Speaker 1: This is Gary and Shannon and you're listening to KFI
Speaker 1: AM six forty the Gary and Shannon Show on demand
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app. Chevron, the second largest oil company
Speaker 1: in the United States, is leaving California, formalizing this long
Speaker 1: expected breakup. The company has ties to California the date
Speaker 1: back to the eighteen seventies. Chevron had about seven thousand
Speaker 1: employees already in the Houston area, about two thousand at
Speaker 1: the current headquarters in San Ramon, California, which is right
Speaker 1: up near San Francisco.
Speaker 2: So they're going to be moving.
Speaker 1: Everybody, it looks like to just about everybody to Houston.
Speaker 1: Three years after the broadcast audience plummeted for the Summer
Speaker 1: Games in Tokyo, they have rebounded dramatically. NBC says it
Speaker 1: drew nearly thirty five million viewers for the Tuesday night coverage,
Speaker 1: which included the women's gymnastics team finals. They said total
Speaker 1: audience delivery number includes all of the NBC platforms, live
Speaker 1: coverage on NBC, Peacock, et cetera, the Gold Zone coverage,
Speaker 1: which is like the NFL Networks Red Zone. Speaking of
Speaker 1: the Olympics, there's a lot that's going on regarding men
Speaker 1: fighting women in boxing in the Olympics. We'll try to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of it. And oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it's a second Gary and Shannon show breakdown?
Speaker 2: Ready?
Speaker 3: Do you understand the worst that are coming out of
Speaker 3: my mouth?
Speaker 2: What are you talking about? The news got you confused?
Speaker 1: Do you understand it's time for another breakdown with Gary
Speaker 1: and Shannon?
Speaker 3: Explain it to me slowly.
Speaker 2: I'm very old, all right.
Speaker 1: In this case, there are two boxers in the women's competition,
Speaker 1: Algeria's Imani Khalif and Taiwan's lynn U Ting. Both of
Speaker 1: them have won. Lyn U Ting actually fought this morning
Speaker 1: and won, and they're The Olympic Committee is forced to
Speaker 1: answer questions about all of this because these two women
Speaker 1: appear to be men. Now, it's not as easy as
Speaker 1: just saying that, because there are some questions about who
Speaker 1: they are, where they came from, etc. Mark Adams is
Speaker 1: an Olympic Committee spokesman and asked for a pause in
Speaker 1: the rhetoric that has exploded around this case, which these cases,
Speaker 1: I should say, which is basically that the Olympic Committee
Speaker 1: is allowing men to fight women.
Speaker 4: Athletes boxes are entirely eligible. They are women on their passport,
Speaker 4: they have competed for many years, and I actually think
Speaker 4: it's not helpful to start stigmatizing people who take part.
Speaker 2: In sport like this.
Speaker 4: But they are aided in Tokyo. I think we will
Speaker 4: have responsibility, by the way to try to dial down
Speaker 4: this and not turn it into some kind of witch hunt.
Speaker 4: These are regular athletes who've competed for many years in boxing.
Speaker 4: They're entirely eligible women on their passports, and that I
Speaker 4: think is enough said for me.
Speaker 1: Okay, Now this is the question arises because a different organization,
Speaker 1: the International Boxing Association, disqualified these two because they were
Speaker 1: subject to a separate and recognized test. They said they
Speaker 1: did not go through testosterone examinations, but that they were
Speaker 1: disqualified from international competition by the International Boxing Association. The
Speaker 1: International Olympic Committee stopped recognizing the IBA, and now it's
Speaker 1: the IOC that oversees the boxing competition at the Olympics.
Speaker 1: The IOC has very specifically said neither of these athletes
Speaker 1: is transgender, and that the IOC has defended its decision
Speaker 1: to allow both of them to compete in this year's
Speaker 1: Paris Games. The unknowns about this, though, include what kind
Speaker 1: of a test did the International Boxing is Association do?
