The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 274 - Congress Has Done Absolutely Nothing To Deserve A Raise

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Wolf Show, Congress wants to give itself a raise, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

00:00:05.100 says that they need a raise, because if we don't give them a raise, then they're going to be

00:00:08.560 corrupt. Well, I have a different idea, which I will share with you today. Also, Justin Trudeau

00:00:16.380 babbles nonsensically. We'll play that clip just because it's really funny. And finally,

00:00:21.280 60% of male managers say that they are now uncomfortable working with women and mentoring

00:00:27.840 women one-on-one. Gee, I wonder why. We'll try to get to the bottom of that mystery today 1.00

00:00:32.440 on the Matt Wolf Show. So there's a debate raging in Congress right now about whether Congress

00:00:41.420 should get a pay raise, a $4,500 pay raise to be exact, or as it's being called, a cost of living

00:00:50.740 increase. It's not a pay raise, it's a cost of living increase. Yes, it is a raise in

00:00:57.820 pay, but that's not what it is, just cost of living. Because you see, Congress has not gotten

00:01:02.920 a rate, or excuse me, a cost of living increase in a decade. And now apparently they think they're

00:01:09.840 due for one. Although some members of Congress are concerned that it will be politically disastrous

00:01:14.580 to be seen, you know, for them to be seen giving themselves more money, especially when their approval

00:01:19.580 ratings are so low. So there's kind of a game being played out right now, where a game where

00:01:24.680 politicians who are sort of safer politically are advocating for the raise and those who are in a

00:01:31.580 more precarious position politically are pretending to be against it. But of course, at the end of the

00:01:36.360 day, they all want to have more money. One of the people advocating for the raise is the lovely

00:01:45.500 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And her argument for her own raise is really, I mean, it's really pretty

00:01:56.380 awful. So listen to this. You know, it may not be politically popular to say, but honestly, this is

00:02:02.320 why there's so much pressure to turn to lobbying firms and to cash in on member service after people

00:02:08.060 leave because precisely of this issue. So it may be politically convenient and it may make you look

00:02:16.800 good in the short term for saying, oh, we're not voting for pay increases, but we should be fighting

00:02:21.640 for pay increases for every American worker. We should be fighting for a $15 minimum wage pegged to

00:02:27.140 inflation so that everybody in the United States with a salary, with a wage, gets a cost of living

00:02:33.360 increase. Members of Congress, retail workers, everybody should get a cost of living increases

00:02:39.500 to accommodate for the changes in our economy. And then when we don't do that, it only increases

00:02:44.000 the pressure on members to exploit loopholes like insider trading loopholes to make it on the back end.

00:02:50.100 So first of all, you see what she's doing here, right? She's, she's whining for a raise, 1.00

00:02:54.200 but she's positioning it as an act of courage on her part. She's saying, hey,

00:02:59.640 it may not be politically convenient to say this. Okay. I know a lot of people don't have the guts

00:03:05.700 to say this, but, uh, I should get more money. Uh, you know, listen, it's, it's easy for someone

00:03:11.480 to say, don't give me money, but I'm standing here saying, give me money. Okay. I've got the guts to say

00:03:17.140 it. Um, so that's a, that's an interesting, it's an interesting strategy. Second, she says that

00:03:23.760 if you don't give us a raise, we're going to be corrupt and we'll end up finding other ways to

00:03:29.380 make money. We're going to look for, you know, we're going to make deals with lobbyists and we're

00:03:32.900 going to find loopholes and all this stuff. What kind of argument is that? Can, can, could you ever

00:03:38.220 use that at work? Okay. If you're working at Burger King, could you go up to your, to your manager

00:03:43.380 and say, uh, Hey boss, give me money or I'm going to start stealing from the register. All right.

00:03:48.120 It's your choice. Okay. This is, it's up to you balls in your court champ. I mean, it's, you can give me

00:03:54.120 money or I could steal from the register, but either way. So really, if you don't give me money and I steal

00:03:59.160 from the register, it's your fault. That's a, you, you, you forced my hand. So that's the way it's

00:04:02.760 going to be. Um, no, that's, see, that's the, that's only an argument. That's the kind of argument

00:04:08.780 that you could only find in the halls of Congress. It doesn't work anywhere else in the actual working

00:04:14.220 world. Um, I've got an idea though. Here's an alternative. Maybe these people can just make do

00:04:23.700 with the paltry $174,000 a year that they're already paid. That's a good salary. That's like

00:04:30.320 three times the national average. Should our representatives really be paid more than three

00:04:36.420 times what the average citizen makes? Should they make even that much? Um, when, uh, when a representative

00:04:46.700 on the, you know, rare occasion that a representative leaves DC and actually comes home to their own

00:04:52.920 district and they hold a town hall or something, what few even do that anymore, but should, and

00:04:59.280 they're surrounded by their constituents at this town hall, should they be the highest paid person

00:05:05.100 in the room conceivably? You know, in the year 1815, members of Congress were paid the equivalent

00:05:13.640 of $20,000 a year in today's money. In 1795, they made $1 a day. And of course that means they

00:05:22.420 weren't paid anything on the days when they weren't in session. It was a part-time job. So when you say,

00:05:28.640 well, how did they survive on that? They didn't survive on that. They had other jobs. They did

00:05:32.540 other things. This was not a career. It wasn't something that you were supposed to, you know,

00:05:37.500 settle down and spend 50 years doing. AOC says that a lower salary, salaries lead to more corruption,

00:05:43.760 but is that real? Is there evidence of that? Is that really how we see the trends working? Because

00:05:47.820 salaries for members of Congress went up dramatically into the 20th century and the 21st century as well.

