Speaker 1: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 1: six forty.
Speaker 2: KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2: It's the Bill Handle Show. And Bill is coming back
Speaker 2: from his holiday vacation on Monday. I did talk to
Speaker 2: him two days ago. He's very excited to come back
Speaker 2: and speak with you all. Wayne Resnick sitting in until
Speaker 2: nine and we're going to I'm going to try to
Speaker 2: synthesize a tremendous amount of information that I've been taking
Speaker 2: in about new things that have been learned visa VI
Speaker 2: the terrorist attack in New Orleans, and also what looks
Speaker 2: now like a car bombing or I guess technically a
Speaker 2: cyber truck bombing in Las Vegas. The death toll in
Speaker 2: New Orleans is now at least fifteen, and in Vegas
Speaker 2: there was only one fatality, and it was the person
Speaker 2: in the truck who is apparently the perpetrator of the incident.
Speaker 2: Although several people were injured, luckily those people, it was
Speaker 2: minor injuries for some bystanders that were in the area.
Speaker 2: And the first thing is that the authorities are now
Speaker 2: looking at whether or not there could be a connection
Speaker 2: between these two events. Now There is one connection in
Speaker 2: that both of them involved a vehicle, and in New Orleans,
Speaker 2: as you know, the perpetrator drove the vehicle into the
Speaker 2: crowd of people and then got out and started shooting
Speaker 2: and was killed in a gunfight with the cops. Both
Speaker 2: of those vehicles were rented, and they were both rented
Speaker 2: not from Avis or Hertz or Enterprise. They were rented
Speaker 2: through an app called Turo, which I had not heard of,
Speaker 2: probably because this is not something I would ever do.
Speaker 2: Turo is an app where you can It's kind of
Speaker 2: like an AIRB and B for cars. You can rent
Speaker 2: a car through Touro from some guy who rents out
Speaker 2: his car. The appeal of it, and if somebody were
Speaker 2: to try to sell you on why Touro is cool,
Speaker 2: it would be because you would be able to rent
Speaker 2: interesting cars. That hurts inn Avis and those places won't
Speaker 2: have maybe old cars, maybe custom cars, but a lot
Speaker 2: of the cars are just basic cars. So you're renting
Speaker 2: somebody's car. I imagine some people doing that like Airbnb.
Speaker 2: Some people rent out their own home or part of
Speaker 2: their own home. Other people have properties that are only
Speaker 2: for the purpose of renting them out. And I assume
Speaker 2: they're people who have cars that are only for the
Speaker 2: purpose of renting them out, and other people may be
Speaker 2: rent out the car that they drive when you're not
Speaker 2: renting it. So both of these people finger quotes people
Speaker 2: given what they did, in my opinion, rented through Turo
Speaker 2: and Turo says they are cooperating with the FEDS in
Speaker 2: the investigation.
Speaker 1: Now there's another link. Both of them served in the military.
Speaker 2: We've had some information for a day or so about
Speaker 2: the New Orleans suspect, shamsu Den Jabbar.
Speaker 1: Now it's believed that the man.
Speaker 2: Who rented the cyber truck and is the perpetrator of
Speaker 2: the explosion, there is somebody named or who was named
Speaker 2: Matthew Littlelsberger, and assuming that is the person that we
Speaker 2: should be talking about, he has a history of serving
Speaker 2: in the military as well. Now they haven't identified the
Speaker 2: person who is behind the wheel of the truck in
Speaker 2: Vegas because, as you might imagine, it's not in very
Speaker 2: good condition. So they're working to do that through forensics.
Speaker 2: But they were able to get the information about who
Speaker 2: rented it, and they were also able to track not
Speaker 2: in real time, but after the fact, the drive of
Speaker 2: the car from Colorado where it was rented through to
Speaker 2: Vegas by because as whoever drove it drove it from
Speaker 2: Colorado to Las Vegas, it passed through many license plate readers,
Speaker 2: and so they're able to get that data and look
Speaker 2: at the path that was taken. The FBI is conducting
Speaker 2: searches and investigations in Colorado Springs. We know that there
Speaker 2: were search warrants served at the place where the New
Speaker 2: Orleans perpetrator was staying in New Orleans, and so both
Speaker 2: of these Both of these events have a lot in common,
Speaker 2: both in terms of how the investigations are being being handled.
