Speaker 1: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 1: six forty.
Speaker 2: Am six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. It's
Speaker 2: the Bill Handle Show. He's still on vacation. Back on Monday.
Speaker 2: Wayne Resnik sitting in. It's always weird when you play
Speaker 2: a bump. That's a song that's on my workout playlist.
Speaker 2: It's like it like it tickles my brain in a
Speaker 2: weird way.
Speaker 1: Bad religion colligions.
Speaker 2: Man, yeah, yeah, oh I know, bad religion. All right,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I diverge it is. I just want to
Speaker 2: say though, it's weird when you hear a song that
Speaker 2: you hear a lot and that you hear it as
Speaker 2: a bump on KFI. Not weird, it's it's whatever. Here's
Speaker 2: some stories we're watching for you. There is a red
Speaker 2: flag warning in effect today and tomorrow for parts of
Speaker 2: La and Ventura Counties. The Santa Ana wins are gonna
Speaker 2: peak uh today later today into tomorrow. Gusts could go
Speaker 2: up to forty five miles an hour. Very low humidity,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh. Up in the elevations above four thousand feet,
Speaker 2: you're talking about humidity levels less than ten percent and
Speaker 2: in lower areas. It will vary more, but could be
Speaker 2: as low as eight percent relative humidity that is dry
Speaker 2: as dry can be, so fire danger is high.
Speaker 1: Please be careful.
Speaker 2: And two separate shootings in downtown LA within blocks of
Speaker 2: each other, left four people entered last night. Everybody was
Speaker 2: taken to the hospital. One of them is in critical condition.
Speaker 2: I take that to mean the other three are better
Speaker 2: than that, and police are still trying to figure out
Speaker 2: if there's a connection between the two incidents. And I
Speaker 2: mentioned that story to you because we're going to talk
Speaker 2: a little bit about a new tough on crime attitude
Speaker 2: here in LA and across the country. This is happening
Speaker 2: everywhere in New York. I'm just giving you some examples.
Speaker 2: In New YORKA, the governor ordered the National Guard to
Speaker 2: go be in the subways to try to help with
Speaker 2: the prime problems on the subways. In Louisiana, very different
Speaker 2: place than New York, same kinds of ideas, though in
Speaker 2: Louisiana they passed a law that seventeen year olds will
Speaker 2: be tried as adults period, end of discussion. In Oregon,
Speaker 2: another place that's different from the first two, they recriminalized
Speaker 2: some drugs that they had previously decriminalized, and they said, Ah,
Speaker 2: this is not working out, Let's make them criminalized again.
Speaker 2: In San Francisco, of all places, voters approved a ballot
Speaker 2: measure that requires welfare recipients to be drug tested and
Speaker 2: also gives the police more power to surveil people.
Speaker 1: They passed that.
Speaker 2: The voters in San Francisco, Colorado, they voted to reduce
Speaker 2: parole eligibility for people convicted of violent crimes. Now we
Speaker 2: can go through and look at all of these things
Speaker 2: that happened around the country, and I can see some
Speaker 2: of them I think are good ideas and some of
Speaker 2: them maybe not. But what the thing that ties them
Speaker 2: all together is a sentiment amongst us the people that
Speaker 2: we let crime get too far out of control. And
Speaker 2: I do think the idea that we let it get
Speaker 2: out of control is accurate historically and explains the backlash.
Speaker 2: And that is certainly true here in La in La County,
Speaker 2: and in California, because you may recall in terms of
Speaker 2: local concerns, this has everything to do with Proposition forty
Speaker 2: seven that we voted for like ten years ago that
Speaker 2: made certain felonies misdemeanors, and in La County ninety percent
Speaker 2: of the neighborhoods. If you break down the voting maps
Speaker 2: by neighborhoods, ninety percent in La County voted yes on
Speaker 2: Prop forty seven.
Speaker 1: So that's why I say we did it.
