The Daily Signal - Podcast: Alaska Attorney General Talks Workers' Rights

Episode Date: December 13, 2019

Two years ago, the Supreme Court handed down a major ruling in the Janus decision. That decision freed up public-sector workers from having to pay unions against their will. But since then, a lot of states haven’t been complying -- and unions have fought back. Alaska is leading the charge in the opposite direction -- bringing its state into compliance with the Supreme Court decision. Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson joins the podcast to discuss. Plus: Peloton, the home workout bike, is taking heat after an ad that some say is offensive and sexist. We also cover the following stories: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces the House will vote on impeachment next week. Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks out about impeachment in the Senate. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., blames the New Jersey shooting on "white supremacy." The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk, business. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, December 13th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Two years ago, the Supreme Court handed down a major ruling in the Janus decision. That decision freed up public sector workers from having to pay unions against their will. But since then, a lot of states haven't been complying, and unions have fought back. Alaska is leading the charge in the opposite direction, bringing its state into compliance with the Supreme Court decision.

We'll share a recent conversation that I have. with the state's Attorney General Kevin Clarkson. Plus, Peloton, the home workout bike, is taking heat after an ad that some say is offensive and sexist. Thalia Rampersad will join us to discuss. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and please encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news.

CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to move to acquit President Trump should the articles of impeachment reach the Senate. CNN cites two Republican senators, one of whom was unnamed, who say that McConnell wants to acquit rather than simply dismiss the articles. Acquittal would clear the president of wrongdoing rather than simply falling short of removing him from office. Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham says impeachment won't get the time of day under his watch in the Judiciary Committee. Here's what he said on Fox News. I'm not interested in any witnesses. This thing is a sham or crock. I don't want to legitimize it. I want to get it over with. And there's plenty of ways to do oversight outside of impeachment when it comes to corruption in

the Ukraine. And we will. In her weekly press conference Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will be voting on impeachment next week. Here's what she said about moderate Democrats. What is your message to those moderate Democrats who are undecided and who are concerned that a vote for impeachment could backfire on them politically. I have no message to them. We are not whipping this legislation, nor do we ever whip something like this. People have to come to their own conclusions. They've seen the facts that's presented at the Intelligence Committee.

They've seen the Constitution as they know it. They take an oath to protect and defend it. But they see the constitutional experts speak about it. They'll make their own decisions. I don't say anything to them. And here's what Pelosi said when asked about President Trump's. remarks on impeachment. As you probably know, the president is calling this impeachment life because there are only two

articles of impeachment. He says there are no crimes in here. The president is wrong. You know, what can I say? We have put forth our articles of impeachment. I'm very proud of all the committees, six committees had been worth on this for very long time. This is nothing swift about it, but it is urgent. And so, we're going to, and so, We will be bringing the articles. The committee will work on it today. As you know, I don't know if it's this morning or this afternoon. That depends on the pace in the committee.

And then next week we'll take up something. But, Madam Fy yourself accused him of bribery. Why could you decide not to make bribery one of the other people on the future? I myself am not a lawyer. Sometimes I act like one. Not as often as I act as a doctor. I practice medicine on the side without benefit of diploma. too. This is a decision that was recommended by our working together with our committee chairs,

our attorneys, and the rest. So the articles are what they are. They're very powerful. They're very strong. And they are a continuation of a pattern of misbehavior on the part of the president. People are realizing when they see what that was, they think the public thinks, that they should be determining who the president of the United States is, not some foreign power. They think that no one is above the law. We think, and say with they, that the president should be held accountable, abuse of power,

instruction of Congress, those that is the form it will take. It's no use having a discussion here. This is a discussion we will take to the floor of the Senate. After thousands gathered to mourn the loss of those killed in Tuesday's shooting at a kosher deli in New Jersey, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib blamed white supremacy. She was responding to a tweet recounting those who were killed. She tweeted, this is heartbreaking, white supremacy kills. Except both the shooters were black and linked to the black Hebrew-Israelite group.

