The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1509 - Public Health ‘Experts’ Set The Stage For A New Prohibition

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Wall Show, our hallowed public health authorities and the Biden administration

00:00:03.820 are setting the stage for Prohibition 2.0 with a push to put cancer warning labels on alcohol.

00:00:09.160 They claim that alcohol in any amount causes cancer, but is that actually true? We'll discuss

00:00:13.800 also Justin Trudeau steps down. Mark Zuckerberg claims that his platforms will once again embrace

00:00:18.220 free speech and open expression. But should we trust him and a black NFL coach gets fired? Is 0.85

00:00:23.600 it because he is bad at his job or is it racism? We'll try to get to the bottom of that and much

00:00:29.080 more today on the Matt Wall Show.

00:00:55.520 You know what keeps me up at night? The state of our country. But at least I'm not

00:00:58.860 tossing and turning because of my mattress anymore. That's right, folks. I'm talking

00:01:02.360 about Helix Sleep. What makes Helix different is that they don't just sell you a random mattress.

00:01:07.080 They actually customize and match you with the perfect one for your body and sleep style.

00:01:11.280 Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, or somewhere in between, they've got you covered.

00:01:15.520 Helix has a sleep quiz that they'll match you with. They'll match you with your perfect mattress

00:01:19.480 in under two minutes so you can get better sleep and a better start each day. And trust

00:01:23.440 me, when you find the right match, you'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else.

00:01:27.540 Right now is actually the perfect time to upgrade your sleep because Helix is offering

00:01:30.880 an incredible deal. Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh to get 25% off site-wide plus two free

00:01:36.720 dream pillows with any mattress purchase. That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh for 25% off site-wide

00:01:42.280 plus two free dream pillows with any mattress purchase. Helixsleep.com slash Walsh.

00:01:48.000 You may have noticed that there has been in recent months in the media and among our sainted public

00:01:52.960 health experts, quote unquote, kind of a full court press against booze, God forbid. We constantly

00:02:00.340 hear now about how incredibly dangerous alcohol is in any amount. Now, of course, we've always known

00:02:05.160 that alcohol consumed immoderately, consumed in too great a volume or too quickly can be very

00:02:10.540 dangerous. That's not new. But the idea that alcohol is significantly dangerous in any amount,

00:02:15.820 no matter how much you drink or how you drink it, is rather new. It's the latest narrative from our

00:02:21.840 self-appointed public health authorities. And it's the opposite of the narrative that they were

00:02:25.960 spreading up until like five seconds ago. Now, I know that some people will say that

00:02:30.900 it's not worth questioning this narrative. After all, if fewer people end up drinking alcohol because

00:02:36.220 of it, that's seemingly not a bad thing. Maybe they're overstating the dangers or even lying about

00:02:42.700 them, but it's for the greater good. Let's just go with it, is the idea. But I happen to think that

00:02:49.000 it's always worth questioning the official narrative. Also, I think that false narratives

00:02:54.840 from health experts for the sake of the greater good always lead to bad things. And I would like

00:03:01.460 to think we all understand that by now. So let's just take an honest look at this issue. Just a few

00:03:08.000 days ago, the Surgeon General issued an advisory that blames alcohol in all its forms for causing cancer.

00:03:14.380 Watch. Here's another reason to try a dry January. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released a report

00:03:23.500 claiming that alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United

00:03:29.580 States. He says it's responsible for 100,000 cases of cancer and about 20,000 deaths every year.

00:03:38.040 Alcohol is really good at breaking down protein. And our whole body's made out of protein.

00:03:41.740 And over time, it causes damage to cells, inflammation. It really, not just cancer,

00:03:49.260 it causes more than 200 different diseases in the body, directly or indirectly.

00:03:53.720 Whether you prefer beer, wine, or spirits, the report says the increased risk of cancer is the same.

00:04:00.440 Now, the upshot of this advisory is that the Surgeon General wants new prominent warning labels

00:04:06.880 on alcohol products, just like we see on tobacco products. So this is a, that's a significant,

00:04:11.060 it'll be a very significant move. And quite a, quite a severe one. He also wants to, quote,

00:04:16.980 incorporate proven alcohol reduction strategies into population level cancer prevention initiatives

00:04:21.960 and plans. In other words, the Biden administration wants to set the stage for more regulations,

00:04:27.460 bans, and maybe even prohibition at some point in the future. As the Surgeon General puts it in his

00:04:33.640 advisory, quote, alcoholic consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the

00:04:36.900 United States after tobacco and obesity. And he goes on to say that, quote, for certain cancers like

00:04:41.380 breast, mouth, and throat cancers, evidence shows that this risk may start to increase around one or

00:04:45.520 fewer drinks per day. Yes, drinking less than one alcoholic drink per day is now dangerous,

00:04:53.320 apparently. A sip of wine may be fatal, we're told, down the line anyway. If you're keeping track,

00:04:59.220 this is the opposite of what we were told for decades. Just a couple of years ago, as recently

00:05:04.440 as a couple of years ago, for example, we were informed that drinking wine in moderation

00:05:07.800 is actually a great way to live longer. Watch.

00:05:11.640 Pop those corks because today is National Wine Day. And if you are a big fan of red wine,

00:05:16.880 you are in luck. It has some surprisingly good health benefits. Take a look.

00:05:22.220 Here are five health benefits of drinking red wine. One important note, excessive drinking will not

00:05:28.040 give you these benefits and obviously isn't safe. Doctors define moderate drinking as having a glass

00:05:34.260 of wine a day. Number one, it's good for your heart. According to the Mayo Clinic, certain antioxidants

00:05:39.840 in red wine can help protect the lining of blood vessels in your heart. Number two, it could help

00:05:45.500 you live longer. A study from the National Center for Biotechnology and Information has linked moderate

00:05:51.240 wine drinking to a longer live. So we went from pop those corks to wine is basically cyanide in record

00:05:58.820 time. So what exactly explains this sudden reversal in public health guidance? From the Surgeon General's

00:06:04.900 advisory, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of new data. Pretty much every study he cites is from

00:06:10.680 several years ago. So I went looking at some other news reports. And as far as I can tell,

00:06:15.520 there's maybe one local anchor who bothered to, you know, ask a question about this. And let's watch

00:06:23.040 that. Dr. Erica Schwartz standing by. Doctor, how much of this is new information? I don't think

00:06:31.140 anybody thought alcohol was good for you. So what's new about what we learned this week?

00:06:35.140 We learned that finally the government is supposed to be getting involved now because the Surgeon General

00:06:45.400 has now come up with the idea that we need a black box warning for alcohol. We've known all along that

00:06:52.600 alcohol is not good for you. There have been a lot of studies. And then we've been kind of going back

00:06:58.380 and forth about whether one drink is okay, two drinks are okay. There's good stuff like resveratrol

00:07:06.540 in wine. And so we should drink wine. So we've been listening to a lot of stuff. Then COVID came on.

00:07:14.200 And when COVID came on, people had nothing to do except for drinking. And the more drinking they did,

00:07:20.760 the more problems started coming up. And then there's this moment in time when Dr. Murthy,

00:07:27.160 Murthy, Murthy has said, it's time to put a black box warning.