00:05:53.980 And I don't see any evidence that corruption went down in the meantime. Now, I'm not saying there

00:06:00.820 wasn't corruption in 1815. Of course there was, but is there evidence that there was more back then

00:06:06.940 than there is now with lower salaries? I don't think, if anything, it seems that the trend works in the

00:06:14.320 opposite direction. And why is that? Well, because if someone is inclined to be a money grubbing,

00:06:19.620 greedy, selfish, dishonest charlatan, you aren't going to satiate them with a higher salary. Okay. 0.97

00:06:27.920 If someone is a, is a morally corrupt individual, you aren't going to solve that problem by giving

00:06:33.460 them more money. It just doesn't, it doesn't work that way. Just like going back to the Burger King

00:06:38.920 example, if someone isn't, if someone's a thief and they're inclined to steal, even if you raise

00:06:45.680 their salary to $15 an hour, uh, they're probably still going to steal because they're a thief.

00:06:53.140 If anything, what happens is when you give them more money, you only wet their appetite.

00:06:58.140 That's the way that it works with, with thieves and, uh, and higher salaries are more likely to attract

00:07:06.020 those kinds of people in the first place. If congressmen were paid, let's say $40,000 a year,

00:07:12.280 most likely the selfish money grubbers wouldn't run in the first place. Now they might, some of them

00:07:19.380 still might, but, but I think that there's a higher likelihood that the selfish money grubbing types 1.00

00:07:27.500 would not be inclined to run in the first place. Uh, because of the lower salary and because it's less

00:07:35.780 money, practically speaking, but also because with a lower salary, I think it, it takes away some of

00:07:43.000 the, uh, some of the esteem, some of the, uh, clout, uh, that you get from being a member of

00:07:52.660 if everyone knew that these people are paid $40,000 a year. And so they're, you know, basically just

00:07:58.300 based on that salary, they're, you know, they're middle-class really kind of lower middle-class,

00:08:04.680 uh, people based on their salary. If, if that's how we started to see Congress, which, and there's

00:08:10.380 nothing wrong with being middle-class, but if that's how we started to see them, then the people

00:08:14.600 who are after money and clout, which I think accounts for probably 95% of the people who run

00:08:21.900 for Congress these days, I think those people are more likely to go somewhere else. Um, I think

00:08:28.300 in that case, you would end up with two types of people running. You would have people who are

00:08:32.440 already wealthy, thus they don't need the salary. And then you had a people who actually are interested

00:08:37.700 in doing public service for the sake of public service. People who will, uh, either make do with

00:08:43.580 the 40 grand a year or will work another job and, uh, to supplement it at the same time. You would

00:08:49.500 also find that people are less inclined to stay in the job for 40 or 50 years. And that would be a

00:08:55.200 good thing. So here's my, um, here's my recommendation. Congress should, I think right now

00:09:05.500 take a $100,000 pay cut. And then that would leave them with $74,000 a year, which is still a good

00:09:12.280 salary. That's, that's double the national average, which I think is very generous considering Congress's

00:09:19.340 approval rating right now is about, is at about 20%. It hasn't been above 30 in a decade. It hasn't

00:09:25.640 been at 50 in almost 20 years. Now, do you think you'd get a raise at your job? If your boss has

00:09:32.340 rated your performance at 20%, if you went in for a performance evaluation and they gave you a 20%,

00:09:38.320 do you think you'd be in line for a raise? No, you would probably be fired, but at a minimum,

00:09:44.780 you'd be looking at a pay cut. So that's my thought, a hundred thousand dollar pay cut for

00:09:49.040 all members of Congress. Um, if some of them quit because of it, great. That's fantastic. I think

00:09:56.180 that'd be wonderful. Uh, if they cry and whine because of it, great. I think there's, it's great

00:10:01.780 to see politicians crying. I'm a big fan of that. It's a very, it's, you know, I think it's very

00:10:06.540 American to take pleasure in the discomfort of politicians. Um, and then I think we, we,

00:10:13.820 we leave it at that. And then once Congress's approval rating makes it above 50%, then we could

00:10:20.220 talk about a raise. That should be the law. That should be the rule that you can only even consider

00:10:25.580 a raise once your approval rating gets above 50%. Considering it's been, as I said, about almost 20

00:10:33.080 years, I think 2002 was the last time since they had an approval rating that high. Um, since it's

00:10:38.660 been almost 20 years, I think it, it, it, you know, they've got a lot of work to do before they get

00:10:43.380 back to 50%, but, but that's the way it should be. They should be doing some work. Congress right now

00:10:48.980 is utterly dysfunctional. Um, it just cannot do anything, cannot achieve anything.

