis without enough money in their unemployment trust funds to pay benefits through a year-long recession according to the Labor Department data.

00:41:55.000 By that measure, California was prepared to make unemployment payments for just over two months in the event of a recession.

00:42:02.000 Two months. 0.52

00:42:02.000 So California was deeply irresponsible, decided to blow all of its money on crap union contracts with various public sector unions, and they didn't have money to pay unemployment insurance. 0.52

00:42:10.000 And now it's up to people in other states to pay for all of that? 0.97

00:42:14.000 New York did the same thing.

00:42:15.000 They blew out their budget, and now they don't have enough money to pay for the stuff they should have had the money to pay for.

00:42:20.000 And now they're turning to the federal government for the bailout.

00:42:22.000 And if they get those bailouts, you know what that incentivizes?

00:42:24.000 It incentivizes governors to spend oodles of money they never have because they know that at the end, it's too big to fail.

00:42:31.000 California is too big to fail.

00:42:32.000 New York is too big to fail.

00:42:34.000 Now this has led demagogues like Andrew Cuomo to suggest that the federal government needs to step in and fund the states.

00:42:40.000 So here's Cuomo yesterday suggesting that New York needs to be funded.

00:42:44.000 Now, last I checked, New York has the second richest citizen body in the United States, after California, and they tax them at exorbitant rates and yet they've run out of money incredibly quickly. 0.86

00:42:55.000 Could that have to do with their crap spending habits and the bad union contracts they signed?

00:42:59.000 Maybe it has to do with that, but according to Andrew Cuomo, it's up to the federal government to bail them out, of course, because you can always cast all responsibility at the feet of the federal government. 0.96

00:43:07.000 States need funding.

00:43:08.000 States need funding, A, for testing, tracing.

00:43:12.000 B, states need money because we have a deficit after the coronavirus.

00:43:15.000 And you have not been given that money, so you don't have enough.

00:43:19.000 Right.

00:43:19.000 All right.

00:43:20.000 Right.

00:43:20.000 If they don't pass a piece of legislation, Chris, well, hold on a second.

00:43:25.000 They are now, they were supposed to do it this week.

00:43:27.000 They are going to come back next week.

00:43:28.000 If they don't pass a piece of legislation, game over.

00:43:32.000 Game over.

00:43:34.000 And then he says, you know what should happen here?

00:43:36.000 Republican states are the ones taking out more money.

00:43:38.000 The Republican states are the ones who are taking out more money from the kitty.

00:43:41.000 Again, this is what he is saying here is so economically illiterate.

00:43:45.000 It's almost beyond comprehension.

00:43:49.000 When you look at the Republicans who now say, well, we don't want to help the Democratic states, they are actually the states that have been taking more every year.

00:44:01.000 Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky.

00:44:04.000 Senator Mitch McConnell, he's Kentucky, $37 billion more every year.

00:44:08.000 Alabama, Florida.

00:44:10.000 Everything's about Florida.

00:44:11.000 Why?

00:44:11.000 Because it's a swing state and we're in an election year.

00:44:15.000 I get it.

00:44:17.000 Okay, this is not true!

00:44:19.000 Okay, the way that he is calculating this is he is taking the tax dollars paid by New York citizens to the federal government and then the tax dollars received by New York citizens from the federal government.

00:44:27.000 New York is a disproportionately wealthy state.

00:44:29.000 California is a disproportionately wealthy state.

00:44:32.000 It is not that the federal government takes money from the state of California and then only gives money back to the state of California.

00:44:38.000 What he is talking about is the fact that Kentucky, for example, is a disproportionately poor state.

00:44:43.000 So there are fewer people who are paying in federal income tax to the federal government, and there are more people who are receiving directly.

00:44:49.000 But at no point does the state government actually act as the intermediary there.

00:44:53.000 Basically, you're saying that poor people are receiving more money from the federal government than rich people.

00:44:58.000 That is 100% true, and that rich people are paying more money into the federal government than they are receiving from the federal government.

00:45:03.000 That is also true.

