You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM six forty, and this
is KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here. On Monday, July eighth,
Hurricane Barrel has made landfall in Texas Category one, not good news for the
coastline. Fifteen inches of rain in certain places as well as a storm surge
of up to seven feet. Also a quick reminder, if you want to
join Neil and I, we're going to be the Anaheim White House this Sunday
celebrating Bastiele Day. And there's a very special French dinner as you can imagine
at the Anaheim White House, and we're going to be there. And one
of the appetizer choices you have three is it happens to be frog legs,
which is actually very appropriate if you think that one through. Okay, now
let's move on to matter of fact. Here is a food topic, and
that is sugary foods, which we talked about many times, how horrible it
is. Neil has talked about it on the Fork Report heard two to five
o'clock on Saturdays here on KFI. And what the scientists who have really gone
into this have said that there is something legitimately called a food addiction, and
a growing number of children, more and more are addicted to ultra processed foods.
We're talking fourteen percent of adults clinically addicted to food coming in from childhood.
Now, let me give you a comparison. Ten point five percent of
Americans twelve or older were diagnosed with alcohol addiction, fourteen percent with a sugar
addiction. And it gets worse. You grab it early on when the parents
give you all kinds of this sugary crap and process foods, and it goes
into adolescents where it gets worse. And the science behind it is ultra process
foods can hijack a young brains reward circuitry, putting the primitive reptilian brain,
which is what we share a lot on the show, or the amygdala,
the amygdala, I guess in charge bypassing the prefrontal cortex. I know it's
a little bit wonky here where rational decision making occurs, which of course doesn't
exist on this show because of ultra processed food. Maybe it has a lot
to do with frozen burritos at Costco, which is pretty ultra process to say
the least. And this is about a lot of salt, a lot of
sugar, which unfortunately poor people engage in more than people that are wealthier.
Because poor people inner city, various minorities seeoeconomic neighborhoods well good quality, good
quality protein, and food is expensive. Fresh food is expensive where crap food
is cheap, and crap food very scientific. The way they serve you go
to a burger place, you go to one of the big ones McDonald or
Burger Kinge or whatever. That's science set work. The amount of sugar,
the amount of fat. I mean, this is real, real science where
you become addicted to that. Neil. You've talked about this before and they
have developed this the optimum level of sugar, salt, fat. So kids
are addicted. When you talk about I'm addicted to McDonald's, it's true,
you are. You know what's even crazier than that is chips and other We
are not only addicted and have responses to sugar, to fat, to salt,
we also have responses to sounds. So they actually can tell by making
things a certain crispiness and the sound it makes when we crunch into a potato
chip, that we will respond to the sound of the potato chip. We
respond to to the sensations of eating, you know, having a candy bar
and going through the softness of the caramel, to the kind of firmness of
the chocolate on the outside, to the nuts and things, all of it.
It's not it's all the sensations that they play on, and there is
a massive science behind it. And this translates because it starts very early.
Kids five six, seven years old become addicted fourteen percent by the time they're
adults. I mean, you're not, but you're not a big sweet guy.
No, that's not yet. My son is the same way. I'm
a safe I'm a savory guy. But it's processed. It's crap. I'd
much rather have a frozen burrito than even a fresh burrito at a good Mexican
restaurant, which is a lot of money. Yeah. Well, the sodium
in those and some of the preservatives are the things you're wrestling against, whereas
sugar, most of the sugar type items really have very little nutritional backing or
backbone at all. Yeah. But how many kids, well, let me
ask you this, how many kids out there? And this is for parents,
and when you had young kids and they were fanatic about McDonald's at the
age of seven or eight, Let's go to McDonald's. They are addicted.
I mean, oh, that's one of the biggest treats you can give a
kid, is McDonald's. An event at McDonald's. Let's go to McDonald's.
It's a reward. The hardest thing is fitting the little junior cheeseburgers into one
of those IV bags. Yeah, but they're able to do it. Okay,
Now people stuck in their jobs and bosses are starting to worry because they're
losing people who are stuck after a bunch of years. And the white collar
labor market is cooling right now. And it's said there's white collar versus blue
collar, which everybody knows excepting Yemen. There they differentiate white cholera versus blue
cholera. So what is going on in order to keep these strong people that
employers want to keep and they're just stuck in their jobs. Well, what
they used to do is if you felt stuck, you got promoted same job.
You now become a vice president in charge of the same job. You
didn't get another raise, that's for sure. And have they done this a
few times? Here? Oh, I don't know. Here at iHeart.
Do they ever do that? Well, you go to your bank. How
many vice presidents? You think they're at a bank? Half the people at
the branches are vice presidents. Well, that used to work, and it
doesn't anymore. So. Chief executive of one of the big companies, Exact
Science actually and they make Colo Guard, which is a huge company. He
talks about the good people he wants to keep and the very best people.
