October 10, 2025 • 33 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 2 (10/10) - Mark Thompson fills in for John. Veterinarian Dr. Jennifer Conrad joins the show to speak on the legislation outlawing the maiming of cats.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can if I am six forty you're listening to the
John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
A lot of stuff legislation that's passed the governor's desk. Today,
there was a piece of legislation that passed the Governor's
desk and it's the culmination of a long, long effort
to get this piece of legislation on the books. And
you know, oftentimes it can be a long time before
you get legislation passed. I like this story because, hey,
it hits something that I care about, which is animals.
(00:31):
And I also like it though, because it's the power
of one person to begin the process, create momentum, and
then actually get legislation passed over the objection of big
money and lobbying against it. The legislation I'm talking about
is the new legislation outlawing the maiming of cats, the
(00:56):
declawing they call it, where they den uckle cats or
cut their tendons off, and it's generally done, you know,
to protect furniture or whatever. The reason is they don't want,
you know, in the house, people don't want clawing, but
it's an important part of a cat's life. Anyway, this
procedure has existed as a money maker for veterinarians, and
(01:20):
there's big money behind it nationwide and in California. So
one person began this effort to try to get it
out lawed county by county, city by city, et cetera.
And she joins us now, doctor Jennifer Conrad, veterinarian. Congratulations
to you. It's got to be a pretty big week.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Thank you, Mark. Yeah, yes, thank you Mark. You've been
there for the for the long haul with me on this,
so it's nice to get to talk to you about
it actually becoming illegal in California to be claw cats.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
I think, uh, the cruelty associated with it is substantial,
and that you know it as a veterinarian, and you've
always just been repulsed by it, the fact that it
was something that was just done so routinely.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
It is done routinely. It's still done routinely. It's twenty
two percent of American cats are declawed and seventy two
percent of veterinarians will declaw cats. So that's why it
had to be that we went to legislation because veterinarians
have clearly failed to police themselves. And I am a veterinarian,
I'm allowed.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
To say that.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Yeah, the Paw Project movie. You did a documentary. It
was long time ago. I want to see it was
like twenty twelve maybe something like that, Like yeah, yeah,
and that really laid it out, like wow, it just
starkly hits you. Man. It's just a money making thing,
and it's done so quickly, and they essentially destroy this
cat's ability in instance after instance to live its life,
(02:46):
and all kinds of other behavioral and physical issues begin
to show up in the cat after this procedure goes
down exactly.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
And I think if veterinarians called it d knuckling, then
I think people who have cats wouldn't do it to
their cats. But this, this euphemism of it being called
decline when it's actually amputating towbones is why it's so popular.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
That's such a great point because you think of it, Oh,
it's like clipping toenails almost just permanently click clipping toenails,
just the clause, but it's actually, you know, naming these creatures.
So I want to get to something because I really
think beyond just the specific legislation, I'm so happy for you.
And as I say that Paul Project movie just details
the way in which you built a coalition. You started this,
(03:31):
you were outraged by it, you were repulsed by it.
You were again in this community of veterinarians, and they
were backed by some pretty big money. As I recall
the kind of you know, the headwind against you was
pretty strong, and you somehow got a coalition of enough
people who were outraged by the immorality of this that
(03:52):
you actually got momentum behind the legislation. So I like
to just talk about this because is the triumph of you,
in one person, building a coalition and getting this effort
across the finish line. How did that happen?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Well, I think that once people understand what it is,
and if you care about cats and you realize that
their own doctors are maiming them to protect couches, then
people are incensed. And that's how the coalition started. And
when Jim Jenol joined me on this, he's such a
good organizer of so many things, then we really started
(04:27):
to build momentum and got veterinarians all over the country
to feel like, you know, you could belong to a
group who protects cats instead of the group that decides
to betray cats. And now we have thousands and thousands
of veterinarians who are happy to admit that decline is
awful and that they'll never do it.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
But when you started, I remember there was a pretty
big pushback from I wondered, it's the veterinary union or so,
you know, it's some group that supposedly represents vets.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Exactly. The veterinary trade associations are always against because against
doing anything that's good for animals because they they see
it as it being bad for business. They see anything
that makes animals have any protections under the law as
being bad for business, because remember, veterinarians and veninary trade
(05:19):
associations very often look at animals as property. And that
is why the pushback was so big. And it's a
billion dollar a year business declined. So that's the problem
is that people don't want to admit how awful it
is because it is such a moneymaker.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
It's such a brutal, you know, business of when you
think about it, like, you know, the dollars and cents
measured against the you know, the immorality of it. So
what happened it was it county by county or how
did you try to get this legislation across the governor's desk.
I mean you had to, you know, you really had
(05:56):
to get a lot of signatories to this.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yes, we did. We had a lot of What we
had which was magical this time was we had Alex Lee,
assembly Member Alex Lee who loves cats, and he was
not going to let this go. He kept working at it,
and he kept working at it, and finally he pushed
it across the line. And you know what's remarkable, Mark,
after all these years of doing this is that we
(06:22):
did not get a single no vote. Republicans voted DS,
Democrats voted DS. The governor signed it. We did not
get any no votes, which means that people are coming
to their senses that this is an awful thing to
do to a cat's there's no reason to do. It
doesn't protect furniture, it doesn't protect human health because d
claud cats bite more, and they use the litter box
(06:44):
less because it hurts their paws to dig in the sand.
So people have come to their senses, and now it
is illegal. Veterinarians couldn't police themselves because it's a billion
dollar a year business. So now the state legislators stepped
in and said it is illegal to declaw cats.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I love it. It's such a triumph, really a triumph,
and it has taken so very long from start to finish.
How long did it take?
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Well, I started the Paw Project in nineteen ninety nine
and the first time we tried to run legislation in
the state of California was two thousand and four, and
we got shot down over and over again. And what's
funny about it this year, and I have to say
that I'm really happy, is that the opposition has been
stripped down to they have no arguments. They don't They
(07:33):
used to say stuff like, oh, it's going to protect
human health, or it's going to cats are going to
lose their homes. But we've refuted all the arguments of
why de clung should be legal, and so they've been
stripped down to nothing and now they just have to
admit it's wrong and it's illegal.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Congratulations to you California banning the what's called declawing of
cats under this new law. It's taken those decades to
get it done. You started it, and I just think
it's so very exciting. Congratulations, Thank you, Mark. Yeah, doctor
Jennifer Conrad, thanks for joining us on KFI. Yeah, I
(08:11):
mean again. I love that story for so many different reasons.
