February 21, 2025 • 24 mins
(Friday 02/21/25)
No one wants your toxic crap! SoCal residents protesting over fire debris disposal. You’re fired! Maybe not… Trump Administration considers huge cuts to National Park Service. SCOTUS to take on straight woman’s ‘reverse’ discrimination case. Robo-Umps coming to a baseball game near you!
No one wants your toxic crap! SoCal residents protesting over fire debris disposal. You’re fired! Maybe not… Trump Administration considers huge cuts to National Park Service. SCOTUS to take on straight woman’s ‘reverse’ discrimination case. Robo-Umps coming to a baseball game near you!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listen Saints.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I Am six forty the bill Handle show on demand
on the iHeartRadio f KFI.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
AM six forty bill Handle. Here it is.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
A Friday Foody Friday, February twenty one, and today at
thirty another segment of Amah and that's handle Anything, Ask
Me anything, some of the big stories.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
We're looking at the story.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Of Yolanda Murdi, suspect in the stabbing death of her wife,
who is a San Diego cal Cal Fire Captain San
Diego Fire Captain Becky Morodi.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
So that's a big, big story.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
And then Israel officials say one of the four bodies
handed over by Hamas, who was one of them, was
supposed to be Shery Bibis, is not and she's the
mother of the two young children who were killed, whose
bodies were returned, one nine years old, when four years old.
Now in a case of nimbi, big nimby case, not
(01:01):
in my backyard. Yesterday I reported on the cry for
the residents of Palisades and the Altadena fire to ask
FEMA to do toxic testing on the debris that's being removed,
which the government has done virtually every single time. As
matter of fact, every single time, whenever there's a major
disaster of this kind of debris has to be removed.
(01:23):
FEMA said, no, not going to do it this time.
We are not going to do it. You want to
do it, you do it yourself. And one of the
arguments was that FEMA used is just going to slow
everything down.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Well argument number two.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Now, Southern California residents are protesting the decision to take
that toxic ash and debris from the Eaton and Palisades
fires and put them in the landfills right near occupied
areas where there is a population.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
And so a protest took place in Calabasas.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Landfill in Grenada Hills near the Sunshine Canyon landfill. Why
because the argument is toxic chemicals could drift into the
neighborhood airborne dust or leech into the groundwater.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
And all of these.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Landfills or populations or cities near these landfills proposed landfills
that are being used, are really upset about it because
they don't want to They want to know is the
groundwater going to be affected, is the air quality going
to be affected as the wind blows.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
They don't know. They don't know.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Because the federal government won't do the testing now, FEMA
said of the state, everyone wants to do it.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
God bless you. If you want to do it, go
ahead and do it.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
In the meantime, we are carting away all of this
debris at our cost. This is what the government is saying.
And that's a big that's a big chunk of money
to do it on your own. So what's happening is
they're simply contracting with and going into various landfills with
all of this debris. And as you can imagine, you've
(03:12):
got the protests going all over the place. So the
protests aren't not just people. A matter of fact, in
one case in Calabasas or about a dozen or two
dozen people that stood in front of a dumb truck
of a huge eighteen wheeler that debris was being put
into and was going to be carted off to the
(03:34):
local landfill.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
They should have just stood right in front of it.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Sheriffs came out this unincorporated area sheriff's came out and
said you got to move over were and to arrest you. You
they just stood pat They said, go ahead, arrest us.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Well, it was a standoff.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
They weren't arrested, and after about an hour the truck
turns around, sort of their version of the Cuban missile crisis.
