Will Cain Country - Vivek For VP? Should We Pay The President $300 Million?

Episode Date: January 17, 2024

Story #1: 5 Stories with Will and his Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth, including should we pay the president $300 million? Story #2: Equity versus Equality: What’s the difference? Revisiting Stephen A. Smith’s clip on equity. Story #3: A lunch break panel on Taylor Swift, World War Three, and Capital Punishment. Based Politics Podcast co-host Brad Polumbo and Legal Analyst Lexie Rigden join The Will Cain Show to break it all down.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, Vice President Vivek. And how good would the candidates for President be if we paid them $300 million? Hedgson, hanging out with our good buddy, Pete Hegseth. Two, equity versus equality.

And three, our lunch break panel on Taylor Swift, World War III, and Capital Punishment. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com and on YouTube at Fox News. Always on demand on YouTube at Will Kane Show and on podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. You can call in and hang out on the Will Kane Show at 855 Fox Talk. That is 855369-8255.

Some people have said they want to find the Will Kane Show. Well, just always go to YouTube and search Will Kane Show. We're still always there where we've always been in audio at Spotify or on Apple. And you can always check out my social media, Instagram, see Will Kane, X Will Kane, to catch the latest, to catch clips, and to catch what the next day's episode may entail, whether or not that Stephen A. Smith, Jordan Peterson, or the great Pete Heggseth. Three fails, two successes. Longtime listeners of the Will Kane show know I make a point of a New Year's resolution.

last year I did 12 resolutions rather I think it was 20 resolutions I came in at something like 10 successes and 10 failures and I figure life and resolutions are like a volume game Antoine walker the small forward for the Dallas Mavericks once said that he's a volume shooter and his boss at the time owner of the Dallas Mavericks said life is a volume game entrepreneurship business is a volume game jack up more shots you make more shots It's not about your shooting percentage in life. And that's how I consider New Year's resolutions. Put up more shots, make more buckets. So I was happy to go 10 for 20 in 2023. So far in 2024 for an accountability bowl and check in, I'm two for five. I'm not waking up early. I mean, I have a couple days.

The resolution was to wake up an hour earlier, to have some quiet time, reflection, prayer, and then get after a workout. Fail. Two, it was to reach out to text, to communicate, to maintain relationships. Fail. Three, read 10 books throughout this year. Success. Well on my way to completing the biography of Elon Musk and considering what I'll read next. Four.

Participate in four physical challenges this year. I'm already well into my first, which is a rowing competition, train, and then row 5,000 meters on a stationary rower. and compete against a very impressive group of athletes. I will undoubtedly be in the bottom half. But success. And five, set down the phone at dinner. Be more present. Be with my family.

Probably a fail. So two for five, but that's not a problem. It's about progress. It's not about perfection. But my first guest today believes that New Year's resolutions are like commandments from the Lord. Once you have broken them, you are condemned to hell. he is my friend and he is my fox and friends co-host and he is pete hexed story number one beat hexed what's up man i mean what's going on that is i'm i'm going to give you my analysis

of what you just unveiled there what you just yeah of course provided your audience if you break down those five categories i was thinking about it as you're saying it so you're succeeding on the two things that help you right you like to read books that's right i thought about this today Okay. Things are going real great for Will Kane in 2024. But if you are a friend of Will Kane, if you are, you know, if God was hoping to meet you an hour and 15 minutes earlier in the morning, or if your family wanted to be with you during dinner, they're all, they're all blocked out in 2024. So I, and I will note, I think I called it. I mean, we could roll the tape anytime we want, but my prediction. was there's absolutely zero chance you get up an hour and 15 minutes earlier and zero chance that you text these nebulous friends that you want to stay in touch with forever so importantly that you want to text them so I love your transparency and I love you for it and you are right you didn't even know how many can how many resolutions you made in 203 you said 12 okay I knew you had 20 okay you didn't even know so you're not just a volume shooter you are like I don't even No, you're like the Denver nuggets in the 80s shooting, you know. I'm an NFL quarterback with a short memory of my failures. I'm ready for the next play.

Okay. I'll take that. By the way, your analysis, first of all, you're wrong in that just because I'm not getting up early now this week on the launch of the Will Kane show doesn't mean that I won't start getting up early next week. I'm setting my new rhythm, Hegseth. But your analysis on the ones that I have succeeded at are the ones, yes, in a very, um, gratuitous or complimentary way, you could say are the ones I control, but I actually control them all. So they're the ones that benefit me. Yes, not my relationships with God, my family, or my friends. I just love that you're aware of it, and it's cool. I feel like the start of your new show would be the great, the perfect week to start your new rhythm and get up earlier. It's an

amazing justification for it. But you do you, man. Volume shoot or just keep going. I think you should add five more resolutions in February. Should add five every month. month, you dump the old ones that you're not doing and just create new ones. I like that. I like that. Well, you're, let's point out to the audience that you're succeeding. Your only real resolution was to drink more cranberry juice. And every time I turn up, you're drinking more cranberry juice.

I got two bottles of cranberry juice, uh, empty in the garbage can in the other room. Uh, and I'm doing pretty, the less booze thing is not working out for me. Uh, but I'm not, I'm not biting my nails, which is, which is pretty nice, which means I have another 45 minutes in every day to actually do something productive. And the Bible study thing's going great. It is. It's amazing. I could talk to you about that for the whole hour. Maybe we'll come back and talk about that for the full hour. Because when you actually dive into the Word of God, it's insane. But that's a whole other day. Well, I'm glad your Bible study and your spirit and your soul are in good shape. And I'm glad due to cranberry, your urinary tract is tip-top.

It's about right. All right. I want to start here. I want to start here with you, Hegg, Seth. Vice President Vivek Ramoswamy. Vivek went on stage with Donald Trump, and he gave a full-throated endorsement of Trump, and he's now subsequently gone on many programs and asked for Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley to drop out. From the beginning, Vivek was philosophically in the MAGA camp. I think there were very legitimate questions about the mission and the goal of his campaign. What was he hoping to accomplish? You and I, on Fox and Friends weekend, did an off-the-wall on the role of a vice president.

And I think, you know, we both agree that maybe historically prior to Trump, the role of a vice president was designed to deliver an electoral victory. I don't think a vice president does much to swing the popular vote, but they can deliver a state. The idea was to pick somebody from a swing state, a purple state, like Ohio, and say, put them on the vice presidential tickets and that person would deliver a necessary state. That's not really what Trump did with Pence. And so I'm curious, as you look at Vivek, I'm not sure that he delivers anything to Trump electorally, but that might not matter when you think about who Trump might pick for vice president. It's been really interesting to watch Vivek on stage. I'll get into that in a moment because he's such an effective communicator.

So as with most things, Trump kind of throw the rulebook out. Except in 2016, Trump picked Pence not because of where he was from, but because of what he represented to the base and the country. He represented a consistent conservative over decades when there were a lot of questions amongst Republicans about where the core of Donald Trump was, right? And so Pence solidified that in the view of conservatives, which was really important in garnering and gathering. So that was actually a very conventional pick for him. I remember people look around and be like, Mike Pence, the most boring, straightforward guy in the world. Like, you needed that with the hurricane of Donald Trump. Totally different in 24. And I

And I think in watching the two of them on stage, I'm looking up because I was just seeing a clip of it here, because you are live on the Will Kane show. And so I'm watching live news in real time as well, just letting everybody know that. And you should check him out every day at noon Eastern on the Will Kane show, in case you're watching this on tape. It's not that Donald Trump looked uncomfortable on stage, but it almost looked like he had a peer up there. And you had Ramoswamy talking his campaign talk and his movement, which is the MAGA movement, which he says just isn't just Trump's movement. It's both of our movement. And of course, that's true. And Trump says that.