But one of the reasons I like that story is
because one person's outrage led to a movement and they
finally brought it home. But it took twenty years to
do it. You know, it is the co Belt Show.
Thompson sitting in hey bottom of the hour, and we're
going to talk about the eat and fire compensation plan.
(08:33):
It's interesting because some of the residents are taking what
they kind of feel is a lousy deal just because
they're desperate to take a deal, but others feel completely
ignored nine months into this recovery process. We'll talk about
that bottom of the hour, as they say, John Cobelt Show,
Mark Thompson sitting in on KFI AM six forty. We're
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (08:56):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI A
six forty.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I guess there's some flight delays that continue as a
result of these you know, shutdowns, people not showing up
to work, the control tower empty as it was in
Burbank for some time this week. You know, it's weird
to me, how can you consider these essential workers essential,
(09:23):
force them to come to work, but not consider paying
them essential. It's outrageous. I mean, it really doesn't make
any sense. It doesn't track logically. You have the means
to pay them, pay.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Them, especially air traffic controllers.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, but exactly, of course, that's what this is relevant to.
But I mean there are other examples. I mean, you know,
they're park police, and you know a bunch of other
I get it. When you're when you're in a plane
or you're waiting on a flight, the most essential worker
is in that control tower. But I'm just saying, in
other kind of interlock fucking aspects of life in America,
(10:02):
they're going to be other critical jobs. I mean, they
may be US customs enforcement people, you know what I mean,
border of people I'm talking about, who are managing airport immigration.
Those were coming in, in other words, from overseas, so
you're you know, if you're going anywhere, you have to
go through security at the airport. If you consider those
(10:24):
people who are working security essential workers, you're going to
force them to work, then you have to pay them.
It's absolutely outrageous that you can somehow compel them to
work and you're not compelled to pay them as the government.
And what's even more galling is that there's talk now
(10:45):
about now we're not sure that we're going to pay
everybody their back wages. We're deciding It's always been absolutely
automatic that everybody gets their back wages. In fact, it's
been so automatic as many of you know who work
in and around the military. Generally, banks that work with
(11:06):
military families or those who are in the military, they'll
extend loans. Usually they're you know, like zero percent loans
to service families, and the idea being as soon as
the government gets back in session, these loans will be
repaid automatically. But what's happened now is there's this dance
(11:28):
being done where in addition, you know, this is obviously
a high stakes situation in Washington where their demands on
either side, but now it's been weaponized in even other ways.
For example, you know, we're going to lay off a
lot of people. We're not going to furlow them, We're
(11:49):
going to lay off a lot of people. And now
that's happening. The layoffs have begun, so once again you know,
you've got layoff threatened. Now it actually is happening another
round of layoffs and cuts. This is that guy Russell Vote,
you know who runs omb He's kind of heading those up.
(12:09):
But more to my point, you're going to make those
burbank of control tower employees show up. You're going to
make those people who are working security at the airport
show up. You're going to make all of these support
personnel show up because there are essential workers, but you're
not going to pay them. It makes no sense. There
(12:33):
is a threat that Donald Trump is making to China
more tariffs in retaliation for restrictions imposed on the export
of rare earth minerals. And he's actually saying Donald Trump
is saying, I've got no reason to meet with President she.
(12:56):
This is a meeting is supposed to take place in
two weeks. So the stock market they got wind of
this and they sold the star markets sold off today.
I think sm he was down almost three percent. This
is really I mean, there's some real effects if you
get into a back and forth that is ugly with
(13:18):
America's biggest customer. And I'd say, you know, obviously, if
not the most significant trading partner, you could argue it
based on how you're evaluating it. One of the most
significant trading partners. You're going to see the effects in
the stock market, You're going to se effects in the
American economy. So you know, it's this is really tricky ground.
(13:39):
And I get it that there's a back and forth
going on between Trump and China, but it really is tricky.
So mean, all this stuff is happening at the same
time and within the community of those who have walked out,
and I'm talking about Congress specifically, and those who have
walked out and have the power to return government and
turn the lights back gone. And again I'm talking about Congress,
(14:02):
there are now cracks in the solidarity around well, we
can just tough this out as long as we have to.
They're cracks in that armor. And they're already those even
maga Congress people that are saying we got to get
back to work. And you saw the Marjorie Taylor green stuff,
didn't you. She's now saying, I'm not about this about
(14:26):
the the healthcare cuts. It's going to affect my family,
my kids. And that was significant because she is a
big backer of the president, and she's a big backer
of anything the GOP wants. But on two different things.
(14:46):
One the ACA subsidies, these subsidies that have to do
with the extension of Obamacare, and on the Epstein files,
those two things she breaks with a lot of the party,
and she is, let's face it, a loud megaphone. So
all these things are happening at the same time, federal layoffs,
(15:08):
government continues closed, You've got ripple effects through the transportation system,
through the air, and they're now cracks in the solidarity
around all of this in Washington. So that's the latest.
At the end of this week, when we come back
to the Eden fire survivors feel ignored nine months into
(15:30):
the recovery process. There's a real question about a compensation plan,
and even a compensation plan that's not that great is
being taken because it's all that's being offered. We'll talk
more about that next.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Mark Thompson sitting in for John. You know, one of
the big stories around and the rebuild of these fire
ravaged areas from the Palisades to Altadena is the way
in which Altadena has sort of been bereft, you know,
I mean, the eaten fire survivors sort of look at
(16:16):
things and see that the compensation plan isn't sufficient. I
wanted to talk to Shawna Dawson Beer about this and
just to get a state of the state because the
governor making various announcements that pertain to relief. But let's
(16:36):
see what Shawna's position is on all of this. And Shawna,
you can fill us in on where Altadena sits as
the state of California tries to ride in with some relief.