And so the number of these land fills that are
burying being used include let me get this list here
because I think it's important for you to know.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
For those of us that don't live near these landfills.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Stories not so bad Semi Valley Landfill, the Calabasas Landfill,
Azuza land Reclamation Area, Sunshine Canyon Landfill, the el Sobrante Landfill,
and Corona expected to receive the disaster debris. The Lamb
Canyon and Badlands landfills in Riverside County have requested emergency
(04:34):
waivers for an increase in tonnage, which they are going
to get.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
So the demonstrations is going to go.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Oh by the way, county government and city government all
are lining up on behalf of the protesters, and the
city La City Council passed a unanimous motion to instantly
investigate what the level of the toxic city is. It
is FEMA going to cooperate, I think they will. You
(05:02):
go ahead, knock your socks off. We don't care. It's
not gonna It's not gonna stop us from doing what
we're doing. And as I said when I opened up
the monologue, the argument that FEMA is using is, hey,
we're going it's going to slow down if number one
we do the testing, and number two, if we have
to cart the debris away to landfills far away. There
(05:23):
are hazardous way sland fills out there. What they are
they are lined with a rubberized or a silicon tarp,
I don't know which one, and there are motion and
there are sensors in the landfill itself to detect methane
and other toxic gases, but they are not local, and
(05:45):
the local people are saying that's where you go, and
FEMA is saying, if we do that, that means the
trucks have to drive a lot further, which is going
to slow down the removal of the debris.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
So it's another stand off, no kidding, okay.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Going to what is happening on a federal level, and
the firing of tens of thousands of federal employees to
begin with.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
So there have been a couple of blips.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
And as I promoted this segment just before coming just
before the break, I said, if you ever watched the Apprentice,
which most of us at least know what the apprentice is.
And the tagline Donald Trump used, you fired. Maybe you
didn't use such a heavy New York accent. Michelle would
do that, and he never said, excuse me, I just
(06:42):
changed my mind, come on back. Well, that's exactly what's
happening with the National Park Service. The National Park Service
just fired a bunch of people, I mean just cleaned out.
Didn't clean it out in the sense of firing. What
happens as seasonal workers are hired every summer because that's
when people go to the National parks, and these seasonal
(07:04):
people collect the entrance fee. Example, when you go to
the park, the person they are at the park interest seasonal.
They clean the trails, they clean the restrooms, they're part
of the rescue teams that rescue injured hikers. Well, they
all received emails that their normal job offers for the
twenty twenty five season ain't going to happen rescinded.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Well, this week a memo is sent out from the Department.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Of Interior saying that never mind that the agency is
going to hire seventy seven hundred seasonal employees, up from
the sixty three hundred who normally are fired. I mean,
it's going to go up fourteen hundred. Well, you talk
(07:50):
about an exception to what's going on today. Now there's
a hiring freeze going on across government, and this one is,
for some reason a big exception. Don't know why National
Parks Service it was. Now there's been a couple of
never minds. Now is it a make or break if
you don't go to a national park? You know, I
(08:12):
don't go. So it's not the end of the world
for me. Some people it's important. I'll tell you what
was really important is that there were people at the
Nuclear Agency whichever nuclear agency is involved in keeping our
safeguarding our nuclear weapons facilities. They were fired until someone
(08:35):
pointed out, wait a minute, they're the guys who safeguard
our weaponry? Are nuclear weaponry? Do you really want to
fire them? That was an oops, Well, okay, maybe we don't.
And so they were fired and the next day they
were rehired. And I was talking to one of the
(08:59):
real pro Trump is here at the station yesterday and
who is thrilled about the fact that the government is
cleaning out the quote, the waste and the fraud.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Now is there a waste and fraud.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
There has to be two point three million employees and
entrenched to bureaucracy that goes for back for decades.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Of course, there's gonna be waste.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Of course there's gonna be fraud, and there's a lot
of bureaucracy that can be eliminated. I'm assuming with the
government as large as it is. However, do you really
start cleaning out before you investigate. I mean, look at
the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. Here, a
(09:43):
couple of instances here. You're gonna see many more of these.
I'm fine with the investigation, but first let's find out
what happens or what has happened. One of the big
Trump slash Elon Musk's talking points is and you saw
this for days fifty million dollars being used to buy
(10:06):
condoms for Hamas or Palestinians. Two days later it was
one hundred million dollars were used to buy condoms. Now
one hundred million dollars for two thousand people, of which
some may not use condoms, women, children, the elderly. It's
(10:28):
a lot of condoms for the people that are left
in a population of a couple of million. The point
I'm making is okay, you make that allegation. I haven't
seen the proof. Where is the proof? Now, there's two
ways that they're doing this, except they're only doing it
one way. One is to investigate and then to fire.
(10:51):
Two is to fire and either investigate or not investigate.
And that is exactly what's going on. It's peremptory firing
across the board. Well it to the extent. The Musk
has the kind of influence that a lot of people
had that he is the puppet master of the Trump administration,
which I don't buy for a second. He has said
(11:12):
I am going to cut one third of the budget
of the United States two trillion dollars.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
How do you do that?