After taking heat, Tlaib deleted her tweet. YouTube show host Dave Rubin tweeted, the killers were black supremacist Rashida Tlaib, but you know that it just doesn't compute with the progressive mind virus, so you have to lie. And the lapdog media won't say a word. The government may have racked in 470 billion the first two months of this fiscal year, which began October 1st, but that doesn't mean that things are rosy. The deficit was 343 billion thanks to the government's spending 814 billion the past couple of months. CNS News, which reported these numbers noted that this was the second highest federal spending

in the October-November period in the history of the United States. The highest spending period? Well, that would be the bailouts or the troubled asset relief program or TARP back in 2008. The Justice Department has charged 10 former NFL players in a health care fraud scheme. Prosecutors say they made over $3.9 million in fraudulent health care claims for high-cost medical equipment. They allege that the players submitted fake invoices and prescriptions in order to secure payouts for their claims.

Among those charged are former Washington Redskins running back, Clinton Portis, former San Francisco 49ers cornerback Carlos Rogers, and former Houston Texan safety, Cendras Brown. Portis, for his part, says he was shocked to hear the claims and maintains his innocence. Next up, we'll feature Daniel's interview with Alaska's Attorney General. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America. We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues America faces.

Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight four conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous. But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. We're coming to you from the annual meeting of Alec. That's the American Legislative Exchange Council, and I'm joined now by the Attorney General of Alaska, Kevin Clarkson. Attorney General, thanks for your time today.

Thank you, welcome. It's a pleasure to be here with you. So recently, a couple years ago, the Supreme Court handed down the Janus decision, a major win for workers' rights and something that unions took as a big defeat. and since then there's been a lot of litigation in states across the country, states that are not fully complying with the ruling. But your state Alaska under your direction as the Attorney General is leading the way on making sure that the state complies.

Tell me about that. Well, when I was appointed by Governor Dunleavy in December of 2018, and after I came into office, the governor asked me to have the Alaska Department of Law take a look at the Janice decision to determine, And first of all, what does the decision require? What are the broad brush implications of it? And is Alaska complying with what the court required? And so we did that. We took a look at it.

And very specifically, what JNS requires is that when an employee is elected not to be a member of the public employee union, and they have that right to do that, to make that choice, the state is no longer allowed to collect what is called an agency fee from that employee. So what they used to do was they allowed the union. to have the government entity collect an agency fee, which ostensibly was supposed to be an amount of money designed to compensate the union for the collective bargaining activity of the union

in order to avoid so-called free riders that all employees had to pay for the service of the union basically representing them in bargaining with the public employer. But according to the court in Janus, that's no longer constitutional. That cannot be done. You can't force an employee who has chosen not to be a member of the union to subsidize that union's activity, even collective bargaining activity, because, according to the court, even collective bargaining activity by a public employee union, when they're bargaining with a public employer,

and we're talking about public dollars, that's political activity. And employees have the right to disagree with what their union might be doing, even with respect to collective bargaining. So that's unconstitutional. You can't do that. That's compelled speech, compelled association. But the broader brush implications of the Janice decision are that anytime the government employer is taking money from that public employee and giving it to the union, which engages in political activity or political speech, no matter what that money might be called, whether it's a agency fee or a union due, that employer can only take that money from that employee and give it to the union if the employer has clear and compelling evidence that the employee has made a knowing and voluntary, affirmative decision to associate with the union and to support the union's activity and speech. So that's the advice we gave to the governor. We took a look at what Alaska was doing, and unfortunately we determined Alaska wasn't complying

fully with the decision. Alaska had stopped collecting agency fees, which is a good thing, because that's clearly what Janice says is not allowed. But what Alaska was doing, we found, was that they were allowing unions to have in their contracts, what we call Hotel California provisions, which, if you think of the song, the Eagle Song, it's, you know, you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. And so what they did, these contracts created 10-day windows of time once a year when employees could opt out of the union.

And if employees didn't affirmatively opt out, they're stuck. They were presumed to be in the union. Well, we determined that's unconstitutional under Janus. It has to be an opt-in. not an opt-out. And it has to be a real opportunity to make a decision, not just a small window that employees might miss inadvertently. Because a lot of employees, I would assume,

aren't really aware of this, aware of their own rights. I mean, if you have to opt out, if you're just unaware of the situation, you might just end up paying dues without making a decision, right? Well, we actually found a number of state employees who came forward once, my AG opinion came out, who expressed the fact that they thought they were required to be members of the union. They didn't realize they had a choice that they could make.