00:07:33.720 Yeah, she says, we've known all along that alcohol is not good for you. We have? Because no,

00:07:38.880 you guys were telling us for a long time that actually it is good for us in a certain quantity.

00:07:43.580 It's good for us. So were you lying? Were you just trying to get us all cancer that whole time?

00:07:49.320 Or is there like legitimate new information? That's the question. Well, apparently there isn't.

00:07:55.980 You know, apparently during the lockdowns, she tells us, people drank a lot and bad things

00:08:00.560 happened to them. And therefore, in just the span of a couple of years, we can apparently now conclude

00:08:05.040 that drinking extremely small amounts of alcohol can increase your risk of throat cancer.

00:08:10.260 People drinking large amounts of alcohol while they were locked in their homes, alone and depressed,

00:08:15.540 also tells us that it's bad to drink small amounts of alcohol socially. That's the logic.

00:08:21.640 But the logic, of course, doesn't make any sense. So I pulled up the studies from 2019 and earlier

00:08:26.700 that the Surgeon General cites in his advisory. And what I found is that the COVID lockdowns,

00:08:33.000 of course, have nothing to do with this because they happened a year after these studies were even

00:08:37.360 conducted. And when I read the fine print in these studies, I realized very quickly that they

00:08:41.120 don't actually support what the Surgeon General is claiming. Most of them are meta studies that

00:08:45.620 collect a bunch of other studies that supposedly link moderate alcohol consumption to cancer.

00:08:50.160 But when you pull up those studies, here's what you find. There's one paper from 2018 entitled

00:08:56.560 Colorectal Cancer and Alcohol Consumption. It's from the peer-reviewed journal Cancers.

00:09:01.320 It doesn't say anything about less than one drink causing cancer or anything like that. Instead,

00:09:05.540 the researchers state that when it's broken down to the body, alcohol does release a substance that

00:09:10.200 could potentially damage DNA. But then they include this very important disclaimer, quote,

00:09:14.440 alcoholics themselves are predisposed to a poor diet, low in folate and fiber and circadian disruption,

00:09:21.160 which could further augment alcohol-induced colon carcinogenesis. In other words, it's difficult to

00:09:27.820 isolate specific effects of alcohol and cancer development because people who drink a lot of

00:09:31.800 alcohol tend to have many other health-related issues. And it's basically impossible to fully

00:09:36.960 control for all of those variables. Several other studies that have looked into the link between

00:09:42.320 alcohol and cancer have said basically the same thing. Here's another one from the peer-reviewed

00:09:45.700 journal Alcohol Research and Health, quote, alcohol intake may appear to be positively associated

00:09:50.620 with lung cancer, but the actual association may be confounded by cigarette smoking, which is related

00:09:54.540 with both alcohol intake, because people who smoke also tend to drink, and the risk of lung cancer.

00:10:00.360 Again, they're admitting that there are confounding factors that they aren't able to fully control

00:10:05.540 for. Someone who drinks a lot is more likely to smoke a lot of cigarettes, so it's difficult to say

00:10:10.100 that, you know, if they develop cancer, that the alcohol is responsible. That's especially true

00:10:14.520 since all this information is self-reported and people often aren't honest about how much they're

00:10:19.540 drinking or smoking. This is all a pretty big problem for the Surgeon General's claim that drinking

00:10:24.940 even small amounts of alcohol can cause cancer, or that alcohol is directly causing tens of thousands

00:10:30.200 of cancer deaths, or that the situation is so bad we've got to slap these enormous warning labels

00:10:35.280 on the bottles. He simply doesn't have the evidence to support what he's saying.

00:10:39.880 Now, it's true that alcohol does release a substance that's been shown to damage DNA,

00:10:43.460 but by itself, that fact doesn't tell us much. A lot of everyday substances can damage DNA.

00:10:48.760 Sunlight, for example, damages DNA. Doesn't mean we should never go outside, obviously.

00:10:53.260 There was also a study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013

00:10:56.600 that demonstrated that pretty much everything we eat can, in some way, increase our cancer risk.

00:11:04.240 Quoting from the study, we selected 50 common ingredients from random recipes in a cookbook.

00:11:09.420 40 ingredients, 80%, had articles reporting on their cancer risk. 72% concluded that the tested

00:11:15.880 food was associated with an increased or decreased risk. Associations with cancer risk or benefits

00:11:21.040 have been claimed for most food ingredients. So just to reiterate, nearly everything you eat

00:11:26.560 supposedly impacts your cancer risk, and a lot of it supposedly makes your cancer risk higher.

00:11:31.520 Now, the Surgeon General knows all this, but he's decided to push a political agenda instead of

00:11:36.400 actual science. And it's not the first time he's done that. There was a recent deep dive in the

00:11:40.640 Wall Street Journal op-ed, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, into the Surgeon General's, whose name is

00:11:46.180 Vivek Murthy. He's a pro-censorship activist who says that gun violence is a public health issue that

00:11:52.640 needs to be regulated like a virus. And his timing with this alcohol advisory couldn't be worse.

00:11:59.140 Just a few weeks ago, in December, this past December, there was a report by the National

00:12:03.660 Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. And it found that moderate drinkers actually have

00:12:08.560 a lower risk of premature death from a number of ailments than non-drinkers, which is, again,

00:12:15.560 is in line with what they've been saying for years. So this whole episode is yet more evidence that

00:12:21.480 health and dietary guidelines from our trusted health authorities are constantly changing,

00:12:28.360 backtracking. They're constantly contradicting themselves. Because the truth is that nobody

00:12:34.400 has the elixir for immortality. Okay? Nobody knows or will ever know the precise recipe to

00:12:41.740 avoid disease and live a long life. There is no such recipe. Everybody's going to die.

00:12:47.780 And almost everyone, if they live long enough, is going to get cancer. Almost anything can

00:12:54.180 therefore be linked to cancer. Public health experts are able to use this kind of uncertainty

00:12:59.580 and anxiety to herd the public in one direction and then in another, and then back in the other

00:13:05.200 direction again, and then back again. The other thing to keep in mind is the actual level of risk

00:13:10.200 we're talking about here. Public health experts have been able to manipulate mass amounts of people

00:13:15.480 in all kinds of ways by exploiting the fact that most people don't understand or conceptualize

00:13:22.080 relative risk. So they just hear the word risk and they get scared. They hear the term cancer risk and

00:13:29.640 they think, well, that's something I need to avoid at all costs. Not differentiating in their head

00:13:35.180 between like a 0.01% risk and a 99% risk. All that to say, even if moderate alcohol consumption

00:13:42.400 does increase your cancer risk, and that's still a big if, the percentage increase is very likely to

00:13:48.320 be very, very small. A few years ago, a professor of pediatrics wrote an article for the New York Times

00:13:52.680 reacting to an announcement from the American Society of Clinical Oncology claiming that moderate

00:13:57.940 alcohol consumption increases your risk of cancer. And so he was responding to that, and he tried to put