Welcome to Cavre.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
Yeah, it's nothing good, Mark, I think that's unfortunately the
answers to that question for Altadena right now. For context,
I am, like so many a fire survivor. I had
a total lost property west of Lake where we had
no fire response, no evacuation order, and still no answers
about that, And like everything, we're getting a lot of
(17:13):
lip service but not a lot of real action, just
a lot of broken promises.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yeah, I mean the town you're from, the nine thousand homes. Yeah,
Alta Dina, but lost. I think I feel like Alta
Dina just gets lost in a lot of the conversation
around the Palisades. You know, Palisades has the Moneysade Palisades
has a lot of leverage that comes with that money,
and sadly, Alta, Dina, just I feel as though they've
(17:42):
been at the kids table when it comes to all
of this.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
You know, Oh, unfortunately, I think you nailed it. I mean,
right after the fire, Governor k Newsom quickly signed an
executive order that would suspend SB nine. And for anyone
who's not familiar with FB nine, SB nine was a
Senate bill that was passed to try to address our
states housing crisis through increased density by splitting lots, allowing
(18:08):
multiple units on a lot larger a to us, reducing easements,
et cetera, all this kind of fun staff things that
frankly work in a lot of parts of the city
but did not work in others. And so he allowed
exemptions when this bill was passed a few years ago.
And then he allowed for our fire impacted communities, including
Altadena on the Palisades, to be entirely exempted from the
(18:31):
application of FBNI, but he left it to our local electics.
And so one thing that we do have in common
with the Palisades is that we are both in part
and I say in part because we Alsadina is entirely
unincorporated La County with a board of supervisors representatives for
the Palisades a little different parts. They are part unincorporated county,
(18:51):
part city, but in the Palisades they're representative on the
board of Supervisor. Lindsay Horbak and the mayor Karen Bath,
who represents the city portion, both immediately enacted that option
from Gavin Newsom and stopped SB nine because they wanted
(19:11):
to maintain the character and ensure that the community that
was rebuilt looked like the community that were crossed in Altadena,
where we have Katherin Barger is our fith district supervisor
who oversees it's important to understandab an area comprised of
more than sixty communities and more than two million people. Okay, well, shocker.
They did not elect to enact that, so SB nine
(19:33):
is still being applied, which opens the doors for greater developments,
which all kind of plays into raising the property tax base,
which frankly the powers that be want to do because
they want more money, because we are very We're a
cash cow. The disaster economy is real, folks, and everybody
but the fire victims is getting rich right now.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
And again when we say SB nine that allows for
the splitting of lots and essentially for yeah, I mean
in a way of the urbanization or the further urbanization
of the community. And and it and it's about money.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Yeah, that absolutely is. It's the same as SB seven
eighty two. That sounds like the governor just signed to
fight a lot of community pushbacks. And there's been a
lot of community push pushback because Albadina had no say,
no vote, the the tools to construct what they call
it e i f D and incremental UH financing district
(20:27):
economic increment and I forgive me, there's so many letters.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Yeah, I know, it's Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District is what
it's called. It's ei f D, right, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
So the whole point of this is to in theory,
you know, create mechanisms to fund rebuildings, right, and that
is that that is real. And we have those mechanisms
on the books that the county could enact at any
time and take advantage of. But instead of doing that,
they you know, this bill was created and pushed through.
It went through the Senate behind closed doors, no oversight,
(20:59):
no vote, no vido, and it actually eliminates the constituent
veto power. The protest element that exists typically was removed.
And it's hard to ask, you know, not to ask why,
why why do you need to remove the protest element
and just push it through and you could have done
(21:20):
it without the bill. And why is our supervisor and
especially why is Newsom not listening to what the people
in the community actually want. Instead, they're taking the word
of a county that continues to fail us. It just
told us, hey, we let you burn for three days
because we had no plans.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yeah, it really is, as the old phrases says, insults injury,
you know, I mean, it really is insulting that the
community is completely cut out of any input. It's absolutely
outrageous it is.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
And they know that they can do it because twenty
two thousand of us who have been impacted by this
and Altadina, which is half of our entire town, if
not more, are displaced. You're not where we can even vote,
We're not in our homes. We don't have homes. So
you know, what better time to take advantage and do
whatever you want with the community. And at the end
of the day, the situation in Altadena very simply is
(22:14):
one of the largest real estate development deals in the
history of the state. It's a lot of money to
be made. There's billions of dollars at stake. And you
know what we think. I don't think anyone cares because
at the end of the day, they're going to do
what they want and in hoping that we're gone.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Yeah, I mean, and that all happens. It really is
about money. There's money to be made in all of
these different ways and public money, private money, contractor money,
et cetera. What is the compensation plan that's being offered
to a lot of these eaten fire residents? Give us
a sense of that, it's a pretty it's paltry from
what I'm reading.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
You know, it isn't great. But I'll tell you, while
on its face, you know, it's like, on one hand,
if you look at it and you do the numbers,
it's easy for some folks to look at it and go, hey,
this is not a bad deal. At the same time,
you know, historically, if we look at other compensation offers
that are that like this, made by other utilities and
similar situations, Historically those folks who have taken those offers
(23:15):
have received pennies on the dollars compared to their you know,
neighbors who held out for litigation and went through their
attorney and fought for better settlement. But that said, you know,
like everything I'm going to say, it's complicated because really
what makes the most sense and whether or not this
is this deal is trash or is actually you know,
viable and worth considering comes down to each individual case,
(23:39):
the merits of their case, the realities of their case,
and the realities of their situation, right, which is different
for everyone. Some folks, you know, we've had this conversation
a lot.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
They can't wait.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
You know, they may have to accept half of what
they would get in a litigation scenario, because the other
alternative is being foreclosed on and losing your home because
you can't hold out for another year or two and
you know, make the mistake. See will drag this out
as far as they can. It's what they always do
because the last minute to trial, because they want to
exhaust you. They have more money and more legal hands
(24:12):
than you ever will and they can do that and
they know it. Now. The circumstances here, I believe, are
a little bit different, if not a lot different, frankly,
because a judge is going to compel them to move
to settlement much more quickly than would happen you know,
in a in a one off kind of case situation.
But it doesn't change the fact that you know, everyone
is rolling the dice and they have to wait if
(24:33):
they are going to push through litigation. But you know,
there's a lot of consideration and we I don't know
how deep you want to get into this once. But
you know, again, it's like it's not going to be
bad for everybody. You know, for example, you know people
who lost a family member, okay, especially they lost an
elder family member, one of the worst things that could happen. Right.
(24:54):
We can rebuild things, we can't we can rebuild memories,
we can rebuild structures, we can't bring our love towards back.