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Well, one claim is that he saved what was it
eight billion dollars up to this point, and then the
next day it was it was really eight million dollars
that he has saved. Heretofore and I think it was
one agency he was talking about. So there were a
few zeros missing, and he argued it's full transparency. Well
(11:48):
not really, there isn't a lot. So do I agree
in principle, of course I do, But at some point,
and I'm the one who shoo shoots from the hip
man do that's the accusation has made about me. And
I'm right there. I mean, I react and act a
lot quicker than I should. And I'm saying, come on, guys, really,
(12:09):
maybe we got to slow this down. Now. I'm going
to give you a little bit of handle history. In
nineteen seventy eight, when I was I think first year,
second year of law school, a decision came down the
US Supreme Court ruled that this guy by the name
of David Baki will be going to medical school at
(12:33):
UC Davis. He had been turned down. He applied, and
the school said nah, nah, and why.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Well, they had a quota that.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Certain number of African Americans were to be allowed into
the medical school. And he argued that wait a minute.
Number one, I'm white, but I have better qualified cations
that was per school, per the school, better GPA, better
test scores on the MCAT, and I deserve to have
(13:08):
that spot that you gave to this African American who
didn't meet those qualifications. Well, the numbers were the numbers.
They had to have x percent of African Americans and
they were going to put that in. So he sued
and that was amazing. That was one of the first
lawsuits of reverse discrimination.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
White people suing saying.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
I'm being discriminated against because I'm white, and that went
up through the courts and the Supreme Court ruled, yeah,
he has a case, and the school reinstated him. The
next year he got in. But this started a whole
slew of cases of reverse discrimination. Now, the Supreme Court
(13:52):
didn't eliminate the racial factor completely. What the court did
say is you cannot use race solely as a basis
for determining who gets into school. In this case, it
was the medical school because that's what was happening. When
you have a when you have a quota system and
(14:12):
X number have to go in, it is race.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
That's it. It's race.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
So the court said, no, you can't do that, but
you can use race as a factor in determining whether
someone is given entrance to the school.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
You have to look at everything else.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
You have to You have to look at the GPAs,
you have to look at the test scores. You have
to look at what they have done in the world
out there to make them uh, to make the the people,
the application people look at you in a more positive
light today.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
If you want to get into a majority school.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
If you want to get into an Ivy League school
and you happen to be white man, you had better
start a charity, raise several million dollars and win the
Nobel Peace Prize. It takes that much. And as for
anybody to get into one of the big ivy leagues.
So he wins, and it starts all of those cases,
and it got to the point where the Supreme Court
(15:16):
narrowed down the race factor to the point where now
race cannot be used.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
As a factor at all.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
However, we talk about the advantages that minorities have. If
you are Hispanic, if you are black, if you're a
Pacific islander, frankly, you're going to have an advantage.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
It's that simple. Not Asians.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Even though Asians are a legitimate majority, they don't get
the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Why because go to UC.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Berkeley, Okay, go to Hastings, Lag, go to Stanford. You
will see the number of Asians far outnumbers their population.
So they're doing all right anyway, So they're not considered
a minori. So how is the end around done? How
(16:05):
do the schools get away with, in fact giving preference
to in some cases African Americans or Pacific Islanders, Well,
they look at things like how many siblings do you have?
Are you the first person to have gone to college,
or you're going to college.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Where do you live?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Are you living in a socioeconomic area that is poor
and particularly minority populated. So they sort of play that
game to where it's virtually guaranteed that a minority still
has the upper hand, and it does. And the argument is,
let's have a level playing field, because it used to
be that minorities never were able to get in because
(16:45):
they were minorities, particularly blacks African Americans or sort of
the poster child the discrimination. And legitimately so in this country,
slavery is the original sin of this country. Absolutely straight
out separating out African Americans as being particularly oppressed absolutely
(17:08):
holds water. And so the argument is you screwed us
or we screwed them. We being the white population, wasn't me.
I never owned a slave, I've never determined if someone
should go to college or not.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
And now we're going to go the other way.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
And then there are people that argue, okay, now let's
make it a level playing field. I remember once I
interviewed Jesse Jackson, who argued, yeah, yeah, blacks should get advantages.
They should be determined as more apt to get into
school because the level playing field means you have to
(17:43):
take into account what happened before.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Okay, So that is the rule going in.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
So now I'm going to move forward to a Supreme
Court case where this week or next week, the Court
is going to hear arguments in another white discrimination case.
