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 Handles Show. He's back from vacation Monday.
Speaker 2: Wayne Resnik here with you until nine o'clock. Then Gary
Speaker 2: and Shannon are gonna come aboard, and we have some
Speaker 2: new information in both the New Orleans terror attack and
Speaker 2: the truck explosion in Las Vegas. And after I give
Speaker 2: you a little update, we're gonna get into a very
Speaker 2: uncomfortable aspect of both of these Both of these events,
Speaker 2: as authorities have been searching for some connection between them,
Speaker 2: there is one. It's not one that really is going
Speaker 2: to be comfortable to talk about, though. But first some updates.
Speaker 2: We now know that the active duty soldier who was
Speaker 2: inside the Tesla cyber truck when it exploded in front
Speaker 2: of Trumpeter National Hotel in Las Vegas had, by the way,
Speaker 2: I guess, trigger warning alert whatever, there's some graphic things coming.
Speaker 2: He three two one. He shot himself in the head
Speaker 2: just before the explosion detonated. Seven people were injured with
Speaker 2: minor injuries. There was virtually no damage to the building.
Speaker 2: Now authorities think that this guy wanted a bigger attack,
Speaker 2: of more damaging attack. But what happened is the steel
Speaker 2: sides of the cyber truck took a lot of the blast,
Speaker 2: and also most of the force of the explosion went up,
Speaker 2: out and up, so it didn't go out horizontally so much.
Speaker 2: It went up mostly vertically into the air. The doors
Speaker 2: from the hotel were just a few feet away and
Speaker 2: didn't theion didn't hit those doors. Now, there's a special
Speaker 2: Agent in charge of ATF named Kenny Cooper said that
Speaker 2: the level of sophistication is not what we would expect
Speaker 2: from an individual with this type of military science experience.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, So what I don't understand is is he
Speaker 2: does he mean this was very sophisticated.
Speaker 1: Or is he saying I would have thought a guy.
Speaker 2: Who was a Green Beret and served and has five
Speaker 2: Bronze stars.
Speaker 1: Would have done a better job with it. I can't.
Speaker 2: I can't clock where he's coming from on this because
Speaker 2: it does not seem particularly sophisticated, and even seems like
Speaker 2: he didn't think about whether a cyber truck would be
Speaker 2: the right vehicle to use.
Speaker 1: I guess look, thank goodness for that. Now over to
Speaker 1: New Orleans.
Speaker 2: I mean, the big news is that after being very
Speaker 2: convinced that multiple people were involved in planning and or
Speaker 2: executing that attack, the government now is convinced that there
Speaker 2: weren't and that the perpetrator there acted alone. He drove
Speaker 2: to New Orleans, he made bombs in his rental home.
Speaker 2: He put pipe bombs in ice chests along Bourbon Street.
Speaker 2: He drove the rented electric Ford F one fifty pickup
Speaker 2: truck into the crowd. He got out and shot at people,
Speaker 2: and he was shot by police. And he did all
Speaker 2: of that by himself, suggesting that since he since he
Speaker 2: did not detonate the bombs before he drove the truck
Speaker 2: through the crowd, the implication is his plan was to
Speaker 2: drive through the crowd, get out, start shooting people and
Speaker 2: they and detonate some pipe bombs on top of that.
Speaker 2: And I guess he didn't realize that most police officers
Speaker 2: are pretty good at taking down suspects. And there's also
Speaker 2: some speculation that he chose to rent an electric vehicle
Speaker 2: so that it would be quieter and he could in
Speaker 2: essence sneak up on people more stealthily in that vehicle.
Speaker 1: Now, this is the connection.
Speaker 2: There's an organization at the University of Maryland and it's
Speaker 2: called START, which but START means the National Consortium for
Speaker 2: the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. And they
Speaker 2: have so much data about mass casualty offenders, mass shooters, bombers,
Speaker 2: the whole thing. They have detailed information on almost every,
Speaker 2: if not every mass casualty event.
Speaker 1: Going back to at least nineteen ninety. The connection is
Speaker 1: the military service.