And it's really impossible, I think, to put a dollar
amount on that, but s thee has and that dollar
was five million dollars. Okay, that's what that amount is.
And you know, on its face, you know, is it enough?
And I don't think any any amount is ever enough
for any of us for what was done to us.
(25:15):
But you know, based on compared to what someone may
get in court, based on how those calculations are made.
For example, with you know, when you have a loss
of life like this, it's generally looked at in illegal scope.
And I am not an attorney and I do not
offer league good advice. But anecdotally this is usually a
matter of how many years you have left versus x
(25:37):
your earning potential. So if you lost someone in their
eighties or nineties, you know you may not stand to
get more than that in court, and it may be
good to just take the offer and be able to
move on and more in your loved one and get
on with your life. You know, if you were a
renter who had no insurance and had a bag of
belongings be lost, this offer might make sense for you,
But you know, on the flip side of that, there
(25:59):
are a number of people for whom it doesn't make
sense or who are left out entirely. So you know,
if you happen to be insured because of our state
suppvation laws, which is effectively no double dipping, which means
for for anyone listening that you know, for example, if
you had a million dollars of loss and your insurance
company paid you eight hundred thousand, you could recover the
two hundred thousand dollars difference. You cannot recover a million
(26:21):
dollars from a settlement, be it direct or through a
court legal settlement with an attorney. So you know that said,
if you had insurance, this probably doesn't make sense for you.
By the time you pay legal fees and taxes, and yes,
most of us will have some sort of tax liability
on a part of this, then yeah, you're looking at nothing,
(26:42):
especially when need factor the reality that these settlements, the
offer if you go direct to your see has it's
paying you. It's rather paying you pennies on pain and suffering,
and it completely omits other areas. So for example, if
you have business loss, economic loss, if you have significant
person injury, which a lot of people did. My husband
is one of those people. He had serious personal injury.
(27:04):
He broke his back the night we were evacuating.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Yeah, I mean what you've done, Seana is I think
beautifully laid out the context. And if the context is
so specific to every loss, you know, and so for
what works in some place, there won't be a workable
solution in another place. I mean within the same community.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Ultimately, we can't judge anyone. You're right, and we can't
judge our neighbors. It's the same as you know the
concept of alpenting and not for sale. I fully support
the ideal of alputing and not for sale in the
sense that no one who wants to remain should be
forced to leave, right. But some people need to leave
and they need to sell, and there needs to be
no judgment around that. You know, everyone has to do
what is best for themselves in this situation. And I
(27:52):
really I can't say it enough. I keep saying to
everyone in our group, you know, do not consult a
spreadsheet or the internet or another group our survivors network
for me for whether or not this makes sense for
you. You need to consult a trusted attorney who is very
well versed on these types of settlements and with litigation
with a utility. You know, that is that simple to
(28:14):
judge for your case? What's going to be the best
for you? If everyone is a.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Whatever deal you take, you're likely to have, you know,
the remorse associated, you know and reflection that that that
follows very tough spots. SHAWNA. Dawson Beer, Uh, this is
to be continued and uh And as you say, it's
complicated and it's grim, but it's important, so I appreciate
you spending time with it.
Speaker 4 (28:38):
We're not going down with a fight. Aldanina will not
go quietly. I can tell you that much.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
And you've been at it for a long time. It's
not This isn't your first rodeo. So I love that
you're out there fighting. Thanks SHAWNA talk, all right, thank you?
Speaker 4 (28:51):
Mark?
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Yeah, all right, John Cobelt Show, Mark Thompson sitting in
on KFI AM six forty. We're live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (28:58):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM sixty.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Where is he going today, John coblt He's on his
way where Deborah and so I feel like he's going
to London first, is what I recall.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
He doesn't like when we talk about Oh is that right?
I'm sorry. Okay, Okay, I apologize. Well, yeah, you can
dump that, dump it. Yeah, his whereabouts is unknown. He's
a secretive guy, that John je Belt. Yeah, we just
keep anything related to John, just dump it. But I'm
excited to be here. Always, always fun to see you
(29:34):
and the and the KFI community. Yeah, you see that.
By the way, there's some wild things happening. International limit.
Looks like the Israelis that full back to the lines
that were prescribed in this new deal. And we talked
about the Peace Prize and the fact that it missed
President Trump maybe because the cake was baked before the
(29:58):
announcement of this Gaza deal was made. But the other
part of the Middle East thing that was surprising. You
saw that the Qataris are going to have an air
force presence in Idaho. It's pretty wild the Katari Air
Force will have a presence in Idaho. And it's one
(30:24):
of those stories where you go, really, is this really
happening now. Qatar, I'll remind you, has been a pretty
prominent player in the Middle East feast the Gods of
Peace plan, right, because the blueprint for it laid out
in negotiations that the Qataris hosted. And there was also
(30:45):
and this is the troubled part of Qatar, the quitar
hosting Hamas. Hamas leadership lived in Qatar. So you've got
Qatar in this kind of interesting place where they're both
sidling up to the West. And President Trump autumn that
plane right delivered that four hundred million dollar plane and
that's the plane that's being buffed up to be Air
(31:06):
Force one, and it'll take a while. It's going to
be I think nine hundred million to get it all
buffed out. But anyway, the Qataris then have a relationship
with Washington, So they have a relationship with the Moss.
They have a relationship with Washington, and you know, in
a way, in a troubled, weird Middle East, maybe they
are good candidates to help broke a repiece. No, they
(31:26):
got this Gaza deal done. And today the announcement came
from Pete Hegseith, the Secretary of Defense, that the US
is going to allow Katar to build an air Force
facility at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. It'll
(31:48):
host Katari F fifteen fighter jets and pilots who will
train alongside US troops. The announcement comes weeks after this
executive order for the US to guarantee the security of Katar.
You remember that has I think it had something to
do with the fact that the Israelis took out an
(32:11):
attempt to take out of leadership of Hamas. It ended
up taking out some administrative people but in Qatar, and
so the Katari's got this guarantee. It was a declaration
by Donald Trump that America will guarantee the security of Qatar.
So anyway, it cut to today and you have this
(32:33):
official agreement. And this is something the airports has done
with some partner nations, Singapore for example. Germany's another example.
