Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts, the news you need to
Speaker 1: get for your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app for wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. What's the first book you can remember reading
Speaker 1: when you think back to the first author that you
Speaker 1: could name? Who comes to mind? Sure a lot of
Speaker 1: different answers out there, but for a good number of
Speaker 1: the people listening to this across the country, doctor SEUs
Speaker 1: is a likely bet. Doctor SEUs is among the most
Speaker 1: well known, probably the most well known children's author of
Speaker 1: all time. And now we find out the extent to
Speaker 1: which the cancel culture of the left has grown that
Speaker 1: even Doctor SEUs is not safe from their grasp. Of
Speaker 1: course not though right nobody can be allowed to send
Speaker 1: the way. There's no body of work that's so important,
Speaker 1: that's so timeless, that you will not see the left
Speaker 1: apply the standards of wokeness with the ever evolving, shifting, changing,
Speaker 1: and often duplicit as standards of wokeness. The six Doctor
Speaker 1: Seuss books that will no longer be published today, according
Speaker 1: to various news sources because of racist and insensitive imagery.
Speaker 1: This is from Doctor Seus's Enterprises, so the company that
Speaker 1: owns it no longer wants to have to deal with
Speaker 1: the possibility here of getting getting boycotted or anything else.
Speaker 1: So they think that they have beaten the left, They've
Speaker 1: beaten the wokeness to the punch, although I'm sure they
Speaker 1: were already receiving a lot of pressure and there's criticism.
Speaker 1: I can hardly keep up with all the stories these days.
Speaker 1: They had another voice actor on The Simpsons who just
Speaker 1: came out to say he'll no longer be voicing a
Speaker 1: character of color, a person of color character that's no
Speaker 1: longer allowed, as you know, and people are supposed to
Speaker 1: apologize for doing it in the first place. Now there's
Speaker 1: so many of these stories. It's happening all the time.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny, isn't it. I thought that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, I thought the left, once they were in charge,
Speaker 1: could at least give us a couple of months of
Speaker 1: focusing on governance and important issues. But no, you see
Speaker 1: what they do. You see that when you believe the
Speaker 1: things that the left believes, you take action on it,
Speaker 1: even when it's counterproductive, even when it's absurd, and when
Speaker 1: it goes against core values of this country free speech
Speaker 1: and freedom of expression are core values and shrine to
Speaker 1: the First Amendment to the Constitution. There't these aren't trivialities,
Speaker 1: these aren't small things. And never before in my lifetime
Speaker 1: has free speech and freedom overall been under such sustained
Speaker 1: assault from people who have adopted an ideology of sanctimoniousness
Speaker 1: and oppression simultaneously. They think they're the good guys, and you,
Speaker 1: if you don't agree with them, are the bad guys.
Speaker 1: And that now even extends to children's books. Six Doctor Seus'
Speaker 1: books no longer to be published, including and to Think
Speaker 1: That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran
Speaker 1: the Zoo, Mckeligot's Pool, On Beyond Zebra, Scrambled Eggs, Super
Speaker 1: and the Cat's Quizzer. This comes right after one day
Speaker 1: after Joe Biden omitted Doctor SEUs from Read Across America Day,
Speaker 1: which is usually held on the author's birthday on March second,
Speaker 1: so it's Read Across America Day, and Joe Biden, the
Speaker 1: Biden administration they got up a thought into this one.
Speaker 1: You're gonna make sure that they show they prove their
Speaker 1: woke bona fie days. These people are you could say
Speaker 1: cultural Marxists, you could say they are neo Kamis. There's
Speaker 1: all kinds of descriptions, but ultimately it comes from a
Speaker 1: mindset overwhelmed with the propaganda of victimology. Here we are
Speaker 1: in America. People are so incredibly fortunate to even be here.
Speaker 1: This is such an amazing place. And I know a
Speaker 1: lot of time on this show has spent criticizing what's
Speaker 1: going wrong and what people in power are doing wrong.
Speaker 1: That's because it's a political talk show. But I'm also
Speaker 1: here to tell you that America is amazing. That's the
Speaker 1: greatest country that has ever existed, and it's worth fighting
Speaker 1: for because of all those things, and that you should
Speaker 1: enjoy it as you can enjoy your life, spend time
Speaker 1: with your loved ones, get the most out of this
Speaker 1: place that you can, and feel blessed in that process,
Speaker 1: even though there are people that are trying to take
Speaker 1: some of those blessings away from you. I'm aware of that,
Speaker 1: and that's what we talk about here. But the Left
Speaker 1: takes a very different approach, one of constant victimization, a
Speaker 1: belief that there is oppression that is omnipresident in our society.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely everywhere, and that means the only way
Speaker 1: to deal with it is for government power and cultural
Speaker 1: power to combine to suppress wrong think, to suppress ideas
Speaker 1: that are disfavored by the ruling class, by the elites
Speaker 1: at any given point in time. And here you have
Speaker 1: doctor SEUs the latest with this. But I have to
Speaker 1: tell you what you're seeing now with Amazon banning books,
Speaker 1: including academic works on things like transgenderism. Are people that
Speaker 1: have spent years researching issues and want to present an
Speaker 1: argument not allowed. Amazon now says that they will block
Speaker 1: the sale of books that they find offensive or insensitive.
Speaker 1: If you can have culture, if you can have books, movies,
Speaker 1: television shows that can be construed by someone somewhere as offensive,
Speaker 1: you've essentially created the eradication of culture. In fact, the
Speaker 1: only culture that you'll be left with is one that
Speaker 1: defines the dominant group as the constant enemy, right, one
Speaker 1: that picks one group that they're always it's always open
Speaker 1: season on attacking and everything else. Everyone else has this
Speaker 1: constant protection that they can invoke of well, I'm part
Speaker 1: of the oppressed class. This is what the left does.