00:45:04.000 Another thing that happens to be true, the people who are disproportionately receiving money from the federal government tend to vote Democrat.

00:45:11.000 Studies show this.

00:45:12.000 So what the hell is he talking about?

00:45:13.000 What he's attempting to avoid is the reality of the situation, which is the reason that New York is in trouble, despite the richest population in America outside of California.

00:45:20.000 Despite that, New York is in trouble because Andrew Cuomo couldn't get his spending habit under control.

00:45:25.000 Neither could anybody else in New York.

00:45:26.000 And the same thing in California.

00:45:28.000 No, New York is not the victim of a benefits payment scam here. 0.98

00:45:34.000 It's ridiculous.

00:45:36.000 But this is just demagoguery to avoid responsibility, which is what Cuomo is apparently really good at. 0.99

00:45:40.000 It is unbelievable to me, the man remains a popular governor, despite the fact that only now in May is he starting to clean the damn subways.

00:45:47.000 That his original move with the nursing homes was, oh look, an old person who has COVID-19, let's send him back to the nursing home. 0.99

00:45:52.000 Genius move, Andrew Cuomo, genius.

00:45:55.000 That guy is great.

00:45:56.000 He's great at his job.

00:45:58.000 But around to Sanford and Greg Abbott in Texas, very, very bad at their jobs.

00:46:01.000 And Brian Kemp, oh, just awful at his job.

00:46:03.000 Incredible, incredible.

00:46:04.000 Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.

00:46:07.000 So there is a new movie on Netflix that is a fun watch.

00:46:12.000 It is, I will not say it is, you know, the world's most fun watch.

00:46:17.000 It has some great action sequences is really what this comes down to.

00:46:19.000 It's Chris Hemsworth running around Dhaka, Indonesia, and basically just Destroying everything.

00:46:25.000 There's one about 20-minute action sequence that's getting a lot of attention in this movie, Extraction, because it is supposedly done in one shot.

00:46:31.000 It is not done in one shot, obviously.

00:46:32.000 They game the system.

00:46:33.000 They're moving through windshields, and there's some subtle cuts, obviously.

00:46:36.000 But it's really well choreographed.

00:46:39.000 The basic premise is basically the same as Man on Fire.

00:46:41.000 Guy who is hired to extract a kid who's been kidnapped, and then things go wrong, and now he still has to extract the kid who's been kidnapped.

00:46:49.000 Here's a little bit of the preview. 1.00

00:46:51.000 The best thing you could do for that kid would be to put a bullet in his brain. 1.00

00:46:57.000 We can send a chopper and get you out. 1.00

00:46:59.000 But you're gonna leave the kid behind.

00:47:03.000 Are you gonna leave me in the street?

00:47:05.000 I'll get you out.

00:47:08.000 Grab a hold of my vest and hang on as tight as you can.

00:47:21.000 Okay, so the, uh, the actual best scene in this movie is actually a scene where Chris Hemsworth is forced to, um, to face down a herd of child soldiers because it is just hilarious watching a six-foot-four Nordic god basically throw around a bunch of 13-year-old children. 0.64

00:47:38.000 That is one of the scenes.

00:47:40.000 It's kind of absurd.

00:47:41.000 The whole movie is kind of absurd.

00:47:42.000 I mean, it's one of those, somehow he is bulletproof.

00:47:44.000 Like, he gets shot and hit by a car in one sequence, and the next day he's basically fine.

00:47:48.000 He's up and moving around.

00:47:49.000 Totally cool.

00:47:51.000 Takes about nine shots to take him down.

00:47:52.000 Anyway, the movie is worth the watch if you're into action flicks.

00:47:55.000 So you can go check out Extraction.

00:47:57.000 Time for some quick things that I hate.

00:47:59.000 All righty.

00:48:04.000 So first of all, there is the story that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for a minor.

00:48:09.000 She had minor surgery for a gallbladder infection.

00:48:12.000 We wish the best to anybody who's in a position of public policy.

00:48:15.000 Obviously, we wish for her long-term health.

00:48:17.000 I also hope that she retires, but she's not going to retire.