Speaker 2: It didn't just happen. We affirmatively made choices that caused
Speaker 2: some things to happen that are now creating the backlash
Speaker 2: against it. And that's why we passed Prop thirty six,
Speaker 2: which rolls back a lot of the leniency that we
Speaker 2: chose when we voted for Prop forty seven. And the
Speaker 2: thing is, eighty seven percent of neighborhoods in La County
Speaker 2: that voted for Prop forty seven also voted to overhaul
Speaker 2: it and and roll it back.
Speaker 1: It's not different people.
Speaker 2: It's not like ten years ago some group of people
Speaker 2: said let's make it more lenient, and now a different
Speaker 2: group of people are saying, let's make it tough again.
Speaker 1: It's the same people. There's a huge.
Speaker 2: Correlation between voting for Prop thirty six to toughen up
Speaker 2: some of these laws again and voting for Nathan Hoffman
Speaker 2: as the district attorney.
Speaker 1: So imagine because because.
Speaker 2: Voting for him also is a vote for getting tougher
Speaker 2: on crime. Now that's not being totally fair to him.
Speaker 2: He's not one hundred percent tough on crime every time,
Speaker 2: all the time, and that's all that I'm about. He
Speaker 2: has spoken at length about other ideas that would not
Speaker 2: be considered tough on crime. They would be considered smart
Speaker 2: on crime and bringing sensible compassion into the system.
Speaker 1: But if you.
Speaker 2: Voted for him, there's there's no chance in hell that
Speaker 2: anybody voted for Nathan Hackman because of those nuanced things
Speaker 2: that he talked about. Everybody voted for him because they
Speaker 2: wanted to get tough on crime.
Speaker 1: In La County.
Speaker 2: And therefore the two things go together so much so
Speaker 2: that the group of voters that voted for Prop thirty
Speaker 2: two thirty six, excuse me, and for Hawkman, it's like
Speaker 2: forty percent of all the voters. What percent of La
Speaker 2: County voters stayed entrenched in a soft on crime view?
Speaker 2: These would be the people who voted no on Prop
Speaker 2: thirty six. We don't want to roll back the leniency
Speaker 2: of forty seven. They also voted for former DA George
Speaker 2: Gascon that group fourteen percent, and then I guess everybody
Speaker 2: else voted for one and not the other way. For
Speaker 2: whatever reason, they voted for Prop thirty six, they didn't
Speaker 2: vote for Nathan Hakman or the other way around. So
Speaker 2: that shows some real I'm gonna say it's a population
Speaker 2: moving in lockstep. The problem is this is cyclical. You
Speaker 2: know what's gonna start happening this year. I promise you
Speaker 2: I won't be here to gloat that I told you
Speaker 2: so because I, as I announced earlier, I am retiring
Speaker 2: fully from radio.
Speaker 1: I guess next week. But you will start to see.
Speaker 2: Calls for criminal justice reform again because already jail populations
Speaker 2: are growing. They will continue to grow as a result
Speaker 2: of these things that have happened. And as soon as
Speaker 2: the jail popular start to grow, there will be more
Speaker 2: cries about the conditions and overcrowding and that we're over
Speaker 2: incarcerating people, and the pendulum will swing back. And I
Speaker 2: think what's happening is the cycles are becoming shorter between
Speaker 2: a bunch of tough on crime legislation and policies, and
Speaker 2: it kind of like five years later, ten years later,
Speaker 2: there's a move to make it not as harsh, and
Speaker 2: then five and ten years later. But I think we
Speaker 2: may start to see two or three year cycles now,
Speaker 2: because it's just so political as opposed to being a
Speaker 2: thing like how to build a road is not political.