They want new experiences, they want a career path, they want to be
promoted. And so what are they doing. They're allowing people, these high
end employees to switch jobs, to go to another job for a few months
or a year, which seems to be working, although I question this.
You have let's say someone has developed the skill set that may take years,
and all of a sudden you sort of get bored. You've done it.
I mean, I've been doing this show for well this month, it's thirty
one years. Do I want another job? Am I bored? Well?
No, But wouldn't it be kind of fun for me to switch jobs,
for example, being a janitor for eight months? Okay, maybe not,
Neil, that was a bad analogy. But the point is is that people,
especially in corporations, I mean, we're obviously outliers here, and there
are people that just absolutely love their jobs, but those are relatively few and
far between. So the corporations are experimenting. There is something called regrettable turnover
where people leave. People that the companies want to stay, want them to
stay, they leave, and that is a regrettable turnover. And here is
the issue. More and more people want to switch jobs within a company because
they like the company, they're getting paid. There's little less room to move
around because people keep their jobs Now. It used to be and probably a
couple of years ago, particularly in tech, you could walk across the street
and get twenty percent more money, and then the first job offers you twenty
percent more money than that you walk back across the street, especially if you
are a high tech, highly skilled employee. Well, those jobs are fewer
and fewer that are available. A Companysyncresy or Synchrony Financial twenty thousand people.
They experimented with job swaps within a range of departments, including tech, credit,
and finance. And at that company, employee in one role can switch
with a colleague elsewhere for as little as ninety days to a year or more.
And according to the CEO, These employees are building a new skill set
and experience. I don't understand that because the higher the skill level you have,
isn't the higher the training, the longer it takes. And are you
actually going to move someone from finance to tech? And I guess the philosophy
is that makes that person even more more valuable if you have multiple skills.
Well, I think that's the case here, Neil. Isn't it the more
skill set you have, the higher the skill set, the more valuable you
are, and the chances of you being canned are less than you just have
one job. That's the philosophy. Well, that was the philosophy for a
long time. But they're finding that newer jobs or newer mindset is that some
people that are, you know, busting their hump and doing all kinds of
things aren't necessarily getting rewarded for it either. Yeah, but you know,
so that's when they leave. I was talking to you to my wife the
other day, who used to work at KFI, was a screener for you
as well, and we were talking about how in the early days at KFI,
you had to do everything. You had to run a board, you
had to be able to screen. You had to be able you were part
of promotions even if you were, you know, a producer or something,
and that that made you the best employee possible. And so today you really
do need simple a different skill set. You have to be able to run
a board. Uh, you have to be able to be a producer.
You have to be able to do promotions all at the exact same time.
And that takes a real skilled person. It's like a small town with the
judge, the justice of the peace to the share for all the same Yeah,
pretty much time for do they have a case with Wayne Resnick that we
do every single Monday. Wayne, good morning and let's get to work.
You got it. Now, this incident was in the news back when it
happens now it's the subject of an appeals case. This guy and his fiance
and their baby pull into a strip mall here in La. Guy goes inside,
then another guy comes in his car double parks behind them, gets out
forgot to set the parking brake. His car rolls hits the first car.
The first guy comes out and punches the second guy punches him and screams at
him, my baby's in that car, how dare you? And the other
guy says, dude, I'll take care of it. I eat insurance,
I have insurance. Nobody was hurt. So the second guy who got punched
gets in his car. He says, I don't want to fight, gets
in his car, drives away. They drive away. Two minutes later.
Guess what happens? Do you want to guess what happens? On the road.
Some road rage and one lens into the other. Uh. Even worse,
the guy who got punched pulls up alongside the car with the guy who
punched him. Bang bang bang bang bang bang, And the guy who punched
him ends up dead at the hospital. So the cops come. They arrest
mister shooter. He invokes his Miranda rights. I don't want to talk to
you without a lawyer, okay. So they put him in a jail cell,
and unbeknownst to the guy, they also put in the jail cell a
confidential informant pretending to be another inmate, and they get to talking and this
sky says something. He denies that he did the shooting, but he says
some things that orally only the person who did the shooting could know, like
that the shooting took place two minutes after the car bump in the strip mall,
or the fact that the shots were fired out of the left window not
the right window. So based on this, and they get some forensic evidence,
they get some ammunition that matches and stuff like that, and they put
him on trial and he says, you have to suppress what I said in
that jail cell because I had invoked by Miranda rights. And the judge says,
no, we don't, that's not what Miranda means. He gets convicted.