And so the next thing we determined that Janus required was that because the state has to have clear and compelling evidence of the employee's affirmative choice to opt in, we think it's the state's obligation or the public employer's obligation to collect and to receive that evidence itself. You can't simply take the union's word that, don't worry, trust us. Here's our list of the employees who have told us that they opt into the union. No, the state has to make sure, first of all, what those employees have been told about what their rights are. Second, that the decision is actually being made by the employee and that there has been an affirmative election to opt in. And the last thing we determine was that, you know, there's no constitutional right that we have that if you waive it once, it's waived forever. waivers of constitutional rights become stale over time as circumstances change.

And so, you know, if you think about it with respect to a public employee union, they engage in some conduct this year, different conduct next year, certain speech this year, different speech next year. They support one candidate this year, different candidates next year. And so the employees have the right to make their affirmative opt-in decision contemporaneously based upon the circumstances of the time. And so what we determined that meant was that periodically the employees have to have the opportunity to make that opt-in decision under current circumstances. The governor decided that one year would be a reasonable period of time to have employees exercise that option.

And the idea is not to trap employees out of the union. Unlike those hotel California provisions, which are designed to trap employees in the union, the AO that the administrative order that the governor put out allows employees to opt in anytime they want to. So the idea is not to trap people out of the union is to make sure that those who are being opted into the union actually have made a choice knowingly and voluntarily to be there. Right. Well, I would imagine unions in Alaska don't like this. Are they suing you? Are they responding?

Yeah, they didn't take it kindly. Within two days, we were in court. arguing over whether or not our interpretation of Janus was correct, and we'll let the courts decide that it will play out so people can stay tuned and watch what happens. But sooner or later, it will make its way up through the courts, perhaps, to the U.S. Supreme Court again. But, yeah, so the unions took it hard. They filed litigation, and we're fighting that battle now.

And where does Alaska stand in respect to other states that might be? trying to address this. Are other states following your lead? Well, there are a number of other states that have been looking at Janus, both before and after we took our action. But there are a number of other state AGs I know that are taking a hard look at Janus, and we've had conversations. I don't want to name names, but I think, yeah, there will be a number of other states coming out as well. I think we're the first to actually fully take this step, but certainly not the first to think about it, and we won't be the last. Right. When the Supreme Court handed down their decision, it was very definitive. I mean, it was something that had been working through the courts

for years, right? I mean, unions had been fighting this off, and there was even a previous case that had gone to the Supreme Court, and at the time it was a 4-4 decision, right? Right. And so this was a long time coming. Do you think this will be a decisive moment for unions, kind of in the big picture that will kind of really reduce their political power that they've had for a long time just off of fees that they didn't deserve? Well, I think, you know, the strange dynamic of all this is that the reason that the Janus decision is even significant is because across the country unions convinced various states or other local government entities to actually require those government employers, whether it's a state or a local government to,

act as a collection agent for the unions to actually collect the money, take it from the employee and give it to the union. That's the dynamic that's really created the Janus decision. And so, yeah, the unions really, I think, face sort of a pivotal decision point. You know, if one of the responses we got from the unions in response to our action was that we were invading employees' privacy. Well, I'm sorry, but if you invite the state of Alaska to be part of your transaction with your members, another. the words, we're the collection agent, we collect the money and give it to the union, that's no longer a private transaction. You've got the government involved in the transaction. And so,

and when the government becomes involved in those transactions, collecting money and giving it to the unions, taking it from the employee, giving it to the unions, constitutional rights are at stake. And so if those unions, and I have nothing bad to say about unions, I mean, they do a service to their employees, but they're members, but if they truly value those employees, they should value those employees right to choose their First Amendment rights. And if they're doing a good service for their members, those members should want to be members of the union, and they should voluntarily elect to do that. What's wrong with giving those members choices and making sure that they know they have choices? And so in some ways, the union's resistance to what we

did, which is no more than to say, let's make sure the employees are making their own choices and making them knowingly and voluntarily, reflects almost a fear of having those members make their own choices. It's a little strange in terms of they're supposed to be representing those members, but they're in some way sort of stepping back from really making sure that those employees have the right to make their own knowing, voluntary choices. Well, we'll continue to watch your case as it moves forward. Attorney General Kevin Clarkson, thanks for your time today. Oh, you're welcome. Thanks. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head?

If you want to understand what's happening at the court, subscribe to SCOTUS 101. a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. A commercial of a woman getting an exercise bike from her husband has gone viral in all the wrong ways. The ad is for a Peloton, a very pricey, stationary bike that goes for over 2,200. When you watch the TV ad, it depicts a worried-looking woman getting the bike from her husband, using it all year while she continues to look stressed. It's been widely mocked online with people saying that a husband should never give a wife exercise equipment, with people saying the woman is a victim, that it's sexist, et cetera, et cetera. The actress in the ad literally didn't interview with the Today Show.

That's how crazy this has gotten on Thursday to discuss it. I have some friends who saw it and said, oh my gosh, it did seem sexist to me. I didn't love it. I have friends who are like, what is everybody talking about? Did you understand like why people got spun up about it? I mean, honestly, I think it was just my face. What do you mean? It was my fault.

My eyebrows looked like worried, I guess. I don't know. There's a picture behind me, y'all. Joining us today to discuss is Thalia Rampersad, a Peloton fan, and a producer at the Daily Signal in the Heritage Foundation. Thelia, thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me, Kate. All right, what did you think of this ad?

Well, so I also want to clarify, I'm not just a Peloton fan. I'm a Peloton participant. Okay. But I use, full disclosure, I use the poor man's peloton. So I have the subscription to the app. And I just use a standard exercise bike when I'm doing, when I'm participating in Peloton. And if you're not familiar with it, the way it works is it's like you watch live exercise classes on your laptop or something. And then you're working out at the same time, right?

Correct. So, yeah, the big draw originally was that they were having a live exercise class that was being essentially live streamed all across the country. to the people who had the bike or the subscription or whatever it was from the studios in New York. And so you got this full, like, fitness class experience from New York City in the comfort of your home. And so that's really what the big draw was. And a lot of their promotion was specifically tailored to TV, to television. And so I just think it's really comical that, like, cut to three or four or five years later now that Peloton's been around since 2012. and people are talking about this very poorly produced designed ad for a company that's actually really awesome.

And so I think it kind of just fell flat in terms of what we just heard from the actress saying, you know, maybe my acting wasn't the best in the advertisement. And so that was really all I kind of took away from it. I think now in 2019 with Me Too and whatnot, everyone's kind of digging a little deeper than they should in terms of what to actually look. for and how to overanalyze the ad. I also think it's part of a culture of let's just hate something that is kind of built for the elite and upper echelon of fitness folks. And so it was kind of fun to hate on a poorly designed ad by a company that's designed pretty well. And so, yeah, it's just been an interesting, a funny conversation that's being had. I'm glad that the actress

took it so well, it seems, as well as I love that Ryan Reynolds kind of jumped on the bandwagon. and produced a second, like a rebuttal commercial to the ad itself and kind of making fun of the conversation that was going on online and bringing her back into the commercial and just kind of having her lament all of these struggles that she's seen online of people commenting on her and her poor acting and whatnot and just drinking his gin. It was a great play on a cultural moment. Well, one of the reasons that people were upset and thought it was sexist was because her husband purchased the bike for her. presumably that sends some message to her and has some kind of sexist ideas behind it that the woman needs to be in shape? I mean, how did you respond to that? Well, so just to kind of lay out the commercial, if you haven't seen it for some reason,

it's basically a woman who gets gifted a Peloton bike from her husband for Christmas, and she's super excited about it. The woman, the actress, looks very fit just in general. So that's kind of where the conversation started of like, well, why does this woman need a fitness bike because she's already, she already looks really fit, like what is his husband subtly telling her or not telling her? And so that was the conversation going on online. As the commercial continues, the woman decides to kind of create a vlog over the course of the year of her using the bike. And then it cuts to kind of the next Christmas season. And she's showing

her husband the compilation of videos that she's, you know, recorded over the course of the year using the bicycle and how she said, you know, when you bought me this bike, I didn't realize it was going to change my life. And yet here we are and my life has been changed. And so the whole commercial itself was very too on the nose for the company. It was too, too corny, essentially. Wait, you're dodging the question. Do you think that a husband can give away exercise equipment? Absolutely. I think it was, see, that's a thing. Even if she doesn't ask for it? Yes, I think so. Like, well, no that I think about it a little deeper. I think so. I think. I mean, I thought that was one of the things that came up a lot online.

And I was sort of, and I think Kelsey Bowler, our colleague actually was like, this is ridiculous. People are focusing on this. I think if a wife was insecure about her appearance and her husband knew that and maybe did need to get in shape and he gave it to her, I think that wouldn't be cool. But I think there's a lot of situations in which a lot of women love working out. Right. Like she's already a fitness junkie and he's like, oh, here's this new thing that you would love. Exactly. That's great.

But we don't, again, we don't have any of that context. Nor do we really need it in the commercial. We need like a 9-series back story. Exactly, yeah. And if Peloton may be smart, they might play off of that. Who knows? I don't know. Where they're going to take it if they take it anywhere.

Sadly, we did see that the commercial allowed their stocks to drop dramatically. I don't know if you have the... I mean, I don't know on Peloton stocks. I don't care. Well, do you have the numbers or no? Oh, I think they went down 10%, but I heard that vaguely, so do not Google it yourself. Yeah, I did see that they... I don't know what they actually.

actual the numbers are, but they did drop. So we were, I mean, it goes to show you that, you know, some press is bad press. Yeah. I mean, we'll see what happens long. I think, so actually, I held out from watching the ad until today. Like, I've been aware of all the online controversy. I knew the outlines of the ad. I just hadn't gotten around to watching it.

And I was like, yeah, I should probably watch it before we do the segment. And I think, yeah, she looked extremely stressed. I was sort of like, I don't understand why it was directed the way it was directed. I had been the one directing it, I say if somebody's never directed a commercial, but I'm very confident I could do this. You know, it would have been like show her excited, show her having energy from doing Peloton, show her looking happy. Like, it just felt very anxious. But I did think about, you know, I wonder if the reason, because I just don't understand when people are talking so much about it is if it has to do with anxiety that women have over their looks, which I think there's a lot. and if it sort of goes to that feeling of like, oh, I have to push myself to look perfect at all times and to sort of defy time and like be really in shape, even if that means, you know, there's one scene of her waking up at 6 in the morning.

So I don't know if it just tapped into a cultural anxiety or something like that. Because you do work out every day, right? I do. But I, yeah. So just with my schedule, I end up working out at night rather than the morning. Nice. I guess it was just on my mind because I was reading the other day because I love reading some. celebrity news that Chris Jenner, who's, of course, the matriarch of the Kardashian family,

is giving everyone for Christmas this year free Botox. And I was thinking about it. I was like, oh, my gosh, I would never use Botox. And then I started thinking about a wrinkle that I developed last year that, like, really irritates me, like, right above my nose. And it was sort of the first one. And I was like, I mean, I don't think I ever would. And then I went to a whole spiral of like, oh, my gosh, I'm going to age.

I'll be, you know, in my 70s someday. And so I don't know. Sorry, I'm laughing because Daniel's making a weird face. But it's one of those things that you wonder, like, women do worry a lot about this. And sometimes I think we live in a culture. I don't think there's anything wrong with women working out or even, you know, somewhat. I think it's good to work out. But I think that there is, like, if everyone's expected to do Botox, if every, like, there's so many things.

Like, a skincare regime right now is like 30 steps. And I bet actually, Daniel, to put you on the spot, I bet you don't do a darn thing about your face ever. No, I just use, like, normal soap in the shower. I think that's so interesting because then I want to ask you, then don't you think that we've passed, like, in 2019 and what we've seen with like women and the women's movement and whatnot, don't you think that we're supposed to have moved past that conversation? I think we act like we've moved past it, but we haven't at all. Exactly. And I think that it's really, it's complicated because we say we don't care, but we do care. And I think, and I don't really know the right answer.

Well, I just think that's the true difference between men and women. Like there are like standard differences between men and women. And like women can try and play that down or push it out of the mindset of people. But it's it's always going to be there. Yeah, can't get rid of it. But to a certain extent, I agree that it's definitely speaking as the token feminist, this Leah called me before we started rolling. I agree that it looks and how they matter falls more women.

But at the same time, like my hairstyle is, you know, has talked about how like a lot of guys she sees dye their hair now. Which struck me as really interesting. We've talked, there's been a little bit of an upswinging guys with eating disorders. It's not, sure, sure. It's way more on the women's side. I'm not totally. I can't make the blanket statement and say men just completely don't care about their looks at all. And women do and are like, but there are different standards they're held to.

Right. And I guess the bigger thing that was sort of on my mind is like, are we as a culture sort of refusing to let anyone age gracefully? And I don't know. I mean, I think that there's very much, I mean, I saw this morning and I'm not going to say who, but a celebrity who was in her 50s and I was appalled because she looked way older than that. And then I sort of checked myself and was like, what the heck? And I was like, but like she has access to facials. We still have like Miss Universe competitions.

Like you would think now that's been bad. And the whole point of the show is to judge the women on the stage. Like, I mean, I'll be honest. Like that's what I watch it for to look at like, you know. Like what's the, you know? Belia is there to judge. That's, well, why do they still have those beauty competitions? No, I mean, I think that's a fair.

I think it's just, I wonder if that's just the reason why this stupid ad, which, I mean, I don't know. And we also talked about before the show, was it, and I think you alluded to this a little bit, Thalia. Is it just because people hate when people work out and like they feel, or maybe it was your point, Daniel, they have discipline? Oh, yeah. I mean, maybe people are upset. They're kind of like the, like the, I don't know, they might, they don't like people that have better lifestyle habits than they do. So like those people that are going to buy this and use it. oh, they're to heck with them.

Really, it should be an incentive to get up and go work out rather than saying, oh, I hate these people that, you know, have their life together and work out, you know, really kind of flip it onto the positive side and say, you know what, I should be doing that too. Or if you can't do it, like, you don't need to hate the people who do it. I mean, I don't get the point of that. I mean, anyway, I guess if you hate it or love the Peloton commercial, you should tell us why. I am shocked that this even became a thing because when I saw the commercial, I thought, what is the deal? It's just semi-bad acting.

And I don't see what the big deal is. But obviously with the whole sexist stuff. It would be interesting if you broke it down and there's no way to do this. But I'd be curious, like the first Twitter people who got spun up and sort of made it into a bigger thing, I wonder what the gender breakdown was. Well, you know what it feels like? It just feels like the culture was waiting for Peloton to mess up. And they did. And so they kind of jumped all over it.

And that's what it felt like. Because Peloton has been doing really good television advertising. Well, the Peloton actually has been ripped before because I think it was last year they had like the world's richest. They really cater, as you said, of the L.A., like this is very affluent. It's not someone working out in a basement with like their kids' high school jerseys, you know, piled up in a corner. It's like working out on these very glamorous settings. You know, City View. I think they had one where someone was like working.

out like with rainforest views or it was very nice and people ripped on them then. But you'd better believe that if they released an ad that showed the wife buying this for the husband, all the like fringy activists would have been like, yeah, you go Peloton. Way to show the man what it's like to be a woman. Let him deal. That's probably true. But people, I think you wouldn't get as many people buying it because I would venture to guess that this Peloton is a gift.

like men buy this for wives more than wives buy it for their husbands. I would just venture to guess that. Probably. And I would say in just talking to my female... Which is why they would advertise it that way. Right. And just in talking to my female friends, all of us have agreed we would love it if someone give us a Peloton.

Like, I haven't met a single girl who's been like, no, I wouldn't want that. So... Very interesting. Well, Thalia, thank you for the hot takes. Much appreciated. Always a pleasure. We'll leave it there for today. Thanks for listening.

The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or Spotify, and please do us a review or rating on iTunes from your Peloton to give us any feedback. Robin Virginia will be with you on Monday. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, the Leah Rampersad, and Mark Geinney.

For more information, visit daily signal.com.