Speaker 1: You're listening to KFI AM six forty the Bill Handles
Speaker 1: show on demand on the iHeartRadio f kf I AM
Speaker 1: six forty Bill Handle. Oh yes, it is a Monday,
Speaker 1: November fourth, coming up tomorrow, November fifth, Tuesday, and we
Speaker 1: elect a president or not. So here is the real problem,
Speaker 1: and this is crazy. Look at the contradiction here, and
Speaker 1: that is the more careful the election system is, the
Speaker 1: more oversight, the more safeguards are put in place, the
Speaker 1: quicker the recounts are established, and just take it may
Speaker 1: just take longer because of the new rules that are
Speaker 1: set up just to make it safer. Okay, with that
Speaker 1: in mind, here's the contradiction I'm gonna throw at you.
Speaker 1: Taking longer to make sure it it's safe is really
Speaker 1: about taking longer to commit the fraud. It's easier to
Speaker 1: commit fraud when you have more time to commit fraud.
Speaker 1: So therefore it should go quicker. But wait a minute,
Speaker 1: if it goes quicker, then you can't catch the fraud. Wow,
Speaker 1: isn't that special? And unless the polls are completely wrong,
Speaker 1: and they can be because they had been wrong before.
Speaker 1: Look what happened with Hillary and Donald Trump in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: All these changes, the overhaul of election laws since the
Speaker 1: pandemic has put us in a whole new set of rules,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of the problem is the delay,
Speaker 1: which is going to be delayed because of the patchwork
Speaker 1: of rules and how votes are counted, especially in battleground states.
Speaker 1: So it is a double hit. We're going to be
Speaker 1: really careful. We've made it really difficult to commit any
Speaker 1: kind of malfeasons, but it takes time to make sure
Speaker 1: it's all in place, and then of course that gives
Speaker 1: time for us to commit the fraud. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: a custom turning on our TV at least late into
Speaker 1: election night and seeing some kind of winner, you know,
Speaker 1: prediction from one of the networks. Well, that's no longer
Speaker 1: a thing. Change behavior about voters, how we cast our ballots,
Speaker 1: the rules that have changed. When mail ballots, for example,
Speaker 1: can be tallied, you know, when can they be counted
Speaker 1: starting the night of the election, before the election, because
Speaker 1: you can do mail in ballots as long as a
Speaker 1: month before. Can they be counted before that? It's all different.
Speaker 1: By the way, when does that vote count when you
Speaker 1: do a mail in? Is it when it's postmarked? Is
Speaker 1: it when it arrives at the polling center or at
Speaker 1: the counting center. Don't know about that either, different rules,
Speaker 1: different places, and in lawsuits of course are hitting, which
Speaker 1: is going to delay everything. As of yesterday, seventy six
Speaker 1: million Americans have voted, either through mail ballots or in
Speaker 1: person early voting. They set up booths, and several states
Speaker 1: have reported record breaking early returns, including two that are critical,
Speaker 1: Georgia and North Carolina. More than four million Georgians have
Speaker 1: cast ballots as a Friday, much further or much greater
Speaker 1: in numbers than prior elections. Secretary of State Brad Rafinsberger,
Speaker 1: who of course very famous for not caving into Donald
Speaker 1: Trump when Trump said, find me eleven thousand votes, he said,
Speaker 1: Georgia voters, No, We've made it easy to cast a ballot.