But it's not because a minority person as to a
race was involved. Oh no, No, it's a whole different
(18:10):
avenue they took. When when I was in law school,
a case came down in nineteen seventy eight about a
white guy who was denied a place in medical school
at University of California and a black man African American
got his spot, even though he argued the white guy
that he had better qualifications, which he did according to
the school, and there was a quota system straight out,
(18:33):
you know, certain number of blacks come in and we're
putting him in no matter what. That was the quota system.
And he sued for reverse discrimination and he won. Us
Supreme Court said, oh to the UC system, oh no.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
He goes to medical school and the next year he did.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Well, there is another case a brewing, and this has
to also do with reverse discrimination. But I'll tell you
the difference. This is a woman who's arguing that she
is white and straight and the discrimination here is because
she is straight, and that is illegal.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Her name is Marlene Ames.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
She worked for the Ohio Youth Correction System, got all
kinds of promotions and evaluations, and then in twenty nineteen
she was she was demoted and denied a promotion at
the same time. And the demotion she took a forty thousand
dollars pay cut. And according to Ames and this lawsuit,
(19:31):
that wasn't all. She had a gay supervisor at the time.
She was passed over for promotion in favor of.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
A gay woman.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
She was demoted in favor of a gay man, both
of whom were less qualified than she was, according to
the lawsuit. Well, next Wednesday, US Supreme Court is going
to hear that case. They're going to hear arguments in
her civil rights lawsuit against the Department of Youth Services.
After the law courts throw it out, she wants money,
(20:02):
by the way, from the state, a ruling in her
favor by the court. Remember it now has a six
to three conservative majority is going to make it a
lot easier for non minorities, including white people and straight people,
to argue claims of illegal bias reverse discrimination under the
federal anti discrimination law. Now this gets a little wonky,
(20:23):
so I'm going to try to explain it, Okay. In
nineteen sixty four, under Lyndon Johnson, Congress passed Title seven
of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four. No
Discrimination prohibits discrimination on the base of race, religion, national origin,
and sex, including sexual orientation.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
This is what she's saying, So how does this even
go to court?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
The lower court ruled against her, The appeals court ruled
against her. I mean, isn't discrimination discrimination, that's what she's arguing. Well,
it gets a little more complicated than that, because a
requirement that is used by most courts is that plaintiffs
from majority groups read white and straight people have to
(21:04):
provide more evidence than minority playmants claimants to make a
prima facia case, which means that on its face is
a case. In other words, a white person, straight person
has to provide more proof of reverse discrimination then a
minority person has to provide that there is discrimination.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
As we see it isn't that discrimination on its face.
I mean, come on, guys, and.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
There has to be well, it's as I said, it's
a little bit wonky that it has to be argued
that there is a pattern of discrimination.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
You have to go deeper into it. There has to
be a.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
History, and it's it is easier in one sense to
argue racial discrimination. You know, if I'm being sued by
a straight person, I'm gay and I choose a choose
someone who is gay for a promotion over you, I
can say I had nothing to do with it, even
though that person was gay. It's kind of hard to
(22:08):
argue I didn't know that person was black. Gee, I
never noticed. It doesn't fly usually. But the argument's going
to be this is straight out discrimination, and so what
can be used, and what is used is the history
of racial discrimination in this country as a basis for
(22:31):
those minorities suing. You can't argue, well, you can argue
if you're straight. And I think she's gonna make the
argument I haven't read the case, so I haven't read
the Obviously, the papers here is that there has now
recently been a history of anti white, anti straight bias
(22:53):
in the workplace, and in education, and the other side's
going to go, hey, it's been there. You may argue that,
but you don't have a four hundred year history of
this of discrimination.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
You don't have a two hundred year history of discrimination.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
You don't have a system where it was impossible for
someone to get into school, or get a job, or
get this kind of a workplace environment because he or
she was a minority. It's going to be an interesting case,
it really is.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Is that going to change everything? You know?
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Based on this court? I think she may have a case.