Speaker 2: According to their data, the single if you're gonna pull
Speaker 2: one data point out as the strongest predictor that someone
Speaker 2: will carry out extremist violence. That one factor is military service,
Speaker 2: more highly correlated than mental health issues. The number each
Speaker 2: year of people with military backgrounds who commit extremist crimes
Speaker 2: is going up. If you look at the period from
Speaker 2: ninety to about twenty ten, it was averaging seven people
Speaker 2: a year with military backgrounds did something like this, and
Speaker 2: then it started going up, and now it's almost forty five,
Speaker 2: forty three to forty five a year. In just the
Speaker 2: last fourteen years, basically, there's been seven hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: people with military backgrounds who committed crimes that were motivated
Speaker 2: by the political beliefs or social beliefs or religious goals
Speaker 2: that they had or economic goals that they had. Now
Speaker 2: one of these events, I don't think this is skewing
Speaker 2: the numbers in terms of how many or whether it's
Speaker 2: a predictor or a risk factor. One of these is
Speaker 2: the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in nineteen ninety five,
Speaker 2: three hundred and fourteen deaths, almost two thousand injuries. But
Speaker 2: the fact of the matter is, when you crunch these
Speaker 2: numbers as they do, this is what stands out. To
Speaker 2: try now on the fly to speculate as to what
Speaker 2: that means would be foolish and would be an insult
Speaker 2: to the fact that the overwhelming majority, the percentage that
Speaker 2: is so close to one hundred percent that it's virtually
Speaker 2: one hundred percent of people who have and do serve
Speaker 2: in the military, never ever do or would do something
Speaker 2: like this. But there's something there the combination of military
Speaker 2: service and some there's something else, and you put them
Speaker 2: together and you do get this this connection. Now, LAPD
Speaker 2: stats show an increase in robberies in some parts of
Speaker 2: the city. Okay, crime ebbs and flows, and we've certainly
Speaker 2: been living with a mindset. I would say that there's
Speaker 2: more retail theft going on, there's more shoplifting going on,
Speaker 2: there's more people going into stores and grabbing stuff and
Speaker 2: walking out and threatening security guards or pulling knives or
Speaker 2: knocking them down or bumping into them or.
Speaker 1: What have you.
Speaker 2: And so the statistics are saying that in some parts
Speaker 2: of the city those numbers are up, but others are saying,
Speaker 2: ads is not really right, this is not really fair.
Speaker 2: And the La Times has a big piece where they say, hey,
Speaker 2: we looked at a lot of these incidents, and you
Speaker 2: know a lot of them started as shoplifting. So I
Speaker 2: guess the idea is that the LAPD is taking a
Speaker 2: shoplifting case and then they're scoring it as a robbery.
Speaker 2: And so why would they do that? What's their game?
Speaker 2: Do they want to scare us? Do they want to
Speaker 2: use higher robbery stats to get more funding or more
Speaker 2: cops on the street or more equipment. And it doesn't
Speaker 2: look like that's what's going on at all. And in fact,
Speaker 2: even though it's a little it might be counterintuitive, but
Speaker 2: it seems to be.
Speaker 1: The correct way to do it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to tell you why I'm on the side
Speaker 2: of the LAPD here with reporting these incidents that they
Speaker 2: do report as robberies reporting them as robberies, even if
Speaker 2: they did begin as a shoplifting. So somebody picks up
Speaker 2: some stuff in the store and they're starting to leave,
Speaker 2: and at this point what happens next is largely in
Speaker 2: the hands of the staff or the security at the store.
Speaker 2: If they stand aside and let the person go, probably
Speaker 2: nobody's going to be hurt, nobody's going to be threatened,
Speaker 2: and you are not going to have anything that you
Speaker 2: could possibly call a robbery. But if somebody decides to intervene,
Speaker 2: it might be successful the person puts the stuff down,
Speaker 2: but also it could.
Speaker 1: Lead to a threat.
Speaker 2: It could lead to buffaloing through the person, you know,
Speaker 2: the person who's stealing the stuff, kind of like bowls
Speaker 2: over the security guard, punches, the security guard threat pulls
Speaker 2: out a knife, says he has a knife when he
Speaker 2: doesn't have another knife, and at that point, uh, it
Speaker 2: becomes a robbery. Because robbery is loosely defined as using force, fear,
Speaker 2: or intimidation to get property from somebody. It doesn't you know,
Speaker 2: you don't have to have a gun, you don't have
Speaker 2: to point a gun at a person, you don't have
Speaker 2: to have a weapon that's why there's robbery, and separately,
Speaker 2: there's armed robbery. Because some robberies don't have a weapon
Speaker 2: and you don't have to touch anybody. There are certain
Speaker 2: threats that are enough. And this all goes back to
Speaker 2: a guy named Curtis Estes.
Speaker 1: Way back in the day.
Speaker 2: Curtis Estes tried to leave a Sears store in Vallejo.
