Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM six.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Forty KFI AM six forty Bill Handle Here in the
Morning crew on a Monday, November twenty five, Thanksgiving week.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Thursday is Thanksgiving.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Neil is not here today except he will be here
this week on Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
And that's it.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And he's doing the show which he does every Thanksgiving
and it's a foodie show or people call in and
he gives them hints and what's going on and here's
how to cook whatever, and so that's on Thursday. And
Pastafon is next Tuesday, where we're going to be at
the Anaheim White House. Everybody that's broadcast that broadcast here
(00:43):
on KFI during the week, we're going to be there
and we are going to receive donations help Bruno feed
his five thousand kids a night, which we've been doing
for years and years, and we ask you to come
on by donate. You can bring pastain sauce which we
collect to help Bruno, and donations and if you come
(01:03):
by during this show or during wake up call, it's
pastries and coffee and juice.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
And starting at six o'clock it's real jew bagels.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Okay, elon Musk buys Twitter in twenty twenty two and
it becomes X and people who were on X, and
I know a ton of them just have bailed out.
They're leaving because well, they're posting about how X has
gotten worse to use it, Harbor's white supremacs. It pushes
(01:36):
right wing posts onto their feed. Musk has cozied up
to Donald Trump, has become a show for Trump, and
people leave or a lot of left.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Still have a time there.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Things have changed because now more people are serious about leaving.
According to similar Web, a social media analytics company, the
week after the election, Okay, we're talking about a couple
of weeks ago. The biggest spike in deactivations on esque
X happened since Musk actually have bought the platform. Now,
(02:14):
let's talk a moment about X. Twitter millions of users,
I mean hundreds of millions of users, and so they
can afford to lose a few million. That's not the
end of the world. But what you have are liberal celebrities, journalists, writers, athletes,
and artists who.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Still use it although they're leaving.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
And here's what happens though, because conservatives love this right
they are You've got Musk pushing their agenda. But the
more it pushes their agenda and the more the liberals leave,
the less relevance it has.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
And why is that?
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Because the point of Twitter and X is to reach
as broad an audience as possible, And so conservatives don't
just want to talk to conservatives.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
What good does that do? Right?
Speaker 2 (03:11):
If you're a conspiracy theorist and you are talking on
a conspiracy theorist platform, who are you talking to other
conspiracy theorists?
Speaker 1 (03:21):
You're not talking to anybody other than people that are
in your camp.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Wouldn't you want to reach people that maybe you can
dissuade from their belief maybe you can have them come
to your side or at least at least acknowledge some
point you have, or accept one or two issues. And
if something gets more conservative, gets deeper into the conservative cause,
(03:46):
I mean seriously conservative, then you know what, you're not
talking to anybody but your own crowd.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
And that is the problem.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So what X is doing and liberals democrats are complaining like.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Crazy, Hey, the more they go that way and.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
You're bitching and moaning and saying you're leaving, you know,
the less they're going to influence people. So take another
look own this, appreciate this truth Social, which is owned,
of course by Trump, and he's become another billionaire just
because of that platform. Trump announced most of his cabinet
(04:27):
picks on truth Social, his website or his platform. Doug Bergham,
who has been nominated for Interior Secretary, actually said nothing
is true until you read it on truth Social. I mean,
what does that tell you as of may truth social
(04:49):
it's being reported. I know this seems a little bit low.
This is the Atlantic. There are seventy thousand users. That
doesn't make any sense. But there are far far fewer
users on truth Social then on well certainly X on
our other platforms. The conservative activist there is a guy
named a Christopher Rufo who has literally seated panic and
(05:13):
is one of the proponents about critical race theory and
DEI hiring practices, has directly pointed it to pointed to
X as a tool that has let him reach the
general audience that is Fadie. The reason right wing politicians
and influencers like Marjorie Taylor Green, Nick Fuentes, Candi's Owens
(05:36):
keep posting on X instead of truth Social is because
they want what Rufo wants, a chance to push their
perspectives onto the mainstream, which has diminished dramatically as people leave.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I'll tell you who leaves X.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
I have yet to talk to one person who leaves
who doesn't disagree with Trump and right wing politics.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Those are the people that are leaving, and those are the.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
People that the conservatives want to reach. Hey, if I'm
sitting here trying to push my agenda, I don't want
to talk to people who already have my agenda.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
What good does that do? What a waste of time
that is.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Other than we're gapping back and forth and we do chats,
and isn't it wonderful how we think?