00:10:56.760 And, uh, even the most basic things they can't do. So their pay ought to reflect that

00:11:06.180 the way this country was set up. I mean, we call them public servants, right? That's what they're

00:11:13.620 supposed to be. Uh, and, and, you know, we always say, well, we're the boss, you know, and they'll,

00:11:19.780 they'll pretend to believe that too. That's how the American people are my boss. Well, can you imagine

00:11:25.060 if we actually lived in a country where it really worked that way, where that's not just something

00:11:29.460 we say, but that's actually how it worked, that these people really were public servants and that

00:11:35.320 we really were their bosses? Well, it's something, uh, nice to dream about in any case. All right,

00:11:46.080 let's lighten the mood a little bit. This is, uh, well, Justin Trudeau, um, one of the great minds

00:11:53.640 of our time. He was talking recently about what he does to save the environment. In fact, he was

00:12:00.580 asked by, I guess, by a reporter, uh, what he and his family, uh, what they're doing specifically on a

00:12:08.720 personal level to help save the environment. And I thought that his answer was, and again,

00:12:15.760 I say this as someone who's not usually a Trudeau fan, but I thought his answer was deeply,

00:12:20.340 deeply profound. Listen, listen to this. Do you and your family do to cut back on plastics?

00:12:27.220 Uh, we, uh, uh, we have, uh, recently switched to drinking, uh, water bottles out of, uh, water out

00:12:33.640 of, uh, when we have water bottles, uh, out of, uh, plastic, uh, sorry, away from plastic towards,

00:12:39.780 uh, paper, um, like drink box water bottles sort of things. There's, there's a number.

00:12:45.420 Okay. Here's the transcript of that. Uh, if you, if you didn't catch it, here's what his,

00:12:49.900 his answer. I transcribed it just so that this could live on, um, as one of the great,

00:12:57.180 uh, things ever said. He said, we, we, uh, we have, uh, we have recently switched to drinking

00:13:05.960 water bottles out of, uh, water out of when we have water bottles out of, uh, plastic, sorry,

00:13:11.660 away from plastic towards, um, paper, um, like drink box water bottles. I don't mean to laugh.

00:13:17.940 I use it. I'm laughing. I'm giddy with, uh, I'm just so taken by the, the profundity of this and

00:13:23.960 the eloquence of this. I'm blown away. Just incredible. I mean, I can see how this man has

00:13:29.260 had the political success he's had. Someone as smart as this. I mean, how could he not? Um,

00:13:35.560 by the way, one other clip I wanted to play for you. You may hear today that there, especially if

00:13:41.220 you're on social media, which I don't know why you would be, uh, at this point, kind of a waste

00:13:45.880 of time, but if you are, you'll hear that there's a scandal involving Tim Allen, uh, because Toy Story

00:13:51.320 four is coming out and, uh, Tim Allen, of course, Buzz Lightyear. So he's on the, doing the press

00:13:57.300 junket, doing the press tour for the, for the movie. And what you're going to hear is that Tim Allen is

00:14:02.640 racist. There's a racism scandal brewing about Tim Allen and those racism claims apparently were

00:14:09.980 sparked by a disturbing video, uh, that of a, of an answer that he gave on doing one of his press

00:14:20.140 interviews. And, uh, this is very disturbing. I warned you, but, but watch this.

00:14:24.700 When I search your name on YouTube, the first thing that comes up is Black Jeopardy with Tom

00:14:29.900 Hanks. 41 million views, huge posts. So I want to play a little game. This is if you have a black 1.00

00:14:34.240 card, cause I feel like you guys both have black cards. You're playing spades. You got four in the

00:14:38.180 possible. Your partner says he got four in the possible. The guys you've been playing with,

00:14:41.780 they've been talking crap the whole game. What do you do? Do you bid nine or do you bid 10, 0.76

00:14:46.740 go wheels and go all out for it? 10, go all out. I've been working Vegas 30 years. I don't gamble.

00:14:54.100 It's not necessarily money involved in spades. It's just credit. I throw deep, baby. I go deep.

00:15:00.340 I don't know what you guys are talking about. I don't have any idea what you guys just said.

00:15:04.340 You don't know how to play spades. I'm going to say, I do just cause I want to move on.

00:15:07.620 Now, when I was in Oakland, California, they all play whist. It's like, you see the,

00:15:11.780 and then it was a boom, bam. Should I get a cup of coffee or something?

00:15:15.380 Kids were playing whist, man. Yes. You see, Tim Allen

00:15:20.180 doesn't know how to play the game spades and this makes him racist, apparently.

00:15:25.860 How does it make him racist? I mean, look, I don't know, which I guess means I'm racist. I mean,

00:15:36.980 I'm so racist, apparently, that I didn't even know that spades was a game associated with black 0.91

00:15:43.540 culture. I mean, I've played spades. I thought it was just a card game. I didn't know that it was a, 0.85

00:15:47.700 I didn't know that there was any real racial dynamic to spades. Personally, I prefer hearts.

00:15:52.500 I think hearts is a better game. I think it's probably racist for me to say that, I guess.

00:15:55.300 Um, so I, this is new to me. I didn't know that there was any. So, and I, I think a lot of people

00:16:01.460 are in this, in this boat, but the thing is, if you're surprised to find out that it's racist not

00:16:07.300 to like spades, then that just makes you extreme. I mean, you're basically in the clan. I mean,

00:16:12.660 it's one thing not to like spades, but to not even know that you're supposed to like spades. I mean,

00:16:19.380 you are the grand drag. What is it? The grand wizard of who's the head of the cake at grand

00:16:23.140 wizard grant, the dragon wizard. You are the dragon wizard of the clan, basically,

00:16:27.220 if you didn't know that you're supposed to like spades. Uh, so how dare you, how dare all of us? 0.98

00:16:33.220 All right. Uh, before we get to emails, this is one of the thing I wanted to talk about.