But do you think Trump really wants to hear that it's our movement when he believes it really is something he started? And yes, we're all a part of it. But I just think there's too much they're there in Vivek. I think he would be the heir apparent to Trump on day one of his press. presidency. And that's the last thing Donald Trump wants is the conversation. And I'm not just saying that because, you know, he's a, he's got a big ego, saying that because he's got a lot he will want to accomplish and he'll want the spotlight on that, not on what happens in 2028 and who the standard bear is. So when I look at the criteria, it's not geography. It's not shoring up a conservative base. It's who's someone who can add value in a general election where you're going to need independent voters. And then who's someone who's not going to immediately. overshadow in the conversation of 2028. That's what I'd look for if I was surrounding Donald Trump right now. Where does that take you? Who would you pick for VP? The name I would pick right now, which is Tulsi Gabbard, because I think she checks both of those interesting boxes.

She left the Democrat Party. She became an independent. She's anti-woke, anti-war, doesn't buy all of the climate garbage. Some of the social issues, would take massaging with the status of the current Republican Party. But if Roe v. Wade is a bad general election issue for you, she's a pretty interesting pick to continue to soften that inside the White House because you've already overturned Roe v. Wade, so what else do you have to show? And then she's not going to be the Republican nominee in 28. So that conversation kind of stops right there. That's my thought. That's what's really interesting about that, Pete, is it's the opposite of 2016. Tulsi would not have worked, to your point, because people at that time had

question about the conservative bona fides of Donald Trump, and Pence shored up those questions. Tulsi's weakness is her past positions, and maybe even some current positions on issues that are important to Republicans. But that won't matter because everybody will be voting on Donald Trump. And they're already now deep loyalty to Donald Trump that couldn't be broken, I think, with the existence of Tulsi Gabbard. Hey, you brought up something really interesting. people are pointing out that body language between Trump and Vivek on the stage. It was really interesting. It was almost as though Vivek was trying to make himself Trump's equal.

There was a lot of patent on the shoulder from both of them, extended handshakes, long eye contact, who talks the most in the other one's ear? And by the way, I don't know. I think I've met Vivek in person. I think I've met him once. I feel like I know him. I've had private conversations with him. I've had him on all of my shows on multiple occasions.

He's taller than I thought when he's standing there with Donald Trump. Because I thought, people think I'm short too. Whenever they meet me, they're like, wow, I didn't realize you're six, too. We know Donald Trump's really tall. But they didn't look that much shorter standing there with Trump. It's just fascinating body language between two men, kind of competing for the spotlight. No doubt. That's why I wear boots now it will so that I can put lifts in them.

because I'm only six feet tall and I don't like to look so short next to you. Oh, it wasn't about you. Don't try, don't try science. That wasn't about you. No, I know it wasn't. I'm just messing with you. That's exactly why that's not going to work.

Everything you just said is exactly why it's not going to work. Donald Trump's not going to want to hear it. He's not going to want to see it. He's not going to want to feel it. He's not going to want to hear the chance. And you could see it on his face. If anything, that event solidified, it won't be the vaguer in the swamp.

And I really mean that. just saying that to have a hot take, knowing enough about him and his world, what made Pence so good was the deferential nature of him, both in the way he spoke and also the posture he took with Trump. Trump is a one-man band. He just is. You know what you're dealing with. He doesn't want a posse or a duo. So whoever's coming in is going to be behind the scenes to the side, taking on some tasks, taking bullets for him, making envoys to groups that maybe he can't reach the same way. That's why I like a non-conventional pick like a Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, again, that could be too cute, but it's not going to, it can't be vague. It's too

much alpha. And I don't think he would want it. One of my producers here on the Will Kane show, Pete, James Laverty texted me this over the night, and I found it fascinating. He saw it in a thread, saw it in a conversation. He said, it said, what if you took a drop in the bucket of the defense budget, $300 million, and you made that the salary of the president? This isn't about. Trump, and I don't even know that it's about Biden. This is more an abstract conversation. Many people lament the quality of candidate that runs for president. It's pretty shocking the most powerful position in the world that it doesn't seem to draw from a pool. Let's put it

this way. When you're looking at a debate stage, and I thought this during the Republican primaries, when you're looking at the debate stage, man, you're just not blown away by the quality of the pool of candidates running to be the leader of the free world. And so the question is, like, what if you made that $300 million, the salary of the president? Now, Pete, I've been a big believer in sort of the Jeffersonian citizen farmer. Like, you go, you do your service, then you go back to your home after having done public service. And that that spirit would bring forth people with the right motivations. The problem is it's not what's happened. Now we have people who get rich or run based upon board seats they've had or want to have. It's a path to getting rich for many people. people it's a path to relevancy i'm just curious if you made i want to know your thoughts if you made the benefit so clearly a mercenary like huge financial benefit to the individual would you get a higher quality of pool like and by the way then we have to define what it means to be higher quality but you know would you get i'm not saying this guy should be president but like a guy who's in the

public eye right now is bill acman right and he's pushing back on d-e i and taking on harvard and he's Worth, is Ackman billions? I think he might be billions. But whoever it may be, people who've achieved the top of their profession would then be incentivized in a way like, well, this is not a complete loss of my time. And maybe for some, it's a huge benefit. I don't know. What do you think? Do you think we'd get better or worse presidential candidates with $300 million? Great question. I want to hear what you think about. I'll try to keep a brief. By the way, it would add huge power, even more power to incumbency, by the way, which is a side effect of it. You're going to get longer candidacies because people won't want to leave this job that makes a lot of money and they'll have more money at their disposal to keep that job.

So it does, you'll actually become even more high stakes. That's a small thing. It's not a small thing. It's actually a big thing, but not central to the question per se. I think you get technically more competent people, people who know how to do things have built things and know how to run things. Because right now what you get, I mean, politics. take your level to pick your level from president to to it's actually i think you probably get better candidates at like the city council level or the school board level competent members of their

community who are really good at doing x y z yeah real estate agent or probably and then they say i want to help my community in a way that i can and they're actually higher quality oftentimes than the people you get running for congress or state senator or or governor because those are oftentimes people who've never had a real job are really, really full of themselves and want their name on signs and campaign commercials. And they want a little crest to put on their lapel. But they've never managed anything or accomplished anything of real consequence. So oftentimes those people at least have a point of view that I like, but they usually have a core that is empty and they're not competent. And so well, so I guess if I had to weigh in on it, I'd say pay them

at this point. And let's get some really quality people. Yeah, I don't know that $300 million is the number, but yeah, find something that's an incentive to draw a better pool. But the only thing I would say about that is your point on the city council works the opposite in that I agree with you. You probably have a higher quality of candidate at city council or school board, probably than you do at state representative. Because I think the state representative's motivation is career ambition. I want to parlay this into a bigger office where I think the city councilman or the school board member is probably there more out of public. service. Like it doesn't seem like a stepping stone. It's a side job that reflects your investment in your community. All right, I want to move on to this. I'm curious where you are on this.