By the way, she has since been promoted back. She
was a supervisor. She was making one hundred thousand dollars
year when she was demoted by a gays purpose person
in favor of a gay person. By the way, the
lower courts and the appeals court said no, no, no, because
the supervisors could have interfered and they were straight, and
(23:48):
they didn't. So there are a couple of little wonky
parts of it, but the basis of the main premise
here is I'm straight, I'm white, and you're discriminating, yes
mee in favor of the gay community. That is discrimination. Okay,
KF I am six point you've been listening to the
(24:09):
Bill Handle Show, Catch My Show Monday through Friday six
am to nine am, and anytime on demand on the
iHeartRadio app
You're listen Saints.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I Am six forty the bill Handle show on demand
on the iHeartRadio f KFI.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
AM six forty bill Handle. Here it is.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
A Friday Foody Friday, February twenty one, and today at
thirty another segment of Amah and that's handle Anything, Ask
Me anything, some of the big stories.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
We're looking at the story.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Of Yolanda Murdi, suspect in the stabbing death of her wife,
who is a San Diego cal Cal Fire Captain San
Diego Fire Captain Becky Morodi.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
So that's a big, big story.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
And then Israel officials say one of the four bodies
handed over by Hamas, who was one of them, was
supposed to be Shery Bibis, is not and she's the
mother of the two young children who were killed, whose
bodies were returned, one nine years old, when four years old.
Now in a case of nimbi, big nimby case, not
(01:01):
in my backyard. Yesterday I reported on the cry for
the residents of Palisades and the Altadena fire to ask
FEMA to do toxic testing on the debris that's being removed,
which the government has done virtually every single time. As
matter of fact, every single time, whenever there's a major
disaster of this kind of debris has to be removed.
(01:23):
FEMA said, no, not going to do it this time.
We are not going to do it. You want to
do it, you do it yourself. And one of the
arguments was that FEMA used is just going to slow
everything down.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Well argument number two.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Now, Southern California residents are protesting the decision to take
that toxic ash and debris from the Eaton and Palisades
fires and put them in the landfills right near occupied
areas where there is a population.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
And so a protest took place in Calabasas.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Landfill in Grenada Hills near the Sunshine Canyon landfill. Why
because the argument is toxic chemicals could drift into the
neighborhood airborne dust or leech into the groundwater.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
And all of these.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Landfills or populations or cities near these landfills proposed landfills
that are being used, are really upset about it because
they don't want to They want to know is the
groundwater going to be affected, is the air quality going
to be affected as the wind blows.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
They don't know. They don't know.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Because the federal government won't do the testing now, FEMA
said of the state, everyone wants to do it.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
God bless you. If you want to do it, go
ahead and do it.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
In the meantime, we are carting away all of this
debris at our cost. This is what the government is saying.
And that's a big that's a big chunk of money
to do it on your own. So what's happening is
they're simply contracting with and going into various landfills with
all of this debris. And as you can imagine, you've
(03:12):
got the protests going all over the place. So the
protests aren't not just people. A matter of fact, in
one case in Calabasas or about a dozen or two
dozen people that stood in front of a dumb truck
of a huge eighteen wheeler that debris was being put
into and was going to be carted off to the
(03:34):
local landfill.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
They should have just stood right in front of it.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Sheriffs came out this unincorporated area sheriff's came out and
said you got to move over were and to arrest you. You
they just stood pat They said, go ahead, arrest us.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Well, it was a standoff.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
They weren't arrested, and after about an hour the truck
turns around, sort of their version of the Cuban missile crisis.
And so the number of these land fills that are
burying being used include let me get this list here
because I think it's important for you to know.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
For those of us that don't live near these landfills.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Stories not so bad Semi Valley Landfill, the Calabasas Landfill,
Azuza land Reclamation Area, Sunshine Canyon Landfill, the el Sobrante Landfill,
and Corona expected to receive the disaster debris. The Lamb
Canyon and Badlands landfills in Riverside County have requested emergency
(04:34):
waivers for an increase in tonnage, which they are going
to get.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
So the demonstrations is going to go.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Oh by the way, county government and city government all
are lining up on behalf of the protesters, and the
city La City Council passed a unanimous motion to instantly
investigate what the level of the toxic city is. It
is FEMA going to cooperate, I think they will. You
(05:02):
go ahead, knock your socks off. We don't care. It's
not gonna It's not gonna stop us from doing what
we're doing. And as I said when I opened up
the monologue, the argument that FEMA is using is, hey,
we're going it's going to slow down if number one
we do the testing, and number two, if we have
to cart the debris away to landfills far away. There
(05:23):
are hazardous way sland fills out there. What they are
they are lined with a rubberized or a silicon tarp,
I don't know which one, and there are motion and
there are sensors in the landfill itself to detect methane
and other toxic gases, but they are not local, and
(05:45):
the local people are saying that's where you go, and
FEMA is saying, if we do that, that means the
trucks have to drive a lot further, which is going
to slow down the removal of the debris.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
So it's another stand off, no kidding, okay.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Going to what is happening on a federal level, and
the firing of tens of thousands of federal employees to
begin with.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
So there have been a couple of blips.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
And as I promoted this segment just before coming just
before the break, I said, if you ever watched the Apprentice,
which most of us at least know what the apprentice is.