Speaker 2: Maybe whether to build one or where to build it
Speaker 2: is political, but how to build a road it has
Speaker 2: no politics in it. There's a proper way to build
Speaker 2: a road, and there is a proper way to run
Speaker 2: a criminal justice system. But the problem is nobody's interesting
Speaker 2: in that. I'm going to throughout the show, since I'm
Speaker 2: retiring completely next week, I'm going to be doing some
Speaker 2: selfish things, just occasionally. One of those selfish things is
Speaker 2: going to happen in the middle somewhere of this segment.
Speaker 2: But this segment is about a trend in corporate America
Speaker 2: right now to lower the head count at companies, but
Speaker 2: not necessarily in the way you may be thinking, because
Speaker 2: one question when you look at a company, one question
Speaker 2: that you can ask is how many employees do you have?
Speaker 2: And then investors or debt holders can say, wow, should
Speaker 2: you have that many employees? But there's another way to
Speaker 2: look at a company or a government agency or any
Speaker 2: entity really, and it's not how many employees do you have,
Speaker 2: it's how many levels do you have? And the trend
Speaker 2: right now has to do with flattening these companies. I
Speaker 2: did clap my hands in a flattening move if you
Speaker 2: heard it. Flattening the companies and reducing the number of
Speaker 2: levels in the company. Every company has to have one
Speaker 2: or or it could be two people some number of
Speaker 2: people who are the very top people. Every company has
Speaker 2: to have an ultimate boss. You cannot possibly operate without that,
Speaker 2: or else you get like a lord of the flies
Speaker 2: situation in your company. And in theory, every company has
Speaker 2: to have somebody who's and I don't mean it pejoratively,
Speaker 2: because I've been this a bunch of times. I'm this
Speaker 2: now here that are on the bottom rung of the ladder.
Speaker 2: Mainly that they they are not the boss of anybody.
Speaker 2: They have a job to do, but their job in
Speaker 2: no way involves having any oversight over anybody else. So
Speaker 2: you have two levels. You have to have two. Now,
Speaker 2: how many do you need depends on what kind of
Speaker 2: company you are and how big you are. But there
Speaker 2: has been a trend before now to put in place
Speaker 2: level after level after level after level of management. When
Speaker 2: I was with Defens, you had officers and then supervisors
Speaker 2: and then you had deputy chief. I mean they still
Speaker 2: do deputy chiefs, and then you had chiefs. And it's
Speaker 2: not that there were that many levels, but a lot
Speaker 2: of times I kind of thought, do we really need
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say which I'm not going to
Speaker 2: say which layer I questioned the necessity of, but I
Speaker 2: did often question whether we really could have gotten rid
Speaker 2: of one layer and it would not have affected anything. Now,
Speaker 2: that's still relatively modest compared to some companies. Wait till
Speaker 2: you hear about how many levels certain companies have. But
Speaker 2: the move now is to get rid of entire layers
Speaker 2: of supervision in a company. What that means is when
Speaker 2: companies are doing big layoffs now in reduction and forces,
Speaker 2: very often it's people in middle management or even upper
Speaker 2: management who are being let go, like UPS, who says
Speaker 2: since last year they've cut thousands of supervisor jobs. My god,
Speaker 2: how many supervisors did they have? I mean, UPS is
Speaker 2: a big company, They're all over the country. I would
Speaker 2: agree they need quite a few supervisors. If they were
Speaker 2: able to cut thousands of them and still operate properly,
Speaker 2: how many did they have? Amazon has a goal they
Speaker 2: want to increase the ratio of workers to managers. Every
Speaker 2: manager for every manager there'll be more workers.
Speaker 1: That means less managers.
Speaker 2: That's a nice way of saying that less managers were
Speaker 2: going to get rid of managers. Over at Google, they
Speaker 2: have gotten rid of managerial roles by ten percent. Now
Speaker 2: I'm not clear over what period of time did they
Speaker 2: get rid of ten percent of their managers?
Speaker 1: In a year, in a month, in a day.