Speaker 2: They're both in kind of the same stages of investigation,
Speaker 2: and they both involve people who served in the military,
Speaker 2: both of them for many many years. Beyond that, we
Speaker 2: don't know if there are any other similarities, and by
Speaker 2: the way, similarities obviously are not the same as connections.
Speaker 2: The idea that possibly these two people knew each other
Speaker 2: in some way and agreed to do different types of
Speaker 2: terror attacks in different parts of the country seems to
Speaker 2: me right now, seems far fetched, But I do think this.
Speaker 2: They're throwing everything they can at it, and they usually
Speaker 2: are pretty successful at coming up with additional information at
Speaker 2: this stage of an investigation, So obviously KFI is keeping
Speaker 2: an eye on this. Anything that comes out that's relevant,
Speaker 2: we will bring it to you as soon as it happens.
Speaker 2: And I think Michelle a little bit later in the show,
Speaker 2: we can revisit this again through the prism of where
Speaker 2: did the authorities go wrong in trying to prevent what
Speaker 2: happened in New Orleans? And was there anything they did wrong?
Speaker 2: And was there anything they could have done? But for now,
Speaker 2: let's move on to some other things that are going
Speaker 2: on in the world. And what are we going to
Speaker 2: do with this entire generation of people who are not
Speaker 2: growing up? Who am I talking about? I'm talking about
Speaker 2: the people in their thirties man. Today, let me start
Speaker 2: it differently. If you look at film and photographs of
Speaker 2: people who were in their thirties back in say the
Speaker 2: forties and the fifties and even the sixties, they all
Speaker 2: look old as dirt.
Speaker 1: They look old.
Speaker 2: There they are in their house with their wife or husband, kids,
Speaker 2: the car. And if I showed you photos of people
Speaker 2: from the forties and the fifties and I said how
Speaker 2: old are these people? I guarantee you because this is
Speaker 2: what I used to do till I learned better. I
Speaker 2: would say, I don't know that guy's forty five, No,
Speaker 2: he's like thirty two. I really do believe that physically
Speaker 2: we have changed in terms of how aged we look.
Speaker 2: But so today now, if you're in your thirties, you
Speaker 2: really maybe have never looked less like a grown up.
Speaker 2: There's a physical manifestation of the phenomenon that.
Speaker 1: I'm about to tell you about.
Speaker 2: I think I honestly believe people are looking younger, and
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's because of the fact that
Speaker 2: they're living younger, but maybe there's a connection. Americans in
Speaker 2: their thirties are not hitting the three big milestones of
Speaker 2: being a grown up adult, owning a home, getting married,
Speaker 2: pounded out the babies, and some of them are doing
Speaker 2: that on purpose. There is a big swing away from
Speaker 2: in particular marriage and having children. The percentage of Americans
Speaker 2: in their thirties now who are not married is significantly
Speaker 2: higher than it was even twenty years ago. One third
Speaker 2: of today's young adults will never ever get married. I mean,
Speaker 2: at least that's what the Institute for Family Studies says.
Speaker 2: They're a conservative thing tank, and if you go back,
Speaker 2: say twenty years, maybe fifteen percent say I'll never be married.
Speaker 2: The projection was fifteen percent of people will never get married.
Speaker 2: Let's talk to some adults who don't have kids. Will
Speaker 2: you have kids? Well, it used to be back in
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen, thirty seven percent of childless adults who are
Speaker 2: under fifty, You can't. It's not fair to ask people
Speaker 2: who are over fifty who don't have kids, do you
Speaker 2: think you're gonna have kids? Because there's no way. But
Speaker 2: like thirty five year old, you don't have kids yet?
Speaker 2: Are you gonna have kids? And in twenty eighteen it
Speaker 2: was already sizable, it was about a third of them,
Speaker 2: and now it's almost fifty percent, and that's according to
Speaker 2: the Pew Research Center. And a lot of it is
Speaker 2: by choice, is people don't value marriage anymore, they don't
Speaker 2: want to have kids. But even the choice there, particularly
Speaker 2: the choice not to want to have kids, is not
Speaker 2: one hundred percent a free choice. Because the other thing
Speaker 2: that's going on is some of these aspects of the
Speaker 2: American dream of being an adult is not possible. They
Speaker 2: don't have a choice. That's the home ownership part of it.
Speaker 2: Right it's a crazy housing market right now, it has
Speaker 2: been for a while, is probably going to continue to
Speaker 2: be for a long time. And today home ownership is
Speaker 2: out of reach for a much bigger percentage of people
Speaker 2: in their thirties than ever.
Speaker 1: Ever.
Speaker 2: There was a time in this country where everybody their
Speaker 2: mid thirties, almost everybody who wanted to buy a house
Speaker 2: bought a house. It really wasn't I don't want to
Speaker 2: say it this way, but it wasn't that.
Speaker 1: Big of a deal.
Speaker 2: It was reasonably affordable to buy a house anywhere.
Speaker 1: And now it's the opposite.
Speaker 2: It's like, please show me the zip codes in this
Speaker 2: country where it's reasonably affordable to buy a house.
Speaker 1: And it's not.
Speaker 2: Because although some people think the economy sucks, and some
Speaker 2: people think that like people in their thirties now simply
Speaker 2: don't have the same income or don't have the same
Speaker 2: financial wherewithal as people in the thirties and previous generations.
Speaker 1: That's not true.
Speaker 2: The fact is, median wages for full time workers are
Speaker 2: up sixteen percent since two thousand, and the wealth the
Speaker 2: wealth of people in their thirties has gone up sixty
Speaker 2: six percent between nineteen eighty nine and twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: I think is the most recent numbers on that.
Speaker 2: So in fact, the current thirty year olds are in
Speaker 2: a better financial condition on average. Now, now the aside,
Speaker 2: these are statistics, and we're talking about averages and medians.
Speaker 2: So obviously there are a lot of people in their
Speaker 2: thirties who fall below that and are struggling even by
Speaker 2: objective economic standards. But it also means that they're thirty
Speaker 2: year olds who are doing even better than that. But
Speaker 2: the thing is, the attitude is different. This has been
Speaker 2: an ongoing thing. It was really highlighted during the election
Speaker 2: that so many people have a dimmer view of the
Speaker 2: economy than the actual economy would warrant, and that's true
Speaker 2: amongst the people in their thirties. Only twenty one percent
Speaker 2: of adults in their thirties said the overall economy was
Speaker 2: good or excellent last year, but by objective measures it
Speaker 2: was pretty good.
Speaker 1: When you ask them a more.
Speaker 2: Grandiose question, like you know what you think you're going
Speaker 2: to quote achieve the American dream, which is very vague
Speaker 2: and subjective, but they do ask people that, and people
Speaker 2: in their thirties are far less likely than people in
Speaker 2: their fifties or sixties to say that it's still a possibility.
Speaker 2: That was a Wall Street Journal poll just in July.
Speaker 2: So there's a pessimism. A lot of people think they're
Speaker 2: worse off than they objectively are are, and their view
Speaker 2: of the future is more pessimistic than objective facts might support.
Speaker 2: And I think it's the housing thing. I really do
Speaker 2: believe this, because the housing thing objectively is bad. That
Speaker 2: cannot be sugarcoated. There's no statistics I could give you
Speaker 2: to try to then say, see, the housing situation's not
Speaker 2: as bad as you think it is.
Speaker 1: The housing situation really is.
Speaker 2: And I know some people who are younger than me,
Speaker 2: and it is a big source of frustration and malaise
Speaker 2: that they cannot afford a home. And I think there
Speaker 2: are a lot of people in their thirties that are
Speaker 2: preoccupied and I'm not saying wrongly, so they're preoccupied with
Speaker 2: the true objective reality that they simply cannot afford a home.
Speaker 1: And it's not their fault. It's the housing market.
Speaker 2: And when you can't do that, and it's really important
Speaker 2: to you, I mean a home. Owning a home is
Speaker 2: kind of the core of stability as an adult, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Most people used to you would buy a house first
Speaker 2: and then you'd start a family. So the idea that
Speaker 2: that's the initial lynch pin of being an adult is
Speaker 2: being able to get a house, and you can't. And
Speaker 2: what's happening is so many younger people they're saying, I
Speaker 2: can't be an adult because I can't get a house.
Speaker 2: They don't realize that that's the equation that they're making
Speaker 2: in their head. But that's what's going on, and that's why.