00:14:03.200 that increase into perspective. Reading now, he says, quote, let's stipulate that there may be a

00:14:08.420 correlation between light or moderate drinking and some cancers. We still don't know if that

00:14:12.180 relationship is causal, but let's accept that there's at least an association. For breast cancer,

00:14:17.980 which is the cancer that seems to be garnering the most headlines, light drinking was associated

00:14:22.060 with a relative risk of 1.04 in the announcement. A 40-year-old woman has an absolute risk of 1.45%

00:14:29.960 of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years. This announcement would argue that if she's a light 0.99

00:14:34.600 drinker, that risk would become 1.51%. This is an absolute risk increase of 0.06%. Using what's

00:14:42.660 known as the number needed to harm, this could be interpreted such that if 1,667 40-year-old

00:14:48.600 women became light drinkers, one additional person might develop breast cancer. The other 1,666

00:14:54.600 would see no difference. Now, you might say that 1 out of 1,666, or rather 667, is still a risk,

00:15:07.060 and you might say it's not worth taking. That's fine. It's your prerogative. Although I will say,

00:15:12.540 you have to be willing to take that level of risk in order to live a functional human existence,

00:15:19.080 period. I mean, you could cut out alcohol. You don't need that to be functional, obviously,

00:15:23.360 but nearly everything else you eat, drink, or do carries some kind of risk. And in many cases,

00:15:29.500 the risk is greater than 1 out of 1,667. But that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone

00:15:36.320 to drink alcohol or to continue drinking if they want to stop. But I'm still sick of public health

00:15:42.040 experts, so-called, getting everyone panicked on flimsy or fraudulent grounds. We should always

00:15:47.900 question when they do that. And we should always wonder about their real motivations,

00:15:54.040 especially when their guidance constantly changes and contradicts. And of course, they never show any

00:15:58.620 humility about this. They always have supreme confidence in the recommendations, no matter how

00:16:03.580 often the recommendations turn out to be terrible, no matter how often the recommendations directly

00:16:07.320 refute the recommendations these same people were making 15 seconds earlier.

00:16:10.980 So what they should say about alcohol is something like this.

00:16:17.420 Booze definitely isn't good for you if you drink it immoderately. But if you can control yourself,

00:16:23.280 you're probably fine. Then again, you might not be. It might help you ward off heart disease,

00:16:28.320 or if you're the rare unlucky person, it might be one factor among dozens that trigger some form of

00:16:33.180 cancer. We don't know exactly how it'll work out for you, and we never will. Just make your choice

00:16:38.340 and accept the consequences either way. Nearly everyone currently living on Earth will be dead

00:16:42.660 in the next six or seven decades anyway, no matter how much booze they drank or how many booster shots

00:16:48.020 they got. So just go ahead and print that warning label and put it on every food and beverage product

00:16:54.600 on Earth and just be done with it. But the larger issue here is our government's priorities.

00:17:01.320 They relentlessly demonize now alcohol, just like they have with tobacco for decades.

00:17:05.340 You know, tobacco was almost the sole focus of public health people for decades was how terrible

00:17:13.820 cigarettes and tobacco. It's the worst thing in the world. Meanwhile, Americans are getting hooked

00:17:20.060 on marijuana in numbers never before seen on the planet. I mean, a recent study showed that for the

00:17:25.840 first time ever, daily use of marijuana has surpassed daily use of alcohol. This is a major,

00:17:30.560 major, major, major swing. The kind of thing that you would think people like the Surgeon General

00:17:36.020 would be focused on. Like, why is this happening? And is it good? There are always trade-offs,

00:17:42.240 and this is the trade-off with the reduction in alcohol consumption. We often see these celebratory

00:17:47.220 headlines about how younger Americans in particular are drinking far less booze, but the headlines are

00:17:51.960 rarely interested in why that's happening, and even less interested in the question of whether the

00:17:56.840 trade-off is an improvement. As it happens, young people are drinking less because they're getting 0.71

00:18:02.340 stoned a whole lot more. And guess what? There are plenty of studies claiming a potential link

00:18:07.940 between cancer and marijuana, too. So why are we seeing this war against alcohol and not weed? And at

00:18:14.020 the same time, fentanyl and other lethal drugs pour across the border with little being done to stop it.

00:18:18.800 It would seem that the powers that be prefer to have us high and stoned. That's also why the tax

00:18:26.040 on cannabis in New York is many times lower than the tax on tobacco products. That should really tell

00:18:31.420 you something. Now, I don't think any of this stuff is healthy, strictly speaking. But I do know that

00:18:39.940 booze and tobacco were heavily consumed by many of the most advanced and successful civilizations on Earth,

00:18:46.300 including our own until recently. That doesn't mean you need tobacco and booze for society to flourish,

00:18:51.600 but history clearly shows that those two substances don't prevent society from flourishing.

00:18:57.000 On the other hand, I'm not aware of any society of stoners or hard drug addicts that built anything

00:19:03.560 but mud huts and teepees. So if this advisory from Joe Biden's Surgeon General tells us anything,

00:19:11.480 it's that the field of public health hasn't changed at all since COVID.

00:19:16.300 And that we can't trust. That's the other thing. I mean, maybe it turns out that drinking a small

00:19:20.640 amount of alcohol increases your cancer risk by 80%. Well, guess what? If that was the case and

00:19:25.460 they told us that, we still wouldn't be able to trust them. We can't trust anything these people

00:19:28.340 say anymore. Because we know they're still interested in weakening and ultimately remaking

00:19:33.780 this country so that we're all subservient to their edicts. They still believe that they can terrify

00:19:38.400 Americans into just doing whatever they decide they want us to do or not doing whatever they've 0.85

00:19:44.100 decided they don't want us to do. And they could do that by raising the mere prospect of a risk of

00:19:49.980 death, even though death is unavoidable for all of us. What they don't seem to realize is that five

00:19:55.660 years after COVID, some of us anyway, just aren't listening to them anymore at all.

00:20:02.860 Now let's get to our five headlines.

00:20:11.480 You voted big government out and efficient government in. Well, now it's time to trim the fat

00:20:16.320 from big wireless. If you're still on Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile, why? Pure Talk, my cell phone

00:20:22.320 company, gives you the exact same service on the exact same towers with better customer service

00:20:27.340 because they're based right here in the U.S. at half the cost. That's right. There's simply no

00:20:32.500 need to spend $85 or $100 per person on your wireless bill. Not when you can get unlimited

00:20:37.560 talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with Mobile Hotspot for just $35 a month. Friends, the average

00:20:44.100 family of four saves about $1,000 a year with Pure Talk while enjoying America's most dependable

00:20:49.540 5G network. So cut the fat out of your wireless bill. Switch to Pure Talk by going to

00:20:53.960 puretalk.com slash Walsh. Again, that's puretalk.com slash Walsh, and you'll save an additional

00:20:59.360 50% off your first month with Pure Talk, America's wireless company.