Speaker 1: Was it a chromosomal test? Did they check and see
Speaker 1: if these athletes have X Y chromosomes? Because that means, dude,
Speaker 1: they don't. They're not telling us all. They're saying that
Speaker 1: the IBA maintains both boxers were subjected to a separate
Speaker 1: and recognized test, but it wasn't about testosterone examinations. They
Speaker 1: were disqualified because of that whatever. The results of that
Speaker 1: test were late in last year's World Championships and according
Speaker 1: to a Russian news agency, and again, I mean, I
Speaker 1: just did an hour on why we can't necessarily trust Russia,
Speaker 1: but a Russian news agency said that the disqualification of
Speaker 1: those two from the World Championships was because it was
Speaker 1: proven that they have X Y chromosomes. According to the
Speaker 1: International Olympic Committee, they say they have no knowledge of
Speaker 1: what those tests were. They were cobbled together overnight during
Speaker 1: the championships to change the results. The IOC is sticking
Speaker 1: by this. The IOC says it measures the age and
Speaker 1: gender of athletes based on their passport in addition to
Speaker 1: the boxing regulations that they came together and put together
Speaker 1: for the Olympics. Specifically, the medical guidelines for these Olympics
Speaker 1: do not appear to include any sort of an examination
Speaker 1: to determine whether a competitor fighting in a women's competition
Speaker 1: would possess unfair biological advantages. The IOC apparently does not
Speaker 1: do chromosomal testing. I don't know if they ever will,
Speaker 1: I don't know if they need to. But Algeria's im
Speaker 1: On Kif and taiwan Kehlief and Taiwan's Lyn Tu Yang
Speaker 1: one of them. I think Algeria's boxer fights tomorrow, Taiwan's
Speaker 1: fought today, and one handily this is not over because
Speaker 1: there are questions about what the IOC should do going
Speaker 1: forward when it comes to things like genetic testing or
Speaker 1: chromosomal testing for this whole thing. The four or person
Speaker 1: blockbuster prison swap carried out this week required the US
Speaker 1: to regroup after the death of Alexi Navalney. I mentioned
Speaker 1: that in the first hour where I went through some
Speaker 1: of the details and broke down exactly some of the machinations.
Speaker 2: We used that word too much. Somebody called us out
Speaker 2: on it.
Speaker 1: The details of exactly what happened in that prisoner swap
Speaker 1: and the negotiations it took to get there depended on
Speaker 1: the willingness of Germany to release from custody a Russian
Speaker 1: hit man who just five years ago committed a cold
Speaker 1: blooded killing in Berlin. It also forced Russia to part
Speaker 1: with the Americans that it was holding that were so valuable,
Speaker 1: including Evan Gershkevich, the Wall Street Journal reporter.
Speaker 2: They'd just been, as.
Speaker 1: The Associated Press puts it, they've been stockpiling American prisoners
Speaker 1: for bait. In all of this, few Americans have high
Speaker 1: confidence in the Secret Services ability to keep presidential candidates safe.
Speaker 1: That's according to a new poll from the Associated Press,
Speaker 1: about three in ten three in ten Americans say they're
Speaker 1: extremely or very confident that the Secret Service can keep
Speaker 1: a presidential candidate safe from violence before the election. Of course,
Speaker 1: secret Service, tasked with protecting presidents for more than a century,
Speaker 1: is under scrutiny because of somebody who was able to
Speaker 1: get close to and shoot former President Trump at that
Speaker 1: rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. There is a news conference that
Speaker 1: we do expect to see at the top of the
Speaker 1: hour from the Secret Service. Don't know exactly what it
Speaker 1: is that they're going to talk about, but we know
Speaker 1: that they're out there. The Dow Jones Industrial average right
Speaker 1: now is down about eight hundred and fifty points. A
Speaker 1: new recession fear has come in crept into all of this.
Speaker 1: And we're actually going to be talking with Mick mulvaney. Yeah,
Speaker 1: former White House Chief of Staff McK mulvaney was a
Speaker 1: Congressman for a long time and had actually been in
Speaker 1: the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
Speaker 1: So we'll talk with him coming up at the bottom
Speaker 1: of the hour about what we can expect to see
Speaker 1: for stocks going into a tumultuous ninety plus days before
Speaker 1: the election. There's an issue that's come up. California Governor
Speaker 1: Newsom has signed an extradition warrant to bring Harvey Weinstein
Speaker 1: back to California. And there's a weird it's not weird.
Speaker 1: There is a connection, a personal connection. The Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: has to Harvey Weinstein through his wife, the first partner,
Speaker 1: Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Now Weinstein, of course, was convicted of
Speaker 1: rape and criminal assault four years ago in New York.
Speaker 1: It was sentenced to twenty three years in prison. Now
Speaker 1: he's in medical detention right now because he's just an
Speaker 1: absolute mess.
Speaker 2: He's a bag of disease.
Speaker 1: It sounds like, and he's got COVID, and he's got
Speaker 1: double pneumonia, et cetera, and on top of everything else
Speaker 1: that's gone wrong with this guy physically. But the conviction
Speaker 1: from New York was overturned at the end of April
Speaker 1: after an appellate court said that the trial judge made
Speaker 1: the mistake of allowing three women to testify that Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein had assaulted them, even though he wasn't being charged
Speaker 1: with those crimes or crimes related to their testimony. So
Speaker 1: he was convicted of the rape charges in LA in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two and sentenced to sixteen years in California prison.
Speaker 1: There was about a ninety day window that opened to
Speaker 1: sign an extradition warrant after the conviction was overturned in April,
Speaker 1: so he did so. The governor did on June nineteenth.
Speaker 1: Now again the connection is Gavin Newsom's wife testified in
Speaker 1: that trial here in LA. She testified she accused him
Speaker 1: of raping and sexually assaulting her in two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: They did find him guilty those on three charges, but
Speaker 1: not of the two charges related to the accusations that
Speaker 1: came from Jennifer Cebel Newsom. She says, the entire process
Speaker 1: been one of the hardest experiences of my life.
Speaker 2: The most important takeaways.
Speaker 1: We all have a role to play in healing this
Speaker 1: culture in which violence against women is the norm. And
Speaker 1: she said of Harvey Weinstein, what he did to me
Speaker 1: was the worst. His assault was excruciatingly traumatic. And she
Speaker 1: said for years he walked away unfettered, while I spent
Speaker 1: years nursing my wounds. Is it a little weird that
Speaker 1: her husband gets to sign the extradition warrant for I mean,
Speaker 1: he has to because he's the governor.
Speaker 5: Or.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to he gets to because he's the governor.
Speaker 1: Maybe he's just a little poetic justice for him to
Speaker 1: protect his wife.
Speaker 2: It just seems a little bit odd.
Speaker 1: Well, the Dow Jones Industrial Average down about eight hundred
Speaker 1: plus points. It's down eight seventy six right now, the
Speaker 1: S and P five hundred, the NASDAK also down two
Speaker 1: three percent. It's not been a great day on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: and that's on top of a down day from yesterday,
Speaker 1: and we're probably seeing the worst August start that we've
Speaker 1: seen on Wall Street for more than twenty years. To
Speaker 1: help us kind of break down. Some of this is
Speaker 1: Mick mulvaney, of course, former acting White House Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff and also a former director of Office of Management
Speaker 1: and a Budget currently an economic contributor to News Nation. Mick,
Speaker 1: thanks for taking time for us today.
Speaker 5: Happy to be here, hey, interesting to be in the
Speaker 5: markets always.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, kitten.
Speaker 1: The part of this has to be this unemployment report
Speaker 1: that came out this morning. Job creation was not as
Speaker 1: great as we expected in July, and the unemployment rates
Speaker 1: back up to four point three percent, which is still
Speaker 1: a good number.
Speaker 2: Why is it?
Speaker 1: Why does that have an impact on what's going on
Speaker 1: on Wall Street?
Speaker 5: Well, a couple of different things, is always the case
Speaker 5: with the stock market. There's five or six different things
Speaker 5: to go into an answer to a question like that,
Speaker 5: So a couple of different things. First of all, the
Speaker 5: markets are only back down now to where they were
Speaker 5: I think July tenth, so less than a month ago.
Speaker 5: So yes, they're down dramatically in the last couple of days.
Speaker 5: But it's not like this is a I think BS
Speaker 5: and P might be in a correction, but this is
Speaker 5: not a major meltdown taking us back six months or
Speaker 5: years worth of wealth creation That jobs numbers got a
Speaker 5: lot of attention. Folks have been wondering about whether or
Speaker 5: not that has been waiting too long to cut rates,
Speaker 5: that been worried about a recession. They watched the job
Speaker 5: numbers very clearly is sort of a bell weather for
Speaker 5: whether or not we're moving towards recession, and the job
Speaker 5: numbers were down. Any number below two hundred thousand is
Speaker 5: a bad number. Getting above two hundred thousand is a
Speaker 5: good number. You can take the unemployment rate and ignore
Speaker 5: it because the unemployment rate is a two factory equation
Speaker 5: too variable equation. It sort of depends on the number
Speaker 5: of people actually looking for work. The real number that
Speaker 5: we look at is the number of jobs created every
Speaker 5: single month, and if it's under two hundred thousand dollars,
Speaker 5: that's just kind of a weaker economy. This is the
Speaker 5: third month in a row with under two hundred thousand
Speaker 5: after the revisions, and I think it's five out of
Speaker 5: the last ten that have been below two hundred thousand.
Speaker 5: So that's that week getting the slow week ending of
Speaker 5: the job market that got the market's a little bit spooped,
Speaker 5: and they gave back most of the games from July,
Speaker 5: but that's about it.
Speaker 1: Did defend make a mistake? Did we wait too long
Speaker 1: to cut rates?
Speaker 5: You know, in hindsight, it's always easy to say that.
Speaker 5: What I've always wondered, as someone who you know, worked
Speaker 5: for the government and would work very you know, watch
Speaker 5: this very very closely, was why do we think the
Speaker 5: Fed is so much smarter than everybody else? They've been
Speaker 5: wrong more than they've been right anyway, So if it
Speaker 5: have been wrong this time, it shouldn't surprise anybody. You
Speaker 5: won't go to answer that question until six months or
Speaker 5: a year from that. Markets bounce back tomorrow if inflation
Speaker 5: comes under control because of the little slowdown that we've
Speaker 5: had on the job market, that everybody's ob well, maybe
Speaker 5: the Fed was right. It's always hard to say. But
Speaker 5: clearly the markets are spooped by the possibility of a
Speaker 5: recession given those job numbers, And that's where I think
Speaker 5: it's driving.
Speaker 2: All this is there speaking of?
Speaker 1: Is there a mechanism whereby they can cut rates without
Speaker 1: waiting for their regular meeting?
Speaker 5: Sure? But why? I mean you do that in emergencies?
Speaker 5: The Dow losing a couple of percentage of points is
Speaker 5: not an emergency, and emergency would be the likes of
Speaker 5: which we have during during the global financial crisis, maybe
Speaker 5: during COVID, where they would jump in and do something
Speaker 5: out of sequence. But I would I would hardly think
Speaker 5: that this rise. And keep in mind that the FED
Speaker 5: supposedly says they don't care about markets, right, they don't
Speaker 5: care about the equity markets, They care about the overall economy.
Speaker 5: And yes, the markets can be an indicator of health
Speaker 5: from the economy, but that's only one of several. So
Speaker 5: the SED is not going to intervene in the economy
Speaker 5: just because the Dow shared a couple of thousand points.
Speaker 1: We're talking with Mick mulvaney, economic contributor for News Nation.
Speaker 1: Of course you remember him as acting White House Chief
Speaker 1: of Staff, also Director of Office of Management and Budget,
Speaker 1: currently a co chair of Active Strategic Consultants. So you
Speaker 1: mentioned in terms of keeping an eye on when we
Speaker 1: get these jobs reports, not necessarily, you know, putting all
Speaker 1: of our attention on the unemployment rate itself to four
Speaker 1: point three percent, but to look at the number of
Speaker 1: jobs created, is there, in general a better indicator of
Speaker 1: the strength the health of the economy than the Dow.
Speaker 1: I mean, everybody refers to that because it's a quick snapshot.
Speaker 1: Is there a better number that we should keep an
Speaker 1: eye on.
Speaker 5: Oh? I think, I think. I think that the job
Speaker 5: creation is just as good. I think that wage growth
Speaker 5: is just as good. Is our wages keeping up with inflation.
Speaker 5: That's a pretty good sign of whether or not the
Speaker 5: economy is healthy if you actually feel like you have
Speaker 5: more money this month than you had last month, even
Speaker 5: when you take into consideration increase in prices. And we're
Speaker 5: not there yet, but in those circumstances, generally people might
Speaker 5: think the economy is doing fairly well. Why well, because
Speaker 5: they have more money to spend, They spend more, they
Speaker 5: buy more things, companies' earnings go up, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 5: So there's no again, no easy answer to your question
Speaker 5: of multi variable equation. But yeah, you watch the markets,
Speaker 5: but you watch again five or six other things.
Speaker 2: As well, and volatility.
Speaker 1: I look at the next nine to ninety five days
Speaker 1: before before the election, I can't imagine. Listen, we there's
Speaker 1: no way that in April you could have predicted that
Speaker 1: what has happened this summer happened this summer with craziness
Speaker 1: on all accounts of the campaign. An assassination attempt, a
Speaker 1: major candidate dropping out, getting out of the race. I
Speaker 1: mean none of this was predictable. That obviously goes to
Speaker 1: a certain amount of volatility that we might be able
Speaker 1: to expect over the next ninety five days.
Speaker 2: What are you looking for in the next three months.
Speaker 5: If you had written this and submitted it to Hollywood
Speaker 5: for an episode or a series of episodes of The
Speaker 5: West Wing, you would have laughed out, yeah, you know,
Speaker 5: we would ever predict any of it's happening. Look, look,
Speaker 5: election season has always there's always got variables to We
Speaker 5: always look at these sort of you know, September surprises,
Speaker 5: October surprises, et cetera. And yes, this is what worries
Speaker 5: me the most, and it's something that doesn't get nearly
Speaker 5: enough discussion. In fact, you haven't said the word yet,
Speaker 5: and neither have I. Which is for thirty five more
Speaker 5: than thirty five trillion dollars in debt now, I think
Speaker 5: we bart on just one hundred billion dollars this week.
Speaker 5: That's a huge number. And what does it do to us.
Speaker 5: It takes away our ability to respond to emergency situations
Speaker 5: because ordinarily, when times are good, we spend least of
Speaker 5: times are bad, the government spends more to try and
Speaker 5: even things out, And nowadays all we do is spend
Speaker 5: more all the time, and that eventually is going to
Speaker 5: take away our ability to respond when you really need help.
Speaker 5: You need, say, an injection of stimulus into the economy.
Speaker 5: That's what worries me. It worries everybody. Which is that
Speaker 5: black Swan event. Would you just wake up when morning
Speaker 5: everybody decides, you know what the government knows thirty six
Speaker 5: train dollars. I'm not lending them any more money at
Speaker 5: three and a half or four or four or five percent.
Speaker 5: That's what you're really worry about. But the day to
Speaker 5: day stuff, you know, certainly an assassination of temp is
Speaker 5: a big deal, there's no question. But I don't think
Speaker 5: who Kamala Harris is going to pick for her vice
Speaker 5: president is going to move the markets very much. Neither
Speaker 5: did when when Donald Trump took JD Vance. So those
Speaker 5: are the those are the ordinary vicissitudes of American politics
Speaker 5: and marketing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well there's nothing ordinary about this year, that's for certain.
Speaker 1: All Right, Hey, great stuff, I really appreciate it. I
Speaker 1: am of a fan of yours, and I like your
Speaker 1: down to earth knowledge. About all of this stuff.
Speaker 2: So thank you, thanks so much.
Speaker 5: Have a great weekend, you bet.
Speaker 1: Mick mulvaney there again, political economic contributor to News Nation,
Speaker 1: former White House Chief of Staff, former Director of the
Speaker 1: Office of Management and Budget, know as what he.
Speaker 2: Was talking about.
Speaker 1: The Federal Trade Commission has announced it's going to investigate
Speaker 1: why grocery prices are still high even as the costs
Speaker 1: for retailers have gone down. Chair Linda Kahan from the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission says this is investigation will look into
Speaker 1: major grocery chains and that those grocery chains would be
Speaker 1: ordered to provide information on their costs and prices on
Speaker 1: common products. She did this at a She made the
Speaker 1: announcement yesterday at a public meeting with a Justice department
Speaker 1: that's looking into pricing practices. The United States has officially
Speaker 1: recognized Venezuela's opposition presidential candidate at Mundo Gonzalez as the
Speaker 1: winner of Venezuela's disputed election. Secretary of State Tony Blinken
Speaker 1: made the comments despite the claim by the authoritarian president
Speaker 1: there Nicolas Maduro that the Venezuelan controlled electoral body won
Speaker 1: the Sunday election. The government is of course run by Maduro,
Speaker 1: the election body was chosen by Maduro, and all of that.
Speaker 2: Still under a questionable.
Speaker 1: Questionable look out of Venezuela determining who actually won that election.
Speaker 1: The four point seven billion dollar verdict against the NFL
Speaker 1: for colluding to raise prices for the Sunday ticket TV
Speaker 1: package overturned last night by federal judge. He disqualified expert
Speaker 1: testimony used by the jury to determine damages.
Speaker 2: That's the key.
Speaker 1: It's not that the NFL is necessarily off the hook,
Speaker 1: but the judgment itself, the four point seven billion may
Speaker 1: have been crazy. In fact, the two economic witnesses. According
Speaker 1: to the judge, the plaintiff's two economic witnesses used flawed
Speaker 1: methodology and their attempts to show that the league was
Speaker 1: overcharging Sunday ticket customers. They were thrown out because they
Speaker 1: were based on witness testimony which included comparisons to how
Speaker 1: college games are broadcast, and then some speculation on substantiated
Speaker 1: speculation on how the NFL might sell games individually if
Speaker 1: it was to do so. Also just in out of DC.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about it at the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris has won the votes of enough Democratic Convention
Speaker 1: delegates to become the party's presidential nominee. The DNC chair
Speaker 1: Jamie Harrison, made the comments today in a video. So
Speaker 1: she is now I think the term that they're using
Speaker 1: on social media is the official presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
Speaker 1: So I have a dog. Dever's got a dog, mon
Speaker 1: has got a dog. We all have dogs. Everybody has dogs.
Speaker 3: We love dogs.
Speaker 2: Dogs are incredible.
Speaker 1: We don't deserve them, but we have them, and we
Speaker 1: keep them as little, tiny slaves in our homes.
Speaker 3: Oh I deserve them. Why because I'm a great dog owner.
Speaker 1: Well, and also you are so in love with other
Speaker 1: animals also, I am that, okay, But you choose dogs
Speaker 1: to be the thing that you keep in your home.
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 3: I'm allergic to cats.
Speaker 2: Good, everyone should be.
Speaker 3: I did have a parakeet and a cockatial at once.
Speaker 1: Oh really, birds can get loud and messy. Yeah, very
Speaker 1: messy in this case. A survey says thirty nine percent
Speaker 1: of dog owners report their emotional health is improved by dogs.
Speaker 1: Thirty nine percent. That's a lot. Twenty seven percent say
Speaker 1: their mental health is improved, and twenty five percent say
Speaker 1: their physical health is improved by having dogs. Obviously, it's
Speaker 1: simple stuff. They can comfort us when we're sad, They
Speaker 1: help us through stressful times. Our bodies absolutely dump oxytocin
Speaker 1: when they stare in our eyes just longingly. Our bodies
Speaker 1: react to that.
Speaker 2: For some reason.
Speaker 1: They said that this is like, this is my favorite
Speaker 1: stat in the whole study. Though, some people reported improvements
Speaker 1: because their dog listens to them when they need to vent.
Speaker 3: Well, what choice, I exactly.
Speaker 1: The dog may be asleep, but you think the dog
Speaker 1: is listening to you. The dog inspires them to take
Speaker 1: better care of themselves a little more than a third
Speaker 1: of people. The big deal is that it's also physical activity.
Speaker 1: Eighty one percent of people who own dogs say they
Speaker 1: are more active because of their dogs, and that another
Speaker 1: forty nine percent say their dog is the sole reason
Speaker 1: that they get up and move. Wow, get up off
Speaker 1: the couch because the dog is chewing something it's not
Speaker 1: supposed to or whatever, but a lot of them go
Speaker 1: for eighty six percent say they take their dogs for
Speaker 1: regular walks. I had a brother in law who when
Speaker 1: they got a dog, he dropped all kinds of weight
Speaker 1: because he was out taking that dog for walks on
Speaker 1: a regular basis.
Speaker 2: Some of them just.
Speaker 1: Play games with their dogs running. Twenty nine percent of
Speaker 1: people run with their dogs, and twenty five percent say
Speaker 1: they hike with their dogs. I would absolutely run with
Speaker 1: my dog if his legs weren't three quarters of an inch.
Speaker 3: You don't have a hiking running kind of dogs.
Speaker 2: I do not.
Speaker 1: I have a dog that would rather dig in a
Speaker 1: badger hole than go on a five mile walk with me. Same,
Speaker 1: which is fine because there's you know, there's there's games
Speaker 1: that you can play with a with a you know,
Speaker 1: a terrier like that that would be just as fun.
Speaker 2: He's working on that.
Speaker 3: Well, he's just a baby.
Speaker 1: He's just a baby. Like he's a chewer, but we
Speaker 1: like to chew each other. He grabs my arm and
Speaker 1: then I grab his paw and I chew on it.
Speaker 1: Really well, he's got to learn. He's got to learn
Speaker 1: that that's not okay, that's how you teach Well, how
Speaker 1: else am I supposed to teach.
Speaker 2: Him with a clicker, with a no, with a scolding voice.
Speaker 3: I've never heard of your way before.
Speaker 2: You've never heard of biting them back.
Speaker 1: I mean, technically you're not supposed to bite them, but
Speaker 1: if you yelp at them or make a loud noise
Speaker 1: like another like an adult dog would do if a
Speaker 1: puppy nipped it.
Speaker 3: And that too hard, but not retaliating the same way
Speaker 3: by biting.
Speaker 1: Well, we're all animals when we get down to it,
Speaker 1: aren't we. Swamp Watch is coming up. Also, we are
Speaker 1: expecting a news conference from the US Secret Service. We're
Speaker 1: not quite sure exactly what they're going to detail, but
Speaker 1: we'll see if we can dip into that.
Speaker 2: You've been listening to The Gary and Shannon Show.
Speaker 1: You can always hear us live on KFI AM six
Speaker 1: forty nine am to one pm every Monday through Friday,
Speaker 1: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app