Speaker 2: Public companies in the United States have cut their middle
Speaker 2: manager head counts by about six percent since the pandemic. Now,
Speaker 2: you don't have to believe me, because there's a data
Speaker 2: provider called Live Data Technologies, and they did an analysis
Speaker 2: over twenty million white collar workers and that's their conclusion.
Speaker 2: That's middle managers, senior executives. I assume these are like
Speaker 2: senior vice presidents and things like that. They're down five
Speaker 2: percent since the end of twenty twenty one. Now it's
Speaker 2: not just people losing their jobs. It's also when you
Speaker 2: flatten a company and you take away layers of management.
Speaker 2: And this is probably what's more important for people like us.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know how many people listening are
Speaker 2: upper management in a company. I'm sure some of you are,
Speaker 2: but I suspect most of us are.
Speaker 1: Either in the middle or lower.
Speaker 2: When you flatten a company, you take away advancement opportunities.
Speaker 2: So people who are middle managers who were aspiring to
Speaker 2: become senior executives there may be no positions that even
Speaker 2: exist for them. At some companies, people who used to
Speaker 2: be bosses have had to move into jobs where they
Speaker 2: are not the boss of anybody, and not necessarily because
Speaker 2: that's what they wanted to do. The job market is
Speaker 2: apparently flooded right now with managers. So I want to
Speaker 2: tell you about City City Bank City.
Speaker 1: They are one of these companies.
Speaker 2: That have been flattening and getting rid of middle management,
Speaker 2: and they were proud to announce a restructuring last year.
Speaker 1: Late last year.
Speaker 2: They were very proud of this that they cut the
Speaker 2: number of management layers at City. They cut it down
Speaker 2: down to eight levels of management.
Speaker 1: You know how many there were.
Speaker 2: Before thirteen levels of management. Now City is a huge corporation,
Speaker 2: and I get that, but if you're a teller at
Speaker 2: a bank and there's twelve people between you and the
Speaker 2: head of City, that's too many. Eight is probably too many,
Speaker 2: but I guess can't do it all at once. So
Speaker 2: here at iHeart you. Remember I said every company has
Speaker 2: to have. There's got to be somebody at the tippy top,
Speaker 2: and there has to be somebody at the bottom. So
Speaker 2: I'm the person on the low rung and at the
Speaker 2: high rung. Here at iHeart, I think it's two people
Speaker 2: kind of are sharing the high rung, Bob Pittman, the CEO,
Speaker 2: Rich Bresler, the COO CFO. If anybody from management listening,
Speaker 2: don't get nervous. I'm not doing anything crazy. So I
Speaker 2: would just like to say, though, in light of my
Speaker 2: impending retirement, I would like to say one thing to
Speaker 2: the CEO of iHeart, Bob Pittman. Bob Pittman, I know
Speaker 2: that you have a very good tequila company called Cosa Dragonis,
Speaker 2: And I'm just saying putting it out there in the
Speaker 2: world that boy, wouldn't a nice bottle of Cosa Dragonis
Speaker 2: tequila make a wonderful retirement gift for oh, I don't know, somebody. Well,
Speaker 2: remember when every company wanted to get into diversity, equity
Speaker 2: and inclusion.
Speaker 1: DEI that's changing big time.
Speaker 2: Corporate America is pulling back on their diversity programs, partly
Speaker 2: because of pressure from activists.
Speaker 1: Who have sued. In many cases some of these companies.
Speaker 2: And then with a new administration coming in, you know,
Speaker 2: I think we can agree the new administration is not
Speaker 2: as friendly to DEI ideas as.
Speaker 1: The current administration is.
