Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

New IVF Tech Lets Parents Choose Traits, And Discard The Rest; Trump Administration Proposes National "Pro-Family" Program. Trump Administration Proposes National "Pro-Family" Program; NYT, Sports Fans Pay Up To $4,785 Annually. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 05, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Michael Smerconish. Today from New York City, usually by way of Philadelphia, I normally reference my location second after some opening pithy line, but today it feels more relevant to say that first. See, I've spent my entire life in a 50 mile radius around Philadelphia. And if you grow up there this weekend, the 4th of July weekend often means going to the New Jersey beaches. Only that's not how we say it, we say we're going down the shore.

And each South Jersey beach town has its own personality. Wildwood has the boardwalk, Stone Harbor and Long Beach Island, they're more refined. For my family, it's always been Ocean City, famous for being dry because it was founded by Methodist ministers. But booze is plentiful just over the causeway in Summers Point, which is where back in the day you could find my high school buddies and me at a place called the Anchorage Tavern. It's still there.

Then beers were seven for a dollar, tiny ones, six ounces, but still seven for a buck. We had earned our beer money mowing lawns and bagging groceries, saving up for that one big week where we'd rent a house, hit the beach and then crowd into the Anchorage. And there, inside a side room, Ralph the bartender held court, he was mustached, he was mysterious, he dressed in aviator goggles on kamikaze night, he wore a grass skirt on Hawaiian night. But late at night, when that season's disco hit would crank from the jukebox, Donna Summer's "Last Dance," the crowd would chant for Ralph to dance on the bar and he would always wave us off, no, I'm not going to do it tonight, not tonight. And then, perfectly timed, just as the song reached its upbeat tempo, he would leap onto the bar amidst all the empty six ounce glasses and he would dance.

And we would go nuts. Now, if you ask me, when was America great? I would say right then and there, hot summer nights, 1978, the Anchorage Tavern in Somers Point, New Jersey. And it turns out I'm not alone. Last year the Washington Post asked Americans, when was America great?

The answers varied by age and background, but a pattern emerged. Our personal Golden Age often lines up with when the music mattered most to us, usually in our late teens. Today, America faces a crisis of nostalgia. Too many feel that the best days are behind us. When we think of American greatness, very few are seeing the here and now.

And that feeling has consequences, consequences culturally, personally, politically. One person has, of course, tapped into this yearning for yesteryear, that would be President Donald Trump. Only for him, it's not about the music. You would think that he might agree with me about 1978 after all, the year that I was watching Ralph the bartender dance to Donna Summer, Trump's real estate career took a giant leap when he converted the old Commodore Hotel in New York City. It was the deal that put Trump on the Manhattan map.

But Trump is wistful for another time of American greatness. He's praised President William McKinley and the Gilded Age, the late 19th century, a time of economic protectionism and expansion, industrial might and territorial ambition, but also inequality, corruption and hardship. But just like my memory of the Anchorage skips over the stagflation and the gas lines of the late 70s, Trump skips the grime of the Gilded Age. And I get it, no era is perfect. But I think that my glory days are closer to American greatness.

And I'm here today to argue that if we're serious about restoring American greatness, it won't be by means diplomatic or economic, protectionist or globalist, Keynesian or market based. It'll be through something that really did exist in the late 1970s, although it was already starting to fade. See, then, we were still joiners, churches, synagogues, civic clubs, bowling leagues, our parents were engaged locally.

Harvard's Robert Putnam called the result of all this belonging social capital. And in his book, "Bowling Alone," he showed how civic engagement began to decline right around the time that I was at the Anchorage. And that alienation has only increased in recent years, now, fueled by high speed Internet. They may call it connectivity, but the social scientists, they think that it's done a great deal to disconnect us. Today we're lonelier, we're angrier, we're more segregated despite being connected online.

[09:05:08]

The Internet has actually fueled self-sorting. Consider this, in 1980, just 13 percent of U.S. counties were landslide wins for either presidential candidate. In 2024, it was over 80 percent. We've gone our separate ways for media consumption and political affinity. Separated ourselves into Cracker Barrel or Whole Foods bubbles, like David Wasserman has documented at the Cook Political Report.