00:16:36.660 This is kind of interesting reading now from CNBC, an article on CNBC. It says the me too,

00:16:43.140 and times up movement have brought huge attention to the challenges that women face at work. But a new

00:16:48.260 survey finds that 60% of male managers say they're uncomfortable participating in regular

00:16:53.700 work activities with women, including mentoring, working one-on-one or socializing. According to

00:16:58.900 the survey released by leanin.org and SurveyMonkey, that that's a 33% increase from last year. Senior

00:17:06.580 level men also say they're 12 times more likely to be hesitant about one-on-one meetings with a junior

00:17:11.300 woman than they are a junior man, nine times more likely to be hesitant to travel with a junior woman

00:17:16.580 for work than a junior man, and six times more likely to be hesitant to have a work dinner

00:17:21.940 with a junior woman than a junior man. Leanin.org founder and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg calls

00:17:28.580 the results totally unacceptable. First of all, how do you rate, I never understand with these surveys,

00:17:36.900 so the men say they're 12 times more likely to be hesitant about this or nine times. How do you rate

00:17:41.860 your likelihood of doing something with that specificity? I am 7.6 times more likely. I don't

00:17:49.060 know how you do that. But anyway, Sandberg says that it's totally unacceptable. Okay,

00:17:54.260 Cheryl, you think it's unacceptable. That's great. But I would say it's totally unacceptable to just

00:18:00.740 disregard what 60% of people in a position are telling you. I mean, is that how you operate

00:18:07.940 as a manager yourself at Facebook? Probably is. But if 60% of your subordinates were reporting that

00:18:14.980 they feel a certain way about their work environment, would you conclude that their perspective

00:18:21.140 is unacceptable? Or would you maybe consider the possibility that the environment is unacceptable?

00:18:28.020 What if 60% of women reported that they were uncomfortable with male mentorship? Well,

00:18:34.100 then the reaction would be, see, this is why we have the Me Too movement. Clearly, there's something

00:18:38.980 wrong with men. But when 60% of men are uncomfortable, it's still, see, this is why we have the Me Too

00:18:45.140 movement. Clearly, there's something wrong with men. The problem, do you see how we, what we end up with

00:18:53.860 is a lose-lose situation for men? And can you see how that might make men uncomfortable?

00:19:00.180 When they know that they lose either way?

00:19:07.220 The problem is that we have expanded the word sexism to include almost anything.

00:19:17.540 And we have expanded the word harassment to include almost anything. We have expanded the words rape and

00:19:25.780 assault to include almost anything. And the defining factor for all of those words is how the woman feels

00:19:32.740 about it. Okay, if she feels that it was sexism or harassment, then it was. That woman who consensually 1.00

00:19:40.740 hooked up with Aziz Ansari but afterwards felt like it was assault, well, we say, okay, so it was.

00:19:47.380 Because afterwards she felt like it, so it was. So you see the problem here? A man has no way of knowing

00:19:56.180 how the woman is feeling at the time or how she might feel later if she doesn't say it.

00:20:04.740 The only way he can really know for sure is if she tells him. But if she won't say anything, if she

00:20:11.540 won't say, for instance, this conversation is making me uncomfortable or I'm uncomfortable doing

00:20:17.700 this with you, I want to leave. If she won't say that, then he's not going to know. Now,

00:20:23.220 unless it's something that's clearly wrong or inappropriate. Okay, well, if that's the case,

00:20:28.740 then he should know. If it's in the workplace and it's clearly an R-rated conversation, just totally

00:20:38.260 inappropriate for the workplace or for anywhere really, then yeah, he should know. No one should

00:20:44.420 have to tell him. And there are people, men and women, who just have no, and I always marvel at

00:20:50.900 these people who have no just social awareness whatsoever. They appear to just, they could make

00:20:58.100 everyone around them extremely uncomfortable and they have, apparently they're totally oblivious to

00:21:02.340 it. I don't understand that because I'm someone who's, I'm sort of the opposite. I'm very hyper

00:21:06.580 aware of how everyone, you know, the sort of the vibe in the room, I become very aware of that,

00:21:12.900 probably too aware. So it's hard for me to understand people on the other side of that

00:21:16.100 spectrum, but that's men and women can be that way. So in that situation, sure, you know, you 0.99

00:21:22.340 shouldn't need to be told, but if it's something that is arguably more innocuous or if it's something

00:21:29.940 where the woman appears to be going along with it, whether it's a conversation or, you know, as,

00:21:35.780 as with Aziz Ansari, you know, a consensual sexual encounter, you know, if it's something where the

00:21:42.180 woman appears to be participating, then there's no way for anyone to know what's going on in her mind 0.95

00:21:50.260 and how she really feels unless she says something. Yet under the new rules, she can say nothing

00:22:00.340 and go along with it and participate and appear to be a, an accepting and enthusiastic participant,

00:22:09.620 but then later on complain about it and get him fired or worse. Those are the new rules. And so you're

00:22:16.660 surprised that male managers don't want to be around women one-on-one.

00:22:22.820 I mean, of course they don't. That's the point we're at now with all this stuff that it's just,

00:22:29.220 if you're, if you are in a position of authority as a man, um, it is, it would be, it's, it's suicidal

00:22:36.660 for you to be around a woman in a work environment. One-on-one you should, you just should never 1.00

00:22:41.620 should be, there should always be another person in the room.