00:48:19.000 But, you know, we wish for her health, so that is some bad news.

00:48:22.000 But in terms of real things that I hate, so people are going nuts today.

00:48:26.000 They're going nuts today over Betsy DeVos. 0.97

00:48:28.000 Betsy DeVos is very evil, you know. 1.00

00:48:30.000 Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education.

00:48:32.000 The reason Betsy DeVos is super evil is because, according to the Washington Post, she plans to release as early as Wednesday her much-anticipated final rules governing how schools must investigate sexual assault allegations, bolstering the rights of the accused, according to people familiar with the matter. 0.99

00:48:45.000 In its broad outlines, the sweeping regulation is unchanged from the proposed version released in 2018, though there were minor adjustments made throughout, according to one person familiar with the matter who was unauthorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

00:48:57.000 The rules will give universities and colleges a clear but controversial roadmap for handling emotionally charged conflicts that often pit one student against another.

00:49:05.000 They'll replace less formal guidance issued by the Obama administration that was friendlier to those making the allegations.

00:49:10.000 That is a wild understatement.

00:49:12.000 The original Obama-era allegations did not give students the ability to confront their accuser or even to rebut the allegations.

00:49:18.000 They basically made it so that an allegation was tantamount to guilt.

00:49:24.000 Under the new rules, college students accused of sexual assault and harassment must be given the right to a live hearing and the ability to cross-examine their accuser as much as the proposed rule directed.

00:49:31.000 Before, you didn't even have the right to confront your accuser and you weren't given the right to a live hearing.

00:49:36.000 You were literally not given the right to a live hearing.

00:49:37.000 If someone accuses you of rape and you say, no, that wasn't rape, that was a consensual sexual...

00:49:42.000 Congress.

00:49:43.000 And the old rules basically said you have no ability to defend yourself.

00:49:47.000 Also, the rules also define sexual harassment narrowly, limiting it to conduct that is both severe and pervasive, not just one or the other.

00:49:54.000 Well, again, that makes sense, because if the pervasiveness is, you look nice today, that's not sexual harassment. 0.97

00:50:02.000 Okay, if the pervasiveness is you keep grabbing people's asses repeatedly, then it's got to be severe. 0.99

00:50:09.000 I mean, first of all, that's sexual assault, right? 0.99

00:50:10.000 If you actually physically grab someone, that's an assault.

00:50:12.000 That's not just harassment.

00:50:13.000 But if you say something deeply sexual and you do it and it's severe and it is pervasive, then you can be disciplined.

00:50:18.000 In one change, the regulation explicitly adds dating violence and stalking as allegations that must be investigated.

00:50:23.000 So it's actually made this thing stronger in some ways.

00:50:26.000 DeVos said the new rules would restore balance in a system that had been skewed in favor of the accusers.

00:50:30.000 Now this prompted people on the left to become very, very angry.

00:50:35.000 Very angry.

00:50:36.000 Because their suggestion is that Title IX regulations should basically allow people, with the allegation alone, to go ahead and condemn folks to the purgatory of guilt forever.

00:50:47.000 That was the basic allegation.

00:50:48.000 And people were tweeting about that today.

00:50:50.000 So there were actual tweets that people were issuing about how terrible it was to allow due process in cases like this.

00:50:57.000 Which of course is completely crazy, right?

00:50:59.000 Catherine Lamon, who is... 0.99

00:51:03.000 Excuse me?

00:51:03.000 This just says you have a right to defend yourself.

00:51:04.000 USCC, USCCR, and legal affairs secretary for Gavin Newsom, the governor of California. 0.54

00:51:10.000 She said, Betsy DeVos presides over taking us back to the bad old days that predate my birth when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity.

00:51:17.000 Excuse me? 0.83

00:51:19.000 Excuse me?

00:51:20.000 This just says you have a right to defend yourself.

00:51:22.000 It doesn't say that you are not, that you are not punished for sexual assault or sexual harassment.

00:51:28.000 But Catherine Lamone says, today's students deserve better, including fair protections consistent with law.