Speaker 1 (06:25):
And who cares?
Speaker 2 (06:26):
If you're really trying to make a political statement, you're
really trying to convince folks that your way of thinking
is what makes sense.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
I mean, that is engagement. Now it's not happening.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
So bottom line, the more the liberals LEVEX, the less
value it offers to the right, both in terms of
cultural relevance and opportunities for trolling.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
By the way, I don't use on Twitter or tweet.
I think I Instagram, don't I And do I do
anything else? Do I do Facebook?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
No?
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Am I on grinder.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
I think, well, there I am, you know.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Talk show host, big fruit package wanting to meet people.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
What okay, all right, no, okay, maybe not, maybe not.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
We'll leave it at that.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Now, a little bit of handle history I want to
share with you, and this is a really interesting one.
Now this has to do with baseball, uh and Shohei
Otani is obviously the biggest news that's out there in
baseball recently, and the Dodgers winning the World Series, and
the whole issue of Japanese in this Japanese Americans or
(07:54):
in this case, Japanese ballplayers in Japan, baseball.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Has been around almost as long as it's.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Been here in the US. Japan is a baseball fanatic country.
You know, it's been around since I think before the
turn of the last century. Now, let's connect that with
that happened. What happened at Manzanar. Mansanar was one of
I think a dozen internment camps where Japanese Americans and
(08:22):
Japanese nationals were put into.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
During World War Two.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Literally hustled away because they were considered spies or pro
japan and we wanted to get them where the government
wanted to get them out of the mainstream America and
make sure that they were in one place.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
I wouldn't concentration camp. They called them in tournament camps.
It wasn't.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
They weren't death camps or anything. But it was miserable
to live in there. Just a quick word about mans
in aar. If you could imagine taking one hundred and
twenty thousand American citizens, putting them in internment camps, taking
away everything they own. That was the history is one
of the really black parts of American history. And we're
(09:10):
not going back like slavery at the turn of when
the founding Fathers kicked in. I'm talking about World War two,
and there are plenty of people around who remember that,
who grew up in those camps. And just to add
another little bit of fuel to the fire, who signed
the order to put these American citizens in these internment camps.
(09:34):
Franklin Roosevelt, the great Liberal, and who went ahead and
endorsed and made it possible, especially Manzanar here in California
in the Mohave Desert.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
You ever heard of Earl Warren.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Earl Warren the Supreme Court Justice, Chief Justice Supreme Court,
known as probably the most liberal Supreme Court justice we
have ever had a war in court. If you could
look that one up. He was the governor at that time.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Just this horrific episode in American history.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
So there's a guy named Dan Kwan whose mom was
in one of those camps, and what he is doing
is trying to bring a baseball the baseball field back
to Manzanar because one of the things probably I would say,
what the Japanese that were in the camps, the Japanese
(10:29):
American looked more forward to than anything.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Else was baseball. And they had a baseball field. They
built a baseball field, and it was one of.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I won't say a hobby, but it was one of
the things that the Japanese, the Intornees were looking for,
would look forward to the most of these baseball games
and to be in these camps, this was the one
thing they could actually hold on to. According to Kwang,
and then he continues on a deeper symbolic level, it
was an expression of Americanism.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
It was our game, like Americans games, this was our culture.
We're in it together.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
And at the same time they're saying this from internment
camps being put aside. I mean, it is a horrific,
horrific episode of treating Japanese Americans. By the way, the
fear of somehow either sabotage or espionage one hundred and
twenty thousand put away in these camps, not one. One
(11:35):
episode or accusation of actual spying or espionage or sabotage,
not one.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
In the meantime, the Germans who were here in the
United States.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Riddled with spies and saboteurs prior to World War Two.
I mean just they were coming out of the woodwork.
The pro Nazi people that lived in this country. They
were Germans, they were white people.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
They look like US. Japanese don't look like us. It
is horrible.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
So here is what he is doing is first of all,
took of a long time to get it because it
is a landmark. It's a National Park Service deals with
man's and are. By the way, it's only it's dirt.
If you've ever been there, it's not as if they're
buildings there. It's basically dirt that has outlines what the
(12:29):
buildings were like. And he wanted to build this baseball field,
so then archaeological dig it's also considered archaeological sites. They
discovered the original posts for the backstop, the pegs that
(12:49):
mark the bases. Also a bunch of coins and soda
bottles left behind by the spake tetors spectators, and they
were able to build this thing exact.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Why is this There's another little sidebar story, which is great.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Photos of the field of which they use were taken
by Ansel Adams, probably the most famous landscape photographer in
the United States and.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
The world, and it was his photos that were used.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
So there is that baseball field which is restored almost
exactly as it was during the internment period. And the
company there were two exhibition games played last weekend, a
company that supplies vintage sports equipment for equipment for Hollywood productions.