00:21:04.500 Okay, the big news out of Canada I mentioned briefly yesterday. Far-left Canadian Prime

00:21:09.180 Minister Justin Trudeau, reading out from Daily Wire, announced on Monday that he will resign

00:21:12.780 as leader of his party and as the country's prime minister immediately after the party selects

00:21:17.520 a successor. Trudeau's decision comes as polls show him trailing far behind opposition Conservative

00:21:22.120 Party in the upcoming election. Trudeau gave a statement yesterday. I think we have some

00:21:30.680 of that statement of him announcing the decision. Let's watch that.

00:21:34.340 Last night over dinner, I told my kids about the decision that I'm sharing with you today.

00:21:42.060 I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister, after the party selects its next leader

00:21:50.500 through a robust nationwide competitive process. Last night, I asked the president of the Liberal

00:21:58.480 Party to begin that process. This country deserves a real choice in the next election, and it has

00:22:06.700 become clear to me that if I'm having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in that election.

00:22:15.920 Now, I don't pretend to be an expert in Canadian politics. My take on this is very simple.

00:22:24.080 Justin Trudeau is resigning because he's totally lost the trust and confidence of the Canadian people,

00:22:31.180 and he lost their trust and confidence because he's made their lives worse in every way by every metric.

00:22:36.260 You know, he's a far left radical, a true believer, I think, who imposed leftism on the citizenry in a very authoritarian way.

00:22:45.240 And that will always result in a steep decline in the quality of life. It will always have a negative effect on the well-being of normal citizens.

00:22:55.640 You know, it's always just a question of how long people will put up with it. Are you going to prioritize the well-being of yourself and your family or not?

00:23:07.420 And any move, any move towards the prioritization of the well-being of individuals and families is always, in effect, a move towards conservatism and a move away from leftism.

00:23:20.720 I mean, think about it. Being tough on crime is coded as a right-wing viewpoint now.

00:23:28.760 Protecting the border is right-wing. Preserving and protecting the family, right-wing.

00:23:36.680 Cutting taxes and regulations, making sure that people can keep more of their own money, put more food on their table, all of that considered right-wing.

00:23:45.060 If you value marriage, if you want people to have kids, if you want your civilization to survive and thrive and prosper and grow, right-wing, right-wing, right-wing.

00:23:56.820 All of that's right-wing now. And that doesn't have to be.

00:24:01.560 I mean, these don't have to be political positions.

00:24:04.620 Most of them should just be innate.

00:24:09.600 Again, this is just about valuing the well-being of your family, which is something that should just come naturally to people.

00:24:16.700 You shouldn't need to read any conservative literature to arrive at that conclusion.

00:24:22.860 But it's right-wing now in relation to the left-wing.

00:24:28.200 It's because leftism stands in direct opposition to all of that.

00:24:31.440 It stands in direct opposition to literally everything that makes your life better, makes life worth living, makes life more fulfilling and happier and more purposeful.

00:24:40.240 And that's what Justin Trudeau was running into.

00:24:43.920 And it's why he's getting run out of town.

00:24:45.840 So here's a really big story I want to move to.

00:24:49.060 The Guardian reports, Meta will get rid of fact-checkers, dramatically reduce the amount of censorship, and recommend more political content on its platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg, who announced it just this morning.

00:25:05.820 In a video message, Zuckerberg vowed to prioritize free speech after the return of Donald Trump to the White House, and said that starting in the U.S., he would get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X.

00:25:19.120 Zuckerberg said that fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created.

00:25:26.440 The tech firm's content moderation team will be moved from California to Texas.

00:25:30.280 And he also said that he's going to be working with the Trump administration, you know, on free speech issues and so on.

00:25:38.800 So the big headline here, or what most people apparently see as the big headline, is that Facebook is supposedly getting rid of its hyper-partisan, phony, fact-checking regime and replacing it with the kind of community note system that they have, you know, on X.

00:25:54.060 And that is a big headline.

00:25:55.160 You know, I don't have to tell you that fact-checking has been used for years as a tool to enforce ideological conformity.

00:26:02.880 The fact-checkers on Facebook and everywhere else were never worried about facts.

00:26:07.740 Actually, since they're all leftists, they don't even believe in facts.

00:26:12.700 I mean, philosophically, they just reject the idea of anything even being a fact.

00:26:17.000 They're relativists, and relativists can never really be fact-checkers.

00:26:20.080 They don't think that there is any objective truth that you can measure anything against.

00:26:25.160 So what they're worried about is a narrative.

00:26:27.860 They want the world to be presented and seen a certain way.

00:26:32.080 And anything that gives a different view or approaches from a different angle is, you know, suppressed by the fact-checkers.

00:26:39.580 And this has been a system on Facebook for years, making it basically impossible to have any kind of open dialogue or, you know, honest conversation about anything on that platform.

00:26:49.500 And it wasn't always this way.

00:26:51.800 You know, I mean, Facebook, I would not have a career probably without Facebook because I came up as an independent blogger on, you know, in the first half of the 2010s.

00:27:05.400 And I didn't work for anyone.

00:27:07.120 I wasn't getting paid by anyone.

00:27:08.940 I needed some way to build an audience, some way to access an audience and build it.

00:27:13.360 So I used Facebook.

00:27:14.800 And I just started a Facebook account, and I kind of built up an audience that way.

00:27:18.440 And for years, Facebook was basically my only platform.

00:27:21.960 And it was, you could do that because you could post anything.

00:27:28.020 You could say anything.

00:27:29.880 You could build an audience.

00:27:32.220 You could have access to that audience.

00:27:34.760 There were no fact-checkers.

00:27:36.880 There wasn't any whatever trust and safety counsel or whatever they call it now.

00:27:43.100 I don't remember at any point during that time, I was just saying whatever I wanted about any topic.

00:27:48.560 And there was never a strike.

00:27:50.980 I never got, you know, suppressed.

00:27:53.380 There was never anything.

00:27:54.300 They wouldn't try to shut you down for unapproved opinions.

00:27:58.900 That's how it used to be.

00:28:00.040 But in recent years, of course, everything changed.

00:28:03.500 And it became impossible, as it is now for basically, it's basically impossible for anyone to do what I did back in 2012 and 2013 and 2014.

00:28:12.000 You can't show up as an independent, unknown, conservative voice and build an audience on a platform like Facebook now because you just get crushed.

00:28:19.320 They just crush you right away.

00:28:20.980 But now, supposedly, Facebook is maybe moving back towards what it was before.

00:28:30.820 Or at least that seems to be the pledge that they're making.

00:28:36.580 And what it was before was essentially a free and open platform where you could express your views and connect with whatever audience of people you're able to build.

00:28:47.320 I think, though, the more significant part of Zuckerberg's announcement this morning, I mean, the stuff about the fact checkers is pretty big.

00:28:56.480 But I think this part jumped out to me even more.

00:29:00.260 Listen to this.

00:29:00.740 We're going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.

00:29:10.380 What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas.

00:29:19.020 And it's gone too far.

00:29:20.220 So I want to make sure that people can share their beliefs and experiences on our platforms.

00:29:25.200 Now, the proof is in the pudding with this sort of thing.