Speaker 1: It's just that simple. That's why we have so many
Speaker 1: more people voting California. Not that it matters in the
Speaker 1: presidential because we know Kamala Harrison has it. We now
Speaker 1: use mail in ballots. We send mail in ballots to
Speaker 1: every registered voter. By the way, everybody's register too. If
Speaker 1: you get a driver's license, you're registered. And that also
Speaker 1: happens in the number of battleground states, so it is
Speaker 1: really dicey now. In various states before, for example Georgia,
Speaker 1: they didn't even start counting until all of the votes,
Speaker 1: or didn't start counting until the votes were the last
Speaker 1: day of voting before, which means they started counting. It
Speaker 1: took a little while. There's the conspiracy theories, fraud. Michigan
Speaker 1: was fraud. And if tomorrow's election is going to be close,
Speaker 1: and it's going to be close, be prepared again. The
Speaker 1: lawsuits are already being prepared, They've already been filed. And
Speaker 1: this is why I have such a horrible time with
Speaker 1: this election and the legitimate argument that there really is
Speaker 1: an attack on democracy. There really is. The attack on
Speaker 1: democracy is really simple, and that is those of Trump's supporters,
Speaker 1: not all of them, not all of them, but enough
Speaker 1: of them. And trump position is, we will not have
Speaker 1: a fair election unless he wins. Democracy in this country
Speaker 1: is about bringing Donald Trump back. Not bringing Donald Trump
Speaker 1: back back back is a violation of the Constitution of
Speaker 1: the United States. And unfortunately, so many people, so many
Speaker 1: people believe that. I mean, isn't it possible that we
Speaker 1: have a fair election where the real winner is elected president?
Speaker 1: Not anymore, doesn't exist anymore. That's the part that's so
Speaker 1: depressing for me. Forget about in the policy. I mean,
Speaker 1: I disagree with Trump on reproductive rights. I agree with
Speaker 1: him on a lot of what he does in terms
Speaker 1: of foreign policy. I agree a lot of what he
Speaker 1: does with China. I disagree with Kamala Harris on a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. I mean, you know, taxes are her
Speaker 1: favorite friend. Where she going to get the money to
Speaker 1: do a tenth of what she's saying she's going to
Speaker 1: do without making the bank. That's all BS politics. But
Speaker 1: what isn't BS politics is to argue that we do
Speaker 1: not have fair elections in this country, especially because of
Speaker 1: the accusations, because of votes being so close, all of
Speaker 1: the safeguards. The safer our elections are, and they're getting
Speaker 1: safer and safer more secure, the bigger the argument that
Speaker 1: they are fraudulent to the point where if it can
Speaker 1: be established that virtually every vote is legitimate, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a few there aren't. You got one hundred fifty
Speaker 1: million votes out there. So let's say we set up
Speaker 1: a system where it is so secure, it is so crazy,
Speaker 1: that every vote is counted legitimately that in and of
Speaker 1: itself is fraudulent because Trump loses or if Trump loses,
Speaker 1: you know, there's the attack democracy. Do I care if
Speaker 1: Trump wins or loses? Well, yeah, but you know, I'm
Speaker 1: willing to accept that. You know, yeah, I'm fine with that.
Speaker 1: You know, welcome to America. Like the Supreme Court, people
Speaker 1: are bitching and moaning about the conservative members of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Oh my god, look what he did, three
Speaker 1: member conservative members. Hey, read the constitution, guys. You know,
Speaker 1: a president nominates the Senate confirms what else is going on? Well,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have done that. He's the president. Of course
Speaker 1: he should do that. That's who he is. But the
Speaker 1: rest of it, No free elections in this country unless
Speaker 1: there's a Republican win. That's scary. That is scary. All right. Now,
Speaker 1: let me tell you a group of people that are
Speaker 1: really affected by virtually every local ordinance that's passed, every
Speaker 1: proposition that's passed out there. It seems the homeless people.
Speaker 1: Homeless people are affected, and you know what they don't do.
Speaker 1: They don't vote. And why Well, let's start with home
Speaker 1: homelessness maybe arguably being the biggest problem facing California, certainly
Speaker 1: it is. If you talk to Karen Bass who ran
Speaker 1: on the platform of homelessness. Paul Caruso, her opponent, ran
Speaker 1: a homelessness Gavin Newsom elected on his promise and his
Speaker 1: debt dealing with homelessness his second time out. What was
Speaker 1: the biggest problem in California homelessness? And so the very
Speaker 1: people that are affected about being affected by being homeless,
Speaker 1: who happen to be the homeless, they don't vote. And
Speaker 1: it's not that they are purposely kept from voting. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody is purposely kept out of the
Speaker 1: voting booth. I think or mail. I think it's so
Speaker 1: I do know, I know it is that you have
Speaker 1: to have an address, don't you. Let's say you do
Speaker 1: a mailing ballot. We're going to send a ballot to you. Now,
Speaker 1: do you know that you can't have as an address
Speaker 1: for mailing purposes, for the vote purposes, to ballot purposes.