Speaker 2: So they're gonna have activists on their backs, and they're
Speaker 2: going to have an administration that's not going to be
Speaker 2: very sympathetic to any of their DEI efforts, and they're
Speaker 2: starting to because if you have an administration that is
Speaker 2: friendly to DEI, then you're not probably going to have
Speaker 2: any luck getting the government to do anything about federal
Speaker 2: programs in this regard. But with the new administration coming in,
Speaker 2: the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, that is a
Speaker 2: place that has sued many companies over their DEI policies,
Speaker 2: and now they've identified sixty one federal programs that they
Speaker 2: think could be should be eliminated and that they could
Speaker 2: sue over, like the program that gives technical assistance for
Speaker 2: minority farmers, or program that give preferences in contracting for
Speaker 2: minority owned law firms that are helping the United States
Speaker 2: collect money that's owed to the United States. And it's
Speaker 2: not just that generally the tone of the new administration
Speaker 2: is more anti DEI. It's also that one of President
Speaker 2: Electrump's top advisor, Stephen Miller, actually ran a group that
Speaker 2: sued companies over their DEI policies, so he has some
Speaker 2: experience going after it. Because of this backlash and because
Speaker 2: of activist behavior and lawsuits, for example, Ford Motor will
Speaker 2: stop providing workplace data that it was giving to the
Speaker 2: Human Rights Campaign, which is a gay rights I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm kind of broad brushing what they do, but if
Speaker 2: you said, you only have a few words to say
Speaker 2: what they do. They're a gay rights lobbying organization and
Speaker 2: they've been very successful over the last twenty thirty forty
Speaker 2: years in treating companies to make their policies more gay friendly,
Speaker 2: bisexual friendly, transgender, all that stuff. And Ford was in
Speaker 2: an agreement to share workplace data with them, basically to say,
Speaker 2: look how we're doing.
Speaker 1: What do you think? And they said they're not going
Speaker 1: to give them the data anymore.
Speaker 2: UBS said, we're not giving any more of these twenty
Speaker 2: five thousand dollars grants that we were giving to businesses
Speaker 2: led by women of color, those grants no more. Walmart
Speaker 2: used to fund a charity that it made. It created
Speaker 2: this charity to address racial disparity and of course fund it.
Speaker 2: And they said, we're not going to renew funding for
Speaker 2: it anymore. If it can exist without us, that's fine,
Speaker 2: but we're not going to give it any money. Also,
Speaker 2: in the courts now, I would say, in the courts,
Speaker 2: we're getting mixed messages about these DEI lawsuits. For example,
Speaker 2: earlier this month, Federal Appeals Court told NASDAK that they're
Speaker 2: racial and gender targets for the boards of its companies.
Speaker 2: You know, if you list your company on NASDAK, there's
Speaker 2: certain rules we have to follow if you want to
Speaker 2: be traded on NASDAK. And they said, we want to
Speaker 2: have rules about the racial and gender makeup of your
Speaker 2: board of director's company. And there was a big lawsuit
Speaker 2: and Federal Peace Court said you can't do that. You
Speaker 2: can have certain rules for these companies, but that's not
Speaker 2: one of them. One of the first companies to start
Speaker 2: this trend was Tractor Supply. Tractor Supply made a big
Speaker 2: announcement in June saying they were going to not support
Speaker 2: anymore LGBTQ events, not that they were going to fight
Speaker 2: them or anything, but they weren't going to actively support them.
Speaker 2: And they issued a statement saying we've heard from customers
Speaker 2: that we have disappointed them, so they were hearing a
Speaker 2: lot from people who do not like DI. Some court
Speaker 2: cases have upheld various DEI programs at different companies, so
Speaker 2: the judicial side of it, it remains to be seen
Speaker 2: where that's going to go. But generally speaking, there is
Speaker 2: a trend to move away from DEI. One company though
Speaker 2: it's too bad, bills not here right now. Because one
Speaker 2: company that is not moving away, that is not caving
Speaker 2: to the pressure is cost Co and they've got this
Speaker 2: group called the National Center for Public Policy Research that
Speaker 2: wants the shareholders of cost Co to vote to require
Speaker 2: the company to issue reports on how financially risky it
Speaker 2: is for Costco to have these programs. They do cost
Speaker 2: companies money to operate, they absolutely do. So this group says,
Speaker 2: you have to tell your shareholders how much money you're
Speaker 2: spending on DEI stuff, and Costco said, no, we don't want.
Speaker 2: We opposed that. We don't want that, don't vote for that.
Speaker 2: And they have a chief Diversity officer. Their supplier program
Speaker 2: is focused on expanding small and diverse businesses to supply
Speaker 2: goods to Costco. It donates to organizations like the Thurgood
Speaker 2: Marshall College Fund that serves minorities and other underrepresented groups.
Speaker 2: So a lot of companies are caving. Costco is not caving.
Speaker 2: And I don't really know how you decide whether or
Speaker 2: not to patronize a company visa the what their DEI policies.
Speaker 2: If you're anti DEI, do you actually refrain, like will
Speaker 2: you not be a cost Co member because they are
Speaker 2: pro DEI? I don't think about it that much. Maybe
Speaker 2: that makes me a bad person, or maybe that just
Speaker 2: makes me if I'm in consumer mode. I'm in consumer
Speaker 2: mode and I'm gonna do business with whatever company best
Speaker 2: meets my consumer needs at the time, and not necessarily
Speaker 2: try to research everything about them.
Speaker 1: But you do you boo.
Speaker 2: Oh, alrighty, let's ummm yeah, let's get into it. Gift
Speaker 2: giving season is winding down, but sometimes gifts are given
Speaker 2: all year round. It's time to talk about animals in
Speaker 2: the news. Never in an upsetting way. This is heavy petting.
Speaker 2: When people give gifts to other people, the percentage of
Speaker 2: times that they're doing it to have sex is minimal.
Speaker 2: Of all the gifts that are given in a year
Speaker 2: by humans to humans, very few of them are being
Speaker 2: given for the sole purpose of trying to get the
Speaker 2: gift e to have sex with you.
Speaker 1: But in the animal kingdom, that is the main reason.
Speaker 2: It's the main reason gifts are given, and many animals
Speaker 2: give gifts.
Speaker 1: Now, when you give a gift, and this is.
Speaker 2: I think exclusively, although there might be an exception out
Speaker 2: there somewhere. I think it's exclusively the male of the
Speaker 2: species giving a gift to the female in order to
Speaker 2: get permission to mate. Snails do it, earthworms do it,
Speaker 2: Squids do it, birds do it. But where you see
Speaker 2: this the most insects and arachnids, bugs and spiders. For example,
Speaker 2: the male six spot burnet moth gives the gift. Now,
Speaker 2: hold on, I will explain why gives the gift of
Speaker 2: cyanide to the lady.
Speaker 1: Hello, would you like some cyanide?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: My goodness, I certainly would.
Speaker 2: Well, then let's go at it now. For us, cyanide
Speaker 2: is bad and deadly and we don't want it. But
Speaker 2: in the case of the six spot moth, it's actually
Speaker 2: they use it as a defense mechanism, so they like
Speaker 2: to get cyanide inside of them. Nursery web spiders go
Speaker 2: a man will go to a lady with some kind
Speaker 2: of of tasty morsel wrapped up in silk and then
Speaker 2: sprits some chemicals on it that they have to make
Speaker 2: it even more alluring. And if the if the guy
Speaker 2: shows up, hey, I wrapped this larva in silk for you,
Speaker 2: and the lady goes nah, the guy will go back
Speaker 2: and wrap more silk and then come back and go
Speaker 2: what about now. Now here's the thing, though, sometimes these
Speaker 2: guys are cheapskates. Sometimes the male nursery web spider will
Speaker 2: try to trick the lady by taking some kind of
Speaker 2: low quality prey or maybe even like they ate half
Speaker 2: of a larva and then they got full, and now
Speaker 2: there's this half eaten larva and they're like, I'll just
Speaker 2: wrap it in silk, and you know, see if I
Speaker 2: get this lady to take it. Because the here's what happens.