The Cowboys Packers game drew 40 million people. The college football playoff drew 23 million people. The Chiefs Dolphins on Peacock that everybody's very upset about because you had to subscribe to Peacock and stream it did 23 million people. Of the top 100 broadcasts of 2023, I don't remember the exact number but I think it was something like 90 were NFL games like six were college football games and the Oscars a political debate filled out the 100. Why do you think, and look, you grew up in Minnesota. You're a huge Vikings fan. You're not a huge college football fan. So your perspective's kind of interesting on this. Why do you think the NFL is so much more popular than college football? It's a great question. I'll tell you why I think it is because it's

much easier to be an NFL fan than it is to be a college fan. That's number one. Number two, it's a lot less regional and a lot more national in my sense. Like the reason I'm not a big college football fan is because I didn't grow up in the South. I grew up in Minnesota where, yes, we have the Minnesota gophers, but most people are hockey, you know, more interested in hockey, frankly, in wrestling and basketball, sports you can either play in the cold or play inside in Minnesota. And so there are football fans here, but it's not ubiquitous. And you don't really just grab another team then. But I go back to my first argument. I'm a lazy sports fan. You're a real dedicated on it sports fan. My kids are, maybe I was when I was a kid too,

but they are dialed in stats, names, teams, trades, speculation. They would like you would like you a lot more. You grew up. It's what you're saying. You grew up and I remained a kid. Yeah, that's maybe right. That's maybe right. But that's a beautiful thing. I mean, I kind of wish I had a little, I'm a total, I'm a total innocence lost case here. Like just is me. You're right.

But I don't want to follow it. I don't know who the new recruit is. You're talking about recruits for Texas. And I know some 17 year old kid that can block really well at a local high school. Like I don't want to. That's why I can never be a college coach, like recruiting these pukes. Like, I don't want any part of that, you know, I couldn't imagine groveling to the family of a kid who can run faster than somebody else. It's just not, not my jam.

So I'm never going to follow the latest recruiting crew into, so I can't follow Texas. I can't follow. Even Tennessee, I'm trying with the volunteers where I now live. And I'll watch it. You're lucky if I know who the quarterback and their top receiver is and what their record is. The NFL's easy, man. Like, lineups stay more static. The moments, the memories are collective.

The schedule is so easily curated and predictable. I can be a fan and I can pay attention 10% of the time and still have solid conversations with guys like you and fake it to make it. And my team stays. You know what I mean? Like, it's just easier. And so, and it's, I mean, Sunday's a great time.

I just think it's got a lot of things going for it, man. I think that's a great analysis. I actually think that's, it is easier to be an NFL fan. Your point of the turnover of rosters and everything is spot on. I read a column in The Athletic. They said, NFL was smart. Like, it went all in on TV, which was the new technology in the 60s. Before the 60s, college football was more popular than professional football.

And embracing television changed the game for the NFL in a way. The NCAA fought football, I mean, fought television. They fought it. And so that put him behind the 8 ball. But it's about investment as well. So to me, and by the way, I'm probably 60-40 NFL over college football. football. But like, it's, the depth of investment is, is what I think matters. And college football has such a depth of investment that sometimes you marvel at why it's not more popular than the

NFL, where, say, somebody like Rachel can come in in one day and just talk smack all over me because she got a few talking points on the Green Bay Packers. Hey, listen, we haven't really talked about this. So you and me and Rachel were on a text chain along with Bobby Burak, right? And so during the absolute catastrophe that was your game yeah catastrophe okay now trash talk is fun but most guys know there's a line like when your team is getting smoked the way my team was getting smoked maybe one comment maybe two and then back it off because this is actually very painful for what's happening to him right and rachel sports fan for a day talk trash like how many text did I get Pete like who there's another turnover well there's another big mistake by

DAC and it was incessant and I felt you actually on the text chain you may have said something like I felt you withdraw like Rachel Rachel chill this is getting a little over the top she it's just kind of funny to think she didn't learn in one day there's a line you can't go this far you're and she didn't learn it with her husband either because he's kind of a casual fan not really in watches the Packers on occasion. So he doesn't, she doesn't have an internal family barometer. And then she's got a bunch of girls in her house who don't watch sports. So there's nothing there. There's no governor on her conduct on this at all. We're the closest thing to it. I got the text chain right here. I mean, it is, I told you about the Cowboys and

their turnovers. Bam. And then it's, I actually heard one free game analyst talk about McCarthy's time management. Bam. Will is oddly quiet. Bam. Wish I could see his bingo card now. that one got me football is fun another turnover i mean they're coming in hot and you're exactly right the only thing i'm thinking is whoa whoa back back it off rachel like back it off this man is is this is not going well for him this is and this is not going to go well for you if that had been a dude if that had been a dude in a bar you wouldn't do this but oh it might erupt into a bar like it would it would not be good like you you're stomping on me i'm on the ground i'm a puddle And you're stomping on me right now.

This is, this is, um, this is those videos you see on Twitter, like fight club. We're like five dudes. Groundstomp a guy. And like, it's not sportsmanship. It's not sportsmanship anymore, Rachel. You know, the one that really got me is Will's oddly quiet. Will is oddly quiet. To which two texts later from her, I wrote, Rachel, carelessly pouring salt in the wound.

Will will not soon forget makes for good TV. And then she wrote another touchdown and another touchdown. And I wrote, careful. he's on suicide watch now like i'm trying to help i'm not texting you on the side you know i'm not giving you we didn't text on the side i i it's she she gets a mulligan but we we really should revive this football course we told her we would give her which i didn't realize would include being a fan not just the ex's nose but she has no idea right yeah all right um last topic i want to hit with you man and it's on on a more serious him but i think

it's an interesting conversation. Ashley Slink-Clair, who's on Twitter, conservative commentator, she tweeted about this. I found this really fascinating. There was another guy who said, his name's Matt Van Swole. Okay, he said, super hot take. The normalization of therapy is becoming a bad thing for society. I'm seeing more and more people, one, use the fact that they're in therapy as a get-out-a-jail card for awful behavior, and, two, believe everything their therapist says is gospel truth.

So then Ashley St. Clair responds to this, and she says, I know people who have been in therapy for 10 years and actually suck more. Therapy has become an industry that preys on co-dependency and making people believe there's something deeply wrong with them, usually blamed on parents in childhood. Lots of coddling, no incentives to get individuals to a place where they can leave therapy, continued fracturing of families because of improper blame, zero consideration of societal factors impacting mental health. You know, mental health has been a thing, Pete, so many people talk about. and I have seen so many people advocate for therapy. I'm not here to say therapy is worthless or stupid. And in fact, one of the reason I want to bring it up with you is you're a vet. And we know about PTSD.

And we know about therapy when it comes to a lot of vets and the value of therapy. But at the same time, I think these two are on to something. I do think it's an industry that doesn't want to solve itself. You know, hourly fees don't stop or they stop when you get better, right? And so it's like this cycle of continued, I think the word was right, codependency and continuous depth of exploration. And I think that they're on to something where it's like this is not good, this long-term investment in therapy. Yeah, I think you're spot on. I think we're probably the same way.

We didn't grow up in really a therapy culture. Like I don't think I knew anyone that was going to therapy. It wasn't something that was talked about. And there are portions of the regions of the country and societal. classes where like therapy is just a given like everyone's going to therapy and everyone's talking to somebody and everyone's working through their problems. It was not something I was I remember meeting kids in college who would just openly talking about being in therapy and I was well first of all why are you? Second of all why would you tell me that? It's not something to like share if you're working

through some demons like I got it just do it do it over there. I think it's a I don't know the specifics the efficacy, you know, have I been through, I've never been through individual therapy. I've been to couples therapy. That didn't work very well. And I've, but very reluctantly, like, I don't want to do this. There's a reason, well, every Sunday, at the end of the show, I say go to church, because that is the closest thing to therapy that I have. And I, it is a reminder to myself to get my ass in a pew and to sit there. and submit to a higher authority because I don't have it in me to live life the way I ought, that I am a sinner saved only by grace, and only by surrendering to that, do I have a fighting

chance to beat back the demons? And yes, some of that is military related and PTSD, but you talk about the codependency. There's a whole, we could go on for, we could have a long conversation about the veterans industrial complex and how not fixing vets is a business too and an identity for vets who permanently deal with post-traumatic stress disorder that is a justification or a rationalization for any number avenues of conduct, much of which could be addressed and could be solved but isn't because it's continually perpetuated.