00:51:34.000 And it This is just, I'm sorry, this is insanity.

00:51:39.000 This is insanity.

00:51:40.000 But it's particular insanity given the fact that the Democrats continue to defend Joe Biden.

00:51:45.000 Because by Joe Biden's standards, by his own Title IX standards, that dude's guilty as sin.

00:51:50.000 Here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday saying, you know what, I'm not going to answer any more questions on Joe Biden.

00:51:54.000 I'm not going to answer any more questions on these Biden allegations because we're done here.

00:51:56.000 I mean, what is there more to say?

00:51:58.000 Weird, because under Title IX regulations, Joe Biden is guilty of sin and he'd be expelled from college for this, if not for plagiarism.

00:52:05.000 I have said I am proud to support Joe Biden for president.

00:52:08.000 I believe him when he says it didn't happen.

00:52:11.000 But I also believe him when he said, let them look into the records.

00:52:16.000 And that's what they should do.

00:52:17.000 But I'm not going to answer this question again.

00:52:19.000 I will just say I have every confidence that Joe Biden will be a great president of the United States.

00:52:29.000 She has great confidence.

00:52:30.000 So 19-year-olds who are getting accused of sexual assault allegations, they don't have the right to defend themselves, according to Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic infrastructure.

00:52:38.000 But 80-year-olds who are running for president, those people we just kind of let off the hook, right?

00:52:42.000 I mean, they can just say, I didn't happen, it didn't happen, and we're basically done.

00:52:46.000 I mean, that is an incredible thing.

00:52:48.000 It's an incredible thing.

00:52:48.000 And it demonstrates that when it comes to due process, the Democrats just don't believe in it.

00:52:53.000 What Democrats actually believe in is that due process should only exist for people that they like.

00:52:58.000 And people that they like include, generally, people who are not part of the quote-unquote power superstructure, right?

00:53:05.000 So if you're a rich white male like Brett Kavanaugh, then you deserve no due process.

00:53:08.000 This was an actual case made about Brett Kavanaugh.

00:53:10.000 People say, well, he's a rich white male.

00:53:11.000 He had an entitlement complex, and that's why he doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court.

00:53:16.000 And they say the same thing about 19-year-old college students, right?

00:53:19.000 Rich white males in college, the most privileged among us.

00:53:23.000 But if you're a rich white privileged male like Joe Biden, and you're running for president, then we sort of let you off the hook.

00:53:29.000 Due process is specifically due process because it equally applies to everyone.

00:53:33.000 Equal protection of the law is equal protection of the law because it is supposed to apply to everyone.

00:53:37.000 The fact that there's so many people on the left, Who wants to turn these standards on their head because they believe that equal protection of the law is inherently unequal because some people are less well situated than others.

00:53:47.000 Some people are richer than others.

00:53:48.000 Therefore, those rich people don't deserve equal protection under the law.

00:53:51.000 That's French Revolution off with their head kind of stuff. 0.97

00:53:54.000 And that is exactly what Democrats have proposed with regard to Title IX.

00:53:56.000 They're defending Joe Biden at the same time that they're ripping on exactly the same kind of protections Joe Biden will have to rely on in order to survive these sexual assault allegations.

00:54:04.000 So that's pretty incredible.

00:54:05.000 Okay, one more thing that I hate.

00:54:06.000 So the Lincoln Project is a group of people led by George Conway.

00:54:13.000 And George Conway is, of course, Kellyanne's husband.

00:54:15.000 This is a group of people who were anti-Trump Republicans in 2016 and never got over it and have decided better to submit.

00:54:23.000 Many of the members of the Lincoln Project literally suggested they would vote for Bernie Sanders before Donald Trump, which doesn't seem super conservative to me.

00:54:28.000 I'll just put it out there.

00:54:29.000 I don't think that's a super Republican view that you'll vote for the, you know, the communist before he voted for Donald Trump.

00:54:35.000 And actually advocated for the communists to win.

00:54:37.000 Some of these people were doing this.

00:54:39.000 So they put out an ad within the last couple of days.