Speaker 2: He was wearing a down vest and a coat they
Speaker 2: didn't pay for, and an armed security guard, you know,
Speaker 2: stopped him in the parking lot. And this guy pulled
Speaker 2: out a knife and said linealonar will kill you. And
Speaker 2: then he did end up surrendering and he was convicted
Speaker 2: of felony robbery. And then he appealed and said, you
Speaker 2: can't convict me of robbery because and it wasn't about
Speaker 2: the knife and the threat. His thing was, you can't
Speaker 2: convict me of robbery because the guy I threatened it
Speaker 2: wasn't his property. He's the security guards for Seers. He's
Speaker 2: not the owner of the stuff I was trying to steal.
Speaker 2: And the appeals Cauard said no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2: You can be the victim of a robbery even if
Speaker 2: you don't own the property that somebody's taken for you.
Speaker 2: So cops will and DA's will often charge somebody with
Speaker 2: robbery under this standard if it started as a shoplifting
Speaker 2: but the person either threatened violence or became violence, or
Speaker 2: used some kind of force or fear to try to
Speaker 2: get away with the property. And then later on, you know,
Speaker 2: secutor can look at it and say, let's knock this
Speaker 2: down to a misdemeanor, or let's dismiss it. You can
Speaker 2: handle these things after the charges have been filed. But
Speaker 2: even when that happens, the LAPD is still going to
Speaker 2: count it as a robbery because to them, it started
Speaker 2: as a robbery. Now the accusation that perhaps the LAPD
Speaker 2: wants to juke the robbery stats to get more money
Speaker 2: or people, I don't think.
Speaker 1: I think it's the opposite.
Speaker 2: These stats, yes, they're used for funding requests and resource requests,
Speaker 2: but they're also used to gauge the success of the
Speaker 2: different stations and the leaders of those stations. If I
Speaker 2: were a captain in LAPD, I would not want the
Speaker 2: robbery numbers to go up. I would want them to
Speaker 2: go down because that's the feather in my cap that
Speaker 2: I need career wise, and I certainly wouldn't be looking
Speaker 2: to screw around and say things are robberies when there's
Speaker 2: no basis to say that they were robberies. The fact
Speaker 2: of the matter is some shopliftings. It's not that some
Speaker 2: shopliftings are being erroneously counted as robberies, which is what
Speaker 2: I feel like the La Times article is trying to
Speaker 2: get at. I think that's what they're trying to have
Speaker 2: you come away with. I think it's that some shopliftings
Speaker 2: turn into robberies because the shoplifter is aggressive and the
Speaker 2: security guard decides to be aggressive. And I don't feel
Speaker 2: like blaming the security guard in a situation like that.
Speaker 2: So when people apply for financial aid to go to college,
Speaker 2: they fill out a FAFSA, a Free Application for Federal
Speaker 2: Student Aid, and it helps you calculate what you might
Speaker 2: be eligible for. And you could get a PEL grant,
Speaker 2: which is a help to go to college that you
Speaker 2: don't have to pay back, or you could get a
Speaker 2: student loan.
Speaker 1: There are other kinds of assistants that are available.
Speaker 2: And there was a problem already with this form where
Speaker 2: they wanted to make it better, and they did make
Speaker 2: it shorter for the twenty twenty three twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: season financial aid season. But instead there were glitches, there
Speaker 2: were data entry problems, there were delays. Everybody was frustrated,
Speaker 2: and according to the Government Accountability Office, this debacle led
Speaker 2: to a decline in first time college I'm sorry, in
Speaker 2: first time submissions for financial aid to go to college
Speaker 2: of nine percent, literally almost ten percent down because it
Speaker 2: was too much of a pain in the keyster. It
Speaker 2: looks like they've got most of that worked out, but
Speaker 2: now there's a new problem. It doesn't have anything to
Speaker 2: do with the form, and it doesn't have anything to
Speaker 2: do with currently the Department of Education that administers this form.
Speaker 2: It has to do with the fact that a new
Speaker 2: administration is coming in for you. See, when you fill
Speaker 2: out the FAFSA, one of the things that wants you
Speaker 2: to put down are your parents' Social Security numbers. But
Speaker 2: guess what, some parents of US citizen students are not
Speaker 2: themselves legally here, so they may not have a Social
Speaker 2: Security number. And now the fear of these kids who
Speaker 2: just want to go to college is that if they
Speaker 2: apply and they fill out this form, they will be
Speaker 2: outing a parent as an undocumented person. Now it's not
Speaker 2: they it shouldn't be that they're afraid because the Higher
Speaker 2: Education Act absolutely prohibits the use of whatever you put
Speaker 2: on this form for anything other than determining what you're
Speaker 2: eligible for in financial assistance and awarding you that financial assistance.