00:22:46.660 And the feminists can laugh at that all they want. And as I also judge men, just being paranoid.

00:22:56.260 It's hard for me not to include, to conclude, it's hard for me not to conclude that the reason why

00:23:01.940 feminists laugh at those kinds of precautions is because they want men to put themselves in 1.00

00:23:07.860 those precarious positions so that they can then be, you know, accused and blamed and everything.

00:23:12.180 It's hard for me not to conclude that because otherwise, I mean, no matter how you feel about

00:23:19.460 the Me Too movement, time's up, whatever, no matter how you feel about it, um, wouldn't you celebrate

00:23:27.460 this? I mean, if, if, or, or I should say if you're, if you're a feminist and you think there is some huge 1.00

00:23:34.340 epidemic of harassment and so on in the workplace, well, now you're hearing that men, you know, they

00:23:39.060 always want to have another person around. They're being hyper, hyper aware and very,

00:23:42.820 very careful. Isn't that what you want? Shouldn't you be happy with that? Why would that make you

00:23:48.900 angry? It doesn't make any sense to me. Now me, I'm not happy about it, but it's just the way it is.

00:23:56.620 And as I said, I, you know, if I were a male manager, I'd be the same. I'd be taking the exact

00:24:00.780 same precautions. It's just not worth it. And the other aspect of this is remember the, uh,

00:24:10.940 remember the slogan, believe all women, right? Believe women, believe women. Well, again, 0.99

00:24:16.940 if that's the slogan to believe women, just blanket statement, just believe that whatever they say, 1.00

00:24:23.800 believe it because it's a woman. Well, can you really not understand how that might make a man 0.93

00:24:29.820 feel a little bit worried and uncomfortable when he knows ahead of time that if there's any

00:24:36.860 dispute, if there's, you know, if anything goes sideways, everyone's going to believe the other

00:24:41.720 person and not him automatically, no matter who's telling the truth. Can you really not understand

00:24:48.340 how that might make men feel uncomfortable? Is it, I mean, is it, is it really mysterious?

00:24:53.580 I don't think it should be. All right. Let's go to emails, mattwalshowatgmail.com,

00:25:00.620 mattwalshowatgmail.com is the email address. This is from Adam says, uh, I mostly agree with your

00:25:06.620 three arguments against euthanasia. However, there is an argument made in favor of euthanasia that I

00:25:12.020 find compelling. We euthanize our pets out of compassion to eliminate their suffering. Why not

00:25:17.260 our human loved ones? Seeing a dog or cat suffer is hard. Seeing a person suffer is hard.

00:25:21.840 Why can veterinarians put down pets when physicians can't put down people?

00:25:27.600 Well, uh, Adam, we spay and neuter our pets, right? Uh, we don't do that to humans. We feed

00:25:36.140 our pets out of bowls on the floor. We don't do that to humans. Generally. Uh, we lock dog,

00:25:41.720 we lock dogs in cages at night. We don't do that with, we don't do that with our kids. We put them in

00:25:46.500 beds. Um, uh, I guess some people let their dogs sleep in bed with them. I, you know, I find that

00:25:52.860 to be gross personally. Uh, I mean, why would you want your, you know, if you do that, you're,

00:25:58.280 I don't want to get sidetracked. You let your dog sleep in bed with you. You do understand that your

00:26:04.300 bed will smell like dog. And then therefore you will smell like dog all the time. You do understand 0.51

00:26:09.500 that, right? I mean, you just, I know you don't smell it, but you will smell like dog always all 0.98

00:26:16.160 the time and everyone will smell it. And they won't tell you that you smell like dog, but,

00:26:19.460 but they'll think it. So why would you want that in your life? That's what I don't understand.

00:26:23.900 Anyway. Um, so we don't generally, we, you know, we, we don't do that with, with, with, uh,

00:26:28.620 we do that with animals, not humans. Um, the point is we treat animals like animals,

00:26:34.880 or at least we should. And I think euthanizing is part of that. In fact, that's, that's one of the

00:26:43.160 main reasons why I'm against euthanizing people is because it treats a human being like a dog who

00:26:50.180 we just put down. So at a certain point with a dog or a cat or any other, a horse or whatever,

00:26:58.620 at a certain point, uh, if, if they're in a lot of physical pain and they're in mobile and all

00:27:04.860 of that stuff, um, we will essentially say, well, there's no point to this existence anymore.

00:27:12.520 There's no point to this being living. And so we might as well just put it out of its misery.

00:27:19.160 And I think with an animal, that's a logical and compassionate thing to do.

00:27:25.180 But I think with people, yeah, I think we treat people with more dignity. So when we don't,

00:27:32.360 when we refrain from putting down people from euthanizing people, it's not that we're treating

00:27:38.440 them with less dignity. It's more, it's a transcendent that, you know, our treatment of

00:27:42.580 other people transcends our treatment of animals, or again, at least it should. And that's the whole

00:27:50.100 point. So with a human life, we, at least with an innocent human life, we shouldn't reach a point

00:27:59.920 where we say, well, there's no point to this existence anymore. You might as well just put

00:28:04.080 them out of their misery because human life transcends those kinds of judgments.

00:28:12.380 There's always a point to existence, to living, um, as long as God has allowed you to continue.