Speaker 1: You can have a po box, okay, you can have
Speaker 1: a homeless shelter. That makes sense. And this one absolutely
Speaker 1: stunned me when I saw this. You can have the
Speaker 1: cross streets on as a mailing address, the corner of
Speaker 1: Fourth and Maine, No no, yes, yes, yes, you want
Speaker 1: to look this up. This comes out of cal Matters.
Speaker 1: And you know when I say stuff like that, I
Speaker 1: don't just make it up. I mean I attribute it.
Speaker 1: It's as col Matters that came up with this and
Speaker 1: cal Matters when you talk about voting issues, no one
Speaker 1: really argues about the efficacy of this. So those ballots
Speaker 1: can be mailed and you'd registered to vote shelter Cross
Speaker 1: Street of the Park Street sidewalk where they in the night,
Speaker 1: which is interesting because people don't usually send their addresses
Speaker 1: as a street corner. Now they can't register there, but
Speaker 1: they can vote out of there. Now. Of course voters
Speaker 1: can get who don't do a mailing can go to
Speaker 1: a polling place. But again, homeless people, and do homeless
Speaker 1: people lack transportation? You bet they do. But here is
Speaker 1: another issue which we don't think about very often, and
Speaker 1: this was my dealing with homeless my brother's ex fiancee
Speaker 1: who I found on the street. She had been living
Speaker 1: on the streets for three years when we found her,
Speaker 1: and it's a horrific story, and we ended up putting
Speaker 1: her in a hotel and she ended up getting governmental
Speaker 1: services worked out. But as she explained it she couldn't
Speaker 1: get a night's sleep when I always had to be open,
Speaker 1: and that's on the sidewalk, which is really easy to
Speaker 1: sleep on it because afraid of her stuff being stolen,
Speaker 1: afraid of being assaulted. The thought of leaving her stuff
Speaker 1: on the sidewalk and going someplace was impossible because it
Speaker 1: would all be stolen by other homeless people. And so
Speaker 1: the thought of going to a polling place without bringing
Speaker 1: everything with you is very difficult. So limited access to
Speaker 1: voting information because what do you do on the street,
Speaker 1: and you've got a bunch of other things to worry
Speaker 1: about tomorrow. I've already voted by mail. But the day
Speaker 1: I voted by mail, and it was last week sometime,
Speaker 1: I didn't worry about where my next meal was coming from.
Speaker 1: I didn't worry about where I was going to sleep
Speaker 1: that night. Did I worry about you ripping me off? Well,
Speaker 1: of course, that's why I have the German shepherds that
Speaker 1: eat people in the alarm systems. But that is a
Speaker 1: different issue completely, right, Neil.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yeah.
Speaker 1: The point is it's very very difficult for homeless people
Speaker 1: to vote, and it turns out that where you've got
Speaker 1: thirty forty to fifty percent voting record, and depending on
Speaker 1: the state, depending on which county with the homeless, it's
Speaker 1: way less than ten percent. I am surprised it's even
Speaker 1: ten percent of the homeless people who actually vote. And
Speaker 1: how much do you know? Do the homeless people pay
Speaker 1: attention to politics? Do they watch CNN? Do they watch Fox?
Speaker 1: Do they have access to the internet. I'm reading two
Speaker 1: papers a day, three papers a day, while I'm doing
Speaker 1: the show during the breaks, while I'm making my coffee,
Speaker 1: while I'm cooking up my fritatas, while I'm eating my bagels,
Speaker 1: while I'm going to the bathroom. This show actually gets
Speaker 1: in the way of this of my life. Have you
Speaker 1: noticed how often I have said that, yes, yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: it just really gets in the way sometimes. But at
Speaker 1: least I get my information. Okay, since it is Monday
Speaker 1: and it is the last half hour the show, it
Speaker 1: is time for a couple of segments of do they
Speaker 1: have a case? With Wayne and Me? So let's dive
Speaker 1: right into do they have a case?
Speaker 3: All right, but masseltov to you one down, one to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's referring to my daughter Barbara Handel, who is
Speaker 1: now Barbara handle Penny. That's what no. I literally, no,
Speaker 1: that's Brandon's last name. So she is now missus Penny.
Speaker 1: And okay, it's done, and now I go for my
Speaker 1: next one. I'm telling her. Actually I did that when
Speaker 1: I did my speech. I turned to Pamela and said,
Speaker 1: what I'm spending tonight. This is for both of you.
Speaker 1: Yours is going to be in Las Vegas in front
Speaker 1: of an Elvis impersonator. Enjoy yourself tonight. Okay, let's do
Speaker 1: it all right.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you remember many years ago there
Speaker 3: was a television for Dirt Devil Vacuums that.
Speaker 1: Foh yes, I do remember, dare yes.
Speaker 2: Dancing around with a vacuum cleaner.
Speaker 3: It was controversial at the time because fred Astaire had
Speaker 3: said in his will that he didn't want anything.
Speaker 2: Like that to ever happen.
Speaker 3: But he died and his widow did give permission, so
Speaker 3: Dirt Devil was allowed to use Fred Astaire dancing with
Speaker 3: a vacuum. Now we come to a lady from ELLINOI
Speaker 3: named Elizabeth Huston, who is suing Hurst Communications, the publisher
Speaker 3: of many magazines, including Good Housekeeping, who says they used
Speaker 3: her identity against her will in violation of Illinoi's.
Speaker 2: Right of Publicity Act.
Speaker 3: Most states have a law like this company cannot use
Speaker 3: your name or likeness without your permission in order to
Speaker 3: sell their stuff. Now, what she's talking about is a
Speaker 3: list that Hurst sells of all the subscribers to all
Speaker 3: of their publications. Nine point one million people on this list,
Speaker 3: and they sell it to data miners and aggregators and brokers.
Speaker 3: And the idea is they get your information, they see
Speaker 3: what you subscribe to, and then they send you ads
Speaker 3: in the mail direct mail advertising. So she says, you
Speaker 3: are using my identity without my permission in order to
Speaker 3: promote Good Housekeeping, which, by the way, I'm still having
Speaker 3: trouble believing this bill even though it is in a
Speaker 3: published Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. Good Housekeeping itself
Speaker 3: has over one point seven million subscribers.
Speaker 2: So that's her claim.
Speaker 3: Good Housekeeping and hearst for their side, They say, Okay,
Speaker 3: we admit.
Speaker 2: For sure you are on this list that.
Speaker 3: We sell, and we admit we didn't get your permission
Speaker 3: to put your name on this list. However, you have
Speaker 3: no case because we're not doing it. We're not using
Speaker 3: you for a commercial purpose.
Speaker 1: Understood.
Speaker 3: She says, of course you are. You're selling this, you're
Speaker 3: selling this list. And they say, we're not using you
Speaker 3: to sell the list.
Speaker 2: You are the list. So it's different.
Speaker 3: Fred Astare dancing with a vacuum is clearly using fred
Speaker 3: Astare to sell a vacuum. We're not using you holding
Speaker 3: up the list and saying you love the list, you're
Speaker 3: the list.
Speaker 2: You're not using you for a commercial purpose. Yeah, does
Speaker 2: she have a case?
Speaker 1: Oh this gets this is really interesting stuff. So now
Speaker 1: first first argument, because I'm sure the court hasn't seen
Speaker 1: this before, is does her activities fall within the definition
Speaker 1: of that law? Okay, that's what the courts have to
Speaker 1: deal with when we really don't know and see if
Speaker 1: I tell me if the court was going this way
Speaker 1: of thinking, and that is, the court quite often, in
Speaker 1: absence of anything else, will look at legislative intent. What
Speaker 1: do we think the intent of the legislature was when
Speaker 1: they passed this law. Is it the way you described
Speaker 1: that fred Astaire dancing where it's there's no issue where
Speaker 1: it's very clear cut, or does it encompass her situation
Speaker 1: about these mailing lists? And that is the issue of
Speaker 1: just the very definition of using her name, her likeness,
Speaker 1: certainly her name. Then there's two other issues. One is
Speaker 1: simply practicality. If she has a case, one point eight
Speaker 1: million people have cases, they can all sue. Okay, So
Speaker 1: that just blows everything up, And there are a couple
Speaker 1: of ways of dealing with if the courts could even
Speaker 1: argue this legislature can saying that Good Housekeeping simply has
Speaker 1: to send to all of its subscribers. You opt out,
Speaker 1: we can't share the list, which is in the way
Speaker 1: that it's going. I am going to argue she does
Speaker 1: not have a case because it does not fall within
Speaker 1: the parameters of the law that was written. This is
Speaker 1: brand new stuff, way outside of the law, and for
Speaker 1: her to try to cram it into the existing law
Speaker 1: doesn't fly. That's the way I would interpret it.
Speaker 2: Oh well, so did they?
Speaker 3: Wow, Yeah, she has no case and this really is
Speaker 3: this law? You said, what's paramount here is the intent
Speaker 3: of the law. The intent of the law is to
Speaker 3: protect people from having their identity used to make it
Speaker 3: seem as if they are endorsing some kind of product
Speaker 3: or service when they never gave permission to be used
Speaker 3: that way. What she has is some kind of data
Speaker 3: private to see gripe that.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't like you. I don't want to be on.
Speaker 1: This list, right, which is a totally.
Speaker 3: Different marketers, Well, that's a different it's a completely different issue.
Speaker 3: And and to your point, yes, there should certainly be
Speaker 3: a way to opt out of your information being shared
Speaker 3: on this list, and for.
Speaker 2: All I know, there is.
Speaker 3: And she just got a lawyer who went down the
Speaker 3: wrong road and really went all the way down to
Speaker 3: the end of the road and lost.
Speaker 1: And it would be up to the legislature to make
Speaker 1: that law, which they are doing, as you said, across
Speaker 1: the board in terms of privacy, in terms of the
Speaker 1: data mining, and as a matter of fact, a lot
Speaker 1: of the major players are doing that on their own
Speaker 1: because of political pressure. That is, you want to opt
Speaker 1: out of whatever, you know, data mining or this information whatever,
Speaker 1: we can't use it or unsubscribe. Okay, we're gonna come back. Damn.
Speaker 1: I'm a good end that one. I thought I was
Speaker 1: making most of that up. I did.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right.
Speaker 3: We have a story, a case of a young lady
Speaker 3: in her middle finger. The young lady a soccer player
Speaker 3: at the University of Connecticut on a one year scholarship,
Speaker 3: and the scholarship does come with some strings attached, particularly
Speaker 3: the part that says your scholarship can be reduced or
Speaker 3: canceled if you engage in serious misconduct that brings substantial
Speaker 3: disciplinary penalty. And in the student Athlete handbook it specifically
Speaker 3: says you're not allowed to do unsportsmanlike behavior, including, but
Speaker 3: not limited to obscene or inappropriate language or gestures. So
Speaker 3: they get to the national finals against Florida I believe
Speaker 3: it was or it was the University of South Florida,
Speaker 3: and they win. Yukon wins. Here's this lady on TV
Speaker 3: middle finger to the camera. Is it looks like right away?
Speaker 1: Oops?
Speaker 3: Turns it into a peace sign, but too late, So
Speaker 3: to jump to the ending of her saga here, they
Speaker 3: completely cancel her scholarship.
Speaker 2: She sues the school. She sues the.
Speaker 3: School not for First Amendment violations. No, no, no, you know,
Speaker 3: in the last case, the lawyer like went down the
Speaker 3: wrong road. This lawyer at least went down the right road.
Speaker 3: She sues for Title seven sex discrimination because she flipped
Speaker 3: the bird momentarily on a TV broadcast after winning a championship.
Speaker 2: And she brings to the table.
Speaker 3: Stories of several male athletes who did things that were
Speaker 3: arguably as bad and in some cases were not punished
Speaker 3: at all, and in some cases were punished little bit.
Speaker 3: And so she tries to make the case that she
Speaker 3: got a harsher penalty because she's a lady.
Speaker 2: Does she have a case.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, she's arguing selective enforcement
Speaker 1: is what she is.
Speaker 3: She is.
Speaker 1: Let's it straight out selective enforcement. I can think of
Speaker 1: all kinds of reasons, different time, different place, different circumstances.
Speaker 1: I don't know if the court brought that up. I
Speaker 1: don't know if the school brought that up.
Speaker 3: Well they did, But do you want to hear a
Speaker 3: couple of the examples?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Please?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: So there was a male football player who kicked the
Speaker 3: dead ball into the stands during a game against Brigham Young.
Speaker 3: He got, of course, it was a fifteen yard penalty,
Speaker 3: no discipline, not the sapline at all. Yeah, not the
Speaker 3: same for kicking that ball.
Speaker 1: I would distinguish that one out.
Speaker 3: Here's another one. There was a male soccer player. He
Speaker 3: was arrested for theft. And this is the male athlete
Speaker 3: that got the worst punishment of the examples that she
Speaker 3: gave he got a warning, and he was required to
Speaker 3: participate in a workshop called living your Values.
Speaker 1: Okay, now that's hilarious. When was that.
Speaker 3: This all went down circa twenty eighteen?
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about the males who were disciplined, same
Speaker 1: period of time. Okay, Well, I think that helps her
Speaker 1: case if it's in the same the same timing, because
Speaker 1: you argue with same group of people. Depending on when
Speaker 1: they decided to enforce it. New policy going to be stricter.
Speaker 1: I think I don't think the discrimination is going to
Speaker 1: fly because what flipping the bird at someone is that
Speaker 1: is blatant right there, And certainly this thinction between the
Speaker 1: football player kicking the football in the stands the other
Speaker 1: one arguable. But I think she loses.
Speaker 3: Well, she wins in the sense, wow, okay, she she
Speaker 3: wins in.
Speaker 2: The sense that she is allowed to proceed with her cause.
Speaker 1: Oh I understand, but that's no, that's a win her.
Speaker 1: The old this appeal was, you know, the the argument is.
Speaker 3: Due, you have a case here, you have you not
Speaker 3: even allowed to try to have a case, right, So
Speaker 3: the circuit court said she's allowed to try.
Speaker 2: There's enough there.
Speaker 3: Okay, As you know, at this stage. Uh, the burden
Speaker 3: is very small to prove that you have something that
Speaker 3: you should be allowed to pursue.
Speaker 2: And that's what they said.
Speaker 3: They said, well, there's enough there that she should be
Speaker 3: allowed to pursue it. That does not mean, as you
Speaker 3: point it out, that a jury is going to it.
Speaker 1: I understand, but no, she does have The point is
Speaker 1: she does have a case. So I mean, thank you
Speaker 1: for trying to help me worm my way out of
Speaker 1: that one. And I appreciate that. But no, I it's
Speaker 1: one for one today, all right, Wayne, We'll catch you
Speaker 1: again next Monday when we do this again. Hey, tomorrow's
Speaker 1: election day, and we start at five am with wake
Speaker 1: up call, and that's Amy, Neil and I come aboard
Speaker 1: at six and all of us are here from six
Speaker 1: to nine, and of course An and Cono also here
Speaker 1: five o'clock, six o'clock, at ten o'clock, eight o'clock at night,
Speaker 1: and they just work their asses off, which is a
Speaker 1: good thing. I have no problem with that. This is
Speaker 1: KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch My
Speaker 1: show Monday through Friday six am to nine am and
Speaker 1: anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app,