(13:46):
They came out and bought brought old cleats and catchers,
masks and chess protectors and gloves that were used in
the forties.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
And this is a terrific bit of history, not that
I mean, it's absolutely crazy.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
You know, the Japanese as were extra extraordinarily successful in
the agricultural business, and they were extraordinarily successful prior to
World War Two in the United States here in California,
and of course all of that was taken away, all
of it was taken away from them as they went
into the internment camps. You go to Brazil, and if
(14:26):
you look at the agricultural industry in Brazil, it is
owned by Japanese interests. It is owned by Japanese Brazilians.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
And why is that?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Because they were also very successful and during World War
Two the government didn't take anything away from these folks
like they did here. So they are swimming in success
in the agricultural business. Okay, let's do it. It's time
for Do they have a case with Wayne. Wayne looks
(15:00):
up these cases, does the research. She throws them at
me and asks me, which what do you think the
court did? What do you think the court said? And
usually it's an appeals court decision. And I hear them
for the first time, just as you hear them for
the first time.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
All right, Wayne, Lizzie Borden took an ax. Do you
know this poem? I know all about Lizzie bordon She
took an axe and then gave her mother forty wax.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Oh, I thought, yeah. Then she went and used the facts. No,
they didn't have fax machines.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
And they did it. It was all of it.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
When she saw what she had done, she gave her
father forty one, Lizzie Borden was charged with killing her
parents with an axe. Yes, in Massachusetts. This is an old,
storied case. You know she was acquitted by it, yes,
if I do. Yeah, yeah, So today you have the
Lizzie Borden House and it is the house where she
(15:57):
supposedly did it but was acquitted, and it is a
tourist attraction. And the people who run the Lizzy Borden
House have a trademark on the name Lizzie Borden if
it's used in connection with hotel and restaurant services. They
also have a trademark on a hatchet, a logo that
(16:19):
is a hatchet blade with a notch in it. A
couple of doors down, Miss Lizzie's Coffee opened up. They
of course are called Miss Lizzie's Coffee. They also have
a logo that is an axe. It's not the same axe.
It has a handle and there's blood coming off of it.
(16:42):
And they call themselves the most haunted coffee shop in
the world.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
So even though days ago, right, yes, yeah, that's right,
it got haunted real fast.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Phil.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
So the people behind Lizzie Borden House, which is a
company called Ghost Adventures by the way runs it and
a bunch of tourist attractions all over the country. They
assume Miss Lizzie's Coffee for infringing on their trademark, and
they go to court and the district court judge says, hm, no,
(17:17):
it's too different. Nobody is going to be confused about
the one place that is a tourist attraction and the
other place that is a coffee shop. So you have
no case. And the people behind Lizzy Bordonhouse go up
to the first Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
And they say, what are you talking about. It's the
same idea and here's our.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Proof of confusion. People would come into Lizzie Bordenhouse with
their cup of coffee from Lizzie's Coffee because they think
we're connected. Boom, some consumers were confused trademark infringement. And
the people behind the coffee shop say, first of all,
(18:03):
we're in different businesses. Second of all, we do different
kinds of advertisings. Third of all, we're not using the
same words. Our axe is completely different from your. As
If there's any confusion, it's because we are both based
in this unownable historic story, not because we are infringing
(18:24):
on your trademark. So does Lizzie Borden House have a
spooky caves?
Speaker 2 (18:30):
And obviously the entire issue is whether or not there
is confusion and whether or not. I'm thinking this through now,
I'm assuming that Lizzie Bordon House doesn't serve any refreshments whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
That is true. Okay.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
So with that being said, they are in different businesses.
One is in the entertainment I guess it be in
the theme park business, if you would, and the other
one is a food proprietary business. So I'm guessing that
the court said there's enough of a difference. I mean,
(19:12):
it's an easy answer. Lizzie Borden just opens up a
coffee shop. That's all they have to do is literally
sell coffee and it's over.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
It's done. Then then there's no issue. That's what I
would think. But I am this is a wobbler, you
know this.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
I would say that there was enough of an argument
that they are in separate businesses.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
And that's what that's where the appeals court said, which
way they go.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
That's what exactly what happened. They upheld the lower court
and they said and in the opinion they say, look,
two different kinds of people show up. One is a
person who has traveled from Afar. I'm actually reading from it.