Speaker 2: So the law would say nobody from immigration should be
Speaker 2: looking at this information. Nobody should ever know outside of
Speaker 2: the Education Department, and even the people inside the Education Department,
Speaker 2: they might see the form and they might clock that
Speaker 2: I guess maybe this person since a parent is not
Speaker 2: here legally, they would they're not allowed to do anything
Speaker 2: about it, and that then the Department of Education recently
Speaker 2: said that, oh, you know, we are gonna continue to
Speaker 2: protect this, but we have a new administration coming in
Speaker 2: and so we now can't really assure you that the
Speaker 2: information won't be used for other things. It would be
Speaker 2: breaking the law as it's currently written for it to happen.
Speaker 2: But I don't think that anybody it would be surprised
Speaker 2: to hear that some law breaking goes on in the
Speaker 2: government sometimes. And because of the new administration, because of
Speaker 2: the focus on illegal immigration, and because of the promises
Speaker 2: of very very aggressive action about it, many people think
Speaker 2: it's at least plausible that there will be some kind
Speaker 2: of whether it's a formal executive order that the Department
Speaker 2: of Education will now share these forms with I don't know,
Speaker 2: Customs Enforcement, or whether it will be more of a
Speaker 2: behind the scenes hey why don't you or whether I
Speaker 2: don't know, ICE agents will show up at the Department
Speaker 2: of Education and say, hey, do you mind if we
Speaker 2: look at these forms that in some way this will
Speaker 2: be used as a resource to identify people who may
Speaker 2: be deportable, which, you know, there's two things going on here,
Speaker 2: because let's say we have we have a person who
Speaker 2: is here unlawfully, and we have their child who is
Speaker 2: here lawfully. So now we have a situation where one
Speaker 2: person may face a bad consequence, but it's something that
Speaker 2: comes with the territory.
Speaker 1: If you're here.
Speaker 2: Unlawfully, you really are not generally in entitled to avoid scrutiny.
Speaker 2: So you have someone who might get dinged, the parent,
Speaker 2: and then there's an argument that well, they knew all along.
Speaker 1: That at some point they could be dinged.
Speaker 2: There's any number of other ways that the authorities could
Speaker 2: become aware of the situation, or maybe they're aware of
Speaker 2: it and a current administration doesn't feel like doing anything
Speaker 2: about it. But that doesn't entitle you to get the
Speaker 2: same treatment from a new administration.
Speaker 1: So that's one thing.
Speaker 2: And then you have somebody, the child, who absolutely doesn't
Speaker 2: deserve to be hurt this way. They clearly didn't do
Speaker 2: anything wrong, and here they are now and they may
Speaker 2: not be able to go to college because they're too
Speaker 2: afraid to ask for financial help that they could get.
Speaker 1: So I don't have an answer for you.
Speaker 2: I don't have one except we have to figure out
Speaker 2: a way to not let bad things happen to the
Speaker 2: people who in no way deserve them, who in no
Speaker 2: way did anything to make those bad things a possibility.
Speaker 1: That's my thought. Members gets you don't need no money
Speaker 1: to qualify. Don't bring your check making you're broken.
Speaker 2: Christ to kf I am six forty live everywhere on
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app. It's the Bill Handle Show. He's back
Speaker 2: on Monday. Wayne Resnik here and it is.
Speaker 1: Time for members only.
Speaker 2: A series of news stories connected by a by a
Speaker 2: factor near and dear to men and the people who
Speaker 2: love them. And uh, I don't know if you heard
Speaker 2: about this, but there was a big fracas. Be quiet, serie.
Speaker 2: I didn't call for you. There was a big fracas
Speaker 2: at Mister Chow restaurant. Mister Chow is a Chinese restaurant
Speaker 2: Beverly Hills. I've never been here.
Speaker 1: That is way way way, way, way way way.
Speaker 2: Out of my league, but a lot of celebrities go
Speaker 2: to Mister Chow. And one night, right before the holiday
Speaker 2: season began, or as it began, Jamie Fox was having
Speaker 2: a birthday dinner at Mister Chow and up in the
Speaker 2: VIP area that had been rented out by the production
Speaker 2: company that makes the Jackass movies and TV show, and
Speaker 2: they sent a drink down to Jamie Fox for his
Speaker 2: birthday and he didn't drink it because he apparently stopped drinking.
Speaker 1: But in any event, shortly.
Speaker 2: After that, the people up there were like, hey, hey, hey,
Speaker 2: and somebody the table said hey, they're saying hello to you,
Speaker 2: and he looks up and they're all laughing up there.