In my Anchorage era, compromise wasn't a dirty word. Politicians could still reach across the aisle. Important laws were passed with bipartisan support because the public wasn't dead set one side or the other. It wasn't red or blue, it was red, white and blue. In 1964, Democrat LBJ won 44 states in the presidential election.

Just eight years later, Richard Nixon won 49. Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984. Those days are over. In 2024, there were only seven swing states to be had, the other 43 states were so settled, red or blue, that the candidates mostly avoided them. Young people are paying the price for this division and disengagement.

Depression, anxiety, social isolation, not to mention economic. Harvard economist Raj Chetty found that cross class friendships are a top predictor of upward mobility. But if we're not meeting in person, we're not rising.

Even our workforce is suffering. Many well-paying manufacturing jobs go unfilled not because they're unavailable, but because young men are disconnected from work and from each other. And young women are feeling the strain to rising success for some but fewer suitable partners overall. As NYU Scott Galloway says, men need guardrails and connection, real human connection, to feel complete. And it's actually this vicious cycle without connection.

Men are not motivated to put on a tie and meet women. And women don't want to connect with unmotivated men who spend too much time gaming and surfing for porn. The more that young people feel boxed out of what we told them was the American dream, the more their own resentment and sense of lost opportunity intensifies. They don't think that America is great, no matter what the music might be.

Partisan media mouthpieces have undue influence over primary voters, masking that Americans aren't actually that far apart on fundamental issues. Stanford's Morris Fiorina has documented that since my glory days, there really hasn't been a significant change in opinions held by Americans on fundamental issues. While we haven't changed, the parties have. They've grown more extremely. Which helps explain why in the latest Gallup poll on party identification, it found that an all- time high 43 percent say they are Independents.

Next July 4th is going to be a milestone. Our nation will turn 250 years old at a time when many are considering whether we can keep the Republic. Thank you, Dr. Franklin. I say we make America great again by mingling, by reconnecting. Not just by posting a greeting to a high school classmate on Facebook, but in person, at the office, in our neighborhoods, in houses of worship, little league games, volunteer programs, national service, military or not, student exchanges, local newspapers, community playhouses, theaters, concert halls, even if you can stream it.

And this weekend by watching fireworks in person, not on our computers or television sets. Or maybe in a sweaty beach bar, cheering for a bartender wearing aviator glasses to climb on the bar amidst empty six ounce glasses and dance to a disco hit as you revel with strangers who've suddenly become your best friends. On this July 4th weekend, go find your own tavern, that place that cuts across party, race and ideology and reminds us what it means to simply be American, even if the beers aren't still seven for a dollar.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, will the United States endure for the next 250 years?

[09:09:28]

Up ahead, a breakthrough in IVF is allowing parents to screen and rank their embryos based on hair color, eye color, projected IQ scores. Do parents have the right to be selective or is this modern technology crossing bioethical lines?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: We're no longer in the realm of science fiction. The International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy and several other scientific organizations are calling for a 10-year ban in human genetic editing. Dr. Bruce Levine, a professor for cancer gene therapy at the University of Pennsylvania, writes, "Germline editing has very serious safety concerns that could have irreversible consequences. We simply lack the tools to make it safe now and for at least the next 10 years."

This comes as new software from a company called Nucleus Genomics is giving IVF patients the ability to screen and rank embryos with unprecedented precision. How? They break down the full genetic profile of each embryo in a dashboard just like this that can show up to 900 diseases from cancer and Alzheimer's to schizophrenia and asthma, alongside non-medical traits like height, eye color, even markers related to IQ. Parents can upload up to 20 embryo DNA files and sort by whatever attributes they care about most. The company calls it genetic optimization.

[09:14:58]

Its CEO, Kian Sadeghi, is a 25-year-old. A 25-year-old who raised millions from tech investors like Peter Thiel and Alexis Ohanian. Sadeghi told the Wall Street Journal that his company, quote, "Is about living a longer, healthier life." But the broader implications are these, it's not just about avoiding Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis, it's about deciding who gets to be born.