So you can see the, I think you see the same problem in a lot of different places because there's reasons to make excuses for yourself and then resources given the end if that is actually fixed. And all of it is window dressing for a culture that's, godless and empty and bureaucratic and static and just so you're you're trying to just rip glean little portions of truth out of secularism when what I'm learning more and more each day is like the beginning of a wisdom is fearing God and understanding where you fit in the universe

in that relationship and then you can start to know God and know who you are which is the questions we're supposed to be asking in life and you can don't get any of that in therapy where you're just talking about how each other feels and feel i know the biggest worst decisions i've made in my life are largely based on feelings how do i feel am i happy am i sad those are really tepid and weak emotions that it take a lot of time to train so i love what they're analyzing i don't know it very well but there's no doubt uh there's truth to that so good man so good what you just said, I think you're exactly right. Look, I advocate for self-reflection. I told you I want to get up and I want to spend a little extra time. And I, and I meaningfully say these

words. I say quiet time, meditation, and prayer, because I think all of those have value, you know, almost independently. But I think that this idea, I think therapy has become the secular church pew. I think I think you're right. I think that you're looking to replace something that you've lost in meaning and purpose that was previously found in the Judeo-Christian religious, or it doesn't have to even be Jew or Christian, I think it is.

Everywhere. It was, it permeated society. It was the, it was the baseline. I don't want to like idealize everything about 1776 or that time frame per se, but like most of the last, say, 1,500 years were centered around in understanding that we are Christians, and this is what we believe, and this is how we conduct

ourselves and our business. If you want to confront someone, you need two witnesses. That's what Jesus talked about. I mean, the jury pool comes from 12, which is the disciples. Like all of these, it was the coherent nature of who we were. If you were the drunkard, you were ostracist. First, you were confronted, your family, and then the congregation dealt with it. And if you had to, the authorities dealt with. You don't know what you were ashamed. All of that was. part of who we were, and it's all gone. So we're looking for answers somewhere else. So good, man. So good. We can joke about cranberry juice, and you can teach me about theology at the same time. I hope to have him on this program on a regular basis. I will be seeing him, as will you, on Saturday and Sunday mornings on Fox and Fringe. You can catch him on Fox Nation, where he leads all of our Fox Nation election coverage. He's my friend. Appreciate you, buddy. Pete Hegg said.

Love it, brother. Anytime. We'll see you soon. All right. Take care. The subtle but very important, subtle semantically, but very important differently, philosophically, between equity and equality. Coming up here on The Will Cain Show. We'll be right back with more of the Will Cain podcast. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes.

We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine

in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. It is the Will Cain Show, streaming live on YouTube's Fox News page, always on demand on video at Will Cain Show on YouTube. It's a very subtle, definitional slide of hand. Semantic slide of hand, but definitional and philosophical polar opposites. The words equity and equality. Story number two.

Stephen A. Smith was on our program on the day. debut episode here for the Daily Live Will Kane show. My long-time friend at ESPN is a sports enthusiast, but he's a big fan of politics and he's a big fan of culture. He is invested often in the debate, but when we had a conversation about diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI, he said something. We had an exchange which caught my attention because I thought it was not just illustrative of Stephen A. Smith's point of view, but probably represented a great many people out there across the United States of America, not understanding the difference between equity and equality. Here you go. Look everywhere, because when you bring up DEI, to me, what I care

about most is equity. I care about equity. Equality. I care about that. That's my least favorite letter of the three. That's my least favorite concept of the three. Well, I'm bringing that. I don't mean equity as far. I'm talking about equality. That's what I'm thinking about. There we go. Two very different things. Two very different things. That's fair. I didn't mean it that way. I was talking about equality as opposed to equity. But I'm saying that's what matters most to me, meaning equal chance, equal opportunity. Let's see what happens. And then to the victor goes to spoils. That, to me, is what America is supposed to be about. Very interesting moment, very enlightening moment. A lack of understanding about the difference between equity and equality. And I believe Stephen A. Smith, I believe him when he says he may. equality when he embraced equity. And I think most people out there who are not plugged in, not just to the political landscape, but to the philosophical undercurrents of our politics,

take for granted that there's a massive difference, polar opposites definitionally, between the concepts of equity and equality. Now, this semantic sleight of hand is purposeful. to those who advocate from the left that we should embrace the concept of equity they mean very specifically reject the concept of equality look it's well established that words have become play things to most on the left words have become tools they are forgive me for embracing a concept that is overused but they have become weapons words are just tools used to accomplish your underlying agenda. Think about how many different words have been tortured. Science has been tortured beyond belief. You remember, it was about two years ago now, the talk of packing

the court where there was open conversation on the left about adding justices to the Supreme Court, which is the definitional example of packing the court. But then when Donald Trump wanted to appoint conservative lower judges at the appellate level, then the left screamed that that was packing the court, changing the definition. of packing the court public health has become a concept completely unrecognizable in the past that it meant something having to do with medicine with with your and our collectively health but now public health has been used to include concepts like gun violence or racism public health has lost all semblance of meaning and we could go through literally i think there would be dozens of examples

will words have been tortured beyond any semblance of recognition in order to accomplish an underlying objective? And that is all very purposeful, as is the rhythmic similarity of equity and equality. Leading us to this, you can often seem like a stick in the mud. You can seem like a downbeat. You can seem like a lawyer. If you're constantly listening to people and asking them, what do you mean? And when people embrace the concept of equity, you have to ask, what do you mean? And for the left, they've told us exactly what it is they mean by equity.

Now, the most obvious difference between equity and equality that has been used to explain the two differences has been that equality is equality of opportunity and equity is equality of outcome. That's an inherently Marxist thought that no matter what one puts in, everyone derives the same benefit. Everyone derives at the same outcome. That's not what Stephen A. Smith meant when he went on to expound upon the fact that he wants equality of opportunity and then let the best man win. But I don't think it's simply a pursuit of equality of outcome.

I don't think that's what's meant by equity. I actually think that is also somewhat of a semantical half step because equity has proven to be a path to quotas. Well, we have to have this many of this represented in this position, whatever that is, college acceptances based upon race, apparently FAA job requirements that require a certain number of people with intellectual disabilities or psychiatric problems. And look, jobs and college applicants are a zero-sum game. So if you're fulfilling a quota for A, you are denying the opportunity for B. And that is often, not always as we see with the FAA, but often in the realm of race. So what equity provides in practicality, in practice, is a path to discrimination. It is a way to not just produce equal outcomes, but produce negative outcomes for whoever is the unfavored group of equity.

Look, we don't have to dance around it. We know white, male, middle class. Last week we saw a definitional disadvantage of being a property owner are ways through the concept of equity, not to produce equal outcomes, but to openly discriminate and on the basis of race. but whether or not you're discriminating on the basis of race or any other factor, you're not seeking an equal outcome even. You're seeking discrimination. You're seeking the opposite of equality. So when you ask this question, what do you mean?