00:29:30.820 Let's see Facebook actually put the community note system in place.

00:29:36.020 More importantly, let's see them actually allow the kind of free and open expression that you find on X, that you used to find on Facebook 10 years ago.

00:29:51.280 Let's see them really do it.

00:29:53.080 I certainly don't trust any big tech platform.

00:29:56.980 I need to see it for myself.

00:29:58.120 But even this statement alone and singling out gender and immigration as topics where people can have different points of view and should be left, that alone is still a pretty monumental sea change.

00:30:11.520 It's not enough.

00:30:12.460 We need to see it actually implemented.

00:30:14.000 But I do think we're seeing a real shift here.

00:30:17.400 Now, is it the result of some kind of conversion experience or change of heart on the part of Zuckerberg?

00:30:24.980 No.

00:30:25.500 I mean, he doesn't even claim that.

00:30:26.980 That's the thing.

00:30:27.720 If you listen to the whole statement, it's five minutes long.

00:30:33.380 There's not really any.

00:30:35.700 He doesn't claim that he's changed his mind.

00:30:38.500 In fact, he pretends that he's always been a champion of free speech and that all the kind of suppression and censorship that's happened over the last five to eight years has essentially been an accident.

00:30:51.380 Like they they they put these systems into place because they're trying to root out bad stuff.

00:30:57.180 And then all this other stuff got kind of caught in the net and they didn't really mean it that way.

00:31:01.740 So he's not.

00:31:05.180 There's not a lot of accountability here.

00:31:07.580 I think this is clearly politics and marketing.

00:31:12.300 X with Elon Musk is growing.

00:31:15.580 It's getting all the press.

00:31:16.820 It's getting all the attention.

00:31:18.780 It's where everything seems to be happening.

00:31:21.020 It has all the influence.

00:31:22.900 Facebook, meanwhile, although it has 90 billion users or whatever, has become a sad husk and has been for a long time.

00:31:30.120 So I think that's more what has inspired this change.

00:31:34.020 If it is a change, but all the same, it's good news and it's.

00:31:39.100 I think very significant.

00:31:40.520 OK, we'll move to this.

00:31:43.440 Speaking of sea changes and potential sea changes and maybe some progress, you know, staying on on on that note, this is a report from the Daily Wire yesterday.

00:31:54.760 It says the vast majority of parents oppose schools teaching their children transgender ideology.

00:31:59.900 Polling conducted last month by Parents Defending Education shows the polling first shared with the Daily Wire shows that 75 percent of parents do not support teachers providing instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to elementary school students.

00:32:10.320 Additionally, a large majority of parents indicated that they opposed teachers pushing transgender identity on kids behind their parents' backs, as has happened across the country.

00:32:18.940 The survey found that 80 percent of parents believed that schools should not help a child change their gender identity without parental notification, while 19 percent said they would be fine with teachers changing a student's pronouns or providing things like chest binders to girls without parental consent.

00:32:37.420 Three quarters of those surveyed said they supported legislation that would require school officials to inform parents if their child wanted to identify as a different gender at school.

00:32:46.840 Just over 60 percent of parents said they disagreed with a Wisconsin school district policy that said parents do not have a right to know about their child's identity.

00:32:56.500 Now, you know, I've always been a guy who maybe tends to focus more on the dark cloud within the silver lining, so I have to say I'm still concerned by the 19 percent of parents who say that they would be okay with a teacher changing their child's pronouns or giving her a chest binder without their consent.

00:33:14.960 That is a staggering amount of parents who evidently want the schools to undermine them and keep secrets from them and abuse their children.

00:33:27.240 So, you know, this is a bit like a headline that says a majority of parents are opposed to their children being drowned.

00:33:37.880 Now, I mean, it's good that a majority are opposed to their children being drowned, but if that majority number is anything less than 100 percent exactly, we have serious problems.

00:33:50.680 And in this case, it's 80 percent.

00:33:53.420 Now, with all that said, I think this does, yet again, represent progress, which only shows you how bad things were just a few years ago.

00:34:02.740 It shows that the left is losing the argument because it's the trends that are important and it's not the raw numbers, it's the trends.

00:34:11.240 If 75 percent, you know, of parents opposed gender ideology in the schools, but five years ago, 85 percent opposed it, then these numbers would certainly in that case be nothing to celebrate.

00:34:34.400 They'd be a sign that we're losing, but instead the trend lines are going the other way.

00:34:37.480 The left is losing ground on this issue.

00:34:40.080 They're losing badly and quite rapidly.

00:34:43.800 And they're losing because, for one thing, as we've talked about many times, conservatives finally, I think, figured out how to effectively push back on a lot of this stuff.

00:34:53.340 But they're also losing because of tactical errors on their part.

00:34:57.560 They got impatient.

00:34:59.340 They tried to just go too far, too fast.

00:35:02.720 I mean, if you think about it, let's just take this one issue of sexual indoctrination of children in schools.

00:35:12.620 Well, they've been doing this in schools for decades.

00:35:16.980 They've been doing it successfully with very little pushback for decades.

00:35:21.380 So-called comprehensive sex education is how the left indoctrinates kids into this stuff. 1.00

00:35:27.540 The entire program of the concept of comprehensive sex education, which has been around since the 50s and 60s, but that very concept, that's why it exists, is to indoctrinate kids into left-wing sexual ideology.

00:35:46.720 So they've been doing it for a long time, decades and decades.

00:35:51.220 And gradually, the programs got more perverse, became more extreme.

00:35:56.640 They were turning the heat up, boiling the frog more and more, but turning the knob relatively slowly.

00:36:03.920 And then over the last 10 years, they just threw caution to the wind, and they got impatient. 0.81

00:36:08.020 And they, you know, started putting gay porn in the schools, and they started giving out chest binders and changing kids' pronouns. 0.80

00:36:17.140 They kind of went for it all. 0.94

00:36:19.300 They were moving slowly, but surely, in that direction for decades and decades.

00:36:25.060 And then all at once, they tried to kind of, they tried to jump over the last few steps, and they wanted comprehensive sex education to sort of reach its final form.

00:36:37.700 And they tried to force it.

00:36:39.500 The public wasn't ready.

00:36:41.080 The conditioning hadn't been completed.

00:36:43.700 And so there was a revolt.

00:36:45.140 And now they're losing many of the gains that they made over the past many decades.

00:36:49.860 I think that's part of what's happening here.

00:36:51.120 And it is, obviously, a positive development, but there's still a long way to go.

00:36:56.720 All right, let's get to the comment section.

00:36:58.600 If you're a man, it's required that you grow a bit.

00:37:01.840 Hey, we're the sweet baby gang.

00:37:08.100 Okay, we're resurrecting the comment section from the grave.

00:37:11.280 It's been a little while.

00:37:14.160 But, you know, mainly there are comments here about Sonic the Hedgehog that I felt like,

00:37:18.800 that's what's inspired me to bring back this segment.

00:37:22.180 But we're going to stick with it, actually, this time.

00:37:24.740 Before we get to that, the first one says,

00:37:28.020 I can totally picture Matt mercilessly destroying his kids in a board game and taking pride in it.