00:28:20.500 And for the other side of that perspective, this is from Lindsay says, dear Matt, in response to your

00:28:27.860 listener who asked about euthanasia on Tuesday's episode, I'm a strongly pro-life critical care

00:28:33.420 doctor. Many patients with terminal cancer spend their last days in the intensive care unit going

00:28:38.840 through a terrible ordeal. I work hand in hand with an outstanding group of palliative care physicians,

00:28:44.580 and many of them are horrified by the perverse euthanasia practices in our, in, in other countries.

00:28:49.920 Um, this is intended to make your remaining time comfortable. They do not believe in just

00:28:54.080 putting someone out of their misery. The medications and treatments given to alleviate pain are deadly

00:28:59.000 when given in lethal doses, just slugging a lethal dose of opioids, opioids at someone is horrifying,

00:29:05.280 unethical, and the antithesis of compassion. Being pro-life in this regard is simple when you recognize

00:29:11.060 that euthanasia for a terminal condition is a fundamental misunderstanding of medical

00:29:14.980 capabilities. Uh, and yeah, I think it's very well point put Lindsay, and I'm glad to hear it from a

00:29:19.860 doctor. And that was my whole point that a doctor's the goal of the point of medicine, the point of a

00:29:29.400 doctor is to alleviate suffering and to protect life. Those two things together, um, not separate.

00:29:38.620 Those aren't mutually exclusive. And I think we want our doctors and we want people to go to medical

00:29:44.320 school and enter into that profession. We want them to always be sort of pointed in that direction.

00:29:52.560 We want them to look at every situation. Anytime someone comes to them with any illness or sickness,

00:29:57.700 no matter how severe, we want our doctors always to be thinking, how can I alleviate this person's

00:30:03.680 suffering while at the same time preserving and protecting their life? That should always be the

00:30:10.100 goal. And of course, but you're going to reach a point where, you know, a person dies and you can't

00:30:15.120 stop that. Um, so notice I'm saying preserve and protect life that does, it's not the same thing as,

00:30:23.440 as saying, well, a goal of a doctor should always be to extend a life at any cost using any method for as

00:30:30.280 long as possible. Because no, I don't think that, I mean, you can reach a point where someone would die

00:30:36.500 if not for, um, extraordinary means that are used just to keep them around. And I don't think that

00:30:44.220 we're called always to employ extraordinary means, um, indefinitely just to keep someone alive. I mean,

00:30:50.560 there is a certain point where it's just someone's time to go. We all have to die when no one wants to,

00:30:56.220 but we all have to. And, um, certainly none of us want our loved ones to die, but there's a point

00:31:00.980 where it's just, it's, it's time. And no matter what, you know, uh, no matter how we feel about it,

00:31:06.280 of course we feel terrible about it. So I don't think that's, it's not the same thing. Um, there is

00:31:12.940 a point where a doctor might say, okay, we have to let this patient go. And that is the most merciful

00:31:18.880 thing to do for them. But there is never a point where a doctor should say, we should kill this patient. 0.88

00:31:26.220 And those are two different things. All right. Um, this is from Justin says, Hey Matt, first of all,

00:31:33.460 thanks for all you do. I've been listening to your show for the past few months and I admire your sense

00:31:37.660 of sarcasm and humor and dealing with serious issues as well as your frankness. I live in Alberta,

00:31:42.380 Canada, where we recently voted in a conservative provincial government to replace a socialist

00:31:47.860 provincial government. When the old government was in, they made a law that prohibited school

00:31:52.380 teachers from telling parents if their kids were in a GSA, which is a gay straight alliance,

00:31:57.720 basically a safe space for LGBTQ MNNOP people. Uh, this was to protect students in the alliances

00:32:04.100 from any consequences they may or may not receive at home. The new conservative government has changed

00:32:09.260 the law to allow teachers the option to tell parents if they feel like it's a safe thing to say.

00:32:14.340 Uh, I feel that it is a right as a parent and a taxpayer to know what my kid is doing at school.

00:32:19.260 Some people think it's the right of students to not have to share that information with their

00:32:23.780 parents, which I guess is freedom of speech. Is it possible that these two rights infringe on each

00:32:28.400 other, making a conundrum, or am I mistaken to think that these are both rights? I realize that

00:32:33.780 our constitutional rights are different up here in the great white North, but any thoughts or

00:32:38.240 clarification would be appreciated. P.S. I hope your Achilles heals quickly. Prayers for you and your

00:32:42.740 family and the bees. Uh, thanks, Justin. I assume this is not Trudeau I'm talking to here because

00:32:49.640 this, this, that was way too coherent and rational to be Trudeau. Um, I think that this isn't really

00:32:57.280 about, um, this isn't really about the free speech or privacy of the students versus parental rights.

00:33:07.440 I think that's kind of a false dichotomy. I don't think you're talking about competing rights. Are

00:33:12.760 these rights in competition? I don't think they are because that's not really what we're dealing

00:33:16.980 with here. Um, I think the crux of it is this, that the schools know, right? Um, the schools know

00:33:25.880 what clubs the kids are involved in. So it's not some private piece of information. And then the real

00:33:33.160 question is, is there anything about your child that the schools have a right to know, but you

00:33:41.160 don't? Should there be any details about your child's life that any faculty member at school

00:33:48.840 knows or could know, but is unknown to you? I think the answer is obviously no. So this really,

00:33:56.340 it's not, it's got nothing to do with free speech or press. Certainly doesn't have anything to do with

00:33:59.680 privacy because being involved in a club at school is not a private matter. That's a public matter.