Speaker 1: Isn't it fascinating how many people live in extreme wealth,
Speaker 1: live an unbelievable splendor in America and are some of
Speaker 1: the loudest voices for how hard and oppressive and bad
Speaker 1: this place is. It's stunning. Whether you're talking about you know,
Speaker 1: Hollywood actors and celebrities, professional athletes. They enjoy looking down
Speaker 1: on America while they benefit in ways that previous generations
Speaker 1: of humanity around the globe would have thought were incomprehensible
Speaker 1: levels of freedom and wealth and an opportunity. But I
Speaker 1: suppose everything is relative. You know, there's a concept called
Speaker 1: hedonistic adaptation, and it has to do with once you
Speaker 1: get used to something feeling good, once you have had
Speaker 1: enough of, say living in a mansion, you know you
Speaker 1: want three. Once you've been flying first class, you want
Speaker 1: to fly private. Right, whatever benefits, whatever joys that you
Speaker 1: can find in things, in actual possessions, or in goods
Speaker 1: and services that you can buy, you get used to
Speaker 1: it and you want more. And you see this with
Speaker 1: the elites and the wealthy in America all the time.
Speaker 1: It's never enough, and so they eventually reach a point
Speaker 1: where the only real thing that matters to them is
Speaker 1: the approval and the admiration of their peers. Essentially, ego
Speaker 1: is all that's left. The only thing that is truly
Speaker 1: unfillable is ego and the adoration of the crowd. And
Speaker 1: you see this with some very very wealthy people, someone
Speaker 1: like Bill Gates, for example. I mean he finds he
Speaker 1: finds an existential necessity not for the planet, for himself
Speaker 1: in pushing this climate change nonsense. Because when you've been
Speaker 1: close to or the richest man in the world for
Speaker 1: the last thirty years, another house, another jet fanciest food
Speaker 1: in the world, you know you can only wear one
Speaker 1: suit at a time, you can only eat one meal
Speaker 1: at a time. You can only be married at well,
Speaker 1: I mean generally speaking, only be married at one person
Speaker 1: at a time. Right, I mean, there's only so much
Speaker 1: that can be done here based on material wealth. But
Speaker 1: the ego is endless. The ego is endless, and that's
Speaker 1: why wokeness is this, this reservoir of vanity. You see,
Speaker 1: these are people that have to do nothing, that have
Speaker 1: to don't They don't take a difficult stand. It's the
Speaker 1: opposite of that. They cover themselves in cheaply one glory
Speaker 1: by throwing under the bus. Writers, authors, creators, leaders, heroes, warriors,
Speaker 1: you name it, of the past, throw it all under
Speaker 1: the bus. As though they're better than them because they
Speaker 1: now have a new understanding of what's important and what's
Speaker 1: right in society. You should also remember that they're not
Speaker 1: seeking to replace this with anything that is worthwhile. That's
Speaker 1: another problem. The art that is created in communist regimes
Speaker 1: is always the most brutish, boring propaganda. There's a reason
Speaker 1: for that, because for the mind to be truly free,
Speaker 1: there has to be the opportunity to test boundaries. There
Speaker 1: has to be the possibility of uncomfortable ideas, of uncomfortable truths,
Speaker 1: even expressed in society. I often tell people with the
Speaker 1: work that I do, the truth is perhaps say, ironclad
Speaker 1: defense against defamation. But the truth does not always work
Speaker 1: in your favor. When you say it. People often don't
Speaker 1: want to hear the truth. Truth can be an ugly thing,
Speaker 1: a difficult thing. In fact, a huge part of what
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party does in America today is convinced people
Speaker 1: who feel like they are disenfranchised, that they're left out,
Speaker 1: that they have no agency in any of this, that
Speaker 1: it's not their fault. You see, they haven't made any
Speaker 1: bad decisions. They're not putting short term over long term.
Speaker 1: There's no individual or personal discipline involved in where you
Speaker 1: are or how your life is going. It's the other
Speaker 1: they're oppressing you. And maybe if we start banning more
Speaker 1: books then things will even out. This is, of course preposterous,
Speaker 1: doesn't work that way. But you have those who won't
Speaker 1: take responsibility for themselves adhering to this, loving the hearing
Speaker 1: of this message. And then you have those who have
Speaker 1: done incredibly well, unbelo believably well, live in luxury and
Speaker 1: circumstances that kings of previous eras would have found unthinkable.
Speaker 1: And what do they do. They pretend to be obsessed
Speaker 1: with the plight of those who have less, out of
Speaker 1: both a sense of guilt and a burning desire for
Speaker 1: superiority for other for those who don't hold the same beliefs. Right,
Speaker 1: I am better then, this is the virtue signaling idea.
Speaker 1: I am better than those other people because I care
Speaker 1: so much about those who have less. I don't do
Speaker 1: anything for them. Of course, I don't help them. I
Speaker 1: don't speak honestly or truthfully to them. I pander, But
Speaker 1: it makes me look good because the ego is endless,
Speaker 1: and people that could have never in a million years
Speaker 1: come up with something as timeless and creative as the
Speaker 1: books of Doctor Seuss now find a way to make
Speaker 1: themselves feel tall and strong and brave by comparison when
Speaker 1: they're actually none of those things, and they're tearing down
Speaker 1: the free culture that was the reason for all the
Speaker 1: prosperity and all the benefits that we've had in this country.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. One of the big problems
Speaker 1: is that police are too often called into situations where
Speaker 1: they should actually be the last resorts. So many activists
Speaker 1: have said that we should find alternatives to cops as
Speaker 1: first responders, you know, maybe healthcare professionals or community members.