Not only are equity and equality not similar, despite the way they sound rhetorically, they are polar opposites philosophically. Equity is the opposite. of equality, and that's why we have to reject diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our lunch break with Brad Palumbo and Lexi Rigding. Coming up right here, we will discuss Taylor Swift,

the death penalty, and of course, World War III coming up on the Wilcane show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast, featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Paulumbo is the host of the based politics podcast. He's a journalist and he is on YouTube. You can

follow him at Brad underscore Palumbo on X. Lexi Rigden is a lawyer, a TV legal analyst. You can follow her as well on X at Lexi, the lawyer, and as well on Instagram. Brad, Lexi, I'm so glad to have you on the show today. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, Brad, I know that you have written about equity versus equality. I don't know if you were capable of hearing some of what I just had to say on the difference between these two concepts. But I think they're very purposefully being used interchangeably to confuse and get tacit buy-in by the casual observer of not just politics, but of culture. I was just curious because I know you've looked into this and thought about this as well, what you thought about that difference between equality and equity. Yeah, I think you're totally right that we've witnessed a rhetorical sleight of hand where they're like lumped in as if they're the same thing.

We saw this on MLK Day this week where people are like honoring Dr. King's legacy of equity and justice. And it's like, hold on. No, no, no, no. His legacy is one of equality. It's very much one opposed to equity and the modern DEI movement. He dreamed of a world where people would be judged based on the content of their character, not on their skin color. Yet equity, I think the most obvious form is affirmative action, literally established a system in higher education where to get admission to a private school, you could get in with a 400 point lower score if you were black than if you were Asian. That is just reverse discrimination.

That's not equality, but that's equity. This week, I saw multiple companies, including DISH, posting job hirings that they will be prioritizing people from certain races as applicants, which, I'm not sure you're supposed to post a social media when you do a crime, folks, but that's equity. In the same way, I saw the King Arthur Baking Company announced that they're having a baking competition for everybody but no whites allowed to enter. And I'm like, guys, this is not progress. We were supposed to move on to a society where race fades into the background becomes like hair color or eye color, something no one cares about, no one's discriminated against. Instead, they're trying to make race essential to the human experience all over again, but they think it's progressive or something.

And that's the difference between equity and equality. One is pernicious and one is important and just. Absolutely. And it does make you wonder, by the way, I think at some point there has to be a judicial reckoning of this. I know, I know Lexi, your lawyer, I went to law school. The Supreme Court at some point has to start addressing the clear constitutional violations that all of this represents.

Actually, I want to put this to you, though, Lexi, and forget me, I'm just thinking out loud as we go here. So, Brad brought up MLK and equity versus equality. You know, there is this conversational talking point going around that actually MLK would have embraced the concept of equity, that he had a lot of philosophically far-left leanings, that in fact, maybe he was even a communist. And I'm going to be real with both of you. I don't know. But I will say, you know, this was a thing that was sort of around this week on MLK Day. It's not the first time I've heard that. Like I've heard, you know, and even those who are on the left, like far left advocates of sort of like racial justice have said he didn't believe, to Brad's point, the content of your character over the color of your skin, that he was actually, he wanted to expand the civil rights movement beyond into poverty and that he might have even believed some things that we would have called Marxist.

I'll start with you, Lexu. I'm curious either of you have any insight on that. I don't have any specific insight in terms of MLK and those beliefs, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me, because. because I also think people are looking at that through the lens of now and where in the past, the civil rights movement was fighting for, I'm actually getting these terms confused when I was talking about equality. Now the civil rights movement has seemed to has transferred to equity. And that also is bleeding into other areas of the civil rights movement like men being able to play women's sports. You know, it's like, well, that's not fair that they can't play because they identify a certain way. And so we have to have equity in that too. So I

I think people are making that argument because they're looking at what he was doing through a 21st century lens and the way that we're seeing these things now that simply having a seat at the table now is not enough. We got the seat at the table. Now we have to correct all of these past ills and try to give people equal outcomes, which is, I agree with Brad and I agree with you, inherently unfair and takes us back into this thinking that we should be judged based on our race. and we should be giving people opportunities based on their race. Because, you know, when people say that about women, I take offense to that. No one's ever told me that I can't do something. I've never felt like I needed to work extra hard because I'm a woman, which is one of the reasons I didn't like the Barbie movie.

Like, I thought it was really cute and, you know, I love the colors and everything. And then when it started in on the whole, like, when you're a woman, you're told you don't have a seat at the table and you're told you. Like, I never believed that. Like, I grew up believing I could be present. It didn't matter if I was a woman or not. So it's all very, all of this is, you know what about that? You know what's interesting about that, Lexi, is what will be the direction? So obviously the country is having a big conversation about the, the acknowledgment of perhaps latent anti-Semitism in philosophy or individual hearts right now.

And some, like the ADL's, Jonathan Greenblatt, has come to start arguing, well, we need to start including Jews in diversity, equity, and inclusion. And so his takeaway from that is not to tear down the idea of DEI, which I think has led to this anti-Semitic philosophical underpinning, but rather to get more inclusion inside of DEI for favored groups. And you were saying, like, as a woman, you'd rather see it go the other way. Don't advantage me because I'm a woman, you know, just equal to playing field. Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I'm Jewish and my husband is, I'd say very Jewish. He's a very, very proud Jew.

he's more on the liberal side. And there are Jews that believe that feel like the certain communities have left them behind in this whole Hamas thing. And I know that's not what we're here to talk about. But they really do feel like we showed up for you. We marched. Where have you guys been? And so I sort of understand that there is a more liberal wing of Jewish people that are like, fine. You know, we want to be included in these DEI measures too because we have been underrepresented.

I mean, it's a group of people that are economically prosperous, generally, and highly educated. But, you know, some of them do feel left behind by the DEI movement, which they feel should have included. But the point is, don't fight for inclusion into the DEI hierarchy, reject the DEI hierarchy. This is not what we planned to talk about, but I want to follow, I want to follow my own curiosity. And Brad, I've been a fan of your work. I don't agree with everything you have to say, and I never consider that a requirement of being a fan of someone. And forgive me, Brad, I'm just going off the top of my head in my recollection. I think you have a rainbow flag in your Twitter handle.

So I don't know, am I correct, Brad? Yes. Yeah, so I don't know what that means. I don't know if you're an ally or if you're a member of one of those letters. But in the course of this conversation, made me think, well, I want to ask you, too, Brad, you are considering yourself one of those letters of the alphabet that is receiving to some extent, or is somewhere on the totem pole of hierarchy of DEI, where is your perspective on this, like, now we're all just playing a game of jockeying who's higher on the totem pole, right?

Jews found out they're lower on the totem pole than Middle Eastern or whatever the group is that is calling them the oppressor. And I'm just curious your perspective, because I just got to get rid of the totem pole. That's the answer. Yeah, so I've had that in my bio for a long time before a lot of these conversations emerged. And the reason I did that was simply because when I came onto the scene as a political commentator, there were very few. It was basically like Guy Benson and one other person who were at any form of representation

that you can be gay and not left wing, right? You can be gay and support low taxes, support limited government, support free speech, support the Constitution. So that's part of the reason I've been pretty outspoken about the fact that I'm center-right politically, but am openly and unashamedly gay. And I do actually host an entire podcast pushing back on the excesses of the modern LGBT movement. But that's why I did that. And I view that more as just, you know, being outspoken and showing people in that community, there's another path rather than, you know, engaging in equity type, identitarian activism. In fact, I remember when I was a college student, I went to a very left-wing college. It was not popular there, to say the

least, but they had a rainbow graduation. So it was essentially a self-segregated additional graduation ceremony at the University of Massachusetts Amherst that was only for the LGBT students in addition to the main graduation. And when I received an invitation to that, I thought it was the most preposterous and ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Why would I ever want to be grouped up with other people who I really have very little in common with, has nothing to do with my experience or accomplishments as a student, and just to play this, I'm special, I'm different. Like, no, I'll just go to graduation like everybody else. And that's the fundamental difference. I mean, nobody wants to pretend, even critics of the DEI movement who are parts of these

groups, like nobody wants to pretend race doesn't exist. Nobody wants to pretend that there are no gay people or that gay people don't exist, it's about not wanting to make that our entire identities and wanting to blend in and assimilate into society rather than tear it all down and restructure it in a radical left-wing manner. And so that's why I'm happy to acknowledge that that's a piece of who I am.

It's certainly not the main or most important piece. You'll notice I have the American flag first before the rainbow flag in my bio for a very important and conscious reason. that's the difference, right? The difference between assimilation, but not denying that identity exists and is a real part of life. Yeah, that's great. Those segregated graduations have been around for a while now, and they're on every level. It's really shocking that that's what America thinks is, or at least some in higher education, think is appropriate. A black graduation, a rainbow

flat graduation. I mean, aren't you one student body? And aren't we one country? It's crazy. I want to ask you guys about this. This is an article in the New York Post. It's pretty, it's pretty terrifying, to be honest. It's terrifying no matter how you internalize it. Germany preparing for Russia to start World War III leaked war plans revealed. This is apparently intelligence that's been leaked out of Germany, that they are preparing for a plan that includes the following. Number one, in February of this year, Russia will call up 200,000 more troops. Then in the spring, they're going to launch an offensive against Ukraine. And then in July, they launch cyber-terrorism against Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania starting to stir up and stir up Russian nationals

who still live in those areas is sort of a separatist movement. And then number four, using those nationals, kind of what happened in eastern Ukraine, they start saying that the Balkans is rightfully theirs, and they launch an offensive into Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Kalengrad, which is a little island of Russia that kind of, you know, land separated from Russia into Europe. They then basically invade Poland to achieve continuity with Kalenegrad. And the point is, by this article, what Germany is trying to prepare for, is it by spring 2025, so a little over a year, NATO forces and Russia are at war. Now, that's terrifying on its face. But I don't

know what to believe anymore. I really don't. Like Intel, mainstream media reports, leaks, especially when it comes to, I don't know, international war. I mean, what do you guys make of what is apparently coming out of Germany? You first, Lexi. Well, I think that they're, I think this is like a worst case scenario type of thing where they're trying to put pen to paper on potentially. I don't know what intel they have to support this, but hopefully it's just kind of like a worst case scenario type of plan.

And I'm going to assume that a lot of countries have done the same thing where they create scenarios and then they try to think their way through them if they occur. But we have been sort of at, you know, what is it like midnight or whatever that phrase is in terms of like the world's stability ever since this happened, especially. And I hate to say it because I'm not the first who said it. But elections have consequences. Like we have, and forget Donald Trump. We have an old man in the office who literally looks like your grandfather in a retirement community and sounds like your grandfather retired. That does not project strength to anyone.

Nobody is afraid of us. And at least with somebody like Donald Trump or even just a stronger type of president, even if it were Democrat, you know, people had to wonder what he was going to do. Kim Jong-un, you know, even Putin. But with Joe Biden, nobody really wonders. I mean, he looks like a weakling.

And then we have a laughing, giggling vice president who was also a DEI hire, if you will, which is Biden has gone on record saying that he would choose somebody of color for his VP. So like, this is what we have. And so would we really be surprised if Putin did decide to up the ante? I mean, I don't know.

I think he would be foolish because if he encroaches on NATO territory, those countries have already says, you go one inch over into NATO territory and it's on. So if he's crazy enough to do it, which he probably is because he's a dictator, then it's going to be really,

It's going to be really scary. That sounds very juvenile to say, but it's not good. Brad, I'll let you jump in wherever you want, but I was saying to my wife the other day, to Lexi's point, and I really do, I really do try not to let myself slip so far into bias that I become simply partisan. I don't want to be, I just don't like cheap shots. I don't like low blows, especially when I feel like you're on the philosophical high ground.

I just feel like it's unnecessary. But I was saying to my wife, I don't think it's selective picture selection. Like, the thousand-yard stare, mouth-agap thing from Joe Biden is way too frequent. That like just blank, confused look on the leader of the free world's face, I'm sure does not inspire any intimidation from Vladimir Putin. No, I'm sure it doesn't. And you can look at polling and see that even most Democratic voters don't have confidence in him and think he's too old.

Like, this is not a radical right-wing take. But the only thing I'll add is that the most optimistic reading of this leaked reporting from Germany is that it's a contingency plan rather than, you know, something they really think is going to happen. I mean, the United States government actually has contingency plans from the CDC and the Pentagon about what we do in a zombie apocalypse. We also have plans for invading Canada, neither of which are going to happen. Now, obviously, Putin being aggressive and invading NATO.

So, yeah, I'm a huge Walking Dead fan, so I'm prepared, but I don't know about everyone else. I was talking about invading Canada. Here we go. Yeah, no, not. No, invading Canada, no, they can keep it. A lot of crazy stuff going on over there. I'm joking. Obviously, you know, Putin invading NATO is much more realistic than either of those scenarios.

But that's just to say that the existence of such a plan doesn't even indicate that Germany's authorities actually think this is what's going to happen, just that they think it's possible. And that alone is scary because we're talking about nuclear powers. But I just would be, I would be really surprised if Putin hadn't learned not, like hadn't been pushed away from this course of action by his failure in Ukraine. I mean, it really hasn't gone the way he hoped. It's pretty complicated the whole debate over the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but he thought it was going to be a lot more of a breeze than it ended up being. And he has egg all over his face from that.

The only thing I worry is that he'll be, start to feel so endangered at home, like his own status and position is in danger that he has to escalate. to try to keep people on side. But I don't know. I'm not going to be up at night worrying about it, but it's always in the back of my mind because any time you have a potential outright conflict between nuclear powers, I mean, we are talking about matters of life and death

for humankind. The only thing I'd say about Vladimir Putin and Ukraine is don't call a fight in the third round. You know, Russia historically, they fight for 12 rounds. They go the full bout, and they throw as many bodies at a war as you can possibly imagine. They are not afraid of losses.

They are not afraid of casualties, and they will play that long game in the war. They've shown it over and over and over again, from World War II to Afghanistan. I don't know if that puts you on the foot to go on an offensive in a new theater, but I don't think that this thing is anywhere close to being called in Ukraine. All right, story number two with you two is, I think, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you're both big defenders of Taylor Swift and the NFL. Now, listen, I'm not a hater. I'm not. I'm actually like just indifferent to Taylor Swift. If I know a Taylor Swift song, it's because I've heard it like in a gym environment. I'm like, oh yeah, I know that one. I don't know that I can name any beyond like shake it off. But that's just me. It's just not what I'm into. I am into football and I don't need Taylor Swift in football. And I've talked about this. But I will say Kaylee McAnney on

Fox and Friends filling in for Rachel Campos Duffy is a big fan, and she gave me an argument. She said, when you have a young daughter, that Taylor Swift is one of the most wholesome celebrities that they can pay attention to. That doesn't mean she agrees with me on politics, whatever. It just means, like, in the whole world of everything's over-sexualized or whatever else, you know, she's kind of singular in Taylor Swift. So I'm here to let both of you defend the presence of Taylor Swift in every aspect of our society, including the NFL, Lexie.

So I have a lot of thoughts on this, which I also work for asking. And just a shameless plug there. Actually, in terms of her songs, I was listening to them in the car, and my mom said, I can't believe that people let their daughters listen because some of the songs are a little bit. I mean, I wouldn't say that they're wholesome, but I get that she's not dancing around like Britney Spears or the snake. So, I mean, she is probably more wholesome than some of the people that. we're comparing her to. But I think that Taylor Swift was a really big net game for the NFL and an even bigger one for Travis. In terms of the NFL, if you're a fan of the NFL, you're a fan. And the

fact that they pan over to her in the stands is not going to change that. It might be a little bit annoying, but it is what it is. But there are a whole group of people now. Like, even my own mother, who doesn't care about football, she'll ask Alexa if the chiefs won. And we live in, like, we live outside of Philly. Like, why are, you know, what do you care? But, and by the way, I'm not an Eagles fan, but I think that it's kind of like it's made people, I think, warm up to watching a game maybe or even learning about the players. And maybe if you were so inclined, it might interest you now because you have a hook. Where I think Travis, see, I actually, usually it's like, oh, turn this, turn this off.

I don't care. But now that I know she's the games and I've sort of heard about these people, I'll say to my husband, oh, did this she swim? even if I'm just curious based on the argument that she's like ruining the team I feel I'm kind of interested so I don't think that that's bad for the NFL it gets eyeballs on them in terms of Travis Kelsey we'll see this was a touchdown for Travis Kelsey dating her because he is now eminently more relevant even if they break up people now know I've never heard of him like I know he had the brother Jason because he sang that the eagle we everyone hates

that song when we won the Super Bowl five years six years ago but other than that I didn't know Travis Kelsey was. Now, if you have, if he retires, when he retires, and you have a competition between Travis Kelsey wanting to be a sports commentator and some person that no one's ever heard of in the NFL, you're going to go to people, you're going to go to Travis Kelsey probably because he has just a higher profile. He's like a quasi household name. If he wants to write a memoir, it's going to be a bestseller as opposed to talking about his life a year ago where nobody but football fans probably in Kansas City really knew about him. So I think that this kind of like set him up for a post football life better than anything ever could have. Yeah, it's a

huge win for Travis Kelsey. Yeah. Is it a win for the NFL is the question? And I remain skeptical that a lot of these swifties who are drive by watchers of the chiefs and want to know the score really are converted into fans of the NFL Brad. No, so I get that. I mean, and you and I have to talk about this separately. I'm more of a Premier League fan than I am an NFL fan. And I have it on reliable sources that You are a glory-hunting Manchester City fan, but as far as the NFL and Taylor's left. I was also told, I was told on good authority you're a Chelsea fan. So if I am like a glory hound hunting for trophies and a tool for Middle Eastern Oil Emirates, you are as a Chelsea fan, just a faded glory hunter who was working for Russian oligarchs.

Like, you're not any better. We just won better. But I've stuck through the hard times. I've been a Chelsea fan for like since I was 12. So I've been, trust, look at where we are now and I'm still here. Are you guys talking about soccer?

Yeah, we're talking about soccer. Yeah, sorry. Okay, all right. I know for a little about any of this. Taylor Swift,

my defense of her is more limited. Simply that what's happening is not her fault. People should not be mad at her that the NFL keeps panning the cameras to her. She doesn't control that. The networks and the executives and the producers control that and have made a calculated decision that it's good for ratings or whatever, but don't get mad at Taylor for that is my thing. People are, I'm seeing a lot of Taylor hate over the NFL stuff, and it's really not up to her. She's being a good girlfriend, going to support her boyfriend. She's obviously super

famous. But if the camera pans to her once or six times is not up to her. It's not something she has any influence over. Be mad at the producers or the league or whoever, because I'd be annoyed by that too. If I'm watching Chelsea, they do that sometimes and they pan to celebrities in the crowd. I'm like, I don't care. I'm missing the action. But also, there's a lot of downtime when they pan to her anyway. But all I'm saying is like, don't blame her for this. It's really not on her.

Enough downtime that the whole crowd can join in on a dance. I mean, it's one thing if she's just there, maybe that shot isn't fair. Like the whole crowd at a Chiefs game doing some dance choreographed together. I don't know. You think that's all a set up? It's just like you turn the NFL into a pop concert. Yeah, I don't know. But that'd be fun if she did a bad.

halftime show when she was there might as well give her a mic right i think it's a net gain i really do even if you can convert one non-football person into a football person then the NFL wins no press is bad one honestly when you're raising for i mean that's a very small business yeah think of all the other things the NFL has made headlines for right all the woke virtue signaling all the hypocritical activism, the scandals, the cheating, all sorts of things. Sorry? Was that good press? No, but I'm saying, I'd rather have to make headlines for this.

Okay. Yeah. But my point is, you said no press is bad press. And I would say, I don't believe that maxim anymore. And I don't believe the ratio of what Lexi said is if you convert one fan. I don't believe those things. It is the walking premise of most people, and especially everybody on social media. it's good to get into food fights it's good to get in gossip fights it's good to get attention it's as though

what's valuable now is attention and we are in the attention economy my argument to that in reverse to both of you is that i believe we've got to move and i think we will soon move to a value based economy because how many times do you somebody hit your radar right whoever it is social media whatever and they've got your attention but you quickly can ascertain whether or not they're giving you any value whether or not there's any substance to the point of your attention and today that ratio is was way out of whack. I can tell you, maybe I'm just speaking subjectively. But like, I can tell you, there's a lot of people, including people that previously I felt like deserved my attention, that the more they lean into, any press is good press, and any fight is a good fight, and any

attention is good attention, I lose value in them. Now, you could argue, Will, I don't do a lot of, like, social media promotion, and maybe I'm, like, reverse engineering to justify my position. but I just feel like we're moving into a place where value will become more important. And I'm not overdoing the Taylor thing, but like there's not a lot of value to the football fan or to the NFL base just because of this extra attention. So I don't know, Lexi, if the ratio would differ, maybe they convert 10 million, 5 million fans, and maybe ratings go up 10%. That's okay.

Maybe that's different. But I just don't believe anymore in attention is its own virtue. Well, also, it's just football also. Like, it's just football. So if people watch it because they want to see what Taylor's wearing in the stands, or maybe people get interested and start to learn about the very convoluted rules, which I don't understand, then, you know, it's still going to be, it's football is supposed to be fun.

It's family. It's tailgating. It's food. It's some disappointments, some tears, elation. So, you know, I think people are kind of like, you know, she's in the stands. She's an all-American girl dating the basically like the, I know he's not a quarterback, but it's kind of like the cheerleader with the quarterback. It's cute. It's fun.

Yeah. I'm here for it. As the kids say, I'm here for it. So, well, I would just add that the attention as a value thing, right, is not something I personally like or condone. It's not how I live my life or craft my brand because I don't think it's ethical, but I have a hard time denying that it's at least partially the reality. I mean, if you look, even like Donald Trump is the best example, they give him so much bad

press and it only helps him when the news breaks that he's been indicted his poll numbers go up like I don't know you I do feel that even an influencer half the time when they get canceled they double their subscribers I mean I do think and I don't like it I want us to be in a value based economy like you're saying and I try to I try not to be controversial for controversial sake though I'll say something that needs to be said I try not to troll or trigger people or just try to get attention by any means necessary because it's not in line with my ethics. But I really do think that's kind of where our society and our economy are at, at least in part. I think you're right. And I'm not just giving my utopic vision. I think we might move towards value having more

value. That doesn't mean that attention will cease to have value, to your point. I think you make a very good rebuttal and a good point. But I think the more we realize a lot of this attention is totally nutritionless, there will be more attention on value. Lastly, it's a heavy one, but I did want to end on this. Brad, you're a libertarian, and I've been told that you are opposed to the death penalty. And I think it's an interesting conversation. The headline from Fox News is Alabama death row execution by nitrogen gas could amount to torture and violate rights treaties, says the United Nations.