But the Katari's playing a substantial role in the peace talks,
having a substantial relationship. As I said, having delivered that
plane to Trump, there's obviously a real relationship there. And
(32:57):
now they will have a home at Mountain Home Air
Force Base in Idaho.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Can if I am six forty you're listening to the
John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
A lot of stuff legislation that's passed the governor's desk. Today,
there was a piece of legislation that passed the Governor's
desk and it's the culmination of a long, long effort
to get this piece of legislation on the books. And
you know, oftentimes it can be a long time before
you get legislation passed. I like this story because, hey,
it hits something that I care about, which is animals.
(00:31):
And I also like it though, because it's the power
of one person to begin the process, create momentum, and
then actually get legislation passed over the objection of big
money and lobbying against it. The legislation I'm talking about
is the new legislation outlawing the maiming of cats, the
(00:56):
declawing they call it, where they den uckle cats or
cut their tendons off, and it's generally done, you know,
to protect furniture or whatever. The reason is they don't want,
you know, in the house, people don't want clawing, but
it's an important part of a cat's life. Anyway, this
procedure has existed as a money maker for veterinarians, and
(01:20):
there's big money behind it nationwide and in California. So
one person began this effort to try to get it
out lawed county by county, city by city, et cetera.
And she joins us now, doctor Jennifer Conrad, veterinarian. Congratulations
to you. It's got to be a pretty big week.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Thank you, Mark. Yeah, yes, thank you Mark. You've been
there for the for the long haul with me on this,
so it's nice to get to talk to you about
it actually becoming illegal in California to be claw cats.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
I think, uh, the cruelty associated with it is substantial,
and that you know it as a veterinarian, and you've
always just been repulsed by it, the fact that it
was something that was just done so routinely.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
It is done routinely. It's still done routinely. It's twenty
two percent of American cats are declawed and seventy two
percent of veterinarians will declaw cats. So that's why it
had to be that we went to legislation because veterinarians
have clearly failed to police themselves. And I am a veterinarian,
I'm allowed.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
To say that.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Yeah, the Paw Project movie. You did a documentary. It
was long time ago. I want to see it was
like twenty twelve maybe something like that, Like yeah, yeah,
and that really laid it out, like wow, it just
starkly hits you. Man. It's just a money making thing,
and it's done so quickly, and they essentially destroy this
cat's ability in instance after instance to live its life,
(02:46):
and all kinds of other behavioral and physical issues begin
to show up in the cat after this procedure goes
down exactly.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
And I think if veterinarians called it d knuckling, then
I think people who have cats wouldn't do it to
their cats. But this, this euphemism of it being called
decline when it's actually amputating towbones is why it's so popular.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
That's such a great point because you think of it, Oh,
it's like clipping toenails almost just permanently click clipping toenails,
just the clause, but it's actually, you know, naming these creatures.
So I want to get to something because I really
think beyond just the specific legislation, I'm so happy for you.
And as I say that Paul Project movie just details
the way in which you built a coalition. You started this,
(03:31):
you were outraged by it, you were repulsed by it.
You were again in this community of veterinarians, and they
were backed by some pretty big money. As I recall
the kind of you know, the headwind against you was
pretty strong, and you somehow got a coalition of enough
people who were outraged by the immorality of this that
(03:52):
you actually got momentum behind the legislation. So I like
to just talk about this because is the triumph of you,
in one person, building a coalition and getting this effort
across the finish line. How did that happen?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Well, I think that once people understand what it is,
and if you care about cats and you realize that
their own doctors are maiming them to protect couches, then
people are incensed. And that's how the coalition started. And
when Jim Jenol joined me on this, he's such a
good organizer of so many things, then we really started
(04:27):
to build momentum and got veterinarians all over the country
to feel like, you know, you could belong to a
group who protects cats instead of the group that decides
to betray cats. And now we have thousands and thousands
of veterinarians who are happy to admit that decline is
awful and that they'll never do it.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
But when you started, I remember there was a pretty
big pushback from I wondered, it's the veterinary union or so,
you know, it's some group that supposedly represents vets.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Exactly. The veterinary trade associations are always against because against
doing anything that's good for animals because they they see
it as it being bad for business. They see anything
that makes animals have any protections under the law as
being bad for business, because remember, veterinarians and veninary trade
(05:19):
associations very often look at animals as property. And that
is why the pushback was so big. And it's a
billion dollar a year business declined. So that's the problem
is that people don't want to admit how awful it
is because it is such a moneymaker.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
It's such a brutal, you know, business of when you
think about it, like, you know, the dollars and cents
measured against the you know, the immorality of it. So
what happened it was it county by county or how
did you try to get this legislation across the governor's desk.
I mean you had to, you know, you really had
(05:56):
to get a lot of signatories to this.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yes, we did. We had a lot of What we
had which was magical this time was we had Alex Lee,
assembly Member Alex Lee who loves cats, and he was
not going to let this go. He kept working at it,
and he kept working at it, and finally he pushed
it across the line. And you know what's remarkable, Mark,
after all these years of doing this is that we
(06:22):
did not get a single no vote. Republicans voted DS,
Democrats voted DS. The governor signed it. We did not
get any no votes, which means that people are coming
to their senses that this is an awful thing to
do to a cat's there's no reason to do. It
doesn't protect furniture, it doesn't protect human health because d
claud cats bite more, and they use the litter box
(06:44):
less because it hurts their paws to dig in the sand.
So people have come to their senses, and now it
is illegal. Veterinarians couldn't police themselves because it's a billion
dollar a year business. So now the state legislators stepped
in and said it is illegal to declaw cats.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I love it. It's such a triumph, really a triumph,
and it has taken so very long from start to finish.
How long did it take?
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Well, I started the Paw Project in nineteen ninety nine
and the first time we tried to run legislation in
the state of California was two thousand and four, and
we got shot down over and over again. And what's
funny about it this year, and I have to say
that I'm really happy, is that the opposition has been
stripped down to they have no arguments. They don't They
(07:33):
used to say stuff like, oh, it's going to protect
human health, or it's going to cats are going to
lose their homes. But we've refuted all the arguments of
why de clung should be legal, and so they've been
stripped down to nothing and now they just have to
admit it's wrong and it's illegal.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Congratulations to you California banning the what's called declawing of
cats under this new law. It's taken those decades to
get it done. You started it, and I just think
it's so very exciting. Congratulations, Thank you, Mark. Yeah, doctor
Jennifer Conrad, thanks for joining us on KFI. Yeah, I
(08:11):
mean again. I love that story for so many different reasons.