00:34:05.880 Clubs at schools are not private. These aren't secret clubs. Okay. Everyone knows who's in the

00:34:09.660 club. So it's not a privacy thing. Um, I don't see how it's a speech thing at all. Um, it's really

00:34:19.260 about who, who should sort of know the most about a child, the parent or the school. Now you said it

00:34:29.380 right there, you said, protect kids from their parents. And that was the idea behind apparently

00:34:33.840 the law in Alberta saying, you know, originally saying, don't, we're not going to tell the parents

00:34:38.560 because we're going to protect the kids from their parents. Um, I agree that there are some kids who do

00:34:45.140 need to be protected from their parents, but those are parents who are actually abusive and unfit and

00:34:50.980 should be in prison. Okay. If there's any child out there who really needs to be protected from their

00:34:55.620 parent, that's a parent who should be in jail. Um, as a general rule though, schools should not be

00:35:03.660 generally as a blanket policy, protecting kids from their parents. That's not the way it should go.

00:35:09.960 Schools should not be coming in between kids and their parents. Schools should not be trying to take

00:35:15.780 over the role of the parent. And I think that's what this is really about. It seems to me, this is

00:35:21.620 really about schools wanting to have the role of the parent, wanting to know things about the student

00:35:30.260 that the parent doesn't know, wanting to have the upper hand over the parent. And that is, I mean,

00:35:39.380 that is, that is a really significant piece of information that what the schools think they

00:35:48.600 should know and the parents shouldn't. I mean, just think about that. Think about it. The schools

00:35:54.360 should know more about your child's sexual orientation than you do. The, the, the, the kids 0.92

00:36:00.200 first period, uh, you know, social studies teachers should know more about that than you as the pets. 0.99

00:36:05.320 It's crazy. It's, it's insane. Um, and, uh, you know, it's just more reason for me, in my opinion,

00:36:11.600 if you can, to get the kids out of the public school system. Um, this is from a bookaholic

00:36:20.320 anonymous dropout says, dear crippled Matt frustrated bookaholics across the nation are

00:36:25.680 spending hours and hours trying to figure out what the books are on your shelf. Would you please

00:36:30.740 relieve our misery and tell us the titles of the books? A closeup of the bookshelf would work,

00:36:35.580 but I might recommend you remove what looks like a bottle of cough syrup first. Uh, well,

00:36:40.160 legend has it that I, I did a show a little while ago where the focus was off on my camera

00:36:45.460 so that I'm not in focus, but my bookshelf is in focus. And as the story goes, the reason why that

00:36:51.200 happened is because I'm an idiot, um, who doesn't know how to work a camera. And, and, and that's 1.00

00:36:55.640 why that happened. Uh, I don't know, you know, it's, I can't, I can neither confirm nor deny these

00:37:00.680 stories, but you could go searching for that footage. And then if you found it, you could see the

00:37:05.020 bookshelf in all of its glory and all of the titles, very crystal clear. Um, by the way,

00:37:10.000 that's not cough syrup. That is holy water. All right. Um, let's, uh, do one, we'll do one more.

00:37:18.500 This is from Richard says, greetings, great overlord and omnipotence of the coming era of

00:37:22.920 your rule. Uh, as a civil war reenactor and military historian, I am curious if you could

00:37:28.380 share with us your top five civil war personalities and why in your view, it is important to not only

00:37:33.460 study, but remember this epic history we all share. I thought this question timely, seeing as you

00:37:38.080 mentioned, you were binge reading the war and, uh, I hope to hear your thoughts, speedy and healthy

00:37:42.900 recovery. Thanks for all you do. So that's interesting. So this caught my eye. You said

00:37:46.820 top five civil war personalities. So, you know, not top five civil war generals or leaders. Um,

00:37:54.320 you're looking just for the most interesting personalities, I guess, is what you're looking

00:37:57.960 for. Uh, so that, that, that's, that's a, that's a fascinating way of looking at it. Okay.

00:38:02.700 So in no particular order, I guess I would say, uh, well, I'd put Stonewall Jackson on

00:38:08.340 the list. Now he would make my list of top five generals of the way. He'd probably be

00:38:12.900 number one for me, but I'd also put them in as a, as a top personality because I find

00:38:19.780 him fascinating. I've read three biographies about him. Uh, he really, he seems like the

00:38:24.460 kind of person that a novelist would invent. Um, and there are a lot, that's why I love studying

00:38:29.840 the civil wars because there are so many people, so many events that you read and you think

00:38:37.320 that really, was that person really like that? That really happened. It just, it seems like

00:38:41.400 something someone would invent. It seems like a story that someone made up. Um, but of course

00:38:45.280 it's real. I mean, this, this really happened. So Stonewall Jackson, he is this kind of odd,

00:38:49.900 nerdy, soft-spoken guy who all the students at a VMI where he was a professor before the war,

00:38:55.920 all the students sort of make fun of him and don't take him very seriously.

00:38:58.840 Um, tend to laugh at him and tease him. And then the civil war comes around and he ends

00:39:04.720 up commanding troops and he reveals himself to be this brilliant, hard-nosed, um, still

00:39:11.700 eccentric yet brave leader of men. You know, he, he just, he, he was someone who was just

00:39:18.080 sort of born for that moment and became, uh, this great leader once the war started.