Speaker 1: And now the NYPD is saying, all right, I hear you,
Speaker 1: but what about robot dogs. Wow, a robot dog. What
Speaker 1: a cool way for the police to say they have
Speaker 1: too much money and should be defunded. And this robot
Speaker 1: dog comes with tons of features. It's got cameras, it's
Speaker 1: got a microphone, it's even got an extra knife that
Speaker 1: it can plant on an unarmed body, all sorts of things.
Speaker 1: But you've got to give props to the police for
Speaker 1: how they're marketing the robots. Oh, look at our adorable dog. No,
Speaker 1: it's a cup made out of steel. Like they can
Speaker 1: call tear gas potty smoke. Doesn't mean it's going to
Speaker 1: sting any less when they blast you with it. Here's
Speaker 1: a great example of ingratitude in America and practice. You
Speaker 1: have Trevor Noah, who is a guy who lives in
Speaker 1: a thirty million dollar mansion in bel Air. I'm serious,
Speaker 1: thirty million dollar house, not a three million dollar house.
Speaker 1: That's a really nice house. At thirty million dollar house,
Speaker 1: Who's calling for the defunding of a police department where
Speaker 1: the starting salary is forty two grand. They don't need money,
Speaker 1: they don't need overtime, they don't need training. Defund them.
Speaker 1: Oh what do you think Trevor Noah, who is painfully
Speaker 1: unfunny and not talented, and I understand the market you
Speaker 1: would say has rewarded him, Well, not really. A bunch
Speaker 1: of media executives who decided, for whatever reason, wanted to
Speaker 1: feel good about themselves in whatever way, thought, let's make
Speaker 1: Trevor Noah a big deal in America by giving him
Speaker 1: a TV show where he talks about American politics. And
Speaker 1: he's not funny. He's not good at the job. He's
Speaker 1: just not good at People that have seen him know this.
Speaker 1: But put that aside for a second, because that's completely subjective,
Speaker 1: and people can argue with me, and they can say
Speaker 1: he's hilarious or whatever. Fine, he's a guy who's incredibly blessed,
Speaker 1: and the moment that he heard something go bump in
Speaker 1: the night in his thirty million dollar house in bel Air,
Speaker 1: I can assure you he would be calling the police
Speaker 1: and he wouldn't want them to send a social worker.
Speaker 1: He wouldn't want them to send a social worker. He
Speaker 1: would want them to send armed law enforcement officers. But
Speaker 1: you see, it's a more popular stance if you're on
Speaker 1: the left now, to pretend that the problem Erica are
Speaker 1: the cops. It's a more popular stance for celebrities to
Speaker 1: say that this would be easy to fix, the problems
Speaker 1: of society would be easy to fix if only we
Speaker 1: would send social workers instead of law enforcement officers. These
Speaker 1: people don't know anything. These voices you hear in the media,
Speaker 1: they don't understand law enforcement. They don't speak the truth
Speaker 1: about the law enforcement incidents that are at the center
Speaker 1: of the so called BLM movement, and when the truth
Speaker 1: does come out, they don't share that because it never
Speaker 1: really matters. Right. The best example of this is Mike Brown,
Speaker 1: hands up, don't shoot. He did not get shot with
Speaker 1: his hands up. He was charging a police officer. According
Speaker 1: to several African American eyewitnesses and the report done by
Speaker 1: Eric Holder as part of Obama as the head of
Speaker 1: Obama's DOJ that's what the facts actually said. Still still
Speaker 1: went with the movement there. I'm concerned for the future
Speaker 1: of the city of Minneapolis. You know, the George Floyd
Speaker 1: there with Officer Derek Chauvin is going to be underway soon.
Speaker 1: And if that goes in the direction I think it will,
Speaker 1: which is there will not be a second degree murder
Speaker 1: conviction I believe. If there is, I think that's outrageous.
Speaker 1: There might be a lesser charge that he's convicted on.
Speaker 1: I think that's possible. But if let's just say Officer
Speaker 1: Chauvin ends up being cleared of all criminal charges, which
Speaker 1: based on the autopsy report of what actually was the
Speaker 1: cause of death or George Floyd, seems like a distinct possibility,
Speaker 1: there will be. Right, You're in the freedom Hunt. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast to get
Speaker 1: the latest from Buck at buck sexton dot com. I
Speaker 1: want to try and experiment with you now, in this
Speaker 1: cancel culture, in this world of left wing domination of
Speaker 1: social media, news media, and an entertainment in Hollywood. Think
Speaker 1: about some thing that you could say, as a white
Speaker 1: male about white males that is derogatory, that is um,
Speaker 1: that is undermining, that is offensive, that would be considered
Speaker 1: a problem from the left's perspective. I mean, how far
Speaker 1: can you actually go? I think it's an interesting, interesting
Speaker 1: experiment to run in your in your own mind, because
Speaker 1: you can only do this with white males. It is
Speaker 1: only in America, the the the province, that is, it
Speaker 1: is only the in the realm of white males, where
Speaker 1: there is nothing that can be said about white maleness
Speaker 1: that is too offensive, too derogatory, too nasty. And in fact,
Speaker 1: you get, as a white male, or anybody else for
Speaker 1: that matter, you get a kind of social credit score
Speaker 1: points added to you. You're a you're a better person.
Speaker 1: And if you're wondering, Buck, what do you mean, how
Speaker 1: does this work in practice? Here's a phenomenal example of it.
Speaker 1: You know, when you want MSNBC. If I went on
Speaker 1: MSNBC and and wanted the audience to like me, there
Speaker 1: are certain things that I would I would try to
Speaker 1: work into the conversation no matter what we're talking about,
Speaker 1: and one of them would be a self deprecating and
Speaker 1: self loathing attitude about white maleness. I can't change it's in.