And the tagline Donald Trump used, you fired. Maybe you
didn't use such a heavy New York accent. Michelle would
do that, and he never said, excuse me, I just
(06:42):
changed my mind, come on back. Well, that's exactly what's
happening with the National Park Service. The National Park Service
just fired a bunch of people, I mean just cleaned out.
Didn't clean it out in the sense of firing. What
happens as seasonal workers are hired every summer because that's
when people go to the National parks, and these seasonal
(07:04):
people collect the entrance fee. Example, when you go to
the park, the person they are at the park interest seasonal.
They clean the trails, they clean the restrooms, they're part
of the rescue teams that rescue injured hikers. Well, they
all received emails that their normal job offers for the
twenty twenty five season ain't going to happen rescinded.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Well, this week a memo is sent out from the Department.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Of Interior saying that never mind that the agency is
going to hire seventy seven hundred seasonal employees, up from
the sixty three hundred who normally are fired. I mean,
it's going to go up fourteen hundred. Well, you talk
(07:50):
about an exception to what's going on today. Now there's
a hiring freeze going on across government, and this one is,
for some reason a big exception. Don't know why National
Parks Service it was. Now there's been a couple of
never minds. Now is it a make or break if
you don't go to a national park? You know, I
(08:12):
don't go. So it's not the end of the world
for me. Some people it's important. I'll tell you what
was really important is that there were people at the
Nuclear Agency whichever nuclear agency is involved in keeping our
safeguarding our nuclear weapons facilities. They were fired until someone
(08:35):
pointed out, wait a minute, they're the guys who safeguard
our weaponry? Are nuclear weaponry? Do you really want to
fire them? That was an oops, Well, okay, maybe we don't.
And so they were fired and the next day they
were rehired. And I was talking to one of the
(08:59):
real pro Trump is here at the station yesterday and
who is thrilled about the fact that the government is
cleaning out the quote, the waste and the fraud.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Now is there a waste and fraud.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
There has to be two point three million employees and
entrenched to bureaucracy that goes for back for decades.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Of course, there's gonna be waste.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Of course there's gonna be fraud, and there's a lot
of bureaucracy that can be eliminated. I'm assuming with the
government as large as it is. However, do you really
start cleaning out before you investigate. I mean, look at
the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. Here, a
(09:43):
couple of instances here. You're gonna see many more of these.
I'm fine with the investigation, but first let's find out
what happens or what has happened. One of the big
Trump slash Elon Musk's talking points is and you saw
this for days fifty million dollars being used to buy
(10:06):
condoms for Hamas or Palestinians. Two days later it was
one hundred million dollars were used to buy condoms. Now
one hundred million dollars for two thousand people, of which
some may not use condoms, women, children, the elderly. It's
(10:28):
a lot of condoms for the people that are left
in a population of a couple of million. The point
I'm making is okay, you make that allegation. I haven't
seen the proof. Where is the proof? Now, there's two
ways that they're doing this, except they're only doing it
one way. One is to investigate and then to fire.
(10:51):
Two is to fire and either investigate or not investigate.
And that is exactly what's going on. It's peremptory firing
across the board. Well it to the extent. The Musk
has the kind of influence that a lot of people
had that he is the puppet master of the Trump administration,
which I don't buy for a second. He has said
(11:12):
I am going to cut one third of the budget
of the United States two trillion dollars.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
How do you do that?
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Well, one claim is that he saved what was it
eight billion dollars up to this point, and then the
next day it was it was really eight million dollars
that he has saved. Heretofore and I think it was
one agency he was talking about. So there were a
few zeros missing, and he argued it's full transparency. Well
(11:48):
not really, there isn't a lot. So do I agree
in principle, of course I do, But at some point,
and I'm the one who shoo shoots from the hip
man do that's the accusation has made about me. And
I'm right there. I mean, I react and act a
lot quicker than I should. And I'm saying, come on, guys, really,
(12:09):
maybe we got to slow this down. Now. I'm going
to give you a little bit of handle history. In
nineteen seventy eight, when I was I think first year,
second year of law school, a decision came down the
US Supreme Court ruled that this guy by the name
of David Baki will be going to medical school at
(12:33):
UC Davis. He had been turned down. He applied, and
the school said nah, nah, and why.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Well, they had a quota that.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Certain number of African Americans were to be allowed into
the medical school. And he argued that wait a minute.
Number one, I'm white, but I have better qualified cations
that was per school, per the school, better GPA, better
test scores on the MCAT, and I deserve to have
(13:08):
that spot that you gave to this African American who
didn't meet those qualifications. Well, the numbers were the numbers.
They had to have x percent of African Americans and
they were going to put that in. So he sued
and that was amazing. That was one of the first
lawsuits of reverse discrimination.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
White people suing saying.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
I'm being discriminated against because I'm white, and that went
up through the courts and the Supreme Court ruled, yeah,
he has a case, and the school reinstated him. The
next year he got in. But this started a whole
slew of cases of reverse discrimination. Now, the Supreme Court
(13:52):
didn't eliminate the racial factor completely. What the court did
say is you cannot use race solely as a basis
for determining who gets into school. In this case, it
was the medical school because that's what was happening. When
you have a when you have a quota system and
(14:12):
X number have to go in, it is race.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
That's it. It's race.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
So the court said, no, you can't do that, but
you can use race as a factor in determining whether
someone is given entrance to the school.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
You have to look at everything else.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
You have to You have to look at the GPAs,
you have to look at the test scores. You have
to look at what they have done in the world
out there to make them uh, to make the the people,
the application people look at you in a more positive
light today.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
If you want to get into a majority school.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
If you want to get into an Ivy League school
and you happen to be white man, you had better
start a charity, raise several million dollars and win the
Nobel Peace Prize. It takes that much. And as for
anybody to get into one of the big ivy leagues.
So he wins, and it starts all of those cases,
and it got to the point where the Supreme Court
(15:16):
narrowed down the race factor to the point where now
race cannot be used.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
As a factor at all.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
However, we talk about the advantages that minorities have. If
you are Hispanic, if you are black, if you're a
Pacific islander, frankly, you're going to have an advantage.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
It's that simple. Not Asians.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Even though Asians are a legitimate majority, they don't get
the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Why because go to UC.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Berkeley, Okay, go to Hastings, Lag, go to Stanford. You
will see the number of Asians far outnumbers their population.
So they're doing all right anyway, So they're not considered
a minori. So how is the end around done? How
(16:05):
do the schools get away with, in fact giving preference
to in some cases African Americans or Pacific Islanders, Well,
they look at things like how many siblings do you have?
Are you the first person to have gone to college,
or you're going to college.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Where do you live?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Are you living in a socioeconomic area that is poor
and particularly minority populated. So they sort of play that
game to where it's virtually guaranteed that a minority still
has the upper hand, and it does. And the argument is,
let's have a level playing field, because it used to
be that minorities never were able to get in because
(16:45):
they were minorities, particularly blacks African Americans or sort of
the poster child the discrimination. And legitimately so in this country,
slavery is the original sin of this country. Absolutely straight
out separating out African Americans as being particularly oppressed absolutely
(17:08):
holds water. And so the argument is you screwed us
or we screwed them. We being the white population, wasn't me.
I never owned a slave, I've never determined if someone
should go to college or not.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
And now we're going to go the other way.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
And then there are people that argue, okay, now let's
make it a level playing field. I remember once I
interviewed Jesse Jackson, who argued, yeah, yeah, blacks should get advantages.
They should be determined as more apt to get into
school because the level playing field means you have to
(17:43):
take into account what happened before.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Okay, So that is the rule going in.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
So now I'm going to move forward to a Supreme
Court case where this week or next week, the Court
is going to hear arguments in another white discrimination case.
But it's not because a minority person as to a
race was involved. Oh no, No, it's a whole different
(18:10):
avenue they took. When when I was in law school,
a case came down in nineteen seventy eight about a
white guy who was denied a place in medical school
at University of California and a black man African American
got his spot, even though he argued the white guy
that he had better qualifications, which he did according to
the school, and there was a quota system straight out,
(18:33):
you know, certain number of blacks come in and we're
putting him in no matter what. That was the quota system.
And he sued for reverse discrimination and he won. Us
Supreme Court said, oh to the UC system, oh no.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
He goes to medical school and the next year he did.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Well, there is another case a brewing, and this has
to also do with reverse discrimination. But I'll tell you
the difference. This is a woman who's arguing that she
is white and straight and the discrimination here is because
she is straight, and that is illegal.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Her name is Marlene Ames.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
She worked for the Ohio Youth Correction System, got all
kinds of promotions and evaluations, and then in twenty nineteen
she was she was demoted and denied a promotion at
the same time. And the demotion she took a forty thousand
dollars pay cut. And according to Ames and this lawsuit,
(19:31):
that wasn't all. She had a gay supervisor at the time.
She was passed over for promotion in favor of.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
A gay woman.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
She was demoted in favor of a gay man, both
of whom were less qualified than she was, according to
the lawsuit. Well, next Wednesday, US Supreme Court is going
to hear that case. They're going to hear arguments in
her civil rights lawsuit against the Department of Youth Services.
After the law courts throw it out, she wants money,
(20:02):
by the way, from the state, a ruling in her
favor by the court. Remember it now has a six
to three conservative majority is going to make it a
lot easier for non minorities, including white people and straight people,
to argue claims of illegal bias reverse discrimination under the
federal anti discrimination law. Now this gets a little wonky,
(20:23):
so I'm going to try to explain it, Okay. In
nineteen sixty four, under Lyndon Johnson, Congress passed Title seven
of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four. No
Discrimination prohibits discrimination on the base of race, religion, national origin,
and sex, including sexual orientation.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
This is what she's saying, So how does this even
go to court?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
The lower court ruled against her, The appeals court ruled
against her. I mean, isn't discrimination discrimination, that's what she's arguing. Well,
it gets a little more complicated than that, because a
requirement that is used by most courts is that plaintiffs
from majority groups read white and straight people have to
(21:04):
provide more evidence than minority playmants claimants to make a
prima facia case, which means that on its face is
a case. In other words, a white person, straight person
has to provide more proof of reverse discrimination then a
minority person has to provide that there is discrimination.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
As we see it isn't that discrimination on its face.
I mean, come on, guys, and.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
There has to be well, it's as I said, it's
a little bit wonky that it has to be argued
that there is a pattern of discrimination.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
You have to go deeper into it. There has to
be a.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
History, and it's it is easier in one sense to
argue racial discrimination. You know, if I'm being sued by
a straight person, I'm gay and I choose a choose
someone who is gay for a promotion over you, I
can say I had nothing to do with it, even
though that person was gay. It's kind of hard to
(22:08):
argue I didn't know that person was black. Gee, I
never noticed. It doesn't fly usually. But the argument's going
to be this is straight out discrimination, and so what
can be used, and what is used is the history
of racial discrimination in this country as a basis for
(22:31):
those minorities suing. You can't argue, well, you can argue
if you're straight. And I think she's gonna make the
argument I haven't read the case, so I haven't read
the Obviously, the papers here is that there has now
recently been a history of anti white, anti straight bias
(22:53):
in the workplace, and in education, and the other side's
going to go, hey, it's been there. You may argue that,
but you don't have a four hundred year history of
this of discrimination.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
You don't have a two hundred year history of discrimination.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
You don't have a system where it was impossible for
someone to get into school, or get a job, or
get this kind of a workplace environment because he or
she was a minority. It's going to be an interesting case,
it really is.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Is that going to change everything? You know?
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Based on this court? I think she may have a case.
By the way, she has since been promoted back. She
was a supervisor. She was making one hundred thousand dollars
year when she was demoted by a gays purpose person
in favor of a gay person. By the way, the
lower courts and the appeals court said no, no, no, because
the supervisors could have interfered and they were straight, and
(23:48):
they didn't. So there are a couple of little wonky
parts of it, but the basis of the main premise
here is I'm straight, I'm white, and you're discriminating, yes
mee in favor of the gay community. That is discrimination. Okay,
KF I am six point you've been listening to the
(24:09):
Bill Handle Show, Catch My Show Monday through Friday six
am to nine am, and anytime on demand on the
iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!