00:37:33.420 Now, I don't know if you meant that as a compliment, but I take it as one.

00:37:36.020 I don't know how that was intended.

00:37:37.620 But, yes, absolutely.

00:37:39.620 I never let my kids win in any game.

00:37:42.020 As I said, we played Monopoly two nights in a row over the break.

00:37:46.740 First night, there was tears.

00:37:49.620 Kids were distraught.

00:37:51.280 They landed on my Monopoly.

00:37:52.920 They were begging me to not make them pay.

00:37:55.700 I said, now you've got to pay up.

00:37:56.860 You're out of money.

00:37:57.540 Now you've got to start mortgaging your properties.

00:37:58.940 This is the way it goes, okay?

00:38:00.700 This is the game.

00:38:02.140 And you know what?

00:38:02.760 They wanted to play the next night, even after that experience.

00:38:06.680 And you know what else?

00:38:07.340 There were no tears the second night.

00:38:08.980 They all lost, still.

00:38:10.860 I still won.

00:38:11.400 But there were no tears.

00:38:13.020 There was no begging.

00:38:13.760 So they learned.

00:38:14.420 And this is the value of playing games with your kids and also not letting them win.

00:38:19.200 The other great thing is that if you play games with your kids and you don't let them win,

00:38:23.320 it becomes a point of pride for you when they actually beat you fair and square.

00:38:28.900 Like my son, a few weeks ago, beat me.

00:38:31.760 I played him.

00:38:32.420 We play horse all the time.

00:38:34.240 And he's never won.

00:38:35.880 And he finally beat me, like fair and square, for the first time ever, a few weeks ago.

00:38:40.660 And I was super proud of him.

00:38:42.640 I was also mad at myself.

00:38:44.080 I asked for a rematch because I can't end on that note.

00:38:47.740 And I did win the second match.

00:38:50.120 But still, he earned it.

00:38:53.620 And I'm a big believer in that.

00:38:56.540 Play games with your kids.

00:38:57.680 Make them earn the victory.

00:38:59.240 And I think there's a lot of value to that.

00:39:02.620 So, I'm working on a project now from a loop to an airport entrance.

00:39:07.120 We have to include bike lanes.

00:39:09.520 Who rides their bikes to an airport to catch a flight?

00:39:12.660 Answer, no one.

00:39:14.080 But we have to spend money to do it in a woke city.

00:39:16.800 That's amazing.

00:39:17.580 Bike lanes to the airport.

00:39:20.520 I mean, that's how you know the bike lane thing is totally out of control.

00:39:25.260 Why not put one on the runway, too, while we're at it?

00:39:27.980 Let's put bike lanes on the runway. 0.99

00:39:29.600 You might think that runways and airports are just for airplanes, just like you might think that a road in a city is just for cars.

00:39:43.200 But no, let's make runways accessible for cyclists, too.

00:39:49.000 I could actually get behind that.

00:39:49.960 I consider myself to be a very kind and charitable person, but I would never let a stranger into my house for any reason.

00:39:57.940 I understand his situation, but no way you're coming into my house.

00:40:00.780 Maybe he should have stopped at a gas station or grocery store on the way to the delivery, especially with kids in the house.

00:40:05.340 You absolutely did the smart thing.

00:40:07.140 Another comment disagrees.

00:40:08.140 Says, Matt, him telling you that he had to go number two just adds to the urgency to the situation.

00:40:13.800 The lady not letting him in, I understand.

00:40:15.320 But you not letting him in, I'm ashamed of you.

00:40:18.500 Imagine yourself in that situation.

00:40:20.180 Would you ask her at her door or would you just go on yourself?

00:40:24.060 Of course, they're talking about the video of the DoorDash delivery driver who was trying to use a stranger's bathroom and claiming he had to, you know, being very explicit about what he had to do because he was having an emergency.

00:40:36.160 No, I would not ask a stranger to let me into their house to use their bathroom.

00:40:40.500 I would not.

00:40:41.020 I would not do that.

00:40:42.860 I simply would not ever do that.

00:40:46.200 I especially wouldn't frantically scream that I have diarrhea like that DoorDash driver was.

00:40:50.780 Like there's never a good, there's never an excuse for that.

00:40:53.800 But no, I just don't think, I would never ask that.

00:40:57.020 Like you have to have some dignity in life.

00:40:59.280 And what does that mean?

00:41:02.220 I don't know.

00:41:02.660 But it just, I don't know.

00:41:06.440 But whatever happens is going to happen.

00:41:09.880 Just make sure it happens far away from the sight of civilized society.

00:41:16.300 All right.

00:41:16.680 Here's some Sonic comments.

00:41:19.380 There were quite a lot.

00:41:20.300 Sonic is for adults, but specifically for adults susceptible to nostalgia.

00:41:26.660 The plot you described is pretty much just the game Sonic Adventure 2, which came out in 2001.

00:41:31.180 Simply put, a five-year-old who played that game is, simply put, a five-year-old who played that game is 29 now.

00:41:35.840 So the movie isn't for kids.

00:41:37.280 It's for people who grew up with Sonic and want to relive that nostalgia.

00:41:41.140 And hey, it's a free market.

00:41:42.240 If people want to see that game's plot made into a movie and they're willing to pay for it, I say be my guest.

00:41:47.640 Another comment says, Sonic 3 is amazing.

00:41:50.240 He doesn't understand the source material.

00:41:52.360 The story is a retelling of Sonic Adventure 2.

00:41:55.160 The creators have the most respect for their audience.

00:41:57.580 There's so much fan service.

00:42:00.520 Keanu killed it as shadow.

00:42:01.960 I have no idea what he's talking about.

00:42:04.640 Another one. 0.78

00:42:05.320 The whole Sonic argument is disgusting to listen to.

00:42:08.220 But the point of it being corporate slop with no creativity in particular couldn't be more incorrect.

00:42:13.180 Sonic 3 exists solely because the creatives behind it care about the fans.

00:42:17.300 If they didn't care about the fans, there would have been one movie and it would have been forgotten.

00:42:22.640 Yes, these movie studios that cash in on IP, they're doing it because they care about the fans so much.

00:42:29.840 I mean, my God.

00:42:32.640 I almost don't.

00:42:33.660 If you're that naive, if you live, if that's the world you live in, I almost don't.

00:42:37.920 It seems cruel of me to ruin that for you.

00:42:42.560 I mean, you live in a world of rainbows and sunshine and puppy dogs.

00:42:48.020 But look, that's not the world.

00:42:50.000 That's not the world you live in.

00:42:51.180 So I can tell you right now, the movie studio behind the Sonic trilogy, the reason they're making it,

00:42:58.400 it's not solely for the, it is solely to cash in on an IP and mainly they do that, by the way, not from the movie,

00:43:08.080 but by selling the merchandise associated with the movie.

00:43:11.320 And so the movie is actually mainly just a commercial for all the merchandise.

00:43:17.160 That's why it exists.

00:43:18.380 I don't mean to, I'm sorry to break it to you.