Speaker 1: These are immutable characteristics. Despite what the left thinks these days,
Speaker 1: I am male. I am considered white. Now. I think
Speaker 1: white as a categorization is also quite broad and in
Speaker 1: some ways useless and vague. But yes, I am considered
Speaker 1: to be of Caucasian skin tone. And that means that
Speaker 1: that's that's what I'm dealing, that that's what I what
Speaker 1: I am. You listen to John Brennan, the former CIA director,
Speaker 1: and you hear a guys say this, and you know
Speaker 1: that it's the equivalent of Jeb saying, please clap. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what John Brennan's doing here to the MSNBC audience.
Speaker 1: It's embarrassing. Well he's embarrassed, but not of what he
Speaker 1: should be. Play three. That's why we started with Katie
Speaker 1: Benner's great new reporting about the investigation to police officer
Speaker 1: it renders you know, at best hypocritical, at worst cynical,
Speaker 1: and falls any notion that the Republicans care about the
Speaker 1: lives in the safety of law enforcement. Well, I must
Speaker 1: say to Claire's point, I'm increasingly embarrassed to be a
Speaker 1: white male these days and light of what I see
Speaker 1: of my other white male saying. But it just shows
Speaker 1: that with the very few exceptions like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney,
Speaker 1: Adam Kinzingery, there are so few Republicans in Congress who
Speaker 1: value truth, honesty, and whatever. Embarrassed to be a white male.
Speaker 1: He throws that in there as a cheap applause line,
Speaker 1: but this is really a mentality on the left. There's
Speaker 1: this feeling of sad and a sense of transgressing when
Speaker 1: you're talking about white males. We've you've done something wrong,
Speaker 1: You've somehow violated something. You don't you didn't do anything,
Speaker 1: but your white maleness is a problem. If you're a leftist,
Speaker 1: if you're a Democrat today, you actually believe this stuff
Speaker 1: and then think, do what I had said. You have
Speaker 1: the experiment in your head of what can you say?
Speaker 1: How far if I were to sit here and tell
Speaker 1: you that you know, white males are the cause of
Speaker 1: oppression and wars all of the world, that white males
Speaker 1: are are the cause of racism, white males are the
Speaker 1: cause of sexism and the patriarchy. All these things not
Speaker 1: just a list of what the left believes. The left
Speaker 1: believes these things they cause the patriarchy, they cause racism.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's really not possible for them to be
Speaker 1: racism except white males against other people. That's the which
Speaker 1: is crazy if you know anything about the world, and
Speaker 1: racism all over the world that doesn't even involve anybody
Speaker 1: who's white. Buttheless, there's a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: this belief out there, and they make it very clear. Now,
Speaker 1: assume for a moment that you're that you're talking about.
Speaker 1: If you were going to talk about any group other
Speaker 1: than white males, any racial group, gender group, would you
Speaker 1: be able to get away with this? In fact, would
Speaker 1: it be career enhancing for somebody to sit up, sit
Speaker 1: up on a national TV channel like MSNBC and trash
Speaker 1: their identity group or mock it or make fun of it. No,
Speaker 1: of course, And if anyone else not from the group
Speaker 1: did it, their career would be over. Of course, it
Speaker 1: would be all done. You'd be run out of polite society.
Speaker 1: How did we get to this point? Well, as I've
Speaker 1: been saying to you, it is part of the messaging
Speaker 1: campaign that the left has had for many, many years
Speaker 1: now that you can get cheap points, cheap virtue signaling
Speaker 1: points if only you embrace this anti white male, anti
Speaker 1: patriarchy rhetoric as a white male or as anybody else.
Speaker 1: This is now the culture, This is the way people
Speaker 1: think about this. I mean, if you turn on you know,
Speaker 1: comedians these days, what will comedians make fun of Republicans, hillbillies,
Speaker 1: white males? That that's what you get. That's what comedians
Speaker 1: think their job is. They certainly will not make fun
Speaker 1: of any other groups. If they do, the woke mob
Speaker 1: comes after them. And even if they're making fun of groups,
Speaker 1: and we all used to know the difference. As I've
Speaker 1: been saying to you, comedy has been has been killed
Speaker 1: off by the left. They say, will all the comedians
Speaker 1: are liberals? Yeah, for the same reason that all the
Speaker 1: college professors are liberals, because they're a bunch of extremists
Speaker 1: who won't allow anybody else with different ideas to be
Speaker 1: in the same field. Right, because they're absolutists. Right, did
Speaker 1: the Communists take over the Soviet Union, did Stalin and
Speaker 1: his inner circle or are they in charge because their
Speaker 1: ideas were so good, you know, were they so much
Speaker 1: more widely beloved, you know, the Bolsheviks than the Mensheviks.
Speaker 1: Or then the reform movement that was under way at
Speaker 1: the time of the Russian Revolution, that evolved the constitutional
Speaker 1: democracy movement, but no one even remembers that anymore. They
Speaker 1: were trying to get there. But no, of course, not right.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to forget. You're supposed to forget all of that.
Speaker 1: These people, because of their belief system, they think that
Speaker 1: there can't be opposing ideas because it's all rooted in
Speaker 1: this obsession with a belief of absolute truth in politics
Speaker 1: and in culture, I mean, which is just it's so
Speaker 1: counter it's just so counterintuitive for all the rest of us.
Speaker 1: Of course, culture needs to be different, and culture is messy,
Speaker 1: and this is why they get these ideas like cultural appropriation.
Speaker 1: It's an absurdity. There's no such thing. They will tell
Speaker 1: you there is, and they will say that, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't be a white person who cooks Asian food,
Speaker 1: for example, to which I always point out, Asia is
Speaker 1: a very big place and everybody in Asia. Every country
Speaker 1: in Asia has borrowed from regional cuisines. And you know,
Speaker 1: there is no straight line here to even talk about,
Speaker 1: but they pretend that there is. It's all about power.