Newsweek reports that users are already comparing embryos by projected IQ, BMI, and likelihood of mental illness. Critics say this crosses into modern eugenics. You're not just editing genes, but discarding the embryos that don't meet certain standards. And as reasons Liz Wolfe writes, this isn't about Baby Mozart anymore, it's about a world where parental choice intersects with Silicon Valley hubris and deeply personal ethics. All this taking place in an area that's largely unregulated.

There are no federal laws that prohibit polygenic embryo screening. And while many in the longevity movement, including Sadeghi, described this as empowering, ethicists warn it could lead to a society that values perfection over personhood.

Joining us now is someone who's been thinking about these issues for literally decades, Dr. Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine.

Dr. Caplan, great to see you. You've been teaching about this potential for literally 40 years.

ARTHUR CAPLAN, HEAD, DIVISION OF MEDICAL ETHICS, NYU SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Well, you could look forward, Michael, ever since the mapping of the human genome where we had scientists figure out all of the genes locations that are on our genes, which are in every cell that took place 23 years ago. And once that map was made, then you start to look for associations between those little genes and our traits and behaviors and attributes. And so it doesn't take -- sorry about impugning myself, but it doesn't take a big genius to figure out that people are going to be interested, some, in saying, hey, let's use this knowledge we have about the role our genes play and who we are to improve ourselves.

SMERCONISH: If it's cancer, if it's heart disease, you know, I'm sure we all cheer it on. It gets creepy when it's hair or eye color or some of these other characteristics. Where is that line? Where should that line be? And how do we get there?

CAPLAN: I want to mention one trait that is in this Nucleus website. They talk about being able to get rid of insomnia. And I just did a little check, people who have suffered from and announced their insomnia range from George Clooney to Madonna to Ernest Hemingway to Marcel Proust and indeed your friend and mine, Dr. Franklin, Ben Franklin, was a notorious insomniac so all of a sudden, you've got a lot of dispute about, well, what are the traits that we want to say are the best? What are the traits that really will contribute to a happy life? What are the traits that are going to allow us to make progress in the future?

And I'm going to say we don't have consensus about that. Now, I'm even going to go further, while genes play a role in all this, they're not determinative. You know, Michael, if you look at a family, same parents, same gene sets, same environment, same upbringing, the kids don't all turn out the same. Clearly environment and if you will, development in the womb, they play a key role in who we are, too. So this genetic reductionism that's around, I think, in combination with uncertainty about, let's say, what the best traits are, they really give me ethical pause.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Caplan, your son or grandson might not want to be in the NBA, right? I mean, there's also these decisions that are being made by parents that are going to determine their offspring and apply to them for the rest of their lives that may not pan out the way they had intended.

CAPLAN: Well, what Nucleus, the company says, is, hey, let us genetically test potential mates. We'll see what kind of kids you might create. Nucleus says, let's sort through embryos and look at their traits. Now all of a sudden, you're thinking, is this really fair to the offspring? Raising huge expectations.

You're going to be a quarterback, you're going to be a violinist, you're going to be some sort of bioethicist, a horrific future for most, you find yourself thinking, you're not letting a kid be a kid. You're not letting the kid have what I call an open future. They get to make decisions about what they want to be, what kind of person they want to be. So things that restrict the freedom of children and grandchildren, don't let them lead the lives they want. They really seem to be way outside the ethical boundaries of what we owe our kids.

Sure, we want them healthier, but I don't think we want to necessarily just put them on a narrow track.

[09:20:02]

Let me add one other thing, Michael. I know you're very concerned about unity in this country and social mingling, a lot of the impulse behind this effort to get to genetic optimization

comes from billionaires who are saying, we don't trust this country, we don't trust ourselves to get along and have a rosy future, we're going to go to Mars, select the right people to go there and then breed the right kind of geniuses to take on the future problems of humanity. In other words, there's a whole eugenics movement here that's built on distrust of where we are today.

SMERCONISH: A word that I should have used sooner, access. There are a lot of access issues surrounding this topic.