But one of the reasons I like that story is
because one person's outrage led to a movement and they
finally brought it home. But it took twenty years to
do it. You know, it is the co Belt Show.
Thompson sitting in hey bottom of the hour, and we're
going to talk about the eat and fire compensation plan.
(08:33):
It's interesting because some of the residents are taking what
they kind of feel is a lousy deal just because
they're desperate to take a deal, but others feel completely
ignored nine months into this recovery process. We'll talk about
that bottom of the hour, as they say, John Cobelt Show,
Mark Thompson sitting in on KFI AM six forty. We're
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (08:56):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI A
six forty.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I guess there's some flight delays that continue as a
result of these you know, shutdowns, people not showing up
to work, the control tower empty as it was in
Burbank for some time this week. You know, it's weird
to me, how can you consider these essential workers essential,
(09:23):
force them to come to work, but not consider paying
them essential. It's outrageous. I mean, it really doesn't make
any sense. It doesn't track logically. You have the means
to pay them, pay.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Them, especially air traffic controllers.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, but exactly, of course, that's what this is relevant to.
But I mean there are other examples. I mean, you know,
they're park police, and you know a bunch of other
I get it. When you're when you're in a plane
or you're waiting on a flight, the most essential worker
is in that control tower. But I'm just saying, in
other kind of interlock fucking aspects of life in America,
(10:02):
they're going to be other critical jobs. I mean, they
may be US customs enforcement people, you know what I mean,
border of people I'm talking about, who are managing airport immigration.
Those were coming in, in other words, from overseas, so
you're you know, if you're going anywhere, you have to
go through security at the airport. If you consider those
(10:24):
people who are working security essential workers, you're going to
force them to work, then you have to pay them.
It's absolutely outrageous that you can somehow compel them to
work and you're not compelled to pay them as the government.
And what's even more galling is that there's talk now
(10:45):
about now we're not sure that we're going to pay
everybody their back wages. We're deciding It's always been absolutely
automatic that everybody gets their back wages. In fact, it's
been so automatic as many of you know who work
in and around the military. Generally, banks that work with
(11:06):
military families or those who are in the military, they'll
extend loans. Usually they're you know, like zero percent loans
to service families, and the idea being as soon as
the government gets back in session, these loans will be
repaid automatically. But what's happened now is there's this dance
(11:28):
being done where in addition, you know, this is obviously
a high stakes situation in Washington where their demands on
either side, but now it's been weaponized in even other ways.
For example, you know, we're going to lay off a
lot of people. We're not going to furlow them, We're
(11:49):
going to lay off a lot of people. And now
that's happening. The layoffs have begun, so once again you know,
you've got layoff threatened. Now it actually is happening another
round of layoffs and cuts. This is that guy Russell Vote,
you know who runs omb He's kind of heading those up.
(12:09):
But more to my point, you're going to make those
burbank of control tower employees show up. You're going to
make those people who are working security at the airport
show up. You're going to make all of these support
personnel show up because there are essential workers, but you're
not going to pay them. It makes no sense. There
(12:33):
is a threat that Donald Trump is making to China
more tariffs in retaliation for restrictions imposed on the export
of rare earth minerals. And he's actually saying Donald Trump
is saying, I've got no reason to meet with President she.
(12:56):
This is a meeting is supposed to take place in
two weeks. So the stock market they got wind of
this and they sold the star markets sold off today.
I think sm he was down almost three percent. This
is really I mean, there's some real effects if you
get into a back and forth that is ugly with
(13:18):
America's biggest customer. And I'd say, you know, obviously, if
not the most significant trading partner, you could argue it
based on how you're evaluating it. One of the most
significant trading partners. You're going to see the effects in
the stock market, You're going to se effects in the
American economy. So you know, it's this is really tricky ground.
(13:39):
And I get it that there's a back and forth
going on between Trump and China, but it really is tricky.
So mean, all this stuff is happening at the same
time and within the community of those who have walked out,
and I'm talking about Congress specifically, and those who have
walked out and have the power to return government and
turn the lights back gone. And again I'm talking about Congress,
(14:02):
there are now cracks in the solidarity around well, we
can just tough this out as long as we have to.
They're cracks in that armor. And they're already those even
maga Congress people that are saying we got to get
back to work. And you saw the Marjorie Taylor green stuff,
didn't you. She's now saying, I'm not about this about
(14:26):
the the healthcare cuts. It's going to affect my family,
my kids. And that was significant because she is a
big backer of the president, and she's a big backer
of anything the GOP wants. But on two different things.
(14:46):
One the ACA subsidies, these subsidies that have to do
with the extension of Obamacare, and on the Epstein files,
those two things she breaks with a lot of the party,
and she is, let's face it, a loud megaphone. So
all these things are happening at the same time, federal layoffs,
(15:08):
government continues closed, You've got ripple effects through the transportation system,
through the air, and they're now cracks in the solidarity
around all of this in Washington. So that's the latest.
At the end of this week, when we come back
to the Eden fire survivors feel ignored nine months into
(15:30):
the recovery process. There's a real question about a compensation plan,
and even a compensation plan that's not that great is
being taken because it's all that's being offered. We'll talk
more about that next.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Mark Thompson sitting in for John. You know, one of
the big stories around and the rebuild of these fire
ravaged areas from the Palisades to Altadena is the way
in which Altadena has sort of been bereft, you know,
I mean, the eaten fire survivors sort of look at
(16:16):
things and see that the compensation plan isn't sufficient. I
wanted to talk to Shawna Dawson Beer about this and
just to get a state of the state because the
governor making various announcements that pertain to relief. But let's
(16:36):
see what Shawna's position is on all of this. And Shawna,
you can fill us in on where Altadena sits as
the state of California tries to ride in with some relief.