They use this flowery language, has traveled from Afar to
learn the historical story of Lizzie Porton. And the other
(20:03):
person is looking for food and drink. The person going
to the coffee shop. So it's different businesses and it's
different clientele. And if occasionally, because of the connection with
the history, people assume the two are connected, that's not
because of trademark infringement. That's because of they're both trading
(20:24):
off the same historical story, which nobody can own.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
All right, So I'm trying to figure out how I'm
gonna use the phrase they had an axe to grind
and not sound like a complete moron, and I can't come.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Up with it.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
What do you mean sound like a complete moron? You're brilliant.
It's a coffee shop. Oh why coffee shop?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (20:45):
I didn't think of that act.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Why you did it? Man?
Speaker 1 (20:49):
You're right, they're the morons. Yeah, that's that's genius. I
should have figured that out on my own.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Offer that to them at a popular price and say
they want to buy the rights to that slogan.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
One more do they have a case. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Now, I assume you like PETA the bread I do.
Do you like PETA the organization?
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Oh? I love Peter the organization. I've actually interviewed.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
The head of PETA many many years ago and it
was a terrific interview. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
And these people are nuts. The PEDA people are crazy,
but they're brilliant at pr and so he was thrilled
to come on to the show, even though I've always
made fun of PETA and as. Actually I don't know
if you knew this, but I had the interview with him,
(21:36):
and of course they're vegetarians, are anti eating of any
kind of animal. I actually stopped by a Burger King,
came on, came in with a bag full of whoppers.
Did every minute of that interview.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
I was chewing. Okay, So tell me about the story.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Well, they they sue the National Institutes of Health, which
run a Facebook page and an Instagram account, and they,
you know, they post about whatever they're up to at
the National Institute of Health, and they have comments, and
they have a bunch of keyword filters so that if
you include any of these words in your comment, it
won't be seen by anybody and one of the words
(22:14):
is animal and another one of the words is testing.
And so PETA and two individual activists sue the National
Institutes of Health saying you are censoring our viewpoint because
if I type like, hey, I don't believe in animal testing,
no one will see my comment because.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
You're muting it.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
And your rules only say the things that are not
allowed are, you know, profanity and hate speech and off
topic comments. So you post a picture fish eye and
you talk about this research where they put little drops
(22:56):
in the fish's eyes so they can look at them closely,
and whatever you found out, and then we say, ah,
animal testing is bad. That's not off topic, that's not profanity,
that's not hate speech, and you're censoring it. So you're
violating our First Amendment right. And the National Institutes of
Health say, this is a government owned for it's our account,
(23:19):
we control it. It is not like the public park
where you cannot be censored for your viewpoint. It is
at best a limited use public area, and we are
allowed to do this and that's the case. And the
lower court said, yeah, they can do whatever they want.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Okay, and they go, all right, so here's what course said,
because there is a rule of law that says if
an administrative agency, which this is, violates its own procedures,
there have to be established procedures that if it violates
their procedures, then they lose.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
So the whole issue is not.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Whether they can not whether it's the First Amendment issue,
it is did they violate what they had printed. It's
like a company, like the company we worked for. You know,
if it violates the procedures manual.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
You have a shot.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
You can't fire me because right there in the procedures
manual says ABCD and I didn't do that. So that's
where I think the court went.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
So you're saying the lower court judge blew it because
the lower court judge said, yes, the government they can censor.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Your post, and I think the lower court blew it. Yeah,
guess what what the lower court blew it. The lower
court blew it excellent. And it wasn't the reason that.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
That was part of it that they said, there's nothing
in your rules and stuff that allows you to do this.
They also pointed out something else that was interesting. They said,
you you don't somebody who says they love animal testing
probably would not have their comments censored because you also
censor the words torture and inhumane, and that means you
(25:14):
are you were you when you did this, You were
specifically trying to mute anti animal testing types of posts
and that's viewpoint discrimination. So they're gonna have to take
those filters off, I think.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
And what's gonna end up happening is that they're the
government is now going to start testing on members of PETAU.
That's gonna be They're gonna get away from animal testing,
right to pipa peda membership for testing. All Right, we're done, guys, Wayne,
We'll do this again next Monday as we come.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Back, and we're back again tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
We started all over again on a Tuesday, KFI AM
six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and any time on demand on the iHeartRadio app