Dr. Caplan, some social media that I want you to help me respond to. Put it up on the screen. Will genetic engineering reduce human genetic diversity in some unforeseen way that will -- that will undermine human persistence, i.e., from a species rather than an individual perspective. Will genetic engineering enhance the survival of our species? Your thought on that is what?

CAPLAN: Well, it very well could, depending on people's proclivity to choose a pretty narrow range of traits or ways we appear or how we behave. I'll tell you what the defenders say, we'll just have to have a gigantic embryo bank with all the variability stored somewhere in case we need it.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Caplan, thanks as always for being here. It's a fascinating subject.

CAPLAN: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: I want to remind everybody, go to my website this hour at smerconish.com. Cast a ballot on our 4th of July ish question, will the United States endure for the next 250 years? Next July 4th, we'll be celebrating that birthday.

Still to come, the Trump administration wants to offer every newborn in the U.S. 1000 bucks to get ahead in life. But will this national baby bond program lead to brighter futures for children in poverty? Make sure you're signing up for my newsletter at smerconish.com for which Jack Ohman drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:26:39]

SMERCONISH: Will President Trump's pro family initiative help young Americans climb out of poverty? The Trump administration wants to provide every child born in the U.S. in the next four years with a one-time government contribution of $1,000. It would go into a tax free investment account which he'd like called the Trump Accounts. Family members can make annual contributions to the child's Trump Account as long as they don't exceed more than $5,000 a year. Young adults can access those funds at age 18 to pay off expenses for higher education, buying a home or starting a small business.

Some parts of the country like California, Connecticut, Washington, D.C. have already implemented their own versions of this initiative, widely known as baby bond programs. But those policies narrowly focus on children who lost their parents during the pandemic or come from lower income households while President Trump's baby bond plan would apply to every family rich or poor.

My next guest was the first to pitch the idea of baby bonds more than a quarter century ago. He and many critics argue that Trump accounts are not a serious solution to confronting generational child poverty or reducing the nation's wealth inequality gap.

Joining me now is Darrick Hamilton, the chief economist for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at the New School. He's also the co-author of this Washington Post op-ed with the headline "Trump Accounts Will Save Kids? Republicans can't be serious."

So, thanks for being here. Twenty-five years ago, you had the idea. What was the purpose? What were you trying to do?

DARRICK HAMILTON, CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS: I mean, the simple purpose is to democratize access to wealth and all the capabilities that come along with it. The exclusive dominion of access to wealth should not be reserved for the wealthy. That's the simple point.

SMERCONISH: And what's the opposition, the basis of the opposition that you have to the way Trump is proposing doing something similar?

HAMILTON: I mean, it's regressive by design. It's more akin to the 529 savings accounts than it is to baby bonds. In order to build up the endowment to ensure that when a young child becomes an adult and has some capital to become a homeowner or to get an education without debt or just some capital to start a business, the Trump version -- excuse me, the Trump version relies on basically a tax subsidy through savings behavior. The problem of wealth inequality in America isn't behavioral, it is structural. Many -- the vast majority of Americans are born with low wealth, and when they become an adult, they simply don't have the down payment necessary compared to those that might be born into more affluent families. So the emphasis should be more on endowment rather than savings.

SMERCONISH: Let me see if I understand.

HAMILTON: In fact --

SMERCONISH: So, by his plan -- by his plan, every newborn gets $1,000. But I think what you're telling me is that in the case of those at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, that thousand dollars, it may compound, but there won't be more contributions made to it. Meanwhile, those families that are wealthier, like a 529, are going to probably keep feeding it. And when each of these kids gets to be 18 years old, one is going to be in a much stronger financial position than the other, perpetuating the income inequality that we have today. Did I get that right?

HAMILTON: I mean, you got it exactly right. The $1,000 seed is not the problem. I mean, that promotes a stakeholder society. That's consistent with a lot of the things that you mentioned earlier in the program where we promote solidarity across America, not the politics of division. What is problematic is the delivery of it such that when the children get old, the $1,000 seed alone is not going to be nearly enough to put somebody with enough down payment to get into a home, for example. But rather --

SMERCONISH: OK. Professor, I'm -- I'm giving you the magic sharpie. Here it is. And I'm allowing Darrick Hamilton to write the plan. How would it operate?