00:43:21.160 I mean, these are grown adults.

00:43:26.760 Again, you know, I don't think these are kids leaving these guys.

00:43:30.400 These are grown adults claiming that Sonic films are for adults, that they're amazing.

00:43:37.120 And my favorite of all, that in order to appreciate them, you have to understand the source material.

00:43:43.700 And the source material are Sonic video games.

00:43:46.320 Understand the source material, that's the kind of thing you might say about a film that's based on, like, the Old Testament or Shakespeare.

00:43:59.580 You know, it's what you might say about a film adaptation of a Tolstoy novel.

00:44:06.100 Okay, understand the source material, but you're saying it about Sonic the Hedgehog.

00:44:11.800 My God.

00:44:16.260 And on top of that, I'm being told that the Sonic film, it's creative, it's really great.

00:44:20.680 But then also, it's just a shot-for-shot remake of a video game from 25 years ago.

00:44:28.460 Which is it?

00:44:29.200 Is it a creative masterpiece or a shot-for-shot remake of something that already exists in 25?

00:44:34.000 I don't know.

00:44:34.660 It can't really be both, can it?

00:44:37.980 Look, this is the last thing I'll say about this.

00:44:39.800 And I know, look, there are a lot of adults in this country who are just clinging onto their childhood interests

00:44:48.640 and refuse to allow their interests and tastes to mature and develop at all.

00:44:54.580 And for those adults, they're not open to hearing any opposing viewpoint from someone like myself.

00:45:01.800 They get very, very upset about it.

00:45:02.960 And I get that, but look, the way this, if you grew up as a kid and you liked the Sonic video games,

00:45:14.680 that's fine.

00:45:15.040 I like Sonic, I got news for you.

00:45:16.580 I liked Sonic, the Sonic video games when I was a kid.

00:45:18.580 I didn't play them a lot, but, you know, I enjoyed them.

00:45:23.080 What kid wouldn't?

00:45:25.420 And so if you liked them as a kid, and then there's some new Sonic product coming out 30 years later,

00:45:34.040 to say that, well, no, it's not for kids, it's for me, because I liked it when I was a kid.

00:45:39.860 Do you see how backwards that is? 0.71

00:45:41.820 That's not how it's supposed to work.

00:45:43.740 It's supposed to be that you pass on, maybe, the things that you loved as a child,

00:45:49.800 that you can pass them on to your own kids.

00:45:52.180 But those things are now, they're not for you.

00:45:55.180 They're for your kids.

00:45:56.620 They're for this new generation of kids.

00:45:58.360 If they're for anyone.

00:45:59.280 Now, I think that these soulless corporate, you know, algorithmic remakes and stuff are not really for anyone.

00:46:04.760 They're really just about making money.

00:46:05.900 But if they're for anyone, if they are for anyone, they are or should be for this generation of kids.

00:46:14.120 And the problem is that you have adults in my generation who enjoyed things as kids

00:46:19.220 and are clinging on to them and won't let go of them and claim ownership of them even now

00:46:25.680 so that the new Sonic film has to service them.

00:46:31.840 It has to serve what they want.

00:46:33.560 And, you know, it should be about entertaining them and not about kids.

00:46:38.440 And it's just not, I mean, would you go to Chuck E. Cheese and, like, with a bunch of adults

00:46:50.440 and jump in the ball pit and say, this is for me.

00:46:52.940 I loved this when I was a kid.

00:46:54.160 Or do you realize that, no, yeah, it was for you when you were a kid.

00:47:00.120 And now it's for the kids who are kids now.

00:47:07.040 And I realize I say that and there are probably plenty of adults who will tell me,

00:47:09.720 oh, I go to Chuck E. Cheese all the time just myself.

00:47:11.800 It's not weird.

00:47:14.040 All right.

00:47:14.800 It is weird.

00:47:15.500 It is a little weird.

00:47:16.140 Kickoff 2025 with 25% off a new Daily Wire Plus annual membership.

00:47:21.340 This year will be one for the history books.

00:47:23.120 In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will be inaugurated and the Daily Wire will be there

00:47:26.980 with live, uncensored coverage of every monumental moment.

00:47:30.700 But while we celebrate what's ahead, the fight isn't over.

00:47:33.060 2025 reminded us of that.

00:47:34.640 And it's the very first hours that, you know, the bad guys don't rest.

00:47:37.820 And neither do we.

00:47:38.620 So join us in the fight now and get 25% off your new Daily Wire Plus annual membership.

00:47:44.380 Every dollar fuels our mission.

00:47:46.220 Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join today.

00:47:50.100 Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

00:47:57.680 Now I know that this fact is of no interest to many of you, but the NFL playoffs start next

00:48:02.720 weekend.

00:48:03.520 My Baltimore Ravens will play the Pittsburgh Steelers in Baltimore on Saturday night.

00:48:06.680 And I'll be watching the game with my whole family, as I have over the course of many

00:48:10.440 years.

00:48:11.420 I have successfully indoctrinated my kids into Raven fandom.

00:48:15.220 I have to say, you know, it's actually kind of difficult to brainwash your kids into caring

00:48:18.200 about your favorite football team.

00:48:19.320 At least I found that it is.

00:48:20.540 This is a challenge that nobody tells you about.

00:48:22.360 There are no parenting books about it.

00:48:24.160 Slowly but surely, though, my kids have come into the fold.

00:48:26.960 Though they still have a long way to go before they know what it's like to have their day

00:48:29.780 actually ruined because the guys in a certain color jersey scored fewer points than the

00:48:33.820 guys in the other color jersey.

00:48:35.500 Maybe they'll get there this year.

00:48:36.360 Maybe we can all experience the crushing heartbreak together when the Ravens inevitably lose by

00:48:40.120 three points in the second round of the playoffs.

00:48:42.320 It'll be a family bonding experience.

00:48:43.540 This is what being a sports fan is all about.

00:48:45.180 But there was another source of excitement in the NFL world this week.

00:48:49.800 Monday was the day when the teams that didn't make the playoffs started firing their coaches,

00:48:55.760 a day that over the years has been dubbed Black Monday.

00:48:59.320 The New England Patriots certainly qualify as a bad team after winning only four games this

00:49:03.620 season.

00:49:04.120 So they fired their coach, a guy named Gerard Mayo, after one year coaching the team.

00:49:09.020 Now, we talked about Gerard Mayo on this show actually almost exactly a year ago when he

00:49:14.160 was originally hired and he used his introductory press conference as an opportunity to deliver

00:49:20.140 a rather incoherent speech about race.

00:49:24.460 Let's let's watch that again.

00:49:26.680 I do see color because I believe if you don't see color, you can't see racism.

00:49:32.600 And whatever whatever happens, black, white, disabled person, I've always even someone with

00:49:38.640 disabilities, I always, you know, for the most part, people are like, you know, don't you know,

00:49:43.480 when they're young, they kind of make the spot hot.

00:49:45.920 Younger people know what that means.

00:49:47.160 That's I'm just quoting him.