00:54:42.000 This is the most depressing anti-American ad I have seen in quite a while.

00:54:46.000 They call themselves the Lincoln Project.

00:54:48.000 Apparently, Abraham Lincoln would have approved of ads that basically suggest that America is an absolute, utter, complete hellhole where death is vast and everyone is impoverished because of Donald Trump.

00:55:00.000 Here's the ad.

00:55:01.000 I mean, I've yet to see a more depressing ad than this one.

00:55:05.000 With the economy in shambles, more than 26 million Americans are out of work.

00:55:10.000 The worst economy in decades.

00:55:13.000 Trump bailed out Wall Street, but not Main Street.

00:55:17.000 This afternoon, millions of Americans will apply for unemployment.

00:55:21.000 With their savings run out, many are giving up hope.

00:55:25.000 Millions worry that a loved one won't survive COVID-19.

00:55:30.000 There's mourning in America.

00:55:32.000 And under the leadership of Donald Trump, our country is weaker, and sicker, and poorer.

00:55:40.000 Okay, what?

00:55:40.000 I mean, okay, we're all a little stressed right now.

00:55:44.000 Is this super helpful?

00:55:45.000 Is this super helpful?

00:55:47.000 By the way, if this is the tone Joe Biden goes for, he gets skunked.

00:55:49.000 Because seriously, Americans are not going to abide being told that we are richer and poorer and that we are sicker and poorer and worse off and everything is terrible and we're all dying of COVID-19.

00:56:01.000 What a misfire.

00:56:02.000 What a dramatic misfire.

00:56:03.000 That's the kind of ad that you make, seriously, when you don't care who gets hurt in order for Donald Trump to be thrown out of office.

00:56:10.000 Because the reality is that we're all a little worried right now.

00:56:12.000 You know what would be good?

00:56:12.000 Some hope.

00:56:13.000 Some hope would be good.

00:56:14.000 And you don't have to credit Trump in creating that hope.

00:56:16.000 George W. Bush didn't when he put out a little video about it.

00:56:18.000 Even Joe Biden hasn't been doing this.

00:56:20.000 The fact that these folks are so vindictive about Trump, that they're going to blame COVID-19 on Trump, that they're going to show pictures of body bags rolling out of morgues and blame that on Trump.

00:56:29.000 It's perverse.

00:56:31.000 It's absolutely perverse.

00:56:32.000 Again, Andrew Cuomo's the governor of New York, guys.

00:56:34.000 Gavin Newsom's the governor of California.

00:56:36.000 The death centers of this country are all happening in blue areas.

00:56:39.000 Not just because of bad governance, but also because those are heavily populated areas.

00:56:44.000 This is such a bad strategy, but there are a lot of people who are embracing it because you gotta blame Trump for everything.

00:56:48.000 Speaking of which, a lot of people blaming Trump today because President Trump is supposedly thinking about closing down the coronavirus task force.

00:56:56.000 And this is a very bad thing.

00:56:57.000 Now, let's point something out.

00:56:58.000 When it comes to the federal government, you don't actually need task forces, okay?

00:57:02.000 Task forces are a way to posture to the rest of the world.

00:57:05.000 Task forces are a way to say, I'm taking this seriously.

00:57:07.000 It's like when Obama would set up a green jobs czar, right? 0.95

00:57:10.000 He would set up a czar, and then, oh, well, he's taking it seriously.

00:57:11.000 There's a czar now.

00:57:13.000 This czar was pretty serious last time around, so this czar will be super serious.

00:57:16.000 We'll set up a new department, Department of Homeland Security.

00:57:19.000 Now we're serious.

00:57:20.000 The same staffers were already in the government, they were just in different departments.

00:57:24.000 No, it's not. 0.97

00:57:26.000 This is dumb PR. 1.00

00:57:29.000 It is, it's dumb. 0.99

00:57:30.000 There's no rationale for it. 0.97

00:57:31.000 But, on a practical level, is the federal government going to stop caring about COVID-19 because the coronavirus task force has been quote-unquote disbanded?