HAMILTON: Start with the $1,000 seed, and then every year, invest in the accounts such that those that have the lowest levels of income, the lowest levels of wealth will get a higher contribution from government similar to Social Security, one of the best public policies that we have. More aligned with how we generated wealth in the past with things like the G.I. bill, for example, so that it is progressively seeded when the child becomes an adult. Everybody has the investment so that they can get into something like homeownership, owning a business, again, education without a debt, so that they too can benefit from the work of their -- all their efforts and their ingenuity and not be vulnerable to exploitation, not be vulnerable to somebody's charity.

Basically, I'm promoting investments in children, but to do it in a way that authentically invests in children, not be distracted with these essential tax shelters for those people that already have resources to begin with.

SMERCONISH: Quick final question, how can a country $37 trillion in debt afford this?

HAMILTON: Oh, certainly, we already invest in asset promotion. The problem is to whom. The bottom 50 percent of receivers of income earners in our tax code receive about five percent of the tax provisions that promote assets for the vast majority of Americans.

So, you know, the Booker and Ayanna Pressley version of Baby Bonds cost about $60 billion. It sounds like a big number. It's about less than one percent of what we currently spend, and far less than about the 800 billion plus that we already spend on promoting asset development.

But again, just to put it simple, the question is for whom. So, a redistribution of what we're already spending in a more progressive way will give all Americans the opportunity to build wealth.

SMERCONISH: Professor Darrick Hamilton, thank you so much for your expertise.

HAMILTON: Thank you, sir.

SMERCONISH: And everybody at home hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X.

No. Advise parents to do so. Gerber has a similar thing. Leave it to the parents, not the government.

Right, Danny. But Professor Hamilton would say to you, the parents don't have the scratch, and we're trying to give a leg up to those individuals who right now are trapped in poverty and might not escape that cycle unless we have some creative thinking and investment on their behalf. It's going to be very interesting to see the way this play -- I think it's a fascinating issue, and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

I think -- my own view. Let's start with everybody getting the $1,000 but incentivize more the benefits that could be given to those at the lowest end of the ladder because, I get his point, otherwise, when everybody gets to 18 that's the way it looks.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Plus, are streaming services, paywalls and T.V. bundles making it too expensive to watch and enjoy live sports. The answer to how much it costs today to be a sports fan is next.

Please make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will the United States endure for the next 250 years?

Subscribe to my free and worthy daily newsletter while you're there. You'll get the work of exclusive editorial cartoons like this from Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:38:51]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. This comes from the world of X. Follow me on X, formerly Twitter.

Smerconish, with Trump I'm hoping we endure another 250 days.

I get it. It's -- it's an exhausting news cycle. You know, I always tell the stories about how previously, when I began here at CNN a decade ago, more than a decade ago, if you can believe this, we would record the program on a Friday and it would air Saturday morning and stand up to being replayed Saturday afternoon.

What changed that? Two words, Donald Trump. You know, gone are the days of a slow news day on his watch. It just doesn't happen anymore. So, I understand.

More social media. What else came in during the course of the program?

The reason being -- OK, this is yes to the question of will we endure for the next 250 years? Yes. The reason being, we enjoy our freedom. There's no other country on the planet that you have as much freedom as you do here, especially with the First Amendment. Most countries do not allow anything like that which is tolerated here. So, Mike says, because of, you know, the bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution, namely, the First Amendment, that's going to be our saving grace.

[09:40:05]

You know, I have to say, feeling patriotic at this time of year in recognition of the nation's birthday, I often think, could you -- could you gather any collection of young men, they were young men, who are in their 20s, and put them in a room and have them hash out a document like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution to the United States?

It's really rather remarkable. And the document that they created, I think, has been key to the enduring nature of the country. Hopefully, it continues for at least another 250 years. One more social media if I have time for it. I think that I do.

Smerconish, I think there is a difference between testing for genetic defects and trying to alter genes. Trying to alter genes is horrifying. Eliminating genetic defects is advancement.