He appeals goes all the way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and the basic argument that the government has is that Miranda says you are
protected from coercion by police, which it means you have to know their police,
because if you don't know, how can you feel coerced if you don't
know that you're talking to the police, And that it is not a violation
of Miranda to use subterfuge or trickery. Miranda protects you against coercion, not
trickery. And there is a Supreme Court case that basically says that this guy
says, well, somehow this is different, is it? No, it
is not different, because invoking the Miranda rights is talking to authorities, and
I will not talk to you unless I have a lawyer telling a sell me
what you've done or giving him information is not protected, and trickery is absolutely
allowed. Sitting in a jail cell or sitting in a in a room where
you're being interrogated with your buddy has already said that the two of you did
this, and he is flipping and you're gonna get in trouble, and he
caught you in a lie, all of it made up by the cops,
allowed under the law. So he's got no place to go. Yeah,
he lost at the local court, he lost at the California Supreme State Appeals
Court, he lost on a habeas at the federal district level, and he
loses at the Ninth Circuit. Yeah, forty years for a second degree murder.
Yeah. You can't shoot someone that you sort of get upset about.
It's not a good thing, especially since it's not self defense. It's just
I'm really pissed off at you, so I'm going to air conditioning. You
put some holes in your body. Okay. So I think that these I
think the story here, or I think the con here is that trickery is
allowed. Their sub refuge is allowed. So when you see TV shows or
movies when people are sitting and being interrogated and a cop makes up facts,
that's allowed under the law. Here's a case of Gabrielle Barbour who gets hired
by the FBI. But you know, when you get hired it's provisional.
You have to go through all the training successfully. So she starts training at
Quantico. She meets all the job requirements, she aces all the written exams.
She gets the highest score on the physical exams and the fitness exams,
I mean, the highest score of anyone, including all the dudes. She
also sustains what they call when you're training with these agencies and you get a
little ding, they call them a suitability notation. And she gets three of
them. Here's what she supposedly did wrong. One she parked in the wrong
area of the parking lot number two. They had a guest speaker from a
division in the FBI, and he had a reason to send emails to her
and other cadets, and she responded and said she would like to be assigned
to his squad. That's apparently improper and broke the chain of command when submitting
a request for leave The other thing that apparently happened is a lot of sexual
harassment of her as well as of other female cadets, leading to the filing
of a class action lawsuit against the FBI for sexual harassment. Now she quits,
but she's part of this lawsuit. A little while later, the DEA
reaches out to her and says, hey, we'd like you to apply for
this fast track program. Why don't you come be with the DEA. She's
like, all right, very good, and she does all the stuff,
and then the DEA background investigator calls her and only wants to talk about the
sexual harassment suit that she's part of against the FBI, and then they stop
communicating with her, and she eventually finds out that they have declined to advance
her application. So she sues now the DEA, saying, you wouldn't hire
me as retaliation for my First Amendment protected participation in the sexual harassment lawsuit against
the FBI, And the DEA says, no, no, that's not why.
Here's why. When you were at the FBI you got those three dings.
Also, we found out when you were nineteen you were fired from a
pots and pans store called Kitchen kaboodle because they said this is all true.
Meil's already laughing because it is laughable, because they said, you didn't know
enough about the various features of all the different pots and pans, and that
is why. Okay, so you know, Bill, at the pleading stage,
she only has to show that there can be a reasonable inference that what
happened to her not being put through was retaliation. She doesn't have to prove
it was, just that it could be a reasonably at first, so she
goes to the district court, and the district court says, oh, no,
look, you did this, and you did this, and you parked
in the wrong thing, and there were tangible reasons unrelated to your participation in
the lawsuit. And of course she goes now to the four Circuit Court of
Appeals and said, hey, look, it's a reasonable inference given everything that
happened, and particularly the idea that you're not going to hire me because I
parked in the wrong place and didn't know pots and pans when I was nineteen.
But what do you think She's gotta at least show enough that there can
be this reasonable inference, is there? Yeah, of course there's no issue
there especially here's I think the operative fact, and that is that the DEA
only wanted to talk about the sexual harassment suit. I think that is critical.
The rest of it were such minor in fractions that it's ludicrous on its
face, and not knowing enough about the pots and pans. If that's the
basis for the DEA saying no, there is no other reason for the DA
and the FBI to toss her other than I mean, I'm saying it's beyond
just a reasonable inference. I'm saying she's going to prevail at trial, so
she wins. She does win, and now she gets to go back and
have her day in court, and I think a jury of just regular people
are going to see it seems pretty clear. Yeah, absolutely, all right,
Wayne, we'll talk again next Monday with do they have a case?
All right? Have some good phone calls, Okay, any shot up?
Don't call everyone a more on costs up. Not everyone, I'll call some
of them imbeciles. I am taking phone calls for handle on the law off
the air, and I will do that for I don't know, half an
hour, forty five minutes. So when you can't get in on Saturday,
you can do it now eight seven seven five two zero eleven fifty. Eight
seven seven five two zero eleven fifty. And these phone calls go quickly,
no breaks, and mister patience here goes to work. Eight seven seven five
two zero eleven fifty. This is handle on the law. No, it's
not well, it will be handled on the law in the meantime. See,
I'm already thinking in terms of Saturday. This is KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Catch My Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am, and anytime
on demand on the iHeartRadio app.