Welcome to Cavre.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
Yeah, it's nothing good, Mark, I think that's unfortunately the
answers to that question for Altadena right now. For context,
I am, like so many a fire survivor. I had
a total lost property west of Lake where we had
no fire response, no evacuation order, and still no answers
about that, And like everything, we're getting a lot of
(17:13):
lip service but not a lot of real action, just
a lot of broken promises.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yeah, I mean the town you're from, the nine thousand homes. Yeah,
Alta Dina, but lost. I think I feel like Alta
Dina just gets lost in a lot of the conversation
around the Palisades. You know, Palisades has the Moneysade Palisades
has a lot of leverage that comes with that money,
and sadly, Alta, Dina, just I feel as though they've
(17:42):
been at the kids table when it comes to all
of this.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
You know, Oh, unfortunately, I think you nailed it. I mean,
right after the fire, Governor k Newsom quickly signed an
executive order that would suspend SB nine. And for anyone
who's not familiar with FB nine, SB nine was a
Senate bill that was passed to try to address our
states housing crisis through increased density by splitting lots, allowing
(18:08):
multiple units on a lot larger a to us, reducing easements,
et cetera, all this kind of fun staff things that
frankly work in a lot of parts of the city
but did not work in others. And so he allowed
exemptions when this bill was passed a few years ago.
And then he allowed for our fire impacted communities, including
Altadena on the Palisades, to be entirely exempted from the
(18:31):
application of FBNI, but he left it to our local electics.
And so one thing that we do have in common
with the Palisades is that we are both in part
and I say in part because we Alsadina is entirely
unincorporated La County with a board of supervisors representatives for
the Palisades a little different parts. They are part unincorporated county,
(18:51):
part city, but in the Palisades they're representative on the
board of Supervisor. Lindsay Horbak and the mayor Karen Bath,
who represents the city portion, both immediately enacted that option
from Gavin Newsom and stopped SB nine because they wanted
(19:11):
to maintain the character and ensure that the community that
was rebuilt looked like the community that were crossed in Altadena,
where we have Katherin Barger is our fith district supervisor
who oversees it's important to understandab an area comprised of
more than sixty communities and more than two million people. Okay, well, shocker.
They did not elect to enact that, so SB nine
(19:33):
is still being applied, which opens the doors for greater developments,
which all kind of plays into raising the property tax base,
which frankly the powers that be want to do because
they want more money, because we are very We're a
cash cow. The disaster economy is real, folks, and everybody
but the fire victims is getting rich right now.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
And again when we say SB nine that allows for
the splitting of lots and essentially for yeah, I mean
in a way of the urbanization or the further urbanization
of the community. And and it and it's about money.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Yeah, that absolutely is. It's the same as SB seven
eighty two. That sounds like the governor just signed to
fight a lot of community pushbacks. And there's been a
lot of community push pushback because Albadina had no say,
no vote, the the tools to construct what they call
it e i f D and incremental UH financing district
(20:27):
economic increment and I forgive me, there's so many letters.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Yeah, I know, it's Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District is what
it's called. It's ei f D, right, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
So the whole point of this is to in theory,
you know, create mechanisms to fund rebuildings, right, and that
is that that is real. And we have those mechanisms
on the books that the county could enact at any
time and take advantage of. But instead of doing that,
they you know, this bill was created and pushed through.
It went through the Senate behind closed doors, no oversight,
(20:59):
no vote, no vido, and it actually eliminates the constituent
veto power. The protest element that exists typically was removed.
And it's hard to ask, you know, not to ask why,
why why do you need to remove the protest element
and just push it through and you could have done
(21:20):
it without the bill. And why is our supervisor and
especially why is Newsom not listening to what the people
in the community actually want. Instead, they're taking the word
of a county that continues to fail us. It just
told us, hey, we let you burn for three days
because we had no plans.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yeah, it really is, as the old phrases says, insults injury,
you know, I mean, it really is insulting that the
community is completely cut out of any input. It's absolutely
outrageous it is.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
And they know that they can do it because twenty
two thousand of us who have been impacted by this
and Altadina, which is half of our entire town, if
not more, are displaced. You're not where we can even vote,
We're not in our homes. We don't have homes. So
you know, what better time to take advantage and do
whatever you want with the community. And at the end
of the day, the situation in Altadena very simply is
(22:14):
one of the largest real estate development deals in the
history of the state. It's a lot of money to
be made. There's billions of dollars at stake. And you
know what we think. I don't think anyone cares because
at the end of the day, they're going to do
what they want and in hoping that we're gone.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Yeah, I mean, and that all happens. It really is
about money. There's money to be made in all of
these different ways and public money, private money, contractor money,
et cetera. What is the compensation plan that's being offered
to a lot of these eaten fire residents? Give us
a sense of that, it's a pretty it's paltry from
what I'm reading.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
You know, it isn't great. But I'll tell you, while
on its face, you know, it's like, on one hand,
if you look at it and you do the numbers,
it's easy for some folks to look at it and go, hey,
this is not a bad deal. At the same time,
you know, historically, if we look at other compensation offers
that are that like this, made by other utilities and
similar situations, Historically those folks who have taken those offers
(23:15):
have received pennies on the dollars compared to their you know,
neighbors who held out for litigation and went through their
attorney and fought for better settlement. But that said, you know,
like everything I'm going to say, it's complicated because really
what makes the most sense and whether or not this
is this deal is trash or is actually you know,
viable and worth considering comes down to each individual case,
(23:39):
the merits of their case, the realities of their case,
and the realities of their situation, right, which is different
for everyone. Some folks, you know, we've had this conversation
a lot.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
They can't wait.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
You know, they may have to accept half of what
they would get in a litigation scenario, because the other
alternative is being foreclosed on and losing your home because
you can't hold out for another year or two and
you know, make the mistake. See will drag this out
as far as they can. It's what they always do
because the last minute to trial, because they want to
exhaust you. They have more money and more legal hands
(24:12):
than you ever will and they can do that and
they know it. Now. The circumstances here, I believe, are
a little bit different, if not a lot different, frankly,
because a judge is going to compel them to move
to settlement much more quickly than would happen you know,
in a in a one off kind of case situation.
But it doesn't change the fact that you know, everyone
is rolling the dice and they have to wait if
(24:33):
they are going to push through litigation. But you know,
there's a lot of consideration and we I don't know
how deep you want to get into this once. But
you know, again, it's like it's not going to be
bad for everybody. You know, for example, you know people
who lost a family member, okay, especially they lost an
elder family member, one of the worst things that could happen. Right.
(24:54):
We can rebuild things, we can't we can rebuild memories,
we can rebuild structures, we can't bring our love towards back.
And it's really impossible, I think, to put a dollar
amount on that, but s thee has and that dollar
was five million dollars. Okay, that's what that amount is.
And you know, on its face, you know, is it enough?