Right, I get it, except what if we're evaluating -- what if we're evaluating what the genetic -- I'm not to -- I want to be careful with my words so that I don't misstate something. We're evaluating the genetic characteristics that are known to us.

And now a decision is being made as to which embryos will be made viable based on eye color or hair color, or height, or -- you know, certain of the other superficial characteristics. That's -- that's when, for me, it moves beyond the wise and the preventative into the realm of eugenics. It's scary stuff.

It could be wonderful stuff, but it's also scary. And where exactly that line may last. And how about the fact that it's largely unregulated? And I wonder, I should have asked Dr. Caplan, is it too late for regulation now? I mean, it's almost like reining in nuclear weapons. You know, how do you do that if North Korea decides to go in its own direction, or Iran?

I want to remind you, make sure you're going to Smerconish.com and voting on our July 4th weekend poll question. Will the United States endure for the next 250 years? Ahead, does streaming live sports ruin the opportunity for more Americans to, well, mingle? We're tackling that issue, and why the shared experience of American sports might be crumbling.

When you're voting on the poll question, will you please sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter? For different editorial cartoonists draw one day a week exclusively for my newsletter, and they include, you're looking at him Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:46:54] SMERCONISH: Four thousand seven hundred and eighty-five dollars, that's how much it costs to be a sports fan a year these days. According to my next guest, buying a ticket from each of the four major league sports, two jerseys, two hats, cable T.V., high speed internet access, and subscribing to multiple streaming platforms could easily raise your expenses to that figure. Back in 2004, the same passion and access to live sports had a price tag of roughly $1,300 annually, which means that the cost of being a sports fan today rose by 262 percent.

For decades, sports played a unifying force in this country. Strangers could rush into a local bar and watch a game that was broadcast on basic cable. But my next guest argues that shared American experience of watching live sports is crumbling.

Joining me now is Joon Lee, an independent sports journalist. His work has been featured on ESPN and the Bleacher Report. He's the author of a terrific op-ed that ran in the "New York Times" titled "$4,785, That's How Much It Costs to Be a Sports Fan Now." Thanks so much for being here, Joon. What's driving this escalation?

JOON LEE, FOUNDER, MORNING ANNOUNCEMENTS: And part of it is the shift that we're seeing from the cable bundle to the age of the internet and streaming. I think part of that is that the leagues, during that transition, are trying to maximize the amount of money that they're making as possible, and they're relying as a result on the loyalty of sports fans. They're relying on the fact that people who follow their favorite sports teams can't get enough of their favorite sports teams. And when you tie in the rise of sports gambling into all of that, they're trying to squeeze out every single little last dollar they can out of sports fans to maximize the amount of money that they're making on a year-to-year basis as these sports leagues across the United States are having these global ambitions to grow around the world.

So, as they're trying to market their sports and their leagues around the world, they need as much cash as possible. And so, as a result, the sports fan is the one who's getting the short end.

SMERCONISH: The Celtics sold for $6 billion and the Lakers for 10. Can those figures be justified?

LEE: Yes, because this is all kind of based on this speculation around where sports is going to be going over the course of the next two decades. There's a lot of conversation in D.C. right now about how sports can be used as a vehicle for marketing American soft power.

And given the success of the English Premier League in the United States and growing among especially young fans as it currently stands for fans under the age of 35 years old, the EPL is as popular as Major League Baseball, which seems kind of ludicrous given, you know, America's standing as -- baseball standing as America's favorite pastime.

And so, we're seeing this shift already happen in the United States. And Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA, they're looking at the success of global soccer around the world becoming popular in the U.S. and hoping that they can get a chunk of that as well.

And so, while many sports teams may not make as much money on a year- to-year basis as a business of that kind of profit margin, revenue might justify, they're banking on this speculation around the international global growth of sports to maximize and shoot up these valuations for these sports teams.

[09:50:15]

SMERCONISH: Joon, I'm worried not only about the financial cost, but also the societal cost. Something you wrote I'm going to read aloud.

The result isn't just inconvenient. It's lonely. As access shatters, rituals vanish, as do the moments that make sports communal, a bar full of strangers cheering for the same team, the generational ties passed down through the seasons. Those experiences fade under a system that dictates that the more you can pay, the more you can see until the game disappears behind another paywall. Expand on that.