00:57:39.000 No, Dr. Fauci will still be meeting with Trump.

00:57:41.000 Dr. Birx will still be meeting with Trump.

00:57:43.000 All these people will still be meeting with Trump.

00:57:44.000 They will still be doing press conferences.

00:57:46.000 But this prompted all sorts of angst yesterday.

00:57:50.000 The PR of COVID-19 for the media is far more important than the actual policy.

00:57:56.000 When it comes to the actual policy, they don't want to talk about it because the actual policy would force them to acknowledge trade-offs in policy.

00:58:01.000 They don't like that. 0.90

00:58:02.000 Instead, they go to the PR because the PR can be black and white and the PR is always Trump is awful and evil and everything he does is terrible.

00:58:07.000 So that means it's supposed to be a super big deal that he's quote-unquote dissolving the task force.

00:58:11.000 The meetings in the Situation Room of the White House have been shorter.

00:58:14.000 The task force no longer meets every day, according to NBC News.

00:58:17.000 Doctors Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci are still expected to be at the White House daily, but other members of the task force may be present less frequently.

00:58:23.000 However, sources familiar with the matter noted the task force did meet on Tuesday.

00:58:28.000 And President Trump said, we're now looking at a little bit of a different form.

00:58:30.000 That form is safety and opening.

00:58:32.000 We'll probably have a different group set up for that. 0.73

00:58:34.000 He said, the mission accomplished is for when it's over.

00:58:37.000 There was no mission accomplished.

00:58:38.000 But apparently, if you call it, for example, the reopening task force, and it's exactly the same people, then you are evil and bad.

00:58:44.000 So here's Jim Acosta, Jim Acosta-ing all over Donald Trump yesterday about the task force.

00:58:48.000 Do you need to continue to meet with the task force to get this scientific expertise?

00:58:55.000 We will have certain people.

00:58:57.000 I think that as far as the task force, Mike Pence and the task force have done a great job, but we're now looking at a little bit of a different form, and that form is safety and opening, and we'll have a different group probably set up for that.

00:59:11.000 Are you saying mission accomplished?

00:59:13.000 No, no, not at all.

00:59:14.000 The mission accomplished is when it's over.

00:59:18.000 Again, the fact that Acosta is trying to pin on him the mission accomplished war in Iraq banner that was flying after the United States invaded Iraq and destroyed the Iraqi army, that he's trying to get him to gaffe, right?

00:59:30.000 This is all the media are intent on doing right now.

00:59:32.000 They honestly do not care at this point about which policy is pursued, so long as the policy pursued is anti-Trump.

00:59:39.000 If Trump actually wanted to open up the country, tomorrow he'd call for a national lockdown ad infinitum.

00:59:43.000 Seriously, the media would flip on a dime.

00:59:45.000 If Trump just said, you know what?

00:59:47.000 We gotta lock this thing down forever until there's a vaccine.

00:59:49.000 Immediately, the media would start reporting on the economic dispossession happening across the country, and they would start taking seriously the fact that people are losing their livelihoods.

00:59:56.000 Because for the media, it's all about Trump and all about the media, and it is not at all about a responsible discussion of public policy, at least for those in the political media who are outside the sort of health industry.

01:00:06.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.

01:00:08.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.

01:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:00:10.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:00:15.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.

01:00:17.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

01:00:18.000 Executive producer Jeremy Boring.

01:00:20.000 Supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

01:00:23.000 Assistant director Pavel Lydowsky.

01:00:25.000 Technical producer Austin Stevens.

01:00:26.000 Playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan.

01:00:29.000 Associate producer Katie Swinnerton.

01:00:31.000 Edited by Adam Siovitz.

01:00:32.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:00:34.000 Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.

01:00:36.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:00:38.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.

01:00:40.000 You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.

01:00:43.000 I think there are enough of those already out there.

01:00:45.000 We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else.

01:00:50.000 So my main focuses are life, family, faith.

01:00:55.000 Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.

The Ben Shapiro Show - May 06, 2020

The Experts Don’t Have The Answers | Ep. 1005

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript