Speaker 1: You're listenings camp. I am six forty the bill handles
Speaker 1: show on demand on the iHeartRadio. F Maybe I'm really
Speaker 1: in the calendar. Yeah, I'm looking at my calendar and
Speaker 1: I'm so anxious for Christmas because I'm such a bad Jew.
Speaker 1: On that December twenty fourth air of Christmas. Nice, thank you. Okay,
Speaker 1: here's what I want to talk about New DA in La.
Speaker 1: George Gascon, who I think it's fair to say it's
Speaker 1: one of the weirdest, about the weirdest DA LA's ever had,
Speaker 1: sweeps into office as this ultra pro defense prosecutor, almost
Speaker 1: to the point where you know, where you see a
Speaker 1: prosecutor table and a defense table at trials, it's almost
Speaker 1: as if they're only the defense table, prosecutors and the
Speaker 1: defense lawyers at the same table. So he's sweeps in
Speaker 1: the office in the aftermath of George Floyd and the
Speaker 1: anti police and the anti prosecutorial movement that came in.
Speaker 1: You know, black lives matter, and it's ill, but beyond
Speaker 1: just black lives matter, the entire criminal justice system. So
Speaker 1: he sweeps into office based on this insane pro defense philosophy,
Speaker 1: no more death penalty, small crimes, small misdemeanors, theft that
Speaker 1: just you know, vandalism. We're not going to try them
Speaker 1: at all. We're not even to prosecute. We're not even
Speaker 1: a file charges. And it's just on and on. Where
Speaker 1: enhancements for drug for gang membership or heinous crimes off
Speaker 1: the table. And one which really pissed me off that
Speaker 1: when there was a parole hearing and family members were
Speaker 1: asked or were allowed to testify the prole hearings as
Speaker 1: to the heinousness of the crime and how they're family
Speaker 1: members usually were killed. Prosecutors usually join that. Gascone said,
Speaker 1: no prosecutors. Nope, no prosecutors. Well, he lost by twenty points.
Speaker 1: Over twenty points. I mean, we knew that George Gascone
Speaker 1: was being swept out. So new guy in town, new
Speaker 1: sheriff in town. Oh, we got a new sheriff here,
Speaker 1: Nathan Hochman, promising to restore justice and balance and says, well,
Speaker 1: the DA's office just has lost its way over the
Speaker 1: last four years and blew me. A lot of people
Speaker 1: agree with that. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swore Hawkman in former governor,
Speaker 1: said that Los Angeles has failed. We need a prosecutor
Speaker 1: who is fair, who is not pro not hard ass prosecution,
Speaker 1: and hawkman just bringing back the prosecutor's office to a
Speaker 1: reasonable position. He's not particularly left wing or right wing.
Speaker 1: He is just a reasonable position. That's what we have
Speaker 1: to do. Now. At the swearing in ceremony, hundreds of people, prosecutors, cops,
Speaker 1: victims' rights organizations were cheering, standing up and cheering. When's
Speaker 1: the last time you would ever think a prosecutor would
Speaker 1: be standing in a crowd waiting to cheer on a
Speaker 1: new DA. That's how much he was hated by the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's office. Schwarzenegger blamed Gascogne for a lot of us
Speaker 1: for a rise in lawlessness and chaos in La County. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to give you a reality check for a moment. Now,
Speaker 1: let's look at the stats. Violent and property crimes did
Speaker 1: rise twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three, mainly under Gascon's watch,
Speaker 1: but that was during the post pandemic crime and hit
Speaker 1: other California counties with conservative DA's even harder, and criminologists
Speaker 1: are looking at and saying, you know what, the idea
Speaker 1: that Gascone or any progressive prosecutor be blamed for the
Speaker 1: ebbs and flows of crime trends shouldn't happen. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe it was his influence, but was it primarily his influence?
Speaker 1: Was it because of Gascon and his policies? You know,
Speaker 1: not necessarily so on mister Greemer crimes hawkman Veau vowed
Speaker 1: to bring charges where Gascone didn't, but he is offering diversion,
Speaker 1: restitution programs addiction issues. He plans to have prosecutors offer
Speaker 1: a choice between prison or an eighteen month intensive rehab program.
Speaker 1: And I don't know who's going to pay for that,
Speaker 1: because that's always a question. He is going to pursue
Speaker 1: death verdicts again, which Gascon took off the table. He'll
Speaker 1: only do it in rare cases, which by the way,
Speaker 1: is in rare cases anyway. Even when California did have
Speaker 1: the death penalty, which it still does, but it was
Speaker 1: a moratorium because Gavin Newsom is saying no death penalty.
Speaker 1: We're not going to kill anybody while I'm the governor.
Speaker 1: But it's only a moratorium. Next governor can institute it,
Speaker 1: and so we haven't had an execution. I don't know
Speaker 1: fourteen years now the death penalty. Californians want the death penalty.
Speaker 1: I had the pleasure, and I use that word selectively,
Speaker 1: I had the pleasure of witnessing an execution here in
Speaker 1: the state of California, and it was one of the
Speaker 1: best days of my life. I thought it was hugely entertaining,
Speaker 1: hugely entertaining. Hawkman announced the formation of task forces to
Speaker 1: deal with homelessness, fentanyl, human trafficking, organized retail crime, residential burglary,
Speaker 1: and hate crimes. And also he's going to clean out
Speaker 1: the higher end of the prosecutor's office, which always happens.
Speaker 1: New DA comes into town, gets elected, it is his
Speaker 1: or her closest advisors, senior people to where the DA was.
Speaker 1: I mean, just you bring in your own people and
Speaker 1: you fire the ones that followed or believed in the
Speaker 1: previous administration, the policies. In this case, everybody who staunchly
Speaker 1: believed in what Gascon was doing. People that he promoted gone.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're still in the prosecutor's office. They're not
Speaker 1: going to be great. Story about Todd Spitzer, who had
Speaker 1: someone who was very high up in Rucklehouse's administration when
Speaker 1: he was the DA, and it was someone who absolutely
Speaker 1: defended the former DA. I mean, just crazy defended him
Speaker 1: and was one of this senior prosecutors. I think, if
Speaker 1: I remember correctly, was assigned to the intern program dealing
Speaker 1: with high school students who wanted to be prosecutors or cops.
Speaker 1: Big change and Todd. If I have that wrong, I
Speaker 1: know Todd listens, let me know, and I'll correct myself.
Speaker 1: I don't want to mention names, but I will correct myself.
Speaker 1: I'd say, Nah, Handle, you're wrong like you normally are. Okay,
Speaker 1: coming up the Great Grocery Squeeze. Neil has talked about
Speaker 1: this food deserts, and we're not talking about a grocery
Speaker 1: store in the middle of the Mohave. We're talking about
Speaker 1: food deserts where there are no grocery stores in populated areas.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 2: six forty.
Speaker 1: Today, the Court dives headfirst into the issue of transfer
Speaker 1: gen the gender rights. There's a challenge Tennessee's ban on
Speaker 1: gender affirming care for miners, and the Court's going to
Speaker 1: deal with that. We'll see which way it goes. There's
Speaker 1: a legitimate argument there. You know, obviously I'm in favor
Speaker 1: of transgender rights across the board, but the argument is
Speaker 1: do we want to discriminate or do we want to
Speaker 1: outlaw transgender affirming care to miners, transgender affirming care surgeries
Speaker 1: to miners? Yeah, think can say no. I think it's
Speaker 1: a legitimate argument for sure. All right, let's continue on.
Speaker 1: Then I want to go off politics for a while
Speaker 1: until we go back to politics coming up at eight
Speaker 1: twenty with Donald Trump's newest selection, and I'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: So now I want to talk about a story came
Speaker 1: out in the Atlantic, and this is the concept of
Speaker 1: food deserts and what's a food desert? Americans who live
Speaker 1: in low income communities with no access to fresh groceries
Speaker 1: and why Well, the consensus is that the population isn't
Speaker 1: big enough, stores can't make enough money, and they just
Speaker 1: don't have what it takes to attract a supermarket either
Speaker 1: too poor, too parsley, too sparsely populated. And the argument
Speaker 1: that there is a racist pattern of corporate redlining, which
Speaker 1: I don't know how extensive that is. I believe some
Speaker 1: of that is true. Rather, when did food deserts rive.
Speaker 1: Didn't happen until the nineteen eighties. Before that, small towns,
Speaker 1: poor neighborhoods had grocery stores, sometimes even several. The term
Speaker 1: food desert was coined in nineteen ninety five by a
Speaker 1: task force studying this new phenomenon. For example, let me
Speaker 1: give you an example of a food desert. There's a
Speaker 1: high poverty, majority black neighborhood in Washington, d c. In
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties, it had more than half a dozen
Speaker 1: grows grocery stores. By the nineteen nineties, the number had
Speaker 1: dwindled to two. Today none zero. And this is also
Speaker 1: going on across rural America. Until the nineteen eighties, almost
Speaker 1: every small town in North Dakota had a grocery store,
Speaker 1: some had several. Now half of the rural residents of
Speaker 1: North Dakota live in a food desert. By the way,
Speaker 1: the USDA defines a food desert as a low income
Speaker 1: census tract where the nearest grocery store is more than
Speaker 1: ten miles away in a rural area, more than one
Speaker 1: mile away in a city. Now, I don't know how
Speaker 1: many people live more than a mile away from a
Speaker 1: grocery store. I do now where I live, and so
Speaker 1: I'm in a food desert. And then right outside of
Speaker 1: a mile, like one point one miles from my house
Speaker 1: is a Gelson, So I am in a food desert.
Speaker 1: So there were a bunch of state and federal programs
Speaker 1: tried to address food deserts, giving tax break subsidies to
Speaker 1: supermarkets to go to these areas. That's failed. There are
Speaker 1: more now than there were in twenty ten. So what
Speaker 1: happened well in the thirties is when things changed. A
Speaker 1: and P, which was the biggest supermarket in the country,
Speaker 1: was supplanting local grocery stores and what became market dominant
Speaker 1: and Congress the investigation said A and P had a
Speaker 1: huge advantage that had nothing to do with greater efficiency,
Speaker 1: better service, legitimate ways of competing, which is why the
Speaker 1: law allowed them to do what they did. A and
Speaker 1: P was using its sheer size to pressure suppliers into
Speaker 1: giving it preferential treatment over small retails retailers, and the
Speaker 1: food manufacturer had no choice. A and P said, you
Speaker 1: sell us for a lower price, or we're not buying.
Speaker 1: And what are they going to do? So they charge
Speaker 1: food manufacturers charge independent grocers more money. Well, Congress in
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty six passes the Robinson Patman Act, and what
Speaker 1: is that Well, it bars price discrimination. It is illegal
Speaker 1: for suppliers to offer president preferential deals for retailers who
Speaker 1: demand them, but it does allow businesses to pass along
Speaker 1: legitimate savings. For example, if a supermarket or supermarket chain
Speaker 1: buys by the truckload, that's going to be less money
Speaker 1: they're going to that they're going to be able to
Speaker 1: buy that product, those groceries for less money. What this
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty six law said is that anybody who buys
Speaker 1: buy a truckload has to be allowed to buy it
Speaker 1: at the same price. You can't have that kind of discrimination.
Speaker 1: So in nineteen fifty four, the eight largest supermarket chains
Speaker 1: had twenty five percent of the entire grocery sales. Same
Speaker 1: thing in nineteen eighty two. Now it's the three biggest
Speaker 1: market chains. So what is going on, Well, it was
Speaker 1: in the nineteen eighties when that all went away under
Speaker 1: Reagan and this law that was passed disappeared because it
Speaker 1: was a regulatory act that the government forced this kind
Speaker 1: of non discrimination activity, and Reagan said we can't have
Speaker 1: governmental intervention here. Reagan hated bureaucracy. So then it blew
Speaker 1: up and now they're in the same position that Walmart
Speaker 1: buys at a a ridiculously low price because it buys
Speaker 1: by the palette full. It buys by the container, buys
Speaker 1: by the shipload and gets great prices. But if I
Speaker 1: buy by the shipload the same product, I have to
Speaker 1: be able to get the same price. That's what this
Speaker 1: act does. And there's a move to bring it back
Speaker 1: because the mom and poppers have disappeared. They're just gone.
Speaker 1: You know, the seven to eleven is going to be
Speaker 1: the seven one hundred and eleven. All right, we're done. See,
Speaker 1: I mean that's analysis. Okay, Neil, we've been talking about
Speaker 1: that legal analysis, show analysis. You put the ass in analysis.
Speaker 1: I do, thank you so much. Okay, here's a question.
Speaker 1: When does the telescope become a serious national security risk?
Speaker 1: A telescope.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from a sixty.
Speaker 1: December fourth Hume Day, and a lot of stuff going
Speaker 1: on today, as you would think, Oh, just so many
Speaker 1: fun fun nominees. And I'm gonna be doing the latest
Speaker 1: Tulci Gabbard ahead of National Intelligence. Another beautiful pick, and
Speaker 1: I'll be doing that. And the Supreme Court is going
Speaker 1: to deal with transgender rights. It's hearing a challenge to
Speaker 1: Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, and we'll
Speaker 1: see which way the Court's going to go on that one.
Speaker 1: And by the way, both sides have a legitimate argument
Speaker 1: on those. Sometimes people are nuts on each side of
Speaker 1: an argument. There's one side that's crazy. For example, gay rights, Okay,
Speaker 1: we want to stop our next door neighbors who are
Speaker 1: gay for marrying. We want to discriminate. That's crazy. Abortion
Speaker 1: legitimate argument both sides. You know. I'm on one side
Speaker 1: of it, but it's legitimate. So that one also, I
Speaker 1: think is legitimate. I'll talk about that over the next
Speaker 1: few days, for sure. Now here's a question, and I
Speaker 1: saw this article and and pointed this out, and it's
Speaker 1: just an interesting question. Not only the question, but the
Speaker 1: guy who's involved in the middle of this. It's an
Speaker 1: astronomer named Zilky or zilchko iv Che or Ivit del Kay.
Speaker 1: He's clearly Croatian of some kind, and he is the
Speaker 1: fifty nine year old director of the Vera Reuben Observatory.
Speaker 1: The United States is developing this in the Chilean High
Speaker 1: Desert and has been for twenty years. It's a billion
Speaker 1: dollar telescope and he's being stopped by the government. The
Speaker 1: United States government saying, well, we have to change this around.
Speaker 1: He doesn't even know who he's talking to, no idea.
Speaker 1: The government is so concerned with security, didn't even know
Speaker 1: which agency, and so he's communicating through intermediary intermediaries at
Speaker 1: the National Science Foundation. It's like Hamas and Israel negotiating
Speaker 1: through Katar. That's what's happening here. One person, several people
Speaker 1: who knows. Now, this satellite is on a mountaintop in Chile,
Speaker 1: the at Kama Desert, and it's like the James Webb
Speaker 1: space telescope of a few years ago. It's going to
Speaker 1: be able to see the far edge of the universe,
Speaker 1: but the web telescope can only see a tiny fraction
Speaker 1: of the sky. The Vera Rubin will be able to
Speaker 1: point to and lock onto a big section of the
Speaker 1: sky and after thirty seconds share it with everybody. There's
Speaker 1: an algorithm in real time. Well, here is the problem,
Speaker 1: and that if it's able to grab large sections of
Speaker 1: the sky and it's instantly readable by astronomers all over
Speaker 1: the world spy satellites, it's going to be able to
Speaker 1: see spy satellites and all of a sudden, every astronomer
Speaker 1: on the planet can see a spy satellite, and the
Speaker 1: United States, in our case, I would say, is a
Speaker 1: little bit careful about the Russians knowing where are spy
Speaker 1: satellites satellites are specifically. So now comes these negotiations and
Speaker 1: spy satellites which can be seen by the vera rubin.
Speaker 1: You know, it goes in the opposite direction too, because
Speaker 1: big telescopes. For example, during Apollo, potential landing sites on
Speaker 1: the Moon were figured out by big telescopes. They inspected
Speaker 1: damage panels on Skylab, on the shuttles made in flight
Speaker 1: to find out where those tiles had been damaged or not.
Speaker 1: They flipped the shuttle over and one of these spy
Speaker 1: scot satellites or one of these big telescopes was able
Speaker 1: to see literally from the grounds. It's with that kind
Speaker 1: of specificity. And so if you have this telescope up
Speaker 1: there and here the whole sky, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: here's a spy satellite. Instantly people can figure out which country,
Speaker 1: which model, how big the camera is. And so the
Speaker 1: national government, our government is a little bit upset about that.
Speaker 1: So here's what they decided to do. And therefore this
Speaker 1: is where this astronomer got really interested in this or negotiated.
Speaker 1: They negotiated that before it goes to astronomers all over
Speaker 1: the world. In real time, it goes to the military.
Speaker 1: It's censorship program they have, but it's not really sophisticated.
Speaker 1: So you have these sensors who are not particularly astronomers
Speaker 1: and brilliant about it, take marking pins and draw across
Speaker 1: the image. Now these satellites, this one in particular, we're
Speaker 1: talking about tiny little dots to figure out where the
Speaker 1: universe is and how far these galaxies are. And all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you have this honking marking pen going
Speaker 1: across the screen and he goes, come on, that's kind
Speaker 1: of insane. So here is the negotiation up to this point.
Speaker 1: Because they haven't finished yet. Okay, we'll get an algorithm,
Speaker 1: we'll write it. That then goes to you guys, and
Speaker 1: if there is something moving across the sky asteroid doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: spacecraft of any kind, and it can tell because it's
Speaker 1: a time lapse. If there's anything moving, it goes to
Speaker 1: the military to figure out and they have eight nine
Speaker 1: days to figure it out, which then goes back to
Speaker 1: the astronomers. They know what should not be seen, and
Speaker 1: then that information is released. This telescope is as good
Speaker 1: as the James Web telescope billion dollars over twenty years.
Speaker 1: And as you know, telescopes can read people reading a
Speaker 1: newspaper from two hundred miles up. I mean literally the
Speaker 1: headlines and you can actually see the stories, so it
Speaker 1: can get pretty specific. So that seems to be the
Speaker 1: negotiation going on so far. It's just kind of fun.
Speaker 1: I like the story of the guy with the marketing pen.
Speaker 1: You know, the sensor, you know redacted, whole sections of
Speaker 1: the universe redacted.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 2: six forty.
Speaker 1: Pastapon is still going on until the eighth. You can
Speaker 1: still donate and we'd love for you to do so,
Speaker 1: and you can go to any Wendy's that's still happening. Wendy's.
Speaker 1: You donate five bucks and you get coupons for a
Speaker 1: lot more than five dollars worth of wendy stuff. Smartan
Speaker 1: final go to the counter and donate as you check out,
Speaker 1: which I did, and it's up on Instagram at Bill
Speaker 1: Handles show. Also, well, the pastathon is gone at the
Speaker 1: Anaheim White House, but go to the website if you
Speaker 1: would and that's kfiam six to forty dot com slash pastathon.
Speaker 1: As of ten o'clock last night, nine hundred and forty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars raised for Katerina's Club and almost eighty
Speaker 1: thousand pounds of pasta and sauce. That's forty tons, almost
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars over where we were at the
Speaker 1: same time last year, and we blew through one point
Speaker 1: three million dollars last year to help feed the kids,
Speaker 1: and man, without you, it just doesn't happen. We're half
Speaker 1: of the total. We're half of the budget of Katerina's Club.
Speaker 1: By Bruno likes us so much. Okay, something that we've
Speaker 1: been talking about a long time that I sort of
Speaker 1: personally am involved with, and that is the number of
Speaker 1: colleges that close each year. And I've been talking about
Speaker 1: it and it's such a concern that the federal government
Speaker 1: actually looked at this, and this is the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: Bank of Philadelphia. Because now we want real numbers. Now,
Speaker 1: we want science, Now, we want real surveys, because quite
Speaker 1: often we come up with stuff that seems to be
Speaker 1: but there's no there's no there there without scientific background.
Speaker 1: This is now a real report coming up with real
Speaker 1: numbers under the worst case scenario, assuming a one time
Speaker 1: fifteen percent drop in students, like right now, that's a
Speaker 1: demographic cliff. It's called eighty colleges right now would shut
Speaker 1: down one hundred thousand students twenty thousand staff members. Now nationally,
Speaker 1: that's not a whole big number, but the trend is there.
Speaker 1: For a bunch of reasons. Higher education has come under
Speaker 1: some serious pressure the last several years. And why are
Speaker 1: fewer people going to college? And just a quick aside
Speaker 1: my personal involvement. One of the schools that closed was
Speaker 1: my law school. Whittier Law School is now defunct. It
Speaker 1: is done, it is finished, it is out of business.
Speaker 1: If you look at my law degree, and there it
Speaker 1: is in a frame that I graduated natsuma kum laudy,
Speaker 1: not kum laudy, not well loud, yes, because that was
Speaker 1: my law school. So I graduated kumb loud because too loudy. Yes,
Speaker 1: And it's just shut down. So my school is one
Speaker 1: of those victims. Thank god I graduated law school before
Speaker 1: it shut down. Although a lot of people would argue
Speaker 1: that why are the number of students way down? We'll
Speaker 1: look at this the birth rate is down. We know
Speaker 1: that a larger number of students are looking at the
Speaker 1: value of a traditional college degree. Tuition has exploded. Borrowing
Speaker 1: money from the US government to pay for school has
Speaker 1: the highest borrowing costs more than fifteen years. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is way way down. And the value of a
Speaker 1: college education. Well, I get asked all the time, should
Speaker 1: my son go to law school? Should I go to
Speaker 1: law school? And I say no, Now you can go
Speaker 1: to where I went to school. It's now a parking
Speaker 1: lot and check out the school. Is it going to
Speaker 1: help you hard to get a job? Now, when you
Speaker 1: hear about these one hundred and eighty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: year jobs, are they out there first year? They are?
Speaker 1: But you have to go in IVY League school. We
Speaker 1: have one in California, Stanford, Although UCLA and SC are
Speaker 1: pretty good. We're talking Stanford, UCLA, Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago.
Speaker 1: These are schools where if you're at the top, top,
Speaker 1: top of the class, you're going to get that kind
Speaker 1: of job. The rest of us no. So, for example,
Speaker 1: why did I go out on my own because there
Speaker 1: wasn't a law firm on earth that would hire me,
Speaker 1: that's why, and I was forced to go out and
Speaker 1: start my own practice. And unfortunately, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are going to school and anesthesiologists. Look
Speaker 1: at what anithesiologists make. I once was having a conversation
Speaker 1: with an ant caesiologist about school. I mean they walk
Speaker 1: into two hundred and eighty thousand dollars a year, three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars a year, I mean day one if
Speaker 1: their board certified. Yeah, how did they get there? How
Speaker 1: long did it take? Where other people are working and
Speaker 1: making money. Four years of undergrad four years of med school,
Speaker 1: five years of residency, So they're in their mid thirties
Speaker 1: before they could even start. Oh, let's talk about the
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand dollars student debt they have to come
Speaker 1: up with now. Granted, anestesiologists are able to pay that
Speaker 1: debt off in about thirty minutes. However, you know, it's
Speaker 1: hard to start a family, buy a house when all
Speaker 1: of your money is being spent on school and you're
Speaker 1: borrowing up to the hilt, and you're starting your career
Speaker 1: at thirty five or thirty six. I mean, that's a
Speaker 1: tough week to go get.
Speaker 2: A long what you get along with NST geologists because
Speaker 2: you both put people to sleep for a living.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the things. I mean, I'll take
Speaker 1: a lot of hit on this show. Deal. I don't
Speaker 1: mind taking hits, and I usually agree with you putting
Speaker 1: people this sleep is not one of them. Basinga yes, Okay,
Speaker 1: coming up? Oh the sucking up of Trump? Oh man,
Speaker 1: how far is that going? Well, it is moving at
Speaker 1: an indescribable pace. I'll do that story with you, and
Speaker 1: then another Trump story, another spin which is fascinating, and
Speaker 1: then doctor Jim Keeney at the bottom of the hour.
Speaker 1: So we still have plenty of show. KFI AM six
Speaker 1: forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening
Speaker 1: to the Bill Handle Show. Catch my Show Monday through Friday,
Speaker 1: six am to nine am, and anytime on demand on
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app.