Speaker 2: Do you know what's in a gift before you unwrap it? No?
Speaker 2: You do not. Generally you have to unwrap it first,
Speaker 2: and I would imagine wrapping something in silk makes it
Speaker 2: to fairly time consuming to open it up. So the
Speaker 2: guy shows up here, I forgot you this, and the
Speaker 2: lady spider is unwrapping it and the guy he just
Speaker 2: starts mating with her and she's distracted, and he'll finish
Speaker 2: his business and run off, and.
Speaker 1: Then she gets it open.
Speaker 2: And goes, gosh, this is just half an eating larva.
Speaker 1: What a cad.
Speaker 2: There was a study done on this, Yes, somebody funded
Speaker 2: a study to find out how often the male nursery
Speaker 2: web spider gave a crappy gift to a female as
Speaker 2: part of the mating ritual and said that as many
Speaker 2: as seventy percent of the gift's gift, even by the dude,
Speaker 2: are fake. So it must really. I mean, you think
Speaker 2: it's tough dating human guys, ladies, think of what it's
Speaker 2: like being one of these lady spiders. Then there's the
Speaker 2: animals that give the gift of themselves. For example, the
Speaker 2: sagebrush cricket. They had a deal, the man and the lady.
Speaker 2: If you let me mate with you, you, the lady,
Speaker 2: can nibble on my wings, you can eat part of
Speaker 2: my body.
Speaker 1: You can even suck some of my blood.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not blood, it's the insect equivalent of blood.
Speaker 2: It's called some science name like hemelythh or something hemolymph.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but yeah, you can be a little
Speaker 2: vampire on me for the privilege of mating with you,
Speaker 2: not to point out that it's really in both of
Speaker 2: their interests to mate at some point, because you gotta,
Speaker 2: you know, keep the species going.
Speaker 1: So letting the lady nibble on you is one thing.
Speaker 1: But the male redback spider, this is what happens here.
Speaker 1: This is grim.
Speaker 2: Hey, could we make some spider bait? Could I put
Speaker 2: some spider babies in you?
Speaker 1: Yes? Yes, you could? All right, here we go.
Speaker 2: And while that's happening, while they are pro creating, this
Speaker 2: spider will flip, like do a backflip into the lady's
Speaker 2: mouth so she can chew on his body while they're mating,
Speaker 2: and eventually she eats all of him. But look, here's
Speaker 2: the thing, you know, Apparently out in the wild, it's
Speaker 2: much like it is here in the human world, where,
Speaker 2: Oh boy, are you lucky if you're a guy and
Speaker 2: you're looking to procreate? Are you lucky if you get
Speaker 2: a lady to agree to? And so I guess they
Speaker 2: don't mind. Also, it's another distraction in this regard. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: I'm now in your mouth and you can eat me,
Speaker 2: which buys him some time to I don't mean I'm
Speaker 2: not trying to be gross. This is clinical to put
Speaker 2: more sperm inside of her, which means more offspring. The
Speaker 2: way it works, it doesn't work that way for humans,
Speaker 2: but apparently here it does. So it is ultimately about
Speaker 2: It's not about generosity.
Speaker 1: It's about trying. And it's not even about like.
Speaker 2: I'm a randy animal and I just I really need
Speaker 2: to do it and what do I have to do
Speaker 2: to get you to let me. It's it's really about
Speaker 2: we need to not die out. But y'all aren't making
Speaker 2: it so easy. God, you didn't make it super easy
Speaker 2: for us to keep from dying out.
Speaker 1: So now it's tricks and gifts and fake food and.
Speaker 2: Let me keep the species going, and I'll give up
Speaker 2: my life to do it. All right, that's heavy petting
Speaker 2: for a Tuesday. We'll probably do another one before the
Speaker 2: end of the week.
Speaker 1: This is KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app. 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.