Speaker 2: And the pandemic didn't help. By the way, Hey cameo
Speaker 2: appearance by the pandemic in this topic because a lot
Speaker 2: of young people move back home, kind of regressing in
Speaker 2: terms of what their lives look like heired to their
Speaker 2: age and now when at least in terms of the pandemic,
Speaker 2: there's no reason you shouldn't be able to buy a house.
Speaker 1: The economics are making it impossible. And so.
Speaker 2: I don't know if this is going to continue where
Speaker 2: it's going to be people in their forties and their
Speaker 2: fifties who've never done any of these things.
Speaker 1: But that's what's happening right now. Let's get into this.
Speaker 2: President elect Donald Trump has promised he's going to crack
Speaker 2: down on illegal immigration and he wants to spearhead significant
Speaker 2: changes to various immigration laws.
Speaker 1: I am so not interested in.
Speaker 2: Arguing about whether he should or whether he shouldn't, or
Speaker 2: is he a jerk, or is he this you know,
Speaker 2: the smartest man in America for finally dealing with this problem.
Speaker 1: Should he.
Speaker 2: Is irrelevant if he can't. So let's look practically some
Speaker 2: of the hurdles that are in place to see what
Speaker 2: he's up against. Let's go here we go. Number one,
Speaker 2: there's a massive backlog in the immigration courts.
Speaker 1: The way the law works now, with few exceptions.
Speaker 2: Immigrants here illegally cannot be deported without a hearing an
Speaker 2: immigration court. This gives them a chance to ask for
Speaker 2: asylum or maybe another way to stay in the country,
Speaker 2: and it's required by law. There are some exceptions, but
Speaker 2: they're not relevant to the big discussion here. The courts
Speaker 2: are so backlogged that today somebody who gets a hearing
Speaker 2: scheduled will be expected to come to their hearing in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight or twenty twenty nine. Yeah, that's how
Speaker 2: far backed up the courts are. Now, you get a
Speaker 2: hearing date, and you are given a work permit, and
Speaker 2: you can find employment in the US legally and President
Speaker 2: elect Trump and the people close to him say, Hey,
Speaker 2: first of all, that's not a good idea, because this
Speaker 2: is why, this is why so many people are coming
Speaker 2: to the border, because they know that even if at
Speaker 2: the end of the process they don't get to stay
Speaker 2: that for years, they can be here and work. So
Speaker 2: what do we have to do to solve this problem. Well,
Speaker 2: right now, there's about five hundred immigration judges. And immigration
Speaker 2: judges are not like Article three federal judges. They are
Speaker 2: they really are employees and they do have to follow directives.
Speaker 2: And there's about five hundred of them. So they're various
Speaker 2: experts that have done projections and calculations, and they say
Speaker 2: Congress will have to hire five thousand more immigration judges.
Speaker 2: So it's not like we have five hundred and we
Speaker 2: need six fifty. That's not what's going on here. Massive
Speaker 2: amounts of money will have to be spent to hire
Speaker 2: ten times as many immigration judges as we have. Now,
Speaker 2: this raises a question in my mind, particularly as to
Speaker 2: the cost of doing this.
Speaker 1: Then you got to have.
Speaker 2: Places for them to sit and conduct hearings, so you're
Speaker 2: gonna have to have a build out of some kind
Speaker 2: of facilities. It's a ton of money at a time
Speaker 2: when we continue to run deficits, when the debt ceiling
Speaker 2: continues to be a political football, and when an administration
Speaker 2: is coming in that's all Republican in the White House
Speaker 2: and the Senate and the Congress, and we don't typically
Speaker 2: think of that kind of a government as being a
Speaker 2: let's spend like crazy kind of a government. Is there
Speaker 2: something else that can be done about the backlog? If
Speaker 2: we aren't gonna spend all this money to hire ten
Speaker 2: times as many judges, Well, you could. Here's one thing
Speaker 2: they could do. You could shuffle around whose hearings happen first.
Speaker 2: It's mostly a first come, first serve thing right now.
Speaker 2: But what you could do is you could say, Okay,
Speaker 2: somebody who shows up here from let's just say El Salvador,
Speaker 2: they're gonna get priority. They're gonna get the earliest hearings,
Speaker 2: and somebody who comes in from somewhere else they're gonna
Speaker 2: wait even longer.
Speaker 1: Or you could do this. I would say, this is
Speaker 1: a good idea. Here.
Speaker 2: People who show up and they have criminal records, they
Speaker 2: get a hearing absolutely as soon as possible. They move
Speaker 2: to the front of the line. Because those are people
Speaker 2: that probably were not gonna let stay. Also, another thing
Speaker 2: you could do is tweak the laws and procedures so
Speaker 2: that when you get to the final hearing stage, you
Speaker 2: can't delay it anymore. What will happen sometimes is people
Speaker 2: wait years for a hearing and then they show up
Speaker 2: and they go blah blah blah a hearing, and then
Speaker 2: they go, all right, we need one more hearing, and
Speaker 2: then they keep delaying it, and judges allow the person
Speaker 2: to delay their final hearing. Usually it's because they say, well,
Speaker 2: I need a lawyer for my final hearing. I need
Speaker 2: more time to find it. If you made it a
Speaker 2: little tougher to do that, that would shorten the timeline
Speaker 2: and that would clear the backlog sooner.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing, though.
Speaker 2: Unless there's a rapid infusion of money to increase the
Speaker 2: immigration judge situation by a factor of ten, or the
Speaker 2: laws are changed, most of the people who came here
Speaker 2: illegally while Biden was president will not be legally able
Speaker 2: to be deported until after Donald Trump's second term. There's
Speaker 2: also not enough ice agents. There's another problem. There's about
Speaker 2: six thousand of them right now. They have money to
Speaker 2: keep in custody about forty thousand immigrants at a time.
Speaker 2: They do not have the planes, the airplanes that they
Speaker 2: would need to deport millions of people back to their
Speaker 2: home countries. Now, you know, the Republicans can figure out
Speaker 2: some ways to free up some money for.
Speaker 1: All of this.
Speaker 2: And Trump says he'll declare a national emergency that will
Speaker 2: unlock some money almost right away from Pentagon's budget that
Speaker 2: could be used for certain things. But the problem is
Speaker 2: things have changed now. One of the things that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump likes to talk about is in the fifties, when
Speaker 2: Eisenhower was president, there was a mass deportation program, and
Speaker 2: by the standards of trying to mass deport a bunch
Speaker 2: of people, it was a success.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem.
Speaker 2: When Eisenhower was president, pretty much every single person that
Speaker 2: they were deporting was from Mexico, so they were sending
Speaker 2: everybody to the same place right over the border. That's
Speaker 2: not the case anymore. Yes, sure a lot of people
Speaker 2: are from Mexico, but they're from China, and they're from Uzbekistan,
Speaker 2: and they're from India, and they're from I don't know, Mauritania.
Speaker 2: So you can't just push them back across the border,
Speaker 2: and you can't load up planes for short flights.
Speaker 1: Boom, now you're back.
Speaker 2: You've got to coordinate hundreds of flights to different countries,
Speaker 2: and you're fighting with the governments of those countries about
Speaker 2: when or will they receive those flights. It's way more
Speaker 2: complicated the logistics of it, and that can only be
Speaker 2: solved with more money. Money for planes, money for logistics, people, money, money, money.
Speaker 1: Those are the big hurdles.
Speaker 2: There's some other issues, like trying to end birthrights citizenship,
Speaker 2: which will have to amend the Constitution. But the fact
Speaker 2: of the matter is the amount of money that is
Speaker 2: necessary to do this within the current legal framework is
Speaker 2: beyond the reach of the United States government right now.
Speaker 2: It's not I don't think it's going to be so much.
Speaker 2: How much money can they come up with for this effort.
Speaker 2: I think it's gonna be how much of the laws
Speaker 2: can they get changed?
Speaker 1: And we'll see what happens.
Speaker 2: Every five years, the government revises the US dietary guidelines
Speaker 2: and they're in the process of doing it again. And
Speaker 2: there's a huge controversy about what to say about drinking.
Speaker 2: You know, for a long time, the studies would come out,
Speaker 2: we'd talk about them, and they all said essentially the
Speaker 2: same thing.
Speaker 1: Excessive drinking is bad.
Speaker 2: By the way, that's the one thing about drinking for
Speaker 2: which there is no legitimate counter argument. Excessive drinking, heavy
Speaker 2: drinking is bad, period, full stop. There's no way to
Speaker 2: rehabild take that. But the studies would keep saying that,
Speaker 2: but drinking moderately is actually better than not drinking at all.
Speaker 2: The number of people who started drinking red wine, for example,
Speaker 2: because of the studies that said it's good for your
Speaker 2: heart health. But then more recently, agencies like the World
Speaker 2: Health Organization and Great Britain and some other groups are
Speaker 2: saying no, our evidence shows that no amount of drinking
Speaker 2: is good, that even literally one drop of alcohol hurts you,
Speaker 2: and that alcohol in any amount is highly correlated with
Speaker 2: various cancers, and that there is no safe amount of alcohol. Well,
Speaker 2: you have these two schools. Now, there's one school that
Speaker 2: believes that moderate drinking is actually beneficial and another group
Speaker 2: that says there's no such thing as beneficial drinking of.
Speaker 1: Alcohol, period.
Speaker 2: And they're at war over what's going to go into
Speaker 2: these guidelines. So, in an unprecedented move, the government has
Speaker 2: commissioned two different studies to help it decide what they're
Speaker 2: going to say about drinking and these guidelines.
Speaker 1: That's not usually what happens.
Speaker 2: Usually they just review the existing research and then they
Speaker 2: decide what to do. But there's such controversy now that
Speaker 2: they want two different groups of people to weigh in,
Speaker 2: and one of these groups. There was about one point
Speaker 2: three million dollars I believe. I don't have the number
Speaker 2: written from a face, but I think it was about
Speaker 2: one point three million dollars that Congress gave to the
Speaker 2: National Academies to put together a panel to look at
Speaker 2: this issue and come up with the report. And so
Speaker 2: the National Academies got the money and they said, hey,
Speaker 2: there's these two people at Harvard. We should have them
Speaker 2: be on the panel. But the problem is those two
Speaker 2: people their research kept saying moderate alcohol consumption is good.
Speaker 2: So there was a big outcry and they said, all right,
Speaker 2: we won't use them, they're too controversial. So instead they
Speaker 2: put on two other people from Harvard who don't.
Speaker 1: Say moderate drinking is awesome.
Speaker 2: However, some of their research says there is a link
Speaker 2: between some moderate drinking and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.
Speaker 2: I can't believe that word came out of my mouth
Speaker 2: that way, So not as bad as the first two,
Speaker 2: but not great. And of these four people, at least
Speaker 2: three of them, at some point in their research got
Speaker 2: funding from the alcohol industry, which is really what's on
Speaker 2: underneath all of this. Do you think the alcohol industry
Speaker 2: wants the United States government to tell everybody that even.
Speaker 1: One drink is harmful?
Speaker 2: No, they do not, And so do they fund studies
Speaker 2: that they hope wink wink will be favorable in some way? Well,
Speaker 2: I'm sure that they do. Do they want a report
Speaker 2: to go to the people who will come up with
Speaker 2: the new guidelines that it says something nice about drinking alcohol?
Speaker 1: Yes, they do.
Speaker 2: Now there's going to be another study by a different
Speaker 2: group of people who don't seem to have any connections
Speaker 2: to the alcohol industry.
Speaker 1: It's a government committee.
Speaker 2: Remember this other thing is funded by the government, but
Speaker 2: it's made up of people who aren't part of the government.
Speaker 2: This second report is a government committee, and it's called
Speaker 2: the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking.
Speaker 2: How complicated has our government become? I could probably spend
Speaker 2: four straight hours on KFI reading you the names of
Speaker 2: government agencies and committees that you've never heard of before.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to do it. Don't worry. I'm just
Speaker 2: saying that's how complicated and bloated government has become. So
Speaker 2: in any event, it's the first time that two separate
Speaker 2: reports have been commissioned, and you're probably going to get
Speaker 2: to competing conclusions in these reports, and then they'll decide
Speaker 2: what to do with the guidelines.
Speaker 1: And then in a.
Speaker 2: Way it won't matter because in five years they'll redo
Speaker 2: it again, and five years after that again. Look in
Speaker 2: twenty years, who knows what we might learn. The guidelines
Speaker 2: might be you should rub alcohol into your eyeballs ten
Speaker 2: times a day because we found out it increases is
Speaker 2: your IQ by twenty points. But that's not happening yet.
Speaker 2: This is KFI Am six forty Live everywhere on the
Speaker 2: iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2: Catch My Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
Speaker 2: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.