Speaker 2: And at this point I'm relating to you Jamie Fox's
Speaker 2: side of the story, which is heavily denied by the
Speaker 2: Jackass people and their attorney. So just that's how I'm
Speaker 2: presenting it. This is what Jamie Fox says, why are
Speaker 2: they laughing? And then he realizes that somebody has a
Speaker 2: laser pointer and is projecting a penis on Jamie Fox's
Speaker 2: table at mister Chow, I didn't know such things existed,
Speaker 2: but I.
Speaker 1: Guess they do.
Speaker 2: And his family was there and he did not like
Speaker 2: that one little bit, and apparently he went upstairs and
Speaker 2: there was a big, tense confrontation. And that's what Jamie
Speaker 2: Fox says. But an attorney representing the Jackass Fellas says
Speaker 2: that his version of events is very, very wrong and
Speaker 2: inaccurate and unfair. So who knows what really happened except
Speaker 2: I don't see anybody denying that they did project a
Speaker 2: laser penis onto Jamie Fox's birthday dinner table. So that's
Speaker 2: just people saying this is what I say happen to me.
Speaker 1: That's not science of any kind. Here is science.
Speaker 2: Here's a study that is the opposite of what some
Speaker 2: people thought. From nineteen forty two until twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: that time period, researchers looked at over fifty five thousand
Speaker 2: men from all over the world, all ages, who took
Speaker 2: part in a study where their penis size was measured
Speaker 2: both at rest and I guess battle ready because they
Speaker 2: wanted to see how this has changed over the last
Speaker 2: thirty years, whatever it's been now A lot of experts,
Speaker 2: including this guy up at Stanford Medicine, he's a professor
Speaker 2: of urology. He said, well, what they're gonna find out
Speaker 2: is it's gotten smaller because we've seen, for example, declines
Speaker 2: in sperm count with men. We know there's more environmental
Speaker 2: exposure to chemicals, pesticides, even hygiene products now have things
Speaker 2: in them that affect our hormone systems, and there's endocrine
Speaker 2: disrupting chemicals, and so the bottom line is, you know,
Speaker 2: men have less sperm, and I assume the thing is
Speaker 2: getting smaller.
Speaker 1: But the results are the opposite once you.
Speaker 2: Adjust for geographic region and age and the total subject population.
Speaker 2: This study found that battle ready length has gone up
Speaker 2: twenty four percent in the last twenty nine years, the
Speaker 2: twenty nine years covered by the study, which seems amazing,
Speaker 2: which seems like happy news to go up from an average.
Speaker 2: By the way, and men, I'm gonna tell you this
Speaker 2: because I'm telling you never ever ever be worried or nervous,
Speaker 2: or or or feel inadequate, because we are talking about
Speaker 2: average battle ready size increasing from four point eight inches
Speaker 2: to six.
Speaker 1: So you're fine. I promise you're fine.
Speaker 2: But it's not happy news because all of the experts
Speaker 2: are saying, well, even if it's the opposite result of
Speaker 2: what we thought, it's still for the same reasons. We
Speaker 2: still say this is happening because of all the chemical
Speaker 2: exposure and the impacts on reproductive health. And maybe this
Speaker 2: is me now jumping off from the study and wondering if,
Speaker 2: from an evolutionary standpoint, if you become less fertile, does
Speaker 2: the body try to compensate for that by increasing the
Speaker 2: size of the delivery system, even though I don't see
Speaker 2: how that would actually help. And also, thirty years is
Speaker 2: a very short time for an evolutionary effect to take place.
Speaker 2: But anyway, that's what they found. And now I leave
Speaker 2: you with this. Be happy that you are not. Be
Speaker 2: happy that you're not a super hot male porn star. Yes,
Speaker 2: they make a lot of money. Josh Moore is one
Speaker 2: of them. He's one of the leading male performers in
Speaker 2: the adult entertainment industry. And he makes like five hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars a year on only fans, and he jet
Speaker 2: said around the world, and he lives in a fancy
Speaker 2: house and you may be like man, that would be
Speaker 2: the life, except he has to pay five hundred dollars
Speaker 2: a month for insurance for you know what, Chefs have
Speaker 2: life insurance. Actors often ensure their faces. There's been some
Speaker 2: celebrities who were famous for their legs, for example, that
Speaker 2: had million dollar insurance policies on their legs. And if
Speaker 2: you work in the adult industry, you know what you.
Speaker 1: Need to ensure.
Speaker 2: He knows it. He needs to five hundred bucks a month.
Speaker 2: It's KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the 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.