LEE: We're living in a time where there's so few things that people can actually talk about at the water cooler with a stranger on the subway, and sports is one of those last things that people could actually come around, because it's something that happens in the real world. It's a current event, and it's not one of those things like a television show where those all used to be on the same broadcast network, and now everyone almost seems to be watching a different T.V. show. I don't know how many conversations I've had with a friend where they'll bring up a T.V. show that I've never even heard of.

Sports is one of those last things that everyone is still kind of following in the same way. And because of the way that the leagues are trying to maximize the amount of money they're making from sports fans through these subscription services, it's also just cracking the community that we see around these teams.

I've had multiple friends come up to me about how they want to go to a sports bar, and they've actually had to log in to their own YouTube T.V. account or some streaming service because the bar isn't able to actually stream those games. And when people can't take those moments for granted that you can just go to a sports bar and watch whatever big game might be on TV, those habits, those small habits, start to fade over time. And as a result, it's hurting sports bars across the country.

SMERCONISH: I so applaud you for making that point. Just a quick final thought from me. I can't find stuff when I want to watch something. You know, gone are the -- now I'm going to sound like the alter kaker here. But gone are the days when you knew on what channel you'd find the hockey game, the baseball game, the basketball game or the football game. It's not only do we not watch the same shows, but we can't keep up with all the changes in terms of where we can go to watch more.

Thank you. The piece was great. I hope people will Google it and read it, and appreciate you being here.

LEE: Thanks for having me on.

SMERCONISH: Checking in now on your social media comments. You can follow me on X and all the usual platforms.

Tough to complain when people keep paying the outrageous prices.

Yes, I wonder for how much longer people will pay those outrageous prices. I mean, I have a new year's resolution that I have yet to deliver on, which is to go through, with a fine-tooth comb my computer -- my streaming bills, because I am a sucker. This is not sports per se, but the same subject. I am a sucker for, you know, wanting to watch a T.V. show and I subscribe and then I forget to cancel thereafter. And I'm subscribed all over the place. And you're right, it's like a mortgage payment.

Remember, you still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will the United States -- remember now, a year from now, will celebrate our 250th birthday. Will the United States endure for the next 250 years? When you're there, sign up for my newsletter. You're going to get the work of illustrators that include Steve Breen, who drew this for the fourth.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:11]

SMERCONISH: Hey, don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will the United States endure for the next 250 years?

Checking in on social media reaction to today's program. It includes the following.

Doubtful. The debt, the poison politics, a combination of both will end the experiment. Something else will emerge from it.

I hope that you're wrong, Daron. I'm sure -- I hope that you probably wish to be incorrect in that. I go back to my opening commentary on the program today. What I think most ails us is our disconnect and that which is the best prescription for the country is to reengage.

I don't have a better word, and I borrowed it from Bill Maher, the mingling word. But we need to mingle. We need to get out of our bubbles, associate, spend time with people who don't look like us, who don't come from the same background and have what's most lacking, oddly in a world where everybody's connected, is social connection.

That's what we need to do. That's the solution as I see it. More social media reaction to today's program.

Michael, Steven Hawking thought the whole planet had only 100 years to go -- when did he say that -- because of nuclear weapons. He said, we are like children playing with matches. So, no --

By the way, a very timely observation given the last couple of weeks of news. So, no, the USA will not go on for another 250 years. I'm tempted to say, Michael, OK, if it's going to be -- I mean, there's so many threats that we face that are potentially existential, but if it's going to be a nuke, what makes you think it's the United States that that doesn't last and not some other nation? Scary thoughts. Scary thoughts.

Yes. Get out of your bubble this weekend. Maybe you've already watched fireworks. Go watch some more fireworks. Don't just watch them on T.V.

[10:00:02]

Get out beyond the computer and spend time with folks who are different than you. That's the best that I can offer in terms of how we ensure that the country does exist 250 years from now. It's a great experiment. So far, it's turning out quite well despite our deficiencies. So, here's hoping it lasts another 250.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere -- yes, listen, anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.