00:50:17.080 Well, then maybe a younger person can translate that because a year later, I still have no

00:50:22.400 idea what he was trying to say.

00:50:23.780 I really don't.

00:50:24.680 All I know is that he decided to somehow, you know, in his own way, try to make his hiring

00:50:31.580 about race.

00:50:32.740 And so it's inevitable that his firing would also become a story about race.

00:50:37.680 Now, Mayo himself, as far as I know, hasn't made that claim, at least not yet.

00:50:42.860 But some race baiters in the media have piped up right on cue to announce that Mayo was actually

00:50:48.760 fired for being black, not for being a really bad coach, which he is.

00:50:53.840 MSNBC published an op-ed with this title. 0.98

00:50:56.480 There's a double standard for black NFL coaches.

00:50:59.240 Gerard Mayo's firing shows it.

00:51:01.640 The article written by somebody named Keith Reed says this, quote, the NFL has a history

00:51:06.060 of giving lopsided opportunities to white male coaches.

00:51:09.020 The short leash the Pats gave Mayo shows how far the league is from fulfilling its promises

00:51:13.800 to do better at creating racial equity in its coaching core.

00:51:17.040 Mayo's termination is a reminder of how rarely black head coaches get fair shots at turning

00:51:21.140 their teams around, assuming fairness is defined, at least in part, by getting more than a single

00:51:25.720 season to make progress.

00:51:27.000 Now, sure, if you define fairness as getting a second chance in an extremely high-paying

00:51:33.180 job after utterly failing the first time around, but that's not how you should define fairness.

00:51:38.340 Because when you're getting paid millions of dollars, you're expected to perform right

00:51:42.560 away.

00:51:43.800 You don't get a year-long runway to figure it out.

00:51:46.940 And you probably won't get a second chance if you fail to figure it out.

00:51:50.920 That's especially the case in football, which is a results-oriented business and always

00:51:55.580 has been.

00:51:56.840 All that anyone cares about is whether you perform.

00:52:00.940 Players who don't perform get benched or cut.

00:52:03.140 Doesn't matter if they're legends of the game.

00:52:05.960 They can still get benched or cut.

00:52:07.880 Coaches get fired.

00:52:08.920 That's because football is still and will always be a ruthless meritocracy.

00:52:14.320 That's why I love it.

00:52:15.540 It's also why it's America's sport in my mind.

00:52:17.800 But that didn't stop the race baiters from doing what they do best.

00:52:22.340 Stephen A. Smith on ESPN also joined this chorus.

00:52:26.020 Listen.

00:52:27.260 That's what this is about.

00:52:28.420 This is about Mike Vrabel.

00:52:30.020 That's who they wanted.

00:52:31.420 No question about it.

00:52:32.680 And he's a more seasoned, more experienced coach.

00:52:34.500 I don't like this.

00:52:36.100 They call it Black Friday for, you know, Black Monday rather for a reason. 0.71

00:52:39.900 This certainly typifies it.

00:52:41.240 I don't know why it's not called White Monday.

00:52:42.860 Doug Peterson got fired from Jacksonville.

00:52:44.900 He deserved that firing.

00:52:45.820 Gerard Mayer clearly was not given a lengthy enough opportunity considering what Bill Belichick left him with from a talent perspective.

00:52:55.460 Considering the record.

00:52:56.660 Considering the way the team performed.

00:52:58.560 He didn't help himself with some of the comments he made calling the team soft and what have you.

00:53:02.880 And having to retract statements.

00:53:04.060 And we get all of that.

00:53:05.460 But no matter what we can point to, at the end of the day, the folks in New England were turning against Gerard Mayer.

00:53:11.140 We all know this.

00:53:11.980 And I think it has something to do with the fact that Vrabel is available.

00:53:15.660 And that's really what's going on here.

00:53:17.380 They don't want to lose him, especially to a team like the New York Jets.

00:53:20.000 They want to be in the running.

00:53:21.140 And they can't do that with him as the head coach.

00:53:23.720 Now, the problem for the race baiters is that five head coaches have been fired in the NFL this season so far. 0.80

00:53:29.200 Only one of them is Black.

00:53:30.620 Three are White.

00:53:31.700 And one is, I think, Lebanese or something.

00:53:33.840 Now, it's true that the other fired coaches had more than a season under their belts.

00:53:39.840 Though, in most cases, not much more than a season.

00:53:42.840 So, is it then the case that, as the MSNBC article claims, that Black head coaches are more likely to get the axe after just one year on the job?

00:53:53.940 Well, let's take a look.

00:53:55.400 According to an article in The Athletic, over the past decade and a half, there have been 13 coaches fired after one season.

00:54:01.660 By my count, nine of the 13 are White.

00:54:04.580 Four are Black.

00:54:05.620 So, that's more than twice as many White head coaches as Black who were fired after one season.

00:54:09.640 And one of them, Lovie Smith, was fired by the Houston Texans and replaced by another Black coach. 0.98

00:54:14.180 His replacement, D'Amico Ryans, went on to win his division and make the playoffs his first two years on the job.

00:54:19.300 One of the other Black head coaches on the list is Hugh Jackson, who was fired by the Raiders after one season in 2011.

00:54:24.400 A few years later, he got another opportunity as a head coach of the Cleveland Browns, in this case.

00:54:30.460 He coached, I think, 40 games for them and won three of them.

00:54:35.040 He also tied once.

00:54:36.540 So, his overall head coaching record is 11-44-1.

00:54:40.420 He is, statistically speaking, the worst NFL head coach since 1941.

00:54:45.060 So, since before the Super Bowl existed. 0.58

00:54:47.900 So, to review, while the media claims that Black head coaches get a short leash

00:54:53.340 and are fired more quickly than White head coaches,

00:54:55.600 it turns out that over the past 14 years, only four Black head coaches have been fired after one season,

00:54:59.900 while double that many White head coaches were fired after one season in the same time frame.

00:55:04.880 At least one of them, it might be more, I didn't check, was replaced by another Black coach.

00:55:09.740 In fact, the longest tenured head coach in the NFL right now is Black.

00:55:15.140 Mike Tomlin of the Steelers has been their coach for 18 years.

00:55:19.340 He also hasn't won a playoff game in almost a decade.

00:55:22.500 He's 0-5 in the postseason since 2016, and he's about to be 0-6 after this weekend.

00:55:26.980 And this is the league that, allegedly, is unfair to Black coaches.

00:55:31.080 The league where a Black man is the longest tenured head coach in the league,

00:55:35.620 despite a total lack of playoff success in nearly a decade,

00:55:38.020 and where every one-and-done coach for the past 15 years or so, save two, has been White.

00:55:45.260 But, you know, these are all just facts.

00:55:50.080 And as we know, the race hustlers don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of the narrative,

00:55:55.980 which is why Stephen A. Smith and his fellow race-hustling sports commentators are, once again today, canceled.

00:56:03.160 That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.

00:56:05.020 Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.

00:56:08.020 Godspeed.

The Matt Walsh Show - January 07, 2025

Ep. 1509 - Public Health ‘Experts’ Set The Stage For A New Prohibition

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript