Steven Rinella: Exploring The Unsolved Mysteries of History! Plus, RFK, Jr. Gets Grilled By The Senate
Story #2: The founder of MeatEater, Steven Rinella joins The Will Cain Show to talk about his new show on The History Channel called Hunting History , where he explores some of the unsolved mysteries of American History from the D.B. Cooper hijacking to the Lost Colony of Roanoke.
Story #3: Do you go to the grocery store with your wife? Where is the best place to meet people if you are single? A conversation with The Crew.
Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing WillCainShow@fox.com
Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show!
Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Hides Barack Obama's Portrait, And Gavin Newsom Sums Up Why In Just 6 Words
President Donald Trump may be tall, but he continues to prove that deep down inside he's a teeny tiny little baby man. Case in point, according to CNN, Trump decided to essentially hide former president Barack Obama's official portrait from the White House — and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) is calling the move like he sees it. Typically, White House protocol calls for portraits of the most recent American presidents to be featured prominently in the entrance way, so that they're visible during official events and visitors on tours. But Trump directed staff to move Robert McCurdy's photorealistic paintingof the 44th president to the top of the Grand Staircase into a corner where most can't see it. CNN, who obtained a photo of the portrait's new location, also noted that it's now hanging on a landing leading into a private residence that is heavily restricted. Portraits of former presidents George W. Bush and his father, George H. W. Bush, have also been moved to the same location. A portrait of Trump's most recent predecessor, Joe Biden, has not yet been completed — and once it is, we're sure Trump will find a nice home for it in the White House's basement. Or he'll just pave over it, like the rose garden. When news of Trump's latest jab at Obama made its way to Newsom, he only needed six words to sum up why Trump would do this. 'Small men hide from history's giants,' Newsom wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. This is not the first time Trump has moved Obama's portrait. In April, it was removed from the Grand Foyer and replaced by a painting of Trump — complete with a gold frame ― pumping his fist in the air after last year's attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania. Obama's portrait then hung in the East Room, until it got demoted to its dusty corner. Trump's interior design move comes amid high tensions between the president and Obama. Last month, Trump accused Obama of participating in a 'coup' against him in 2016 — an allegation Obama later called 'outrageous.' Trump has beef with the Bush family as well. George W. Bush, whom Trump has called a 'failed president,' skipped Trump's first inauguration. In 2017, the late George H. W. Bush called Trump a 'blowhard,' and said he voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alabama congressman seeks Senate seat
MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) — Alabama Congressman Barry Moore announced he is running for a U.S. Senate position. UPDATE: Mobile police identify 2 men killed in industrial incident Moore currently serves as the United States representative for Alabama's District 1 after when the state redrew its congressional districts. In his announcement Tuesday morning, Moore promised to stand with President Donald Trump. Moore previously served in the Alabama State House for eight years as the District 91 representative. During his time in the state house, Moore served as chairman of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as the vice-chair of the Small Business and Commerce Committee. If Moore were to win the election, he would be taking Tommy Tuberville's seat, as Tuberville previously announced . Atmore arrests: 6 held for immigration crimes, FBI says The Senate election will be held on Nov. 3, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Pete Hegseth's macho approach to the military threatens our national security
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Hegseth's rationale for banning 'gender ideology' from military academies, which train officers, is that it inhibits the unity and meritocracy required for military readiness among service members. As Hegseth's order states, 'The strength of the DoD comes from our unity and our shared purpose. We will focus on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness.' Advertisement This is deeply ironic because no one is doing more to make explicit the deep cultural connection between war and masculinity than Pete Hegseth. He's revealing something that's always simmered beneath the surface of military culture: that war is the sole province of men. Advertisement And the way Hegseth thinks about gender in the military and the whole point of fighting wars is fundamentally flawed — not to mention detrimental to the armed forces and our national security. Out of the shadows I used to have to make the argument that the military's culture was affected by ideas and beliefs about masculinity in mostly subtle ways. The only people who came right out and said war is about achieving manhood were centuries-old thinkers and a few contemporary military leaders or obscure far-right commentators. But now the sitting secretary of defense is unabashedly advancing this view and basing military policy on it. If you want to see how ideas about masculinity warp those about war and the military, look no further than Hegseth's last book, published in 2024, 'The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.' Hegseth asserts that the military exists to allow men to find their natural purpose as warriors. The military is the institution for turning undisciplined boys into real men. As he says, 'The military has always been about social engineering … It takes average American boys, breaks down their body and mind, and builds them back up into members of a warfighting team.' This point is brought home in a chapter titled 'Men Need Purpose, Not Inclusion.' Here, Hegseth provides a macho, first-person narrative of his experience in Iraq in 2006. As an important part of a team of warrior men engaged in killing the enemy, he says he found his calling as a man. His operation 'was all man, all merit, all mission.' He and his teammates were 'tough, manly, and unapologetically lethal.' He discovers that 'feeding a well-oiled killing machine' is his 'jam.' He closes the chapter with the hope that the military continues to provide this purpose to other men. Advertisement The clichéd, gendered language he uses throughout the book to describe good soldiers is staggering. Proper warriors are 'red-blooded American men,' 'strong men,' 'fighting men,' 'courageous men,' 'rock-ribbed men,' 'masculine men,' 'tough' men, 'normal dudes,' men who do 'PT' and wear 'Carhartt jackets,' 'cowboys,' and 'alpha males.' He compares them to the fictional characters John McClain from the movie 'Die Hard' and the superassassin John Wick, And he goes on to describe the men who question the value of this type or hinder their unapologetic violence as 'candy-asses,' 'pussies,' 'whores to wokesters,' 'effeminate,' those who 'suppress natural masculine instincts for honor,' 'beta-male[s],' and 'so-called men' who would 'neuter' the military. For Hegseth, a good man is a disciplined killer and protector of the weak. By nature, men are 'life-takers.' Their societal role is to use violence to protect their communities. Women, according to him, have a different nature. Women are 'life-givers' whose biology prescribes caregiving and nurturing. Their job is to reproduce and raise future generations as well as provide succor to warrior men. This is why he thinks women should not serve in combat. For Hegseth, including women in war upsets the natural gender order. Making women into warriors separates them from 'the natural purposes of their core instincts.' And it undermines men's 'instincts' to treat women gently. Advertisement There is also reason to wonder if Hegseth believes women should be full citizens. This all has had devastating impacts on women and gender nonconforming people in the military. Hegseth has overseen the But the effect of Hegseth's gender crusade extends well beyond the culture of the military. It has a dangerous impact on the way we fight wars. There is a direct relationship between treating men in the military as killing machines and a misguided way of thinking about war. Hegseth argues that the masculine nature of military service is linked to the nature of war. War is really a contest of masculine violence. If you outkill your opponent, you will win the war. Lethality is all that matters from a strategic point of view. He claims, 'Land warfare … is defined by how many people you can slaughter in one space, at one time — limiting the will and capacity of your enemy to fight.' Advertisement The problem with this is that it reduces winning wars to winning battles. But at least as far back as Carl von Clausewitz, an early 19th-century Prussian general and military theorist, strategists have understood that there is much more to winning wars than winning battles. The point of war is to achieve a nonmilitary political good like sovereignty or a just peace. There is not always a connection between winning battles and achieving these goals. In fact, you can win every battle yet lose the war — as the United States did in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States entered these wars with The United States does not have a problem with lethality on the battlefield. We have a problem understanding how our lethality affects the world and a tendency to think martial violence can solve complex problems. We need to be better thinkers, not better killers. We need more historical and cultural understanding, not better tactical skills. Hegseth doesn't see it this way. According to him, the United States lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't kill enough. If it weren't for the lawyers — or 'jag-offs,' as he calls them — restraining military tactics out of concern for noncombatant casualties and detainee abuse, we could have ended the wars sooner and won. The wars dragged on because we lacked the warrior impulse to do what was required to win. He says, 'The fact that we don't do what is necessary is the reason wars become endless. Modern wars never end, because we won't finish them.' Advertisement In Hegseth's worldview, wars are contests in killing because wars are contests of warrior masculinity. The side with the real men is the winner. If we lose a war, it must be because we lack real men. Whereas America failed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of a misguided faith in war, Hegseth is overseeing 'reforms' of the US military to emphasize battlefield fighting that simply double down on this faith. This may make the military more 'lethal,' but it makes us less ready to use the military for good. I fear we are now even more likely to engage in ill-conceived war than we were 20 years ago. So, in a sense, Hegseth is right: 'gender ideology' is a threat to national security. But it's his ideology that we should be worried about.