So this inmate is going to be put to death by nitrogen gas. I did not know really what that process was. The last paragraph describes it as the follows. The protocol refers to the odorless and colorless gas being administered for up to 15 minutes. The execution method calls for a respirator-like mask to be placed over the inmate's nose and mouth. An imbreathable air will gradually be replaced by nitrogen gas, causing the inmate to die from lack of oxygen. I think the argument is you've got to sedate them first, and then it would be more humane. It's what the UN is saying.

and by the way lethal injection has been um lexie you're an attorney i mean it's been the it's been the subject of a lot of debates over cruel and unusual punishment like what the actual chemicals do inside the body my position and and i'll start with you brad since i know you're opposed at at i think across the board to to the death penalty is i once would have described myself as more libertarian and probably held your position because i worried about the infallibility of our justice system like I never want to put to death an innocent person. But I do find, as I've evolved over time, to see there is value in vengeance. It's not the best of our characteristics.

It's not the best of societal motivations, but it also doesn't have zero value. And there's a time when somebody's done something so heinous that retribution, and it's in the, you know, Lexi, you probably learned this in criminal law, but like there's like five tenets of criminal justice and rehabilitation is one, but so is retribution. and I think there is societal value to retribution. Personally, I think society should be honest about it, Brad. Like, I actually think the most ethical thing for both the executioner and the execution is probably a firing squad. I don't think we, most of the time these mechanisms like lethal injection are designed to make the executioner, society, not the guy pushing the button, but society at large feel better about what it's doing. And we shouldn't. We shouldn't feel better.

We are taking a life and we should be honest about it. I also think it's quick and, and I mean, who knows, I'm painless. It's all painful. But anyway, I would just argue for more honesty in execution, Brad. Yeah, so I totally get where you're coming from. I think if I was one of these victims' family, like I would have that sense of retribution, too. I think, one, the first point that you raise is the fallibility, right? I'm somebody who sees the government as not particularly competent in most things. And according to the Innocence Project, 191 people have been exonerated from death row since 1973. So I don't want to put one innocent person to death. And if that means 20 people

have to rot in prison for life for everyone innocent we spare, I'm okay with that tradeoff. But to your main point about retribution, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that if the death penalty wasn't so extraordinarily arbitrary in its application in this country. Only about 2% of murder cases get the death penalty. And it really has a lot more to do with where it happens to take place. Almost all the death penalty cases come from 20% of counties. Some places still do it and other places don't. So if you do the exact same crime on one side of a line versus on the other, in one case you're killed and in the other case, you're not. And in fact, it's not even like... I would argue, Brad, that's a good thing. That's a good thing because we are a federalist system, which means that

most of our choices should be made at the most local level possible. And you're going to have different cultural and moral calculations of the death penalty, state by state, even jury by jury. And I would argue that that's kind of a healthy way to approach it instead of like the pretense. And I do think it would be a pretense that we could impose some uniform standard across the country. Well, I get what you're saying because I support federalism generally for policies as well. But if I commit the same exact murder in one town versus one town over, it seems unjust. It seems unfair to me that people would get radically different punishments. Imagine if you're driving down the road and you're speeding, but cops are only

pulling over certain color cars and not others. It's like completely arbitrary for the same exact offense. That seems to me like a fundamental tenant of criminal justice that we're doing wrong. More importantly, though, if we even look at this case that we're talking about in Alabama, he committed this crime in 1988 and he's still not dead. They tried to execute him and botched it. It's like one of the most expensive and ineffective systems. I would rather have us put that time and energy into solving more crimes. Because unfortunately, a high percentage of murders don't get solved or don't even get cleared in this country. And so I'd rather put our criminal justice resources towards solving crimes and arresting people and getting people punished because the true deterrent is not whether they're going to get life in prison without parole or be put to death.

The true deterrent is, am I going to get caught or not? And we need to improve in terms of funding our law enforcement to actually arrest people who commit crimes because now a scary percentage of murders get away with it in this country. Yeah. I do think there's value in deterrence as well in putting the fear of the repercussions. But what are your thoughts, Lexi? Oh, I generally agree. I'm okay with the death penalty.

It's been around for, I mean, centuries, millennia. It's not like it's a new thing that we created in this country. And so even though it's debatable, whether it's right or even just the best use of our resources, I'm okay with it as a concept. But I totally agree with Brad that while I understand your point that the fact that it is applied ununiformly, if that's a word, is actually a good thing. It also, I think it almost kind of seems like you're shouting into the wind sometimes. I mean, like it's like, why do we have?

have it if it is, to his point, 36 years ago, that guy committed that crime. And he's still, he's still kicking. Like, I feel like it's kind of applied. And not only, what's the word I'm looking for? Not uniformly, but also it just takes too long. It's not efficient. And so I would kind of like to see it where, like in New Jersey where I am, we don't have the death penalty. So I'd kind of almost like to see it where it either goes away or we get better at it. And I hate to say it in those terms because you are taking a life. And as much as vengeance and retribution as part of a criminal justice system, we're also better than that, you know, in the United States. A very extreme example is like Osama bin Laden perpetrated one of the worst attacks on us ever. And he was buried with

dignity that he didn't deserve, but he was. He was buried according to some of the Muslim traditions. Because that's what we do as Americans. Like we do the right thing. He was still executed. He was still executed. But at least he was given like a like a burial. You know, an American would have been dragged through the streets and killed by being dragged on the back of a truck. So I just feel like Americans, you know, we try to rise above sort of like the need for vengeance. But I do think that the death penalty has its place. But I think it's, I think it's a mess in terms of its applicability and in terms of how long it takes to put offenders to justice. All right, before we go, Lexi, I've got a text here from a mutual friend who wants me to ask you, are men allowed to

cry after a playoff loss, after their team loses? Why does he want me to ask you that? Do you have a hot take on, you should? The answer should be, no, men should never cry. But that's not the reason. It's just like my husband, when he's depressed for a day because the bearers lose, which is all the time. It's like, I always say, I didn't realize you owned the team.

I don't. I was like, I didn't realize you're a player. Oh, here we go. I'm not. I'm like, okay, then get over it. And if that's Bobby, no, no, no. You can't cry. There's no crying in baseball, football, soccer, whatever you guys are talking about.

Hard know. I agree. There's no crying, but I don't like when people go, oh, you use the term we? Are you on the team? Get out of here with that. I thought I made that out. I've never heard of even will say that, to be honest. I thought I made it up.

But I will die on that hill. All right, Lexi, Rigdon, and Brad Plumbo. This has been an awesome panel. I appreciate you guys joining for lunch break. I hope to have you both back again. Thank you so much for doing the Will Kane show. Thanks. All right.

All right, that's going to do it for today here on the Will Cain Show. Remember, you can watch this show on demand, YouTube slash the Will Cain Show. You can get the audio version on podcast at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. And you can tune in live tomorrow once again at Fox News.com or on YouTube at Fox News. It's been fun hanging out with you, and I will see you again next time. Listen ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad free on the Amazon music app. From the Fox News Podcasts Network.

Hey there, it's me, Kennedy. Make sure to check out my podcast. saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.