Speaker 1: It's about transferring into the hands of a very few,
Speaker 1: not just the ability to dictate your actions through government
Speaker 1: and cultural and private sector coercion now, but also to
Speaker 1: trying to control your thoughts. There are people who are
Speaker 1: obsessed with control as a general principle, controlling others, and
Speaker 1: they desire also at some level to be controlled themselves. Right,
Speaker 1: and only at the very very top are there those
Speaker 1: who are so in love with their own power, their
Speaker 1: authority that they just wish to increase the control that
Speaker 1: they have on everyone else and then have absolute freedom
Speaker 1: to do whatever they want themselves. That that's the end
Speaker 1: stage of authoritarian leftism today. That's where these commies want
Speaker 1: to take us. And you see this in the way
Speaker 1: they approach so many of these issues. What cultural additions
Speaker 1: have the haves the left made in recent years that
Speaker 1: you think will be enduring will be timeless? What are
Speaker 1: they doing that is inspiring beautiful worthwhile? No, they tear
Speaker 1: down everything else before them and they hold themselves up
Speaker 1: and they act as though somehow this is going to
Speaker 1: make this a better country. By running around like powermat
Speaker 1: hall monitors, this is going to improve American society. People
Speaker 1: do at their core have have a yearning to be free.
Speaker 1: They can suppress it, and it can be it can
Speaker 1: be locked up essentially by those who would rather then
Speaker 1: be controlled. And this is why a lot of belief systems,
Speaker 1: a lot of political systems, focus so much on that
Speaker 1: absolute control. We're supposed to have a system rooted in
Speaker 1: individuality and individual freedom, and it is under assaults from
Speaker 1: the collectives left. And I know you could say, all,
Speaker 1: come on, some children's books. What's the big deal. They're
Speaker 1: actually banning books, folks. Can we just understand the left
Speaker 1: is ascendant right now and what are they doing. They
Speaker 1: are banning books. They're not banning mind comp by the way,
Speaker 1: that you can still get on Amazon. I checked. But
Speaker 1: they are banning books that say that maybe giving hormone
Speaker 1: blocking medicines, to hormone blocking agents to eleven twelve year
Speaker 1: olds who think they're transgender, and it is think, by
Speaker 1: the way, there's no physical manifestation of this, that that's
Speaker 1: hate speech, it's hate. I've always been opposed to hate
Speaker 1: speech codes and rules because I knew how this would go.
Speaker 1: The slope is in fact slippery, and this is what's
Speaker 1: happened on social media too. At first it was terms
Speaker 1: of service. You can't say mean things to people, you
Speaker 1: can attack them and you know, put their personal data
Speaker 1: online and docks them. All Right, well, some of that
Speaker 1: seems reasonable. Then it's as well, but also we don't
Speaker 1: allow hate speech. What does that mean? Does advocating for
Speaker 1: the enforcement of US federal law and ur southern borders
Speaker 1: that hate speech talked? A lot of Democrats will say
Speaker 1: it is they're controlling so much of the society around them,
Speaker 1: and we find ourselves playing defense these days. I think
Speaker 1: the first step is understanding why what they're doing on
Speaker 1: a philosophical level is both wrong and destructive. This does
Speaker 1: not make America a better place, and it doesn't even
Speaker 1: have the outcome that they wanted to, which is that
Speaker 1: we are all more respectful of each other. No respect
Speaker 1: comes from an understanding. You know, it's really not possible
Speaker 1: to have respect in society without also some level of
Speaker 1: wisdom and judgment. And if people can't understand that, they're
Speaker 1: not always going to like what others say. They're not
Speaker 1: going to like other research and the ideas that they
Speaker 1: put forward in society. All that happens is they force,
Speaker 1: they suppress freedoms and create a backlash. And it's one
Speaker 1: that we're going to be dealing with, I think in
Speaker 1: unforseeable ways right now. But in time will say, of course,
Speaker 1: of course, the book bannings and eventually I'm sure book burnings.
Speaker 1: I mean, the stuff that they're doing in this country
Speaker 1: is unthinkable, the cultural suppression. Of course, it led to
Speaker 1: some awful outcomes, but right now they can't see it
Speaker 1: because they're just drunk with power and self righteousness. One
Speaker 1: of the one of the great benefits of being a
Speaker 1: brainless leftist is that you can just bathe in sanctimoniousness
Speaker 1: with a tweet with a BLM hashtag on your social
Speaker 1: media page, all of a sudden, without doing anything or
Speaker 1: earning anything. You're a good person. It's the single powerful
Speaker 1: selling point of American leftism today. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show podcast. Follow Buck on Facebook, for Instagram and Twitter.
Speaker 1: No doubt the virus is in the air. There is
Speaker 1: no doubt that you can catch it if you inhale
Speaker 1: air that someone else has exhaled, and as Peers described
Speaker 1: beautifully the exercising jogga, the puffing and panting jogger, you
Speaker 1: can feel their breath come and you can sometimes actually
Speaker 1: feel yourself inhale it. So there's no doubt that there
Speaker 1: is a danger there. I do agree that wet soggy
Speaker 1: masks are not a good idea, but for goodness sake,
Speaker 1: I've been for a run this morning. Not only did
Speaker 1: I put my T shirt in the wash, but I
Speaker 1: put my mask in the wash as well. So the
Speaker 1: fact that they get contaminated, it's not a reason for
Speaker 1: not wearing them. It's not that you're going to do
Speaker 1: anything with that mask apart from wash it. The other
Speaker 1: thing to say is that forty percent of COVID cases
Speaker 1: happen by catching it from people who have no symptoms.
Speaker 1: So you're jogging along, you think you're fine, and then
Speaker 1: the next day you develop symptoms of COVID. But you've
Speaker 1: actually breathed that COVID onto someone, perhaps you know, an
Speaker 1: old lady walking a dog or something like that. So
Speaker 1: I think it's really important to be here. Let's bring
Speaker 1: in you're jogging along, you think you're fine, and then
Speaker 1: you breathe on an old lady and you've just murdered
Speaker 1: her and should span the rest of your life, probably
Speaker 1: in a dark prison cell somewhere because you wouldn't wear
Speaker 1: a mask like doctor Greenley of Britain on this Piers
Speaker 1: Mortgage show. I don't even know what it's called. Told
Speaker 1: you too, and all of us sad in my accents.
Speaker 1: Moving it's like it's going more into the poorer areas
Speaker 1: of London, you know what I mean. So, yeah, this
Speaker 1: is when you've got a British darker. You're telling you
Speaker 1: that you should wear a mask when you're running alone
Speaker 1: on TV. Now, she will not be censored or silenced
Speaker 1: by social media or anybody else for being a moron.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna say, yeah, that's right. Whatever protects people.
Speaker 1: But there the the theoretical basis that she lines up
Speaker 1: here for you. Getting the virus is like a lightning
Speaker 1: strike fear. I can't tell you it's not possible. But
Speaker 1: all the actual research on the epidemiology of this virus
Speaker 1: is is long duration, close proximity indoors. That's how you
Speaker 1: get this meaning, that's where the risk is, right, that's
Speaker 1: the that's the concern. You know, there's always a concern.
Speaker 1: You could be going for a jog, you could step
Speaker 1: on a hypodermic needle and you know you might get
Speaker 1: you know, hepatitis. But people don't run around worried about that.
Speaker 1: They worry if they're actually intervened as drug users, about
Speaker 1: getting blood born of blood borne pathogens like that. Right,
Speaker 1: that's that's a reasonable You tell people, hey, don't use
Speaker 1: dirty needles. You don't say, hey, be careful because there's
Speaker 1: a one a one in a million, one in a
Speaker 1: billion chance when you go for a job in the
Speaker 1: park you might step on a dirty needle. It's possible.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't tell you it's not possible, right,
Speaker 1: of course it is. But is that what you're worried about.
Speaker 1: We have seen as part of the mass panic induced,
Speaker 1: the mass hysteria induced by our mass media has resulted
Speaker 1: in the complete elimination of a reasonable understanding of risk
Speaker 1: in our lives. And this doctor is a perfect example
Speaker 1: of it. You can listen to me, or you can
Speaker 1: listen to doctor Fauci, who says, of course New York
Speaker 1: did a great job dealing with the pandemic. Cromo particularly
Speaker 1: did a great job highest death toll in the country
Speaker 1: after New Jersey, which is basically just a province of
Speaker 1: New York in terms of the population dispersal here and
Speaker 1: how it works at the virus here's doctor Fouchi you
Speaker 1: play twenty. The CDC will be coming out within the
Speaker 1: next few weeks, maybe even sooner with some guidelines about
Speaker 1: what people who are vaccinated. And I think, and I
Speaker 1: know you're referring Dana to people who are doubly vaccinated
Speaker 1: fourteen days out, they're protected, they have that ninety four
Speaker 1: to nine protection. What can they do? I'm very certain
Speaker 1: and we've discussed this, and you're right. I don't want
Speaker 1: to get ahead of the guidelines because the CDC wants
Speaker 1: to do things that are science based. If you can't
Speaker 1: get the science, you've got to maybe you as modeling,
Speaker 1: and in addition to modeling, you use good professional, common
Speaker 1: sense judgment. They'll be coming out with that. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that I think is going to become
Speaker 1: clear that if you have individuals adults who are vaccinated
Speaker 1: to people that are doubly vaccinated and are protected, then
Speaker 1: you can do things that we weren't talking about before.
Speaker 1: You could have dinner in a home without masks on.
Speaker 1: You could have friends who you know are doubly vaccinated
Speaker 1: and are protected together there once you're double vaccinity says,
Speaker 1: you could have dinner in a home, a private home.
Speaker 1: I hope you've been doing that all along, folks, early do.
Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts. The news you need to
Speaker 1: get for your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. It's Harsani time. We got our friend David
Speaker 1: Harsani in the mix. He is at National Review dot com.
Speaker 1: Seen your writer there, David? What's going on much? How
Speaker 1: are you, you know, getting getting used to what it's
Speaker 1: like to have our our democrat overlords in place here.
Speaker 1: It's every bit is annoying, frustrating and point and uh
Speaker 1: pointless as I thought it would be. But let's let's
Speaker 1: do this this first, because I've been talking today a
Speaker 1: fair amount about the the canceling of I know it's
Speaker 1: only six books, but they're canceling children's books now. He
Speaker 1: wrote that it's fascinating to me that people can't stand
Speaker 1: against the book burners without making about Fox or conservatives
Speaker 1: and even if geisl was a racist, meaning uh, doctor Seuss,
Speaker 1: it doesn't change anything. Roldal was an anti semi and
Speaker 1: I still wouldn't want people to stop publishing his books
Speaker 1: explaining his arm for a long time. I mean, free
Speaker 1: speech is not contingent or your belief in free speech
Speaker 1: and in an open society isn't contingent on the opinions themselves.
Speaker 1: Either you believe that free speech is a neutral principle
Speaker 1: or you don't. Now, people don't have to publish a book.
Speaker 1: But if they're banning a book because it's insensitive, and
Speaker 1: then even the people who are are against that, meaning
Speaker 1: you know, left wing people, they only have to make
Speaker 1: the case that doctor Zeus wasn't you know, deep inside
Speaker 1: he wasn't a racist. It doesn't matter. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of books we read from people who are racists or
Speaker 1: who had opinions in the time that would not work
Speaker 1: today for us. That doesn't diminish their work. There's a
Speaker 1: million books we can ban right now. I was just
Speaker 1: rereading one of my favorite books, All the King's Men,
Speaker 1: and the end word is used throughout it. But it's
Speaker 1: not a racist book. I know, there's weird to say
Speaker 1: it's a book of the time in Louisiana and thirties,
Speaker 1: and that's the way that people spoke in those days.
Speaker 1: This is a never ending, big damdlist you're going to have,
Speaker 1: and the left windows they can't even say we're shoom Bannett.
Speaker 1: Instead they're talking about how all doctor Susie who caress
Speaker 1: that would do with it. But they can't just get
Speaker 1: themselves to be on the right side of something like this.
Speaker 1: So that's just a note. I think it shows it
Speaker 1: shows the power of the woke narrative that there are
Speaker 1: so many people who are making a living in the
Speaker 1: realm of free expression and free speech or what should
Speaker 1: be that realm. And if you're look, it's very straightforward.
Speaker 1: If you're somebody who's a big Biden supporter and Biden voter,
Speaker 1: and you work in news media, any kind of communications media,
Speaker 1: you basically, I mean, I know there are some exceptions
Speaker 1: that we know who they are, the prominent ones, but
Speaker 1: you basically shut your damn mouth and go along with
Speaker 1: all this cancelation stuff, even though you're supposed to be
Speaker 1: the people who would speak out most fervently against it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure you've been following this thing at
Speaker 1: the New York Times, where the science reporter forty plus
Speaker 1: years was fired for using the N word in a
Speaker 1: descriptive way, not not not not insulting anyone with it,
Speaker 1: but asking a student about it. And he was fired.
Speaker 1: And this he's put up like fully long blog posts
Speaker 1: detailing what happened, and it's just it's this. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's more like nineteen eighty four or it's
Speaker 1: more like Kafka's the Trial or something, but it's just
Speaker 1: insane to read. And I don't even know how people
Speaker 1: can confunction, especially creative people are writers, or people are
Speaker 1: supposedly thinking for themselves, can can function in that kind
Speaker 1: of stifling intellectual environment. I think I think it's sad
Speaker 1: for the New York Times. I think it's sad for
Speaker 1: us in general. I've asked people this, what what, for example,
Speaker 1: should be the sanction against somebody who is a court
Speaker 1: stadiographer or is she supposed to or he's supposed to
Speaker 1: make you know edits in real time? If if you know,
Speaker 1: if you're if you're reading back, what somebody you know?
Speaker 1: What about a detect if a detective who's saying this
Speaker 1: is what I heard the suspects say before the shooting happened,
Speaker 1: is he supposed to be bleeped or is he going
Speaker 1: to actually be canceled and fired for quoting words that
Speaker 1: he heard in the context of a criminal investigation. But
Speaker 1: you start to go into this realm of straight crazy
Speaker 1: town and another thing I think is really problematic. And
Speaker 1: nobody else will say this when you're going into the
Speaker 1: banning of words, but only some people aren't allowed to
Speaker 1: say the words other people are. This is really just
Speaker 1: a power dynamic. I mean, this is actually something that
Speaker 1: people should reject on a principle. It's not like it's
Speaker 1: a ban on a word because if it has ever
Speaker 1: heard or utter. I mean in some context, words that
Speaker 1: are banned for some people are celebrated in others, as
Speaker 1: we all know. And I think that this is a
Speaker 1: rule that really is just about making It's just about
Speaker 1: making some people bend the knee to the constantly changing
Speaker 1: whims of the left. It doesn't actually protect anyone or
Speaker 1: make it. I mean, everyone understands that using an ethnic
Speaker 1: slur or using a meeting word about somebody's immutable characteristic
Speaker 1: is a grotesque and a moral thing to do. But
Speaker 1: this goes way beyond that into even the repetition of
Speaker 1: somebody else saying the words specifically to understand what the
Speaker 1: word was, is now a cancellable offense. Yeah, you make
Speaker 1: a great point on the Court's demograph. For if now
Speaker 1: we have to board to the soul of whoever is
Speaker 1: using whatever word and divine or try to figure out
Speaker 1: their intent, that's going to be a rough road. And
Speaker 1: as you say, certain people are empowered or bestowed with
Speaker 1: the power to decide who's using it correctly and who isn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, then it's just about power. Now, there's already
Speaker 1: certain words have stigma attached to them. We don't use
Speaker 1: them and we don't say them. A normal, well adjusted
Speaker 1: people don't use these words in a way to insult
Speaker 1: other people. But you know, in the end, even if
Speaker 1: they do that, it doesn't mean they have to work
Speaker 1: at the New York Times. But are we going to, like,
Speaker 1: let's say doctor SEUs used those words in the past,
Speaker 1: that we're gonna now get rid of his books everywhere
Speaker 1: because he was that kind of person. It seems just
Speaker 1: these standards are Listen. I mentioned this before, but literally
Speaker 1: I was just thinking about all the books Pallion Chuck
Speaker 1: Chuck Palinchuck wrote The Fight Club with a book that
Speaker 1: I love. I mean, it is has misogynistic characters in it.
Speaker 1: So what are we going to do? Do we know
Speaker 1: that he is in a misogynist Now, I'd have to
Speaker 1: know and like meet him before I know if I'm
Speaker 1: to publish his book. You can't have these kind of
Speaker 1: standards in society. It doesn't work, especially in our artistically.
Speaker 1: Remember twenty thirty years ago, you know, it was the
Speaker 1: last who was always like, we're going to ban books
Speaker 1: in libraries. They were the ones always concerned about it.
Speaker 1: Was in the Patriot Actor. Remember it was such a
Speaker 1: big deal that the government would know what books you're
Speaker 1: taking out. And now they're perfectly fine with it, or
Speaker 1: they won't say anything, which is bad enough for someone
Speaker 1: who's a journalist. We're speaking of David Harsani. He is
Speaker 1: a senior writer of National Review, and David, I wanted
Speaker 1: to get your take on the Noble the changing malleable
Speaker 1: as the word I was really think of the malleable
Speaker 1: journalistic ethics of CNN as an organization, a more specifically
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo. Look, I understand this. I don't care what
Speaker 1: my job is, what I'm doing. I wouldn't be on
Speaker 1: TV trashing a family member. And I mean up to
Speaker 1: the point where they could say, you know you do
Speaker 1: this or else, and I'd say, I'll take the rls
Speaker 1: like that's just a It's a point of honor and
Speaker 1: pride for me, and I wouldn't do it. However, if
Speaker 1: I were holding myself out as a journalist, I would
Speaker 1: also have shied away from doing a propaganda variety hour
Speaker 1: in favor of a politician during a pandemic because he
Speaker 1: was my brother. And I think that CNN should have
Speaker 1: known that too. As a quote news organization, Yeah, they're
Speaker 1: not a news organization. They're just kind of this corrupt
Speaker 1: institution that pretends to do journalists and the worst of
Speaker 1: all the worst MSNBC because they put tend not to
Speaker 1: be on the left, which is there is a propaganda unit.
Speaker 1: But more than that, with Chris Cuomo, they keep pretending
Speaker 1: that the problem is that he isn't covering what's going
Speaker 1: on now with his brother. No, the problem is that
Speaker 1: he covered up for his brother for a year. He
Speaker 1: never should. As you mentioned, I would never go on
Speaker 1: their badmouth with my brother, even if it was true,
Speaker 1: I would I would just report something else. But the
Speaker 1: idea Lord wants that. I don't think any normal people
Speaker 1: wanted to do that. They wanted him not to act,
Speaker 1: as you say in this Variety Hour, covering up for
Speaker 1: a guy who was sending people to die in nursing homes.
Speaker 1: And for me, listen, I think that these accusations against
Speaker 1: Cuomo are serious. I hope he's afforded to due process
Speaker 1: that liberals never give conservatives like Bread Kavanaugh. They're serious allegations,
Speaker 1: but the using government to kill people because even more
Speaker 1: serious allegation, and people still aren't talking about it, even
Speaker 1: the left, which is now supposedly you know, the reason,
Speaker 1: of course is time of why they don't care aback
Speaker 1: Cuomo now, But even they are not really getting into
Speaker 1: his worst the worst sins and how he acted like
Speaker 1: a dictator basically and you know, destroyed the lives of
Speaker 1: many people. So just to go back, Chris Cuomo's problem
Speaker 1: is not the coverage, as you mentioned, but the not
Speaker 1: the I mean the not not covering, but the coverage itself.
Speaker 1: And I have to say that this this idea that
Speaker 1: the media was honest in the way that it was
Speaker 1: portraying Governor Cuomo in the past. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: that that's not true, because you and I were having
Speaker 1: conversations six months ago about the gross, slobbering love affair
Speaker 1: that the mainstream media was having, a corporate media was
Speaker 1: having with Cuomo as the governor of New York. And
Speaker 1: I also put it in my many, many, many exhibits
Speaker 1: of what a complete jackass doctor Fauci is and what awful,
Speaker 1: awful judgment he has. He was pointing to Andrew Cuomo
Speaker 1: as the gold standard. I mean, what else do you
Speaker 1: have to If this guy was my private physician, I
Speaker 1: would never I wouldn't even go let him, you know,
Speaker 1: hit me on the need to check my reflexes, Like
Speaker 1: I would go nowhere near this guy. And he's still
Speaker 1: allowed to make all these policies. He literally said the words,
Speaker 1: this is the way to do it, where he's done
Speaker 1: it the right way, and the rest of the country
Speaker 1: should follow. Why doesn't anyone ask him about that? Why
Speaker 1: doesn't anyone ask him how he feels about that, and
Speaker 1: why he made another big giant mistake in the past.
Speaker 1: No one, no one, no one challenges that guy with
Speaker 1: any access. But yeah, we were talking about this. Probably
Speaker 1: I don't know when exactly, but probably an April already, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, there were some local reporters that noted that
Speaker 1: he had fudged the numbers on the on the deaths
Speaker 1: at nursing homes way back in I think it was
Speaker 1: April or may. I think they were at the Associated
Speaker 1: Press and some other organization in Albany. People knew. The
Speaker 1: main main media, the political media, the big time Chris
Speaker 1: Colombos of the world and everyone was on TV covered
Speaker 1: it up for him, and they wouldn't report it, and
Speaker 1: they ignored it, and uh, you know, and now now
Speaker 1: they pretend that never happened. When I ever asked to
Speaker 1: answer for those things in the media, they just go on.
Speaker 1: They make giant mistakes. They literally cost lives. Maybe it
Speaker 1: cost lives in this instance, or maybe then cost lives.
Speaker 1: But they covered up something that was you know, that
Speaker 1: might have had a lot to do with the high
Speaker 1: death tolls in New York frankly so, and that spread
Speaker 1: from there to the rest of the country. By the way,
Speaker 1: even though I don't you know, I don't know that
Speaker 1: that's exactly true. We can't know. I think the virus
Speaker 1: was going to go through America anyway, But the point
Speaker 1: is that they did not cover Donald Trump with that tone,
Speaker 1: or De Santis or any Republicans. So it's just completely
Speaker 1: misleading reporting that that was a year long thing and
Speaker 1: now that we're supposed to reward them because they finally
Speaker 1: decided to go after Andrew Cormo when it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: for Democrats anymore. David Harsan everybody National Review dot com
Speaker 1: for his latest David, thanks so much for joining U.