And I don't think any any amount is ever enough
for any of us for what was done to us.
(25:15):
But you know, based on compared to what someone may
get in court, based on how those calculations are made.
For example, with you know, when you have a loss
of life like this, it's generally looked at in illegal scope.
And I am not an attorney and I do not
offer league good advice. But anecdotally this is usually a
matter of how many years you have left versus x
(25:37):
your earning potential. So if you lost someone in their
eighties or nineties, you know you may not stand to
get more than that in court, and it may be
good to just take the offer and be able to
move on and more in your loved one and get
on with your life. You know, if you were a
renter who had no insurance and had a bag of
belongings be lost, this offer might make sense for you,
But you know, on the flip side of that, there
(25:59):
are a number of people for whom it doesn't make
sense or who are left out entirely. So you know,
if you happen to be insured because of our state
suppvation laws, which is effectively no double dipping, which means
for for anyone listening that you know, for example, if
you had a million dollars of loss and your insurance
company paid you eight hundred thousand, you could recover the
two hundred thousand dollars difference. You cannot recover a million
(26:21):
dollars from a settlement, be it direct or through a
court legal settlement with an attorney. So you know that said,
if you had insurance, this probably doesn't make sense for you.
By the time you pay legal fees and taxes, and yes,
most of us will have some sort of tax liability
on a part of this, then yeah, you're looking at nothing,
(26:42):
especially when need factor the reality that these settlements, the
offer if you go direct to your see has it's
paying you. It's rather paying you pennies on pain and suffering,
and it completely omits other areas. So for example, if
you have business loss, economic loss, if you have significant
person injury, which a lot of people did. My husband
is one of those people. He had serious personal injury.
(27:04):
He broke his back the night we were evacuating.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Yeah, I mean what you've done, Seana is I think
beautifully laid out the context. And if the context is
so specific to every loss, you know, and so for
what works in some place, there won't be a workable
solution in another place. I mean within the same community.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Ultimately, we can't judge anyone. You're right, and we can't
judge our neighbors. It's the same as you know the
concept of alpenting and not for sale. I fully support
the ideal of alputing and not for sale in the
sense that no one who wants to remain should be
forced to leave, right. But some people need to leave
and they need to sell, and there needs to be
no judgment around that. You know, everyone has to do
what is best for themselves in this situation. And I
(27:52):
really I can't say it enough. I keep saying to
everyone in our group, you know, do not consult a
spreadsheet or the internet or another group our survivors network
for me for whether or not this makes sense for
you. You need to consult a trusted attorney who is very
well versed on these types of settlements and with litigation
with a utility. You know, that is that simple to
(28:14):
judge for your case? What's going to be the best
for you? If everyone is a.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Whatever deal you take, you're likely to have, you know,
the remorse associated, you know and reflection that that that
follows very tough spots. SHAWNA. Dawson Beer, Uh, this is
to be continued and uh And as you say, it's
complicated and it's grim, but it's important, so I appreciate
you spending time with it.
Speaker 4 (28:38):
We're not going down with a fight. Aldanina will not
go quietly. I can tell you that much.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
And you've been at it for a long time. It's
not This isn't your first rodeo. So I love that
you're out there fighting. Thanks SHAWNA talk, all right, thank you?
Speaker 4 (28:51):
Mark?
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Yeah, all right, John Cobelt Show, Mark Thompson sitting in
on KFI AM six forty. We're live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (28:58):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM sixty.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Where is he going today, John coblt He's on his
way where Deborah and so I feel like he's going
to London first, is what I recall.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
He doesn't like when we talk about Oh is that right?
I'm sorry. Okay, Okay, I apologize. Well, yeah, you can
dump that, dump it. Yeah, his whereabouts is unknown. He's
a secretive guy, that John je Belt. Yeah, we just
keep anything related to John, just dump it. But I'm
excited to be here. Always, always fun to see you
(29:34):
and the and the KFI community. Yeah, you see that.
By the way, there's some wild things happening. International limit.
Looks like the Israelis that full back to the lines
that were prescribed in this new deal. And we talked
about the Peace Prize and the fact that it missed
President Trump maybe because the cake was baked before the
(29:58):
announcement of this Gaza deal was made. But the other
part of the Middle East thing that was surprising. You
saw that the Qataris are going to have an air
force presence in Idaho. It's pretty wild the Katari Air
Force will have a presence in Idaho. And it's one
(30:24):
of those stories where you go, really, is this really
happening now. Qatar, I'll remind you, has been a pretty
prominent player in the Middle East feast the Gods of
Peace plan, right, because the blueprint for it laid out
in negotiations that the Qataris hosted. And there was also
(30:45):
and this is the troubled part of Qatar, the quitar
hosting Hamas. Hamas leadership lived in Qatar. So you've got
Qatar in this kind of interesting place where they're both
sidling up to the West. And President Trump autumn that
plane right delivered that four hundred million dollar plane and
that's the plane that's being buffed up to be Air
(31:06):
Force one, and it'll take a while. It's going to
be I think nine hundred million to get it all
buffed out. But anyway, the Qataris then have a relationship
with Washington, So they have a relationship with the Moss.
They have a relationship with Washington, and you know, in
a way, in a troubled, weird Middle East, maybe they
are good candidates to help broke a repiece. No, they
(31:26):
got this Gaza deal done. And today the announcement came
from Pete Hegseith, the Secretary of Defense, that the US
is going to allow Katar to build an air Force
facility at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. It'll
(31:48):
host Katari F fifteen fighter jets and pilots who will
train alongside US troops. The announcement comes weeks after this
executive order for the US to guarantee the security of Katar.
You remember that has I think it had something to
do with the fact that the Israelis took out an
(32:11):
attempt to take out of leadership of Hamas. It ended
up taking out some administrative people but in Qatar, and
so the Katari's got this guarantee. It was a declaration
by Donald Trump that America will guarantee the security of Qatar.
So anyway, it cut to today and you have this
(32:33):
official agreement. And this is something the airports has done
with some partner nations, Singapore for example. Germany's another example.
But the Katari's playing a substantial role in the peace talks,
having a substantial relationship. As I said, having delivered that
plane to Trump, there's obviously a real relationship there. And
(32:57):
now they will have a home at Mountain Home Air
Force Base in Idaho.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt Show podcast.
You can always hear the show live on KFI AM
six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!