00:39:24.360 Probably my favorite anecdote about Stonewall Jackson is from his deathbed. Um, kind of famous.

00:39:31.660 I, you know, certainly if you've studied the war, you already know this, but after he was shot by his

00:39:35.520 own men at the battle of Chancellorsville, um, accidentally, you know, friendly fire accident,

00:39:40.740 and then he's recovering. He gets pneumonia and now he's dying of pneumonia. And, um, it's a Sunday,

00:39:46.660 you know, he's at death's door on a Sunday. It's a week, about a week after he, he sustained the,

00:39:51.060 the wound originally. And the surgeon comes in and a Stonewall says, you know, doctor, 1.00

00:39:56.060 my wife tells me that, uh, I'm going to die today. Is that true? And the doctor says, yes. So I'm

00:40:01.120 afraid. So, and he says, good, good. I've always wanted to die on a Sunday. And I just, I find that

00:40:06.260 to be, I don't know. I just, you'll find that a lot in the civil war, just these men who were

00:40:09.860 incomprehensibly brave and, uh, had no qualms about their own death. Not that they were suicidal

00:40:16.440 or something, but just, they put honor and patriotism and all that so far above their own

00:40:23.920 physical safety. And I really just admire that. I'd also put Abraham Lincoln on there. Lincoln is a

00:40:28.860 fascinating character in many ways. I haven't studied him. I don't, you know, I haven't studied

00:40:32.060 sort of the political leaders as much as the military ones in the civil war, but I think he's

00:40:36.340 another one that prior to his election, uh, was seen as this kind of unremarkable, somewhat strange

00:40:42.940 guy, uh, yet he rose to the moment and obviously ultimately will go down as one of the most

00:40:47.420 consequential Americans ever to live. Um, I would put George McClellan on the list. Now he of course 0.52

00:40:54.120 would not make a list of top generals, but as far as top personalities, I think he's an interesting,

00:40:58.680 he's an interesting personality because he's so diametrically opposed to, he's the exact opposite

00:41:05.580 basically of Stonewall Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, uh, Grant Lee. He's the opposite of all them in that he's 0.51

00:41:11.460 this flamboyant, arrogant guy who got a lot of hype, you know, when he was appointed to, um,

00:41:18.860 command the army. Uh, but then when, when it came down to it and the boats started flying, he was,

00:41:24.480 uh, you know, he became timid and afraid and he shrank away and he was a huge disappointment.

00:41:30.840 Uh, Grant, as I just mentioned, I think he fits the theme of these guys who prior to the war,

00:41:36.520 you never would have expected to be great leaders, historic leaders. Grant was a, a failure in

00:41:42.440 business. He was an alcoholic. Um, but, and you know, in fact, even when the war started in the 0.99

00:41:49.860 West, even after Shiloh, even after his early victories in the West, he was still doubted by

00:41:53.860 the public doubted by his superiors. Uh, yet he would be ultimately the one to take down Robert E.

00:42:00.240 Lee. And then finally, I guess I would put, uh, Nathan Bedford Forrest, I think. Um,

00:42:07.220 definitely a very flawed man. He was a slave trader before the war, but someone with no military

00:42:14.020 trading at all, uh, very little education of any kind, basically illiterate, I believe, or totally

00:42:21.000 illiterate, I think. Yet he just had this raw talent, raw military genius, and incredible bravery,

00:42:27.580 incredible physical bravery, which he was able to use to torment the union in the West all throughout 0.55

00:42:33.220 the war. Um, his famous quote is, um, is, uh, he said, war means fighting and fighting means killing.

00:42:40.500 It was just a very simple, straightforward, that was his approach. And he said, you know,

00:42:44.040 this is my job just to kill people. And, uh, so that makes him an interesting, maybe not an admirable

00:42:49.600 character in many respects, but an interesting one in any, in any event. All right. Um, and by the

00:42:55.880 way, I know that media matters, they like to monitor this show and they go through it every

00:43:01.400 day to find, um, parts of it that they can then put on Twitter to accuse me of being a racist or

00:43:07.600 homophobe or whatever. And my prediction right now is that they're going to take that bit that what I

00:43:12.120 just said there about Nathan Bedford Forrest, and it's going to, they're going to put that on

00:43:15.680 Twitter. It's going to be Matt admires slave, Matt Walsh admire slave trader. Um, Matt Walsh comes

00:43:21.680 out as pro slavery. So that's my, that's my Nostradamus prediction right there. 0.60

00:43:27.560 Hello again to the, my media matters fans and we'll leave it there. Thanks everybody for

00:43:32.120 watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed. Hey everyone. It's Andrew Klavan, host of the

00:43:37.320 Andrew Klavan show. Hyden Biden came out of Hyden yesterday to attack Donald Trump and virtually

00:43:42.660 everything he said was distorted or untrue or distorted and untrue. But we know the news media

00:43:48.740 will never fact check him or question him or even allow anyone to object to him without the danger

00:43:53.780 of being de-platformed and silenced. So this election is going to be not just a battle between

00:43:58.700 Donald Trump and Biden or some other Democrat. It's going to be a fight between reality and the

00:44:03.340 Democrats carefully constructed empire of lies who will win. We'll talk about it on the Andrew

00:44:08.680 Klavan show. I'm Andrew Klavan.

The Matt Walsh Show - June 12, 2019

Ep. 274 - Congress Has Done Absolutely Nothing To Deserve A Raise

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript