12-16-25 Scott Sloan Show

Scott talks with Councilmember Anna Albi about the end of the food truck curfew. Also Ohio Rep Adam Bird breaks down the new Vicious Dog Law. Finally Robert Alt explains what happens if you choose to make your own alcohol.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you want to be an Americans?

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Got flown back on seven hundred wlw welcome to it.
We are out of the deep freeze into just the
regular freeze right now, starting off today, the city has
reversed it's a controversial eleven PM cutoff for food trucks.
I know, not too many people lining up for a
slice of pie at two o'clock in the morning when
it's thirty five thousand degrees below zero. But nonetheless things

(00:25):
have been right I guess wrongs have been righted here.
Initially you may recalls a public safety issue because of crime.
It was a city manager office just issued an edict
and declared that's it. You got to shut everything down
at eleven mean on the bar's rubble at two o'clock
and if you want something to eat when you're leaving
at closing time, your sol The complaint was that too
many people were gathering and causing problems and having street beefs.

(00:47):
And again that sounds like an enforcement issue. Why punish
the vendor. But at least a little bit of common
senses have been restored, and she's been leading the charge
on this. Council. Member Anna Alby, welcome back. How you
been good.

Speaker 3 (00:58):
Thanks so much for having me this spire.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
It feels like a win, doesn't it.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
It does. No, I'm I'm glad that, you know, working
with the administration, we were able to hit this kind
of compromise to move the the end time go back
to one am on Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:16):
Great.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
It seems so punitive too that and it was sure
a long city manager just simply said this is the
way it's going to be, you know, kind of like
an executive order almost. And that's the part that struck
me is awful is the fact that there was no input.
There was no input from the food truck vendors, There
was no input from businesses or people. They simply move
forward as like an emergency order. That was the troubling

(01:38):
part about this because none of it made sense, but
only to share a loan.

Speaker 4 (01:43):
Yeah, I totally agree. And and right now we're in
a phase with the administrations having active conversations with the
Food Truck Association, which is something that it comes to
member Mark Jeffries, Vice Mary and Michelle. When McCarney and
I were all like, hey, have you talked to the
food truck and Initially, when this edict you called it
came down at the eleven pm cutoff, they hadn't they

(02:03):
hadn't yet talked to them, and in fact, it took
a handful of weeks in coordination through City Council to
actually get the administration and the food Truck Association in contact.
They even have these conversations, so they are chatting now,
and my understanding is there could be more changes coming.
But to me, it's this open dialogue and looking at
this holistically and not just coming down with this like

(02:26):
big eleven pm cut off without the broader conversation.

Speaker 6 (02:29):
Yeah, and it makes sense.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Did you look at any did you have any data
or analysis that convinced you eleven o'clock wasn't justified?

Speaker 7 (02:37):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (02:37):
Absolutely. So that was another thing that I really hounded
administration on the very first time they showed up the Council,
because they came and gave kind of an oral presentation.
I said, hey, where's the data. So they did come
back to us with some data points about a couple
hotspot areas where food trucks typically gather. But I'll be honest,
the numbers were not compelling. They kind of compared a
year over year before and after this, eleven PM was

(03:00):
into place, and at best it was kind of a
neutral implementation, and that was really what led me and
couple member Jeffares to continue to push back to say, hey,
the data is not supporting that this is making it different. Now,
there could still be issues you mentioned at the top
here that you know there were some issues of people gathering. Great,
let's look at the enforcement and what's actually causing that. Right,

(03:22):
Something I've been interested in is is there something happening
at the bars nearby? Is there over serving? Are there
other things happening not that are separate from the food truck?

Speaker 6 (03:32):
Right?

Speaker 2 (03:33):
And bars can hopital two o'clock, but the food trucks can't.
And I guess this this compromise is a little bit
better here too. So it's one o'clock as opposed to
three am after the bars closed. But what happens if
all of a sudden, hey, we start having fights and
problems around the food trucks. To me, that seems more
whether it's one am or three am, that's a criminal

(03:54):
enforcement issue shouldn't be on the food truck vendors.

Speaker 4 (03:57):
I agree, And the one am the concept there is
that gives the CPD and everyone about an hour to
clear out before the bar is closed, right, right, So
get people home because part of the issue was people
were getting out of the bars, going to the food
truck and then hanging out for hours longer, well into
the morning time. So this actually has that cut off
a little bit before the bars get out, so people

(04:19):
can go home and kind of clear out. So hopefully
that will, you know, handle that issue with the crowds.
But if there are issues going forward, to your point,
let's look at what's happening, what's causing it. You know,
since time police, we pride ourselves on being problem solvers,
and to me, this just takes a little bit more
problem solving and investigation to really figure out what's going on.

(04:40):
If there are issues, I'm not convinced there will be
knock on work. Yeah, hopefully everyone will be on their
good behavior and we can enjoy everything food trucks bring
to our city.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Right you mentioned, you know, maybe there's further discussions here
with the food Truck Association specifically, could could you wind
up extending hours at some point?

Speaker 4 (04:59):
I think every things on the table right now. One
of the questions even to who's responsible to kind of
the areas around. You know, how do we make sure
we understand where food trucks are setting up, who's responsible
in the perimeter of the food truck, you know, trash
or litters left behind, So all those things are in
conversation now and again at the end of the day.
My goal here is one absolutely ensure safety, but two

(05:23):
make sure these small businesses have an opportunity to grow
and thrive. Right, our food trucks are often the first
step into getting a brick and mortar and these are
a lot of small businesses, very narrow margins, right, They're
independent operators who are just trying to get a leg
up here. So I'm hoping that in these conversations we
can figure out for both sides here, right, public safety,

(05:43):
the public side, but also say the food truck you know,
what does this industry need to grow and thrive while
still making sure everyone's safe.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
At the end of the day, and Albi, we're still
going to have crime, and it's a big city, so
you will have that. But I think by any metric,
any measure, and any you know, it doesn't pass a
sniff test. As how, We've been a approaching crime in
the city for a long time now, and it looks
like the things starting to turn to the right way
as opposed to giving people, you know, enough elbow space
and free birth to do what they want. The problem

(06:11):
is it just victimizes business. I bring this up because
in Madisonville, I don't know if you hear the story not,
it's a place called the Cheese Kkery and Liz Field
is the owner there. She started her business looks like
a nice little shop in that she said she's gonna
have to close now. And the reason she has to
close is because of what we're talking about here, and
that is an element that is causing her employees to
quit and drow. She can't stay open now. Part of this,

(06:33):
of course, is the economic climate. We can't ignore the
fact that their sales are down significantly because of the economy.
But it doesn't help when largely female workers there are
being harassed by teenagers who are running around, screaming, throwing things,
stealing from the store, leaving trash around, threatening employees because
they're not giving them free items. You have homeless people

(06:53):
or homeless man confronting employees and customers makes them feel unsafe.
And it's not just her, it's other businesses on the
street there in Madisonville, let's see the same thing.

Speaker 6 (07:01):
So it's not isolated.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
And I bring this up because Lumpika by Jeff Ruby
is closing and part of the concern there was safety downtown.
So whether it's downtown in the Central Business District or
right next to the aeronof Center or in Madisonville, it's
part of a bigger problem here, and that is crime
that is helping destroy business. In the food truck thing
didn't help relative to Madisonville. I'm sure you're aware of this,

(07:25):
and if you're on only informed you that's not a
good look for the city.

Speaker 4 (07:29):
You know, this is Liza the chief Sakries is a neighbor.
So when I saw her do her initial post on Facebook,
I reached out immediately and we had CPD in contact
with her. And you know, I think with the Sunday night,
by Monday morning, they're reaching out, and you know, I
think ultimately she posted last night or yesterday, I think
that she's been working with a mentor and the decision

(07:51):
she's making is frankly, to simplify her business. So they
need grow, so they're going to focus on their one
storefront and Anderson. You know it is to your point,
is it tough economic climate right now for small businesses,
So expanding having to deal with two storefronts is obviously
going to be a bigger lift than one. So the
post she put most recently on Facebook was all around

(08:11):
kind of focusing their efforts in that one store and
Anderson and really kind of simplifying their operations. So I
hope the best privilege. Like I said, she's a friend,
she's a neighbor. I love the cheese cakery. My parents
live and Anderson, so I'll still be able to enjoy
her products when i go down to visit them. So
you know, I'm hoping the best for her. And you know, ultimately,
you know, Cincinnati, we are tackling you know, all public

(08:35):
safety across the board head on. And we've actually in Madisonville,
our crime stats have looked really good for the year,
and I'm actually very proud of kind of what our
neighborhood has done over the past you know, decades plus
where we are a safe neighborhood where people are out
and about. And really what I'm excited for in our
business district is actually more businesses in the vacant storefronts,

(08:57):
because that's really what's going to activate the Madisonville business
district is getting more people into that space, more businesses,
more vitality. And that's what I want in every neighborhood
right when I picture kind of what a city is, right,
you want to stay kind of people bustling around, going
into storefronts and.

Speaker 6 (09:12):
All of that.

Speaker 4 (09:13):
So that is my goal for here in Madisonville, but
across the entire city.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
I think part of the problem too, talking too CPD
officers there and you may know this as well, in particular,
one homeless person individual is causing a lot of the
problems as well in cops quite honestly because of the
iris rawleys, because of the homeless coalitions and the like.
If they start running those people off, individuals like that off,
then you bear their wrath. And the administration seems to

(09:37):
lean on the side of, you know, the homeless and
the indigen as opposed to business owners. That I think
that's also part of the problem. Is that starting to change.
Are we starting to have more balance or is that
just simply incorrect from police officers.

Speaker 4 (09:47):
Well, let me just talk about so we have a
gentleman in our neighborhood and he struggles with mental health.
He's a known person in our neighborhood and frankly, many
of the neighbors, residents, store owners here take care of him.
He frequented other places like mad MoMA and they'll get coffee,
you know, keep them warm. He'll often go into our
public library that's right there. They are the staff, They're

(10:09):
familiar with him. He is a part of our community,
and frankly, having mental issues is not a crime, right
Like I am not here to criminalize people who are struggling.
We need to make sure we're connecting them with the
care and services they need. So again, when I contact
the CPD in the city administration about this whole chiefcake
free thing, I made sure that we understood that this

(10:30):
gentleman it was put in touch with the people he
needed to to make sure that he was on his
care plan and getting what he needs. Because again, at
the end of the day, we want to make sure
everyone is safe in our community and those who are
struggling with mental illnesses, so we got to get them
into the care that they need so everyone's faces and
feels comfortable.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
I'm fine with what you said was getting someone in
need care. I mean, we just saw what happened with
Rob Reiner and his wife was just terrific. Mental health
looks like a significant mental health crisis. There are issues
for sure, or we don't know the full story yet,
but uh, at some point we will uh in getting
the people, you know, and there's a whole separate topic
about mental health, which is a big deal for me.
And you know, I focus some some of the portion

(11:12):
of the show on that weekly because it is a
problem in America. But you know that that attitude is great,
but at the same time, you have to look at
it and go, well, if they're harming and they're threatening people,
they don't feel safe and workers are quitting. To me,
that crosses the line and there's got to be more
strict intervention on that. But it doesn't mean you're cruel
because you're segregating someone or punishing now or whatever it
might be. I think you also can you know, have

(11:35):
two two kid glove a feel where I mean, it's
not entirely the reason why the Cheese Cakeery is closing,
but make no mistake about it, but it's a it's
a part of the reason you can't keep employees because
they're afraid of this one individual.

Speaker 6 (11:47):
We can't have that.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
I agree, And you know, in this situation, I don't
know all the reasons. You know, it's made her decision.
It sounds like she's working with a mentor.

Speaker 8 (11:56):
Now.

Speaker 4 (11:57):
Like what I can say is there are other businesses
and organizations in Madisonville that are familiar with this gentleman
and have not had the same issues and he and frankly,
I'll be honest. I the next day received many calls
from Madisonville community leaders, community council, the business chamber, the
development corporation, many of them who were worried about this

(12:18):
gentleman safety himself because posts online were so threatening towards
this man that people were going to hunt him down,
that people were worried about his safety. So you know, again,
we don't want to create any hype of environment where
anyone put.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
Yeah, she is a council member, an I'll be on
the show. We have a new food truck law in Cincinnati.
They have eased back on the restrictions closing stuff down
eleven o'clock and where you can congregate, and like, is
that also part of the issue too, is where the
food truck set up because it seems to me the
whole person of the food truck is putting the parking
the truck where people are. We talked about different zones
and areas, but you know, I think, you know, within reason,

(12:57):
it should be up to the person who owns the
truck or I've detructed, determined where the crowd is to
feed them.

Speaker 4 (13:03):
Yeah, and right now, the ordinance that council passed right
before I got on opened up those parking to kind
of anywhere there's a parking space food trucks can go.
They still congregate in places where you would sink right
ear bars in your activities, right, you don't want to
be off, you know, far away from everything. But I
do think it's worth a conversation with the administration because

(13:24):
if one of the questions is how do we make
the areas around food truck safer, well, do we need
to consolidate and come back to food truck zone that
are in those you know, fun area areas of the
town to make sure that we can have you know,
maybe extra patrols in that space, or that we're actually
providing additional safety with a well list spot. So I
think there's probably a middle ground here. Right somewhere between

(13:48):
go wherever you want, and you can only be in
this one spot that somehow gives us a balance into Hey,
we want you to be close to where all the
fun things are happening, but we also want to have
an idea of where you're going to be. That way,
we can make sure that you're in a spot that has,
you know, good lighting cameras. Maybe we have an extra
officer patrol nearby just in case. So I'm hoping the

(14:08):
conversations with the city administration, the food Truck Association can
talk through all this because I think that is what
will hopefully get us to the best outcome at the end.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
Well, ultimately, once you right size the police staff, right,
we're one hundred and fifty officers short. Now we're working.
We're behind the eight ball, working to try and get
more on the street. But that's part of the problems.
You don't have patrols out there to saturate areas where
people congregate, and so you just respond and you chase
calls as opposed to having a visible presence. Every time
I'm downtown, I do see more mark units, whether it's
CPD or sheriff's vehicles that are just simply parked there,

(14:39):
and that's a deterrent I would think for a lot
of people because they think, you know, obviously an officer
is close by, and so adding more patrols and officers
is going to help remedy the situation and everyone can
have fun again in our city and that's what it
should be about. And I'll be a council member. Thanks
so much for joining on the show this morning. Great
to talk to you. And happy holidays.

Speaker 4 (14:58):
Yeah, thanks so much, Happy holidays, Take care.

Speaker 6 (15:00):
All the best.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
I got to get a news update in in just
minutes on the big one seven hundred WLW when we
return here on the Scott's Loan show. Just made me
think of something. How this is related to what happens
Sunday at pay Course Stadium? Wait, what what do food
trucks have to do with pay Course Stadium? I'll tell
you coming up after news on seven hundred WWT.

Speaker 6 (15:23):
All right, d freeze is over y'all.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
Onward and upward till Saturday and we'll get more snow
a winter, baby winter. What you're doing well Scott's Loan
here on seven hundred WLWT. Thanks for checking out the show.
We can take you anywhere. The iHeartRadio app follows around,
will follow you as that sound will stalk you. You
may need a restraining order. Council member Anna A'll of
be minutes ago on the show talking about the peeling

(15:48):
back the rules regarding food trucks. It makes a lot
of sense now, you know, as cold has been with winter,
certainly not a big a deal as it is in
the summer. But fortunately the city and the administration listen.
You know, initially I was extremely critical of the city
manager share Along when she you know, rolled his edict
out and just simply said, I'm dictating this policy with

(16:10):
any thought or input whatsoever. Is the problem is the
food trucks. No, the problem is the criminals, the problems.
You don't have enough cops, the problems. You haven't taken
it seriously for so long that people just feel empowered
to do what the hell they want. Get in fight,
start trouble, make noise, make a mess, shoot at one another.
Around ninety nine point nine percent of people are just
out there to get a slice of pizza or a

(16:30):
burger or a hot dog or whatever it might be.
After they went out and had a good time at
the bars. That's all this is and those are the
people that need to be taken away. I you know,
the mentality that I'm going to get in a street
fight and the street be even to shoot people strangers
in front of food trucks is insane.

Speaker 6 (16:45):
Is insane.

Speaker 2 (16:45):
As the guy convicted yesterday for shooting a customer and
a worker at the Walmart and Fairfield. God, dude got
twenty six years stealing some crappy Walmart electronics and there
were some resistance. He pulls out a gun and Walmart
shoots two people, kills one or a thirty five year
old man.

Speaker 3 (17:04):
Day.

Speaker 2 (17:04):
There's people like that out there in society that you know.
That's why we need more cops on the streets. That's
why we need to take this stuff seriously. And I go, well,
you know, they're victims. To know, when you pull out
a gun or you assault someone, you're now a criminal.
You're not a victim. Quit watering down what victimhood is.
The thirty five year old man who died and the
guy work in a Walmart, those are victims.

Speaker 3 (17:24):
This guy.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
I'm tired of the everyone said, well they're victims. No
they're not. You're predators. That's the difference. And that was
kind of like the mindset for a while. While we're
just going to punish good people, then that would be
the food truck vendors who have very very thin margins
and you know that extra a few hours of being
opened may wind up ruining their business. How does that

(17:46):
help us? How does that help the tax base or
anything else? And us to grow and thrive. And so
fortunately council got together and reapproached this whole thing, and
it was a communication issue. It's like, okay, we communicated
now with the vendors, with the business, with citizens, We
looked at data, we talked to the cops, we wait
everything and came up with a fair compromise. That's how

(18:07):
you do things. And I said, you know, how does
this relate to what happened Sunday at pay corps Field. Well,
it leads down. Granted it's a little bit lagging here
with sheerlong did and maybe she learned from this, Probably not,
And it made sure learned from this going on, maybe
we have to be more thoughtful and talk to people
involved before we make rash decisions. But there was an
effort to communicate that there's some communication going on here.

(18:29):
They talk to people who were involved in this thing.
That's what you're supposed to do. What happens Sunday at
Paycorp is just part and parcel for what problems alde Bengals,
and that is the absolute lack of communication letting people
know what's going on. And it's just it's so basic,

(18:50):
it's so grade school, and yet time and time again,
a lot of the problems that pop up involving this
football team, this organization, this franchise gets back to communication.

Speaker 6 (19:04):
You know, we're here stories.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
In addition to the seats is the fact that I
guess because of the cold weather, possibly because not enough
workers showed up because it was so cold, I don't know.
But for people who are lined up cue up at
to get into the stadium at twelve o'clock, I guess
there are people who couldn't get their seats at like
one thirty because some of the scanners are down or

(19:29):
there are enough people to scan the tickets to get
you to the stadium. And so you missed it. Fortunately
for you, good good part of the game. And you know,
at some point you issue a message of going, hey,
here's what happened with the Here's what happened with the scanners,
we apologize, We're sorry. No communication whatsoever. No, there has
been no statement whatsoever about the Bengals relative to snow

(19:50):
removal from the field of in the fact that the
NFL looked and said, yeah, they did the bare minimum,
bare minimum. Bengals did the bare minimum required to remove
snow from the seats, the cold, hot chocolate, all that
other stuff. Never address. We don't talk about those things.
And it's not like other franchises don't have problems.

Speaker 6 (20:07):
Well they do.

Speaker 2 (20:07):
They apologize, but there's season ticket holders, their core customers,
and go, hey, we may have to stay. Hey, here's
what we're working on. No communication whatsoever. We just simply
ignore things. And when you do that, you lose control
the message. But more importantly, you act like you don't care.
And maybe they don't. But you know, there's an easy
way to make it look like even you know, again

(20:27):
it's about money, but make it look like you give
a damn, and that is to actually acknowledge that we
weren't good this time. But you know, the only one
who's allowed to talk is the head coach, z Act Taylor.
And that's a huge problem with this football club. That's
a huge problem with that franchise, there's no no one
takes any account to accountability, responsibility.

Speaker 6 (20:46):
No one from the front office talks. That's how they've
always been, that's how they do business.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
And this day and age where we expect instant, clear communication,
they failed to do that. It's like they're living in
I don't know, the nineteen fifties or something like that.
There's no communication. What's horror, I'll be honest you and
you see this elsewhere in the world. The Catholic Church,
for example, what the scandals and problems that they've had.

(21:10):
Horrible about communication. And if you don't get the word
out there, people are going to make their own minds up.
And it's not good for the product, not good for
the bottom line when you're you know, especially when you
wear Cincinnati on the front of your jersey. So again,
I look at what's going on with the food trucks.
A wrong was righted, a compromise was made. The food
truck vendors seemed not completely pleased about this, but you know,

(21:34):
staying open till one am is far cry better than
eleven pm. And also where they can park, and all
these the restrictions that were just picked out of the
ether by the city manager and made a rule. Now,
it took a while for this to happen, but hopefully
no one went out of business lost their jobs because
of that poor knee jerk decision to try and you know,
rather than address a criminal issue, we're going to punish

(21:56):
the people who are doing the right thing. But in
the case the Bengals, there's you know, it's a communication thing,
and there's just they simply don't see it.

Speaker 6 (22:03):
It really is incredible.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
It's something else and it just goes on year after
year after year, and it's easier than ever before to communicate.
You have social media. You could put something out on
the Twitter feed. You could put out something on social
to let people know what's going on or apologies. There's
nothing wrong with that, but they act like, hey, you know,
if we ignore it, then it's not a problem, and that,
of course is simply not true.

Speaker 6 (22:23):
That's insane, I know.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
But also moving on today, Nick Reiner in custody for
the murder of his dad and his mom, Rob Reiner
and Michelle Singer Reiner both dead. He is the prime suspect.
He's in custody. He has been I believe charged. We
do know that mental illness and self medication are the
top motives here. He struggled with mental health for a
long time, but the subject of a movie and also

(22:45):
had a drug problem, was actually homeless for a while.
A horrible story because you know, to go to show
you that that mental health knows no socio economic boundaries,
that people with extreme wealth and have all the access
to the best care in the world still can't get that.
And of course if you're poor, you have less of
a chance doing that. But the Nick Reiner in custody
for the murder, it was most likely mental illness and

(23:09):
maybe self medication. Their drug problems the top motives certainly
not politics. And I think it's really interesting the focus
of this is now not on Nick Reiner in the Rhiners,
but rather on President Trump, because he's now doubled down
in his comments that his death was a result of
Trump derangement syndrome. They described Reiner as a tortured and

(23:30):
struggling individual who suffered from massive, unyielding, incurable affliction with
Trump de rangement syndrome. It seems like the more we
progress into the second term here that President Trump himself
suffers from Trump de arrangement syndrome more than anyone else
in this country, I think. And for those who I

(23:53):
guess the boot lickers who will always apologize for him,
saying that, well, why would you expect he was Rob
Reiner was always targeting Donald Trump and simply doesn't like
Donald Oh, he doesn't like all Republicans. He's a died
in the wool leftist liberal, as a lot of people
Hollywood are. But you know, when you take the job

(24:14):
as commander in chief, and you take the job as
a representative which president is, you're going to have people
shooting arrows at you. I mean, you know, when Biden
was president, half the country didn't like Biden. Half the
country doesn't like Trump. That's how it is. Just kind
of goes along with the job. And I think it's
also especially difficult because we had the shootings at Brown
and what happened on Australia and the three Americans in Syrian.

(24:35):
It's been a steady drumbeat to this and the thing
coming out from the President was well, it's because he
hated me. I'm not quite sure the connection there between
him disliking Donald Trump and his death. And also i'd
point out Charlie Kirk you know. I mean, there are
a lot of influencers out there who said we're not
going to celebrate or mock the death of a political opponent,
and everyone got that mount maybe a lot of Mega

(24:56):
supporters got that message, except for President Trump. A surprise
that Rob Reiner is a leftist. But I think overall,
I mean, the bigger issue here is, you know, you're
trying to sell an agenda, a controversial agenda at that,
with a lot of things, whether it's ice and immigration
or whether it's terriffs, and you could go on and on.

(25:17):
It's certainly a novel approach to things, and you're gonna
upset a lot of people because you are rocking the
appl card. And Donald Trump most assuredly is very anti
status quo and that is a reason one of the
big reasons why he got elected. But if you're trying
to sell your agenda to I don't think you'll ever
convince a Rob Reiner of the world. And I went

(25:37):
in Hollywood that you know, your agendas is good. There
are a lot of people who are in the middle.
There are a lot of independents who are hearing these
words and going, well, you know, it just makes it
tougher to sell your agenda to the undecided or the
middle part of the country, Like, I don't know why

(25:58):
you would hurt yourself so and I get you know,
before it was about getting attention, getting elected you kind
of the brand. It was in the first term, it
was really refreshing. It's like, wow, this guy is completely unschained.
It's interesting to hear a president's or a presidential Kenyoway
speak in those terms. But by two terms now, it's
kind of exhausting. And you know, in this world of
everything shocks you, it is awfully difficult to say things

(26:23):
that top the last statement, and he has a pretty
good track record of that. And it's unfortunate because I think,
you know, he does bring some good ideas or different
approaches to things that, given time, may work, and too
numerous to list here. But the problem is, you know, you,
when you do this kind of stuff, it makes it
awfully difficult to like the man. And part of whether

(26:45):
you like it or not, part of being a pologist,
there's got to be a likability quotient there. There's got
to be an empathy. And I said, you know, one
thing that is missing from his his arsenal is the
empathy genie, he just doesn't happen. And sometimes, as commander
in chief, as leader of the free world, you have
to engage in empathy. He's just not empathetic at all
to anything at all times. And that that really, I

(27:05):
think that, really, above all else, hurts his agenda.

Speaker 6 (27:08):
I really do.

Speaker 2 (27:09):
Five three seven four nine seven thousand, The Big One.
It's talked back on the iHeart Radio app. You for
listening on the stream this morning. Let me roll to, uh,
where're we going to? Jerry and Mercer County on the
Big One. Good morning, Jerry.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
Hey, I disagree with what Trump did, what he says,
but he could have used it as a leverage point
that guy Nick was hooked on cocaine or whatever. I
wondered if he could have got an idea of what
Ron Reyer thought about him bombing on drug boats.

Speaker 2 (27:41):
Yeah, I'm sure Rob Reiner disagreed with that, and that
is that's a great connection right there. And we don't
know if he was on drugs at the time. I mean,
eventually that's all going to come out. It's pretty clear
he's the one who did this this atrocity. But you know,
killing your own parents and someone is revered. I mean,
I'm not a fan of his politics, but any stretched
the Rob Reiner, but his his resid of me is iconic.

(28:02):
Let's put it that way. The films he's made and
the things he's been and it's absolutely in cred incredible
streak of movies. I appreciate Rob Reiner as a talent,
but the same time I look at this going wow,
it's you're making Donald Trump is making it about him
when it's not about him at all. And my point is,
I think it just turns off a lot of people
to a lot of a thing, well hearing anything in
his agenda at all, because he just overshadows it with

(28:24):
dumb stuff that comes out of his mouth or off
his fingertips.

Speaker 1 (28:27):
Well, I just wonder what Rob Ryner would have thought
about drug if he made any comments.

Speaker 6 (28:31):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:31):
I don't know, but yeah, I mean you know again,
I and thanks with a call.

Speaker 6 (28:35):
I don't you know. That's just so I don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
A watch of award shows, I really don't care what celebrities
think about things. Yeah, I don't know bout it. I
don't know whose influence. Maybe if you're younger, you are
and like, hey, what's Taylor Swift's take on this? Because
you know that's your that's your world. She's iconic. Uh,
if you're older, I think I don't know me anyway,
I look at I got. I don't really care what
Rob Reiner thinks. I really don't care what any actor, actress,

(29:00):
whether they're on the right of the left, I don't care.
Rob Reiner is certainly in titled his opinion, and he
has a platform that's pretty large. I get that, But
I don't go around going wow, well, Rob Briiner think
I gotta think the same way.

Speaker 3 (29:14):
You know.

Speaker 2 (29:15):
They're all sorts of opinionists and influencers out there. Sure,
but I don't spend a lit I don't know about you.
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what
Rob Reiner thinks. I worry about the direction of the country.
I worry about policies that may or may not be working.
Some of them do, some of them don't. That seems

(29:35):
to be in play if you criticize that. But again,
there's so many people afraid to step out of line
with Trump for fear. I think, on the end, I
think Marjorie Tayl Green is right about that there's so
many people that follow the company line they're afraid to
step out and say, yeah, this is wrong and speak up.
It's starting to happen now because while the president is
approaching lame duck territory at this point, and I think
you're going to see a lot more of this as well.

(29:55):
But then there's still people that will defend everything that
comes out of his mouth or fingertips or just simply ignore,
which is the same thing.

Speaker 3 (30:01):
At five.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
Bethel and Joel High on the Scottsland Show, What's up.

Speaker 5 (30:06):
Going, Scott. I don't know if you heard what Rob
Reiner said about Charlie kirk whin he was assassinated. He
just he he was on with uh Piers Morgan and
just said how how awful it was and it was horrific,
and uh, no matter how you align politically, it's not correct.
And you know, obviously mister Ryder he was a he

(30:27):
was a big left that's like many in California and Hollywood.
It was just a very dignified and you know, dignified
way what he said about Charlie. And it just shows,
you know, I'm a millennial and uh, you know, Trump
has just destroyed the GOP. In my opinion, I think
the GOP's only hope is to get behind people like
Thomas Massey.

Speaker 7 (30:48):
Uh that that really value.

Speaker 5 (30:50):
This country because at the end of the day, Trump's
ego is just the size of a grave of sand.
And it's it's just it's so exhausting.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
It is indible how he had made the murder of
Rob Ryin or his wife about him. I mean, that
is that is such a different That's like four D egotism.
I've never you're looking at that, go what and and
you know what? What he tweets and what he says
is often outrageous, and that's part of his brand. Do
you know how hard it is to continually top yourself

(31:18):
from the last time.

Speaker 6 (31:19):
It's got to be exhausted.

Speaker 5 (31:21):
Oh yeah, it's it's awful. And I voted for Trump
three times. I'm a big you know, in my opinion,
I might true make America great again conservative and Trump
is that. I think He's always kind of been a Democrat,
you know, New York conservative. And I think just as
true colors are showing it and the only one it's
turning is JD Vance in twenty eight.

Speaker 2 (31:41):
Yeah, and I think that the Trump's shadow and these
these are the things are just because of such a
shadow and tarnished the brand. And what I fear is
as voters, and you can see it already that they're
holding them responsible for those actions and what he's doing,
what he's saying. And if you think it's bad, if
you think it was bad under Biden, uh, the next
term after Trump is going to scare the hell out

(32:02):
of me, because unless something desperately changes, it is gonna
be like Rob Reiners running the country, for God's sakes,
but the commander was just slaughtered on those own bed
by son, for God's sakes. Just shut the hell up.
You're not helping anybody. You're not helping yourself for sure.
News on the Way, Scott's Loan Show. This is seven
hundred ww Cincinnati.

Speaker 6 (32:20):
I don't want to be a Manican back.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
You went to Scott's Flow with you here seven hundred
witty things for checking off the shell on air and
be the free iHeartRadio app wa if you go tick
the stream with your waight after do the podcast.

Speaker 6 (32:32):
We make it easy, make it easy.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
You may recall, let's go back to last spring, remember
when we had those two dog attacks and consecutive weeks
in Chlorine Township. Yeah, it was horrible. The one woman
was attacked by two large dogs in front of her kids,
trying to profict your kids, and she said she felt
like a human chew toy. And then the following week,
another pack of dogs killed a couple of chickens, threatened

(32:56):
a bunch of neighbors, and we learned about Ohio law,
the nuances of Ohio law that the only way to destroy,
to euthanize a dog in Ohio is if it kills
a second time. Let me run that back a second.
So you kill someone if you're a dog, and okay, well,
just as long as it doesn't happen again. Well that's insane, right,

(33:21):
I mean, we don't do that with other crimes. I
would do that with a dog. Well, good news is
that looks like it is about to change. It's called
Avery's Lots on Mike dewinesess right now in A co
sponsor of Avery's Law is Ohio Representative Adam Bird out
of Clairemont Conye.

Speaker 6 (33:34):
I'm welcome, Harey Scott.

Speaker 7 (33:37):
It's great to be with you this morning.

Speaker 6 (33:38):
Thanks appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
Boy, that's just such an asonine law and how that
stayed in the books for so long that you mean
to tell me that if a dog kills someone, you
pat it on the head and go, okay, just don't
let it happen again. But if a human being does that,
they go to prison maybe for the rest of their lives.
That that's insane that we can make it to twenty
twenty five with that law in the books.

Speaker 7 (33:58):
Like that, absolutely, And I'm very thankful to be a
part of this bill, and it has a lot of
support among my colleagues, and it is on the governor's
desk right now. My report is that he will likely
sign it by the end of the week, and thankful
for that because we've got to protect young children. And
you mentioned that it's named after a young lady named

(34:20):
Avery from Central Ohio that was viciously attacked twice by
two different dogs. And you know, she's scarred and maimed
for life in her face from from the attack.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
Horrible, absolutely horrible, and someone has to suffer like that,
and it took this law to get those laws changed.
As I recalled during the Coal Raine tragedy as well
as Avery, that there's criticism aimed towards dog wardens and
a dog wardens showed up, it didn't take the dog
or didn't destroy the dog. Does this new law empower
dog wardens?

Speaker 7 (34:50):
Absolutely? It gives the local dog warden the authority the
see is a dog immediately following an attack. And you know,
it also imposes criminal penalties on it dog owner if
the dog owner negligently fails to keep the dog from
committing you know, an attack on someone. So you know,
I think we're making some legitimate steps here that people

(35:11):
will appreciate, especially and light of the fact, Sonny, I
don't know if you know this or not, seventeen thousand
dog bites across the Ohio or reported every year and
I think Hamilton County gets about a thousand a year.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
Wow, a thousand dog bite. Now, granted you're not going
to about all thousand dogs are are going to be destroyed,
but it goes to show you how pervasive the problem is.

Speaker 7 (35:34):
Yeah. Absolutely, And you know I don't have the data
for surrounding counties, but you know that's a lot. And now, now,
this bill, which is soon to become law, is not
going to mandate the termination of the dog just for
biting someone. It's only if it kills or seriously andrew someone.

Speaker 6 (35:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
I talked to the sponsor this I remember this is
probably right after the the attacks, and I suggested that,
you know, here's the thing. If you have a vicious
dog or dangerous dog, it's bit someone in the past.
I think at that point you need to start carrying
some insurance policy. It has to there has to be
either money, an escro or a liability insurance involving a

(36:17):
owner of a dog if they you know, not all
dogs bite. I mean, the majority of dogs aren't going
to bite someone. But if you have a bier, you
should be forced, I think, to have to carry some
sort of insurance because in the past people have just
simply ducked out. We had a horrible cases where an
elder lady was mauled in her garden in the back
of her house. Her husband in a wheelchair to watch
his wife of like I think forty years fifty years

(36:38):
mauled to death by a dog that got out and
killed her. It wasn't the first time the dog attacked
her or someone else. And then later that afternoon they're like, okay,
well she killed the neighbor. They were at the casino gambling,
like how hartless is that it was a horrible, horrible story.
And I know that the suggestion that we have liability
insurance for those owners of vicious dogs is part of

(37:00):
this as well.

Speaker 6 (37:00):
How would that work?

Speaker 7 (37:02):
Well, yeah, I mean they do have to carry insurance.
And I think the real takeaway here, Scott is that
you are responsible for your animal, and you're responsible for
your dog, and you need to keep your dog in
a muzzle if required, on a leash and behind a finch.
In fact, if you've got a dog that can climb
a fench, you've got to put a top on top

(37:24):
of that so that they can't get out. You, as
a dog owner, are responsible for any vicious acts of
your dogs.

Speaker 2 (37:32):
And the liability interest, as I call it, you'd have
to carry one hundred thousand dollars liability policy.

Speaker 6 (37:36):
How would that work?

Speaker 2 (37:37):
What is the trigger that the dog has to bite
someone first before that policy, before you're forced to carry
that policy?

Speaker 7 (37:43):
I believe that's correct, and so you know, it is
one hundred thousand dollars, you've got to you know, I
mean that's a lot. And you know, one hundred thousand
dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. When
it comes to medical bills and requiring someone's face that
it's been damaged.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
Yeah, the woman in col Ray, Emily Renchler was your name.
I believe herb medical bills were in excess of two
hundred thousand dollars for that attack in Chlraine.

Speaker 7 (38:07):
That's crazy, And you know it's just so, I mean,
that's that's our good first step. Yeah, one hundred thousand dollars.
And as you know, we do things often incrementally here
in Ohio. And if we find out that one hundred
thousand dollars isn't it up, I'm sure we'll be looking
to consider change on that in the future.

Speaker 3 (38:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
And for those people I think it's breed specific. It's
not about punishing breeds. It's about holding the owners of
the dogs responsible because the dogs aren't you know, it's
not up to the dog whether or not they're in
a yard or restrained, or if you let your dog
roam free, if you let them be untrained or go
put themselves in unsafe situations. That's not the dog. That's
a dog in the dog. That's up to the owner

(38:46):
to do that. That's a difference.

Speaker 7 (38:48):
Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know anything about the
dog breed either. I think we all know that certain
breeds that are a little more likely to do something.
And so you as an owner, if you're going to
take that hants and you're going to want to keep
a breed that is more likely to do that, you
have got to take legitimate steps to protect your neighbors

(39:08):
and to protect And it's not just other people, it's
it's your neighbor's dog. You know, sometimes they'll they'll attack that,
the neighbor's dog or whatever. So if it's incumbent upon
the owner to protect protect others from from harm that
their own dog might do, what is it.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
I think that's an important facet of this too. And
I want to get back on the one hundred thousand
dollars policy to begin with. But let's say someone just
simply disregards as law. What is the tooth of the
law no pun intended towards the owner of a dog.
If they just like, oh, I'm not getting insurance and
my dog's out and bite someone and kill someone who cares,
what does the what kind of power do authorities have

(39:50):
to detain, arrest and charge that person.

Speaker 7 (39:54):
Yeah, there's criminal penalties for the dog owner that increase
in severity as you continue you to ignore the law. So, uh,
it's a it's a misdemeanor at this point. And but
but if you continue to ignore it, it the charge
is climbed. So you are you know, you're going to
be charged if you don't take care of this with
your dog.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
If you have that, a dog escalates, it starts biting people,
biting in the in the taxi, and you don't pay
attention to it. And let's say I don't know a
kid or in this case, this lady Emily gets mauled
and they'd wind up dying. Could someone in that situation
face a murder charge under this icide perhaps?

Speaker 7 (40:32):
No, No, that's that's not true. But you you know,
I mean if that, if that were to continue, I
guess we would have to consider change. But right now,
if that dog attacks one time and and and kills
or severely injure someone, you know, that's uh, that dog's
going to be put down. And that's that's a requirement
in this bill, that that the the dog warden sees

(40:54):
the dog immediately and that following due process, that the
dog would be humanly destroyed.

Speaker 2 (41:00):
Yeah, you mentioned the one hundred thousand dollars liability insurance.
And I point out to Emily Wrenchler's bills were in
access to two hundred thousand dollars. Does that number need
to be upped in the future? Why is that the
insurance or criminal level that wouldn't cover the cost?

Speaker 7 (41:16):
Wow, you know, that's that that might be something that
we have to consider change in the future. But that's
that's where we're at right now. It's a big step
forward from where it is currently. And and so if
one hundred thousand dollars isn't en up, I'm sure, sure
we'll consider change in the future. But I hadn't heard
that the person in Cole Rain had had experienced two

(41:36):
hundred thousand dollars worth of medical bills.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, yeah, I mean some of these are so severe
and the you know, it's it's also about not only
of a wound treatment in traumacare, but it's also about
the rehabilitation and that could be extremely expensive. Unfortunately, you know,
the law now until the governor signs is saying it
dollar Doug kills twice before mandatory euthanasia under this bill,
what a dog that severely mul someone. Let's say, I

(42:00):
mean not kills him, but life altering injuries, but not death.
They'll be abowed to live. I mean, where where's the
line there? Does it have to be the death before
the dog's destroyed.

Speaker 7 (42:09):
No, it's not depth, it's severely injures. And so I guess, uh,
you know, the judge will have to decide whether that
standard is met or not. And so I guess I
guess it could still cause controversy if if we're trying
to decide whether you know, the damage that's been done
to someone's face or whatever, you know, meets that requirement

(42:32):
or not.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
He is from Claremont, that's Ohio. Represent Adam Bird on
the Scotslan Show seven hundred w BLW on Avery's Law,
it's on de Waine's death, past the Senate, past the
House Representedve Bird is a co sponsor of this soon
to be law hopefully here and it has to do
with vicious dog attacks. We had the dog attacks too
in two weeks in col Rane Township. There's been others

(42:53):
across the state. Represented Bird just mentioned there's a thousand
in Hamlin County alone, different types of dog bites in
a t as well. And the law up to this
point said that a dog can't be euthanized until it
kills a second time, meaning it kills a person, so
the first one, if your dog is free. Humans don't
have that kind of leeway. Why would we allow that

(43:15):
with a dog. The law is finally changing in twenty
twenty Smith looks like probably twenty twenty five here almost
at twenty twenty six, are almost there and fortunately we
know we're cooler has there prevailing here and we are
getting some good law in there as well. Up to
this point, dog wardens, I think when there was testimony
given in the Colorine attack said look, we don't have
any authority whatsoever. We're underfunded and powerless under Colonel Law.

(43:37):
What power and also do we see any funding issues
that are addressed by this.

Speaker 7 (43:44):
They're no funding from the state of Ohio on this.
But you know, like I said, the dog warden will
now have the authority to take such a dog immediately
in that situation, and it definitely empowers them because we
want to keep people safe and it's outrageous that a

(44:04):
dog that has killed in the past is not immediately
taken by the dog warden. And you rightly pointed that out, Scott,
that we had that situation where the dog can kill
somebody and it doesn't have any impact. So I'm thankful
that we've made this common sense change. I think people
will appreciate that. I really have not heard many complaints

(44:27):
about this at all, even from dog owners, and people
understand that if you're going to own a dog, that
you're responsible for for the actions that your dog might take.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
I think most all dog owners are that way. Of course,
there's people out there that have dog or dogs and
they just simply don't care. They you know, may chain
them up outside during inclement weather like this said, they
don't give a damn. I mean that used to be
conventional wisdom, you know, years and years ago. But dogs
and cats to some degree have become family members. We're
not dog owners anymore. We're pet parents, right, It's the
whole narrative has changed. We're feeding our dogs better food

(44:58):
than we put in our own bodies. Put it that way,
the farmer's dog looks better than what I had for
dinner last.

Speaker 6 (45:03):
Night myself at.

Speaker 7 (45:06):
Yeah, there you go, go.

Speaker 2 (45:12):
Adam bird one of the other things. And we mentioned
the powerlessness here of the dog wardens themselves sound like
a cut out there for just a second, and the
funding thing has to be dressed probably at the local
level there too. But what happens to a dog owner
can't aford one hundred thousand dollars liability insurance after the
dog attacks.

Speaker 7 (45:27):
Someone whoa You know, I'd say that if you can't
afford that, I don't think that there is a The
failure to obtain liability insurance is going to be a
fourth degree misdemeanor. So you're going to be charged if
you don't have that, And you know, I would think

(45:48):
that people would would take, you know, take that to
heart and would would you know if you're not going
if you're going to get if you don't have it
and you get a charge with a fourt of mcgreen,
that's remain or you're going to you know, it's going
to start racking up on you here soon.

Speaker 2 (46:04):
Yeah, I mean, you know, maybe you should not have
a dog if you can't afford the insurance. I mean,
if you have a dog, presumably you can afford vet
bills and the food that dog, especially bigger dogs are
going to need and all things go along with it. Maybe,
you know, if you can't afford the gas, don't buy
the car.

Speaker 7 (46:21):
There you go. So you know, and honestly, I'm not
sure what the cost is to one hundred thousand dollars
in liability. What is you know what that might be.

Speaker 6 (46:29):
Scott, I have no idea. That's a that's a great.

Speaker 7 (46:32):
Question, good insurance question for one of your insurance agents.
Probably a rider on your homeowner's insurance.

Speaker 6 (46:41):
I would think.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
Also, you know, an umbrella policy would cover that as
well too, and that's those are fairly affordable. But again,
you know, if you don't have that kind of money,
maybe not that. Maybe a dog is a bad idea
for you, you know, unlike you know, kids might be
a different thing simply because of the nature of it.
But you know, you choose to go and fish get
a dog or procure a dog, and it might be

(47:02):
a free dog, but there's costs associated with the care, feeding,
and maintenance of the dog. And it's not fair of
the dog either because you know, they're not born vicious,
they're treated that way or bred that way. That's completely
up to human beings, not the not the breed, or
not the animal itself. And you know, given that it
looks like the house and sent the past different versions.
I think there's something in here, the playful behavior protections,

(47:24):
I think is interesting. Uh that their protections are dogs
exhibiting what they call age appropriate behavior. And I'm guessing
that has to do more with puppies.

Speaker 7 (47:31):
Yeah, yeah, there you go. And and so you know,
because sometimes little puppies are gonna, you know, kind of
chew around on things, and uh, we you know, we
don't want we don't want that happening. But I don't
I do believe that both versions Scott have been approved
by both the There's been one version approved by both chambers,

(47:53):
and and that's why I get sent to the Governor's
death So I don't think we have to have any
kind of conference committee or to agree to changes. And
we have one bill. It's been approved by both houses.
It's on the governor's desk, and my sources say that
he'll sign it by Friday.

Speaker 2 (48:12):
Of course, there is always the law of unintended consequences,
things like this Adam Bird years ago. Our good friends
are next door neighbors have a Chihuahua dog and dress
it up Halloween. Kids are coming over and kids will
get trick or treat. They come up and she say, hey,
listen to know the dogs the dog's cute now, but
don't don't get too close to the dog because she
gets a little protect if she may nip at you.
And of course everyone listens except one kid who decides

(48:35):
to go over and you know, mess with the dog. Well,
sure enough, the dog nips them. The kids fine, doesn't cry,
his parents get all worked up. The kids starts crying.
They take them to the emergency room. Skin's not broken.
It's a whole thing. I just wonder does that law
protect people who are innocuous in this thing?

Speaker 6 (48:51):
That's a lot of dogs.

Speaker 2 (48:51):
It's you know, you're not going to destroy you take
a dog or you know, go after someone's house and
one hundred thousand dollars in damages because you get nipped
in your repul stay away from the dog. Are there
protections there for those individuals?

Speaker 7 (49:04):
Yeah? Absolutely there. Their due process is required here and
and so there is a hearing and uh, you know
it's it's the dog. Warden can take that dog immediately.
That doesn't mean that their dog's going to be humanly
put down right away, but there is going to be
a due process hearing, and you know you're gonna you're

(49:25):
going to have an opportunity if if to make sure
that that in the case that you just described, a
dog wouldn't be put down for that.

Speaker 6 (49:35):
Right, I got you, all right?

Speaker 2 (49:36):
So are we one hundred percent confident governor to why
who's going to sign this as it?

Speaker 7 (49:42):
Well, I'd like to think that he is. And I say,
you know, if Scott Swoan thinks it's a good bill,
and Adenburgh thinks it's a good bill, he probably should
sign it. And uh, he's running out of time, as
you know, He's got ten days discounting Sundays to sign
a bill. And I think this is one that's that's
worth worth doing because you know, the governor often speaks

(50:04):
about his desire to protect kids and protect families and
you know he's Ohio's first grandpa, yep, And so you
would think that somebody that cares about kids and families
with tiny belle like that.

Speaker 2 (50:16):
Now, this is good law and long overdue. So congratulations
and thanks for that. He is Representative Adam Bird out
of Claremont County, co sponsor of Avery's Law, awaiting the
governor's signature and some common sense dog vicious dog laws
in the state of Ahio. All the best Merry Christmas,
and thanks for coming on.

Speaker 7 (50:31):
Merry Christmas to you and your family as well. Thank
you for the honor of being on your show. And
and you know, let's let's keep our family safe and
and let's make sure we're taking care of our dogs
and not putting our dogs in a position where they.

Speaker 3 (50:43):
Might arn somebody.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
Amen, brother, gotcha, Thanks again for the time, appreciate it.
Have a good one. Let me get to a news update.
Scott'slan continues after this seven hundred Wtlon on seven.

Speaker 6 (50:54):
Hundred all hard to believe, to believe it was five
years ago? When at all?

Speaker 2 (51:00):
And I'm talking about COVID, the score on COVID five
years later. What happened here? How did we get to
this point right now? In history? Arguably we suffered more
COVID deaths than all during all foreign worst combined. We
have the largest employment loss, some twenty two million people
essentially went on layoff or got fired, completely lost their

(51:23):
their career, biggest number since a great depression, greatest increase
in the national death since the Second World War. When
you stack us up to all the other developed nations
in the world, no one had it worse than we did.

Speaker 6 (51:36):
And I love the.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
Historical perspective on this because often, you know, you get Congress,
you get political hacks that often infiltrate shows and we'll
try to spin things, is in mistruths, and I just
want the facts from history, history perspective, and Ronald Grunner
provides that in COVID Wars.

Speaker 6 (51:53):
Ronald, welcome to the show. How are you.

Speaker 9 (51:55):
I'm just trying and thanks for the invitation.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
Yeah, thanks for coming on. Yeah, this is a unique
I lived through nine to eleven. You did as well,
I'm sure, and we remember we're like united them by
a common foe. America came together, albeit briefly, but we
came together. This was even more fleeting than that there
was here in Ohio. We had wine with the wine
the governor, and snacking with Acting Amy, acting the Ohio

(52:19):
Health Director, and all of a sudden, within literally a
couple of weeks, everything turned and the hatred and vitriol
for Mike, the wine changed on the dime, largely by Republicans,
same for Amy Acton, and we saw us going at
each other's throats. We didn't district, we distrusted healthcare disinformation
ran rampant, and I'm just I'm curious as to how

(52:41):
we got to that point in history where we didn't
believe anything anymore.

Speaker 9 (52:47):
Well, Scott, I think it was primary due to so
many conflicting sources of information. I mean, I'm not familiar
with them, all the issues in Ohio, but I mean
we had on a number of cable channels of people
claiming early in the pandemic that it was all a
democratic plot to demonize the president or undermine the president
President Trump.

Speaker 3 (53:07):
So that was one aspect.

Speaker 9 (53:09):
But there's information coming at people from all different directions,
from the Internet, from social media, from cable news, indicasion
from newspapers. So it was a very confusing time and
people tended to polarize early in the pandemic, as early
as February March of twenty twenty, and they never really
changed their minds about the situation, unfortunately.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
But the scientific method has never changed since the scientific
method became a thing, and that's long long before we
came here. Right, is that you have an hypothesis you tested,
if it's proven a scientific fact, at some point it
can be completely endermind. But this thing happened so quickly.
And also the vaccine, the Arna vaccine was developed so
quickly we didn't have that history, and so we know

(53:51):
much more today about RNA. We know much more today
about the vaccines than we did when they were first developed,
and rather quickly, for that matter. Instead of celebrating, we
start attacking them. I think that's a difference.

Speaker 6 (54:01):
Though.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
The scientific method we looked through that out the window,
going now, well, yeah, you know what we thought we
knew about. It is tested and either it passes or
fails to test. What am I missing there?

Speaker 9 (54:13):
Well, what you're missing, I think is that the scientific
method depends on the reliable data. Reliable data, and so
a lot of that data was missing. Things were moving
so quickly, people didn't have the data or didn't trust
the data to really say, okay, I can draw some
solid conclusions about the data I'm being presented. Either wasn't
there or was considered unreliable, and that was one of
the factors I think that led to so much disbelief

(54:34):
about the vaccines, and even if the covid itself was
a real virus as opposed to just a bad case.

Speaker 6 (54:39):
Of the flue.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
We also learned too, that we had known about this
the country, and those scientists and even the president as
far back as two thousand and five knew about this.
But again, we're one of those things where okay, well,
if we know a super pandemic is coming, how do
we prevent that from knowing about it or having in
advanced warning and what it might look like very vague
at that is one thing, But doing something about what

(55:03):
you don't know is about to happen is entirely different.

Speaker 9 (55:06):
Well, that's a good part. You're referring to George W.

Speaker 6 (55:09):
Bush.

Speaker 9 (55:09):
President Bush. In two thousand and five, I identified the
risk of a pandemic and actually had Congress authorized seven
billion dollars for a pandemic funding. But over the next
fifteen years that got spent, you know, fighting that swine
flu and ibola in Africa and other small epidemics, and
there was no money left on the equipment left on
the shelf. When the COVID pandemic app actually hit, Congress

(55:32):
never renewed those funds.

Speaker 3 (55:34):
Unfortunately.

Speaker 9 (55:34):
That's why we had no mass, no personal protection equipment
in the early stages of the pandemic.

Speaker 6 (55:39):
But George W.

Speaker 9 (55:40):
Bush, he had the insight to in two thousand and
five to say, a pandemic will come eventually, we need
to be prepared.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
To his credit, Ron, remember that day when the president
came on. President Trump came on and said, hey, we're
in a global pandemic. We're going to basically shut lock
things down, and he introduced Operation Warp Speed to develop
a COVID vaccine, and then all of a sudden that
became an attack on the same vaccine he wanted to develop.

Speaker 9 (56:03):
Take me through that, well, I mean, it's Trump's tremendous credit.
He authorized in mayor twenty twenty, Operation web Speed to
develop vaccines for COVID as quickly as possible. But the
thing that's really still not understandable is why once the
vaccines became well coming out, he never really promoted them.
Every president that went to a pandemic or epidemic, like Eisenhoward,

(56:27):
George Gerald, Ford and Obama were the first to get
vaccinated and were very clear about their feelings about the vaccine.
President Trump didn't do that. He got vaccinated silently, with
no publicity and never talked about it. His one interesting
data point is that during twenty twenty, President Trump issued
over twelve thousand tweets. As you know, that's how he

(56:49):
communicated with the public. Of those twelve thousand tweats, only
a few more than one hundred, like a one hundred
ten tweets even mentioned the word vaccine, which is astonishing
to me.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
Yeah, if you're helping develop that, and Trump is the
best self promoter we'll ever see, you think you would
take advantage of that. What happened to the point where
he decided not to do that? When did it become toxic?
I guess for Trump to attach himself to a vaccine
he put on the fast.

Speaker 9 (57:14):
Rug that I can't answer. I mean, I've done a
lot of research and that's really not clear why he
didn't support that.

Speaker 5 (57:21):
More.

Speaker 9 (57:21):
I think that part of it was his base was
turning against the lockdowns and were opening up and even
declaring that the pandemic was over. As you may have
read in my book, Vice President of Piss did a
major Wall Street Journal editorial saying that pandemic is over,

(57:42):
there is not a second wave. So if there's not
a second wave, if the pandemic is over, what do
you need a vaccine? And perhaps President Trump was supporting
that viewpoint.

Speaker 2 (57:51):
Yeah, I mean I get the need for a vaccine,
so it doesn't happen again, Although we will see it
mutate and do other things as often as the case
when it comes to viruses, But relative to the lockdowns themselves,
it became pretty clear after a period of time. Initially,
I think most Americans are like, Okay, we're going to
lock this down, and you know, we're gonna get subside
from the government, which I get because no one can
go to work.

Speaker 6 (58:11):
But at some point it big game clear.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
There wasn't gonna be the big second wave, and yet
we continue doing Now, how look at Biden's policy of
continued to hand up COVID relief money long after the
long after COVID wasn't a problem.

Speaker 9 (58:21):
Yeah, and of course it led to a tremendous inflation
inflationary wave we're still suffering from.

Speaker 3 (58:26):
That's true.

Speaker 9 (58:27):
But no, the as I'm sure you know, there was
a second wave of the COVID starting in November of
twenty twenty that was even more deady than.

Speaker 3 (58:35):
The first wave.

Speaker 9 (58:36):
And part of the problem was that virus was mutating
through different strains, through six different strains in the last
five years, and we had a hard time chasing that
with vaccines. They had to be updated continually to go
after the next strain, and that's one of the reasons
the vaccines were not as effective as they thought they
would have been. Early in twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (58:54):
We also when it came to response, we didn't do well.
There the a lot of confusion about the severity of
the virus that the public health emergency was to called
I think the last day of January twenty twenty, but
everything else after that was I mean, really, the government
once again, those people who want more government in our life,
I questioned you, because look at their task with doing
the CDC. The test kits didn't work. I remember that

(59:17):
there's really no national strategy. You could certainly lay it
on the hands of Trump, but we had infrastructure that
was built in to make sure that that was handled
by the CDC, FEMA. When it comes to natural disasters,
these agencies that are tasked with making sure that when
a major, major crisis hits were at least a little
bit prepared. It looked like they had no game plan whatsoever,
and I think that also helped to the public perception

(59:38):
like we don't know what's going on here, why are
we doing this?

Speaker 9 (59:42):
No, that's correct, there was no game plan, although they
had done significant war game planning in twenty nineteen and
they didn't follow those plans that was done at the administration,
and for some reason, it just was an area of
total confusion with the federal government for the first six months.
I think later on they began to get better work,
but the first six months were very confusing. Of course,

(01:00:02):
it was a movie target that was part of the problems,
and people lost faith. People lost faith in what they
were hearing from the CDC in the federal government.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Well, the mixed messages. I think Fauci had a very
interesting role on this. I think come to the conclusion
most well. I think if you're on the right, you
absolutely despise Fauci. I'm not sure where those progressives and
LUNs of the left stand. What's his legacy.

Speaker 9 (01:00:24):
Well, I think time's going to have to sort that
out my opinion, which may not be a PARTA. And
I think Fauci was made a bit of a scapegoat personally,
and we'll let the historians up later on sort that out.
He made a lot of mistakes. He should have gotten
a good public relations course before he'd been talking to
two hnd and thirty million Americans about things that could
affect their lives. So he talked way too much off

(01:00:46):
the cuff and confused people. But I don't think he
was malicious intentionally as some people believe, and I don't
believe he should be jailed.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
Yeah, I look at him and as soon as a
character because he is a doctor, but I think he
more of a policy You're a politician at that point too,
and I think that's the thing. You look at someone
always a physician, you know, as you're talking about it's
different when you become a political being. That all goes
by the wayside. I don't care if you're a doctor
or a general.

Speaker 9 (01:01:11):
Well, that is certainly true. And he had been in
the government, as you know him for forty years, so
he had become mighty politicized. He was a political character
and he tended to behave that way. But I think
most of the fact that he just was he saw
himself as a public health official, and that was all
he worried about. Effect on the economy, the effect on
jobs and businesses. That was all secondary as opposed to

(01:01:32):
his view of trying to protect every possible life. Honestly,
that was where I believe he was coming from.

Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
Ron Gerner's on the show COVID wars America struggle of
a public health and personal freedom. He's not a politician,
he's not a physician. He is a historian. And it's
always interesting seeing historical perspective on things like this to
change our live and certainly a seminal moment in our
lives was five years ago when we had the COVID outbreak.
Hot was handled mishandled in some cases, although at the
end of the day, the fact that they developed that

(01:02:00):
vaccine in such record time is something else. There's still
people say, well, the vaccine is killing people, it's not
the virus. And I got friends that believe that the
facts that the virus didn't exist at all. I mean,
you get so many different alternate forms of reality out
there competing in the space of I don't know, maybe
of common sense, but of science. That's that's really the

(01:02:21):
problem here. I think social media added so much more
to this h and made it more detrimental than necessary.

Speaker 9 (01:02:29):
Well that's the true now the advice I give to
people then they asked me what should we turn to
if this happens again. What the advice I give is
that we've got We're blessed in the United States with
some of the best medical institutions in the world. We
have the Male Clinic, for example, in Minnesota, Massachusetts, General Boston, Stanford,
and California Cleveland Clinic all over the country. So if
you don't trust the government, and that's understandable, then I

(01:02:51):
would go to those top medical institutions and take their
advice and follow it. So if they say the vaccines
work and a minimal in terms of risk, didn't trust
that because they're the best institutions in the world and
I believe they'll be honest with their medical advice.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
Yeah, but there are people don't distrust them as well
because they see it as an extension of Anthony Fauci
that they're just simply not going to believe. You know,
we had a lady here in Ohio as an example.
I don't she was a doctor. I'm a physician, I forget,
but she said the VACU She's the lady who said
the vaccines were causing her body to become magnetic and
put a spoon on her nose that didn't stick during

(01:03:28):
testimony at the state House. But it became a meme obviously,
because you know, the vaccine's not making you magnetized.

Speaker 9 (01:03:35):
Well, I discussed her in my book. I do have
that there's a couple of pages discussing her in her
testimony before the Ohio one of the commissions there. But no,
I don't think Anthony Fauci has enough political power to
affect the Male Clinic, which has been around her seventy
five years, or Massa Chuttus General, which is just as older.
These tough top hospitals, I mean, they are independent, private

(01:03:58):
organizations and they're going to do what they think is
right for their for their patients, and so I think
they're absolutely trustworthy. They made be wrong occasional because they
had they interpret the data wrong, but they're trustworthy and
in terms of trying to be honest with their opinions.

Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
I agree on those sources. I also trust my physician.
And if you have a good relationship with your general
practitioner and you mainly see them once or twice a year,
as I do, maybe see them more often, and you
like that person, that'd be the one I asked, because
they know you and they know your conditions, and you
know I would think your values and also that is
in line with them, and so that would be my
go to resource. Hey, what should I do Should I

(01:04:33):
get the vaccine? I was told, yeah, absolutely, get the vaccine.
I did, got the first booster, and after that they're like, Okay,
you're probably pretty good for a while. Don't worry about it,
and so here and here. I am never really suffered
too badly from COVID maybe other stuff. The flu, that's
a different story entirely. How do you explain the medical
equipment shortage that was also part of the plot, We're
going to kill Americans here because we don't have enough PPE.

(01:04:54):
I'd contend that we didn't see this coming and it came,
and you don't. You don't we eat PPE and masks
and gowns and all that stuff For an event like this,
you know, you got to get caught up. And with
industry being shut down supply chains, that also added to it.
It's not like you have all this stuff laying around
ready to go in the event you had some unforeseen
virus breakout.

Speaker 9 (01:05:15):
Well, that was George Bush's objective. I mean, he spent
seven billion dollars to buy PPE and masks and all
kinds of equipment for handing a pandemic, and then that
got used in three specific incidents in the next fifteen years,
and Congress never reapproved funds. Obama tried to after Ibula.
Obama tried his best to get those funds replenished or

(01:05:35):
at least partially replenished, and we were in sequestration cutting budgets,
and that money never got funded. So PPE never got funded,
and those shelves were empty when Trump came on board,
like he said.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we didn't. We used it, never bothered
replenishing it because oh well, we're good.

Speaker 3 (01:05:50):
We got an.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
Unlimited supply of this, and we really didn't. I think
the thing that's emitted for most Americans, too, Ronald, was
when you know, you saw folks in nursing homes that
couldn't have contact with anyone from the outside world except
you know, their nurse would be on loading dock, smoking
a cigarette and hanging out with people and then go
back and treat your love, and meanwhile you can't make
contact with them. And of course they saw people being
hauled out in body bag from them same kind of

(01:06:12):
facilities that those images there. I think that really stuck
with Americans, and not in a good way.

Speaker 9 (01:06:22):
I think that that may well have been an overreaction.
Thank you point out I'm not a position, but I
think that they surely could have found a way when
people were passing on their family and elders could see
them in their last moments or before, you know, shortly
before that, there must have been a way of doing that.
If nothing else, they would get completely dressed up in
PPN wear masks as opposed to doing that over a
zoom call.

Speaker 6 (01:06:43):
I think we've learned from that, hopefully. Yeah, and just
so much.

Speaker 2 (01:06:46):
You know, the misinformation out there was certainly a cause
of this thing, no doubt about it. But when this
thing came down pretty clearly the political divides and it
was politics over science. What surprised you the most is
in your recent about that divide and about that part
of level partisanship.

Speaker 9 (01:07:03):
Well, it surprised me is that politicians supported it. Just
in my opinion, they weren't necessarily representing the interests of
their constituents in terms of their health. And I'm ashamed
to say this, but there's a huge difference in death
rates between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats tended to open their
schools more slowly, in the communities more slowly, and were

(01:07:25):
much more highly vaccinated as opposed to Republicans who had
much much lower vaccination rates which affected death rates, and
the data is all in my book, which is just
a tragedy.

Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
Well, well, I would say Florida seemed to do. Everyone
pointed to Florida's being while we opened back up, we
didn't lock stuff down, and then we were fine.

Speaker 9 (01:07:42):
Well, Florida had slightly below average death rates, so that's true.
I mean that they were fine. But in terms of
the states that were you can compare what I can
have a strong comparison between Vermont and Florida. Vermont's got
a sniffeting out of population in Florida, which is surprises,
as does Maine. Yet they had death rates compared to Florida,

(01:08:05):
roughly one third the death rate of Florida. So there's
a lot of interesting comparisons that are yet to be
done to understand what actually happened.

Speaker 2 (01:08:11):
Do you think we'll ever have a total grasp of
what occurred and why?

Speaker 9 (01:08:15):
I think eventually I think that data would come out,
but it may take a couple of generations. It's interesting,
Scott that the first really in depth analysis of the
nineteen eighteen Spanish fluid didn't come out until nineteen seventy eight,
almost fifty years later, and that was what motivated being
right in my book COVID Wars to try to get
a solid history of what happened much much sooner.

Speaker 3 (01:08:37):
We'll see if that actually worked.

Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
And the final point is as a historian, Ronald, do
we ever learn from this? I say no, we never
ever ever learn.

Speaker 9 (01:08:47):
Well, that's funny, a realistic view, but I like to
think of myself as optimistic. I think over time, I think, Scott,
when the emotion washes away. There's so much emotion right now,
when that washes away, and what's left to the facts
that people do look at and come get some conclusions. Yes,
I think we'll learn from this.

Speaker 2 (01:09:05):
It's Ronald Gruin a COVID Wars, America struggle or a
public health and personal freedom. He's a historian, so not
a political book or a medical book, but rather from
a historical perspective on this, which I love.

Speaker 6 (01:09:15):
Ronald all the best, Thanks again.

Speaker 9 (01:09:17):
Thank you, good chatting with you.

Speaker 2 (01:09:19):
Seconds away from news on seven hundred WW then we return.
If you get that hot libertarian streak and you're like me,
you're gonna like this one. We've talked about this in
the past. And it looks like maybe it's coming to
a head. Finally, you're not sure. Bob All from Buckeye
Institute on an Ohio man facing prison because he makes
his own alcohol. You can make pretty much everything else

(01:09:40):
as long as you consume it in your own household,
whether it's beer, wine, you know, vegetable garden, bakery at
whatever federal law says. You cannot make your own alcohol.
You cannot distill a beverage. Otherwise you're looking at five
years in prison. Whiskey tango, foxtrot. We'll get that next
seven hundred WW Do.

Speaker 1 (01:09:58):
You want to be American? Good?

Speaker 2 (01:10:01):
Marty Scott Flows Show on seven hundred w W question,
would you be willing to go to prison for your hobby?

Speaker 7 (01:10:10):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:10:10):
Unless your hobby is being a Bengals, I don't want
to go down. That's a little dark. But your hobby
guy's name is James Reem, and mister Reem lives in Newark,
Ohio's up the road from us, and he wants to
distill small qualities of alcohol. He likes bourbon, he likes rye,
he likes whiskey, and he has fascination with brewing. Owns

(01:10:31):
a bur mini broad microbur as a matter of fact,
and he wants to make some alcohol own home for
his personal consumption. If he decides he's going to do that,
he is subject to felony conviction ten thousand dollars in fines.
We're talking about five years in prison, longer than a
murderer might get, simply because he is making his own

(01:10:51):
distilling his own alcohol in his own home for his
own use, not giving it away, certainly, not selling it,
but of his own use. That is a crime in America,
and I think that is a crime overall. Robert Alt
is President and chief executive officer of the Buckeye Institute
in Columbus, where they have taken up this case im
and fighting for James Rimm for a while. Robert, Welcome

(01:11:14):
to sunny Cincinnati, which I think. I think you're warmer
today than we are here in Cincinnati.

Speaker 1 (01:11:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:11:20):
No, I think we're enjoying a balmy couple degrees warmer
than you.

Speaker 6 (01:11:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:11:25):
Yeah, the bald met too. Civil Ohio. This time let's
look warmer than it was yesterday. Let's talk about John
Reams case here. He lives in Newark, Ohio, retired engineer,
I think, and he owns a micro brewery, and his
wife said, well, you know what, here, here you go.
Here's a home brewing kid. He does that making money.
It's great. It's called truck brewing, by the way. And
now want to get into home distilling. Why is that illegal?

(01:11:48):
That's a darn good question. And the answer is, there's
a there is a law.

Speaker 6 (01:11:52):
On the book.

Speaker 8 (01:11:52):
This is a federal law. This isn't the state law
which prohibits you from distilling any alcohol for sumption in
your own home, even if you don't sell it, even
if you're just doing it as a hobby. So you
can you can make beer in your own home. That's
perfectly legal. You commit find in your own home. I
don't necessarily advise it. I don't know if I've ever

(01:12:13):
had good homemade one.

Speaker 6 (01:12:14):
But you can do it.

Speaker 8 (01:12:15):
But if you make any amount of whiskey, it's a felony.
And not only you lifted off these penalties. On the
website for the enforcement agency, they make clear not only
can you get fined, not only can you get imprisonment imprisonment,
but they'll go after your house, They'll go after wherever
it is that you were engaging in this unlawful conduct.

(01:12:36):
And potentially try and seize that as well. The penalties
here are absolutely draconian. But the real issue here is
how is it that the federal government has the authority
to go ahead and regulate what you do in your
own home as a hobby. If they can regulate this,
there's literally nothing that the federal government can't regulate.

Speaker 2 (01:12:56):
It's a victim of crime. Now, if you sell it
distributed to get maybe something there. But if you make something,
whether it's alcohol, whether it's bread, whether it's a pie,
then the only person you're gonna harm is yourself if
you get it wrong. Does this law let's go back
in history, is this Does this stem from prohibition when
people were literally poisoning others but with things like bestub gin?

Speaker 8 (01:13:20):
This actually the law I believe actually predates prohibition. But
you know, if we're concerned about regulating the production of
alcohol for public safety, you know who's actually really good
at do it at handling these sourtces of regulations are
the states, and in fact the Constitution of the under
the twenty first Amendment, the states have you know, special

(01:13:42):
authority to regulate in this space. And if you take
a look, I mean Ohio regulates in this space. But
Ohio actually doesn't have any prohibition on home distilling. There
are some states that do in addition to the federal government,
but Ohio doesn't, And so there's really just no purpose
for this law.

Speaker 2 (01:14:03):
You know, maybe there was a time where people would
get sick in poison and maybe that stems from this,
but now it just reaks a protection because we have science.
You know, you could learn how to do anything really
in the comfort of your own home, if you're going
to use it for your own consumption or if you're
you know, if you're a neighbor like, hey, I'd like
to try some of your whiskey. As long as money's
not changing hands, there's no violation. But if he wanted

(01:14:25):
to do this, would he then have to go through
the process of getting a federal license?

Speaker 6 (01:14:29):
And what does that look like?

Speaker 8 (01:14:31):
So he would have to get a federal license, he's
actually lawfully prohibited under the statute. It is not permissible
to distill in your own home, and the statue is
written in a very bizarre fashion. If you happen to
have a large piece of property and potentially had a
shanty way out in the woods, perhaps that would be lawful.
But if you're trying to do so where most people

(01:14:53):
are going to actually try and engage in this, if
they're doing as a hobby, you know, in your own home,
say in your basement or in your garage, that you
can't get a permit.

Speaker 6 (01:15:02):
To do that.

Speaker 8 (01:15:03):
And if you if you engage in distilling without a permit,
that will rack you up felony felony charges. As I
go to this, the big question here is, you know,
you take a look and you would ask the question,
how is it that Congress has the authority to regulate this?
To begin with, Congress only has limited and enumerated powers

(01:15:24):
on the Constitution. They can't just regulate anything willy nilly.
And so the big claim that they make here is
that they're regulating interstate commerce. But this is a situation
in which they're regulating something which is neither commerce nor
interstate I mean literally, what's happening in the confines of
your own home. If they can regulate this, they could

(01:15:46):
regulate bread baking, they could regulate your having a home garden.
It really doesn't matter how local, how non commercial it is,
it would be within the ambit of congressional regulation. And
that's just not what the Constitution said, yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:16:01):
Not at all.

Speaker 2 (01:16:02):
And if you're selling it, different story. There's no commerce
going on here, so you said interstate commerce, but there's
no commercial enterprise.

Speaker 6 (01:16:10):
Doesn't it fail that test? Absolutely?

Speaker 8 (01:16:13):
And to the extent The interesting thing here is to
the extent that there are some court decisions that have
had more expansive interpretations of what that means. Congress still
has to be regulating the interstate market. It has to
be necessary and proper to regulate the non commercial market.
In this particular case, the home distilling prohibition, it's not

(01:16:34):
regulating an interstate market. This really is getting to non
commercial activity.

Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
Okay. The argument from the government on this one basically
is it's the reason why this is prohibited. It's uniquely dangerous.
Unlike home bread baking or vegetable gardening or whatever it
might be. No, no one's died. People may die if
you don't do this right. It probably could say the
same thing about beer or wine. I suppose taste good,

(01:17:00):
and it's why, but someone can get sick and die
from a poorly made homemade whiskey. However, I would say,
if you grow vegetables and you have a surplus of vegetables,
a lot of people like the can my mom used
to do to make your own pickles and put up
tomatoes and stuff like that as well. I'm sure it's
very rare, But what about food born botulism? What about
food borne illnesses from poor canning techniques? If I gave

(01:17:22):
my neighbor a can of i don't know, pickled beets
or something like that, and it turns out that I
didn't do it right they got sick and died, how
much How is that any more dangerous than we're talking
about here.

Speaker 8 (01:17:34):
Well, and here's the other thing. Ultimately, that doesn't give
the federal government anymore authority. The fact that they may
come up with, you know, and they really haven't crossed
too hard on the health rationale. But even if they do,
there isn't a general protect health clause in the US Constitution.
They're protecting health and welfare that is traditionally a set

(01:17:57):
of powers which belongs to the state. And so if
we're concerned about that, the states have the ability, they
have the authority, and they do regulate actively in that space.
And so if that's our concern, there are other governmental
eneities that can do that. The fact that the federal
government might be able to point to some justification that
doesn't create a fount of new power for them.

Speaker 2 (01:18:20):
He is a Robert Ohl, President CEO of the Buckeye Institute.
Interesting story about your hobbies. Guy named James Reem and
New York, new not New York, Newark, Ohio. He wants
to sell small quantities of alcohols on home, make his
own whiskey, basically for his own personal consumption, not for distribution,
not for given away, just because he's into it. That's
his hobby. If he does that, though, he's looking at

(01:18:42):
five years in prison, He's looking at a felony conviction
and up to ten thousand dollars in fines just for
creating alcohol for his own use. We allow home brewing
with a home wine making and a whole bunch of
other things you can do in your house. Why is
alcohol so dangerous that you need a federal exemption and
a license in order to do it? That is the
argument before the court, and the Buckeye Institute is leaning

(01:19:04):
into it that as a friend of the court and
a friend of mister Reim. And he's on the show
this morning to discuss here on seven hundred WLW. You
know you mentioned earlier about Article one and the authority
to criminalize home distilling. If you go back to prohibition,
the federal government needed the eighteenth Amendment to ban alcohol
production and consumption. Does that show that Congress lacks the

(01:19:26):
authority to criminalize home distilling?

Speaker 8 (01:19:29):
You know, I think this goes to, yes, the limitations
on government power, the fact that you couldn't just simply
have Congress go ahead and restrict it across the board.
You needed a constitutional amendment to actually get to a
flat prohibition broadly.

Speaker 6 (01:19:47):
On this.

Speaker 8 (01:19:49):
And if you take a look in this particular case,
I mean, the other argument that they make in this
case is that it's somehow necessary to the taxing power.
But it's it's interesting in this case, producing alcohol is
potentially subject to an excise tax, but the prohibition actually
prevents the federal government from collecting any tax. As we've

(01:20:09):
said in this case, and we actually not just a
friend of the court, we directly represent mister Reem in
this particular case, mister Reim would be willing to pay
a tax on producing the alcohol, uh, if they would
just let him actually produce the alcohol for his own consumption.
So the interestly that oddly the federal government is preventing

(01:20:32):
itself from getting the tax revenue.

Speaker 2 (01:20:35):
I mean, what would cost for a LICEI. I'd imagine
it's a lot of them. It's like a federal firearms
later to distribute firearms or something like that. It's it's
exceptionally expensive to do that. Yeah. I look at this
and it's like the same thing. And this guy's willing
to do it to pay the tax, and they still
won't let them. There's no, there's no, that's unreasonable. I
guess that's a great exist I think that's a helpful

(01:20:56):
illustration for your case.

Speaker 6 (01:20:57):
Don't you.

Speaker 8 (01:20:59):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (01:20:59):
Absolutely?

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
Uh?

Speaker 8 (01:21:00):
Well, and you know, we we just had oral arguments
down there in Cincinnati last week before the Sixth Circuit
Court Appeals and I'll tell you it was I felt
like it was. It was a bad day to be
the federal government's attorney. The the the the government actually
had tried to just argue a very narrow set of
issues in the briefs. The court asked the government to

(01:21:23):
be ready to discuss the constitutional arguments beyond the narrow
standing arguments. Uh and the government essentially refused to do so.

Speaker 6 (01:21:33):
So the court.

Speaker 8 (01:21:34):
The court was none to please there was some test
the exchanges, and the court actually went ahead and sent
an additional order to the government to provide additional briefing
responding to the Bakay Institute and mister Reems constitutional clients.

Speaker 2 (01:21:51):
I'm not an attorney. I'm a simple layperson with a
simple mind. But I would read that as they don't
even have an argument as to why this is the law.

Speaker 6 (01:21:58):
That's what it sounds like.

Speaker 8 (01:22:00):
Well, you know, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll see what We'll
see what they come up with. But but suffice it
to say it was it was. It was a better
day to be representing mister Reeve. I'll leave it at that.

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
Well, I guess the question would be is if their
job is to enforce the law and fight for the
law in this case and they can't even come with
a reason why making your own alcohol for your own
consumption and your home is illegal, is that indicator that
the state should just give up?

Speaker 8 (01:22:29):
Well yeah, again, as someone who's arguing on behalf of
mister rehim, I will say, I don't think that the
government should be regulating in this space. I don't think
they've been able to articulate a good reason. You've actually
articulated stronger reasons for why it is that they might
be able to regulate in this space I think than
the government has.

Speaker 2 (01:22:50):
That's that's frightening. Either I'm in the wrong place or
the government's really stupid. Anyway, Bob Alti is here, President,
Robert Hall, President, chief executive for the Buckeye Institute. So
what's next before the Sixth Circuit? It sounds to me
like and you never can read the tea leaves when
it comes to court and a judge obviously or judges obviously,
but it sounds like they're going to side with you.
What happens if that's the case, and moving forward?

Speaker 8 (01:23:12):
Well, right now, the government actually has a brief due
next month. The court has given us a very short
one week time to respond to that brief. If the
Sixth Circuit were to rule in our favor, as we
hope that it does, presumably at that point the government

(01:23:34):
might appeal the case to the US Supreme Court. So
we will see. But I have a feeling that whoever
loses this case, it's likely to keep on going up
through the courts, and the next stop would be the
Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
You recall, there's an argument in all your years as
an attorney in studying the law, Robert, that there's been
an instance where the government has no solid reasons to
watch something as banned or is the law, and yet
they continue to fight for keeping the status quoe.

Speaker 3 (01:23:59):
Why is that?

Speaker 2 (01:24:00):
If they represent the people and it's in the people's
best interest, going, yeah, I mean maybe there's a time
in America where we needed that, but clearly that time
has passed, especially when you look at the deregulation of
things like marijuana for example, and guess what, you know,
gay marriage, whatever it might be. You know, the earth
is still spinning and we're just fine despite all of
these horrible things going to destroy the fabric of our

(01:24:20):
country and our makeup, and yet we continue to march
on forward. Alcohol home home distilling of alcohol seems to
fit into that category as well. So, if they represent
the people and are fighting for the people, because that's
the state the people versus in this particular case, why
they continue to fight.

Speaker 8 (01:24:38):
For this, you know, that is an excellent question, and
it's one that uh, you know, at times I do
think sometimes the government just you know, there there is
this there is a practice within the Justice Department to
defend any statute that's on the book, so long as
there's any conceivable legal justification for doing so. You know,

(01:25:04):
and and I this is this is the policy, regardless
of who the administration is. But this is one of
those cases of that I think really makes you scratch
your head as to why is it that we're spending
government resources to defend a statute that really doesn't serve
any good purpose and for which the government really, you know,
lacks the authority to have regulated here to begin with.

Speaker 2 (01:25:28):
If you start distributing this stuff and selling it, we
know that, you know, there will be federal agents. It'll
be breathing down in your act, and you're facing rightly
so stiff finds penalties, jail time if you're selling and
distributing your alcohol. We have a law in Ohio that
says I can grow up to you know, twelve pot
plants and do with it what I believe. And yet
somehow home distilling is is.

Speaker 6 (01:25:47):
Something worth fighting for.

Speaker 2 (01:25:48):
It makes this argument makes no sense whatsoever, which tells
me this argument will continue to go on for years
to come.

Speaker 8 (01:25:57):
Unfortunately, sometimes it seems like the things that are the
most common sensical those are the things that are the
hardest to actually succeed on in government.

Speaker 2 (01:26:07):
This is what we're fighting for. Robert All, President, CEO
of the Buckeye Institute, representing James Reim out of Newark, Ohio.
I'm definitely on team Alt and Tim Reem. Thanks again
for the time, Robert, Thanks for having me appreciate it
all the best. It's maddening and think of like, Okay, well,
these are government employees that work for us, and they're
supposed to protect our interests. Why is fighting against and

(01:26:30):
spending millions of dollars trying to prevent a guy from
making his own alcohol and his own home for his
own consumption worth all of that effort, one may ask.
It's a good question, and that is the core problem
with our government. Scott Flums Show seven hundred WW.

Speaker 10 (01:26:44):
Time to talk about money, how to make it, how
to keep it, and how to keep others off your stack.
This is all worth advice with Andy Schaeffer Andrew.

Speaker 6 (01:26:58):
Good morning, has life.

Speaker 3 (01:27:00):
Everything's great, Scott, how are you doing?

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
Everything is fine? Thanks for asking. We will jump right
in this morning. We've got some job numbers, who've got
retail sales numbers coming out earlier this morning, and I'll
begin with something I saw. I always love throwing a
curveball as the first pitch. Here Ford an ounce there,
discontinuing the much hyped but very slow selling electric pickup truck,
the F one fifty Lightning. I remember a couple of

(01:27:22):
years ago in to KM and they rolled this thing out.
I'm like looking at it, going, look, i'd drive a
I have a two fifty service truck for you know,
with all my remodeling and rentals and all that stuff.

Speaker 6 (01:27:32):
I got my tools in.

Speaker 2 (01:27:33):
I look at that going on, how many contractors are going, wow,
I really need to be an electric truck now. The Tesla,
I guess that pick up sells fairly well, but again
that's more of a vanity, you know, luxury kind of thing.
If you're driving at one fifty, two, fifty, three, fifty,
whatever it is, you're looking at that going yeah, for
what I haul, the battery ain't gonna make it work now. Granted,

(01:27:54):
F one fifties, you know, the entry level regular passenger
pickup truck not sarily a work truck, but it's a
big best selling pickup truck of all time. And I
think the lesson there, correct me if I'm wrong, is
that when the government decides, hey, we're going to have
to mandate and push these cars because this is what
we want, not what the consumer wants. You're gonna wind
up costing everyone billions of dollars automobile companies like Ford

(01:28:18):
and the rest, because we the consumer eventually pay for
those mistakes.

Speaker 3 (01:28:22):
Yeah, this was really no surprise to me.

Speaker 11 (01:28:24):
I did see the headlines on it, but I haven't
had a chance to dive in too deep to it.
But I did notice that, you know, they were ending
the production of the all electric F one fifty lightning,
you know, over the next few weeks. And I don't
think it's really much of a shock if you've been
watching the market shifts since the elimination of the seventy
five hundred dollars federal ev instead of this year, right,
And so that's the big thing, and that's starting to

(01:28:47):
decrease demand. You know, Ford's shifting more to higher return opportunities,
you know, more I would say, hybrid trucks and vans
and that.

Speaker 3 (01:28:55):
So it's it's not.

Speaker 11 (01:28:56):
That Ford doesn't understand that, you know the future is
probably more clean energy. We all want clean energy, but
you're also running a business that shareholders rely on. And
if you don't see the demand in the purchase of
these vehicles, you know you're gonna see some cuts that
come down the pike as far as corporate decisions are
being made. So this isn't really much of a surprise

(01:29:17):
to me, you know, but you know, you have to
figure out ways to make your company productive, and this
just hasn't been very profitable for them.

Speaker 6 (01:29:23):
Yeah, no question about it.

Speaker 2 (01:29:25):
And I look at that and necessarily not everyone who
drives an F one fifty or you know, maybe two
or three fifty. Our contractors will worry people who are
in the trades. But you know, I think there's a
certain lifestyle element to that as well, that you're going
to haul stuff at some point. I just don't see
that there's reliable and you know, years ago and they decided, hey,
we're going to go and totally go all in on
ev as opposed to hybrids, I think that's a mistake

(01:29:47):
because you've got to you've got to make a transition.
If we all grew up on an internal combusting engines
and you're trying to get off that, okay, but the
hybrid engine where you have gas or diesel as a
backup and then the battery kicks in and you can
get you know, you know, seventy to one hundred miles
a gallon. Who doesn't like that, Who doesn't like saving
money in that regard and the costs built into the
truck maybe a little bit more, but you're getting money

(01:30:08):
back as opposed to just a straight electric vehicle that
you have to charge. There's no backup plan there, and
I think that that's a turn off for a lot
of people. And the government was way over aggressive with
stressing going from internal combustion to straight battery.

Speaker 11 (01:30:22):
Yeah, and I think you make a good point there, Scott.
I think a lot of it does have to do
with lifestyle. You know, I live out in the country
outside of Cincinnati, and most of the workers all have
pickup trucks up here.

Speaker 3 (01:30:31):
They need for their job.

Speaker 11 (01:30:33):
They need to all not only tools, equipment materials, and
needs to start when they need it to start. You know,
my father in law has a electric vehicle and he
has an issue with his battery right now. Well, he
was explaining to me how expensive it is to get
a battery replaced in one of the cars. And so,
you know, as far as your comments about the lifestyle.
I think, you know, the electric vehicles make more sense

(01:30:55):
for smaller sedans and things like that to where you're
you're traveling to and from work as opposed to hauling
major materials for your everyday blue collar job. And so,
you know, the market has shifted. We've seen players like
Honda hedging its best with assembly lines capable of multi
multiple power plants. Tariffs have played a role into this
as well, and that you know, manufacturers have been forced

(01:31:17):
to rethink some of these long term strategies on the
EV side. And I think we're going to see just
you know, in the into the future on this.

Speaker 2 (01:31:23):
Yeah, it's and it's not like people in the train.
I hate this one as well because you know, knuckle draggers. Again,
you diminish an entire group of people. And I'll fight
tooth and dog tooth and nil for contractors because that's
my line of work. Is that you know, Okay, well,
I have a diesel truck, but all my tools, almost
all my tools are battery operated. It's not like we're
afraid of batteries or you know what. You know, you

(01:31:46):
can go and get a i don't know, like a
miosot chop saw and run trim and casing and crown
welding all day long on one battery. Just a few
years ago you couldn't do They could do that now.
So it's not like the you know, trades people don't
like battery power stuf.

Speaker 6 (01:32:00):
That's insane.

Speaker 2 (01:32:00):
It's the fact that it's just not practical and the
government and the decision makers to the top never got that.
Let me pivot here. We have jobs numbers, retail sales
numbers coming in. Give me the goods. Yeah, they all
came out at eight thirty this morning. I've been able to,
you know, go into the headlines a little bit. I
haven't been able to deep dive and try to look
under the hood. But essentially, the jobs report were fairly tepid.

(01:32:22):
We saw the unemployment rate rise to a four year
high of four point six percent. The expectation was four
point five. So that initially strikes me as, you know,
something I need to take a look at. And so
in addition to that, we saw retail sales be a
little bit weaker in October as well.

Speaker 3 (01:32:38):
It's about three point five percent month over month.

Speaker 4 (01:32:41):
You know.

Speaker 11 (01:32:41):
So I think what this tells us is that we
are still starting to see some cracks in the labor market.
You know, we did add about ninety five thousand new
jobs in October. That was way better than we saw
in October of one hundred and five thousand losses of jobs.
But I do think, you know, the October numbers well
had a lot to do with more seasonality.

Speaker 3 (01:33:02):
We still had, you know, as of October first.

Speaker 11 (01:33:04):
That's when the government furloughs, the job eliminations occurred, So
I think that number was a little bit skewed. So
as far as the addition of new jobs, that was
a welcome site, but the four point six percent unemployment
rate was.

Speaker 3 (01:33:16):
A little bit of a surprise.

Speaker 2 (01:33:17):
Okay, So sixty four thousand up, sixty four k after falling, Okay,
I got it in October, still got some of those back.

Speaker 11 (01:33:25):
Yeah, Yeah, And I think you know, this this kind
of you know, gives kind of a blueprint for the
FED moving forward. You know, we just got interest rate
cuts of a quarter percent last week. You know, that
puts the target range at three point five to three
point seventy five percent. So that's the third straight quarter
percent cut. I do think it's fairly noteworthy that there
were three descents of the Federal Reserve. There were two

(01:33:46):
people that wanted to keep rates where they were due
to inflation uncertainties, and there was actually one of the
FED members that wanted a steeper cut of a half
a percent. So there is some you know, conflicting ideas
about where the economy is going within the FED. But
it does appear that we probably will see two more
cuts into twenty twenty six as well.

Speaker 2 (01:34:06):
Wow, okay, and you know you look back at the
September data and indicate that that is coming forward here too.
So we're only going to two cuts in fiscal twenty
twenty six.

Speaker 11 (01:34:15):
Yeah, and I think you know, the announcement was one
thing we expected that there was going to be a cut.
But again, you know, I always look at the post
meeting projections by FED Chairman Poowe, and he did paint
a more optimistic macro picture. He looked at raising its
twenty twenty six GDP forecast to two point three percent
growth from one point eight and he also reduced their

(01:34:37):
twenty twenty six inflation anticipation to two point four percent
from two point six percent. So you know, the FED
right now does feel like moving into twenty twenty six
that things are projecting in the right way. Now, we'll
see what the data tells us as we move forward.
But that also is in line with the fedes communication

(01:34:58):
about not being in an hurry to cut rates moving forward.
They want to see what the data looks like, you know,
into twenty twenty six, you know, see if there's some
lingering impacts of the tariffs, to see if you know,
what kind of industry that we've been able to drum
up from the tariffs and bringing a lot of manufacturing
back to the United States. So there's still a lot

(01:35:20):
to be said, but I think right now the FED
feels pretty good about where they are and what the
optim is for optimism is for twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (01:35:26):
So would you say, like the labor market, it's not collapsing,
but it's kind of cooling off.

Speaker 11 (01:35:31):
It's cooling off, and that's the reason that the FED,
you know, wants to keep an eye on it and
is prepared to cut rates even further, you know, Fed Shairman, Powe.

Speaker 3 (01:35:39):
Excuse me, Yeah, it is very particular.

Speaker 6 (01:35:42):
Sorry, you're right, very particular about Let.

Speaker 2 (01:35:46):
Me talk for a second while you clear your throat,
Andy Shaffer, is that's called a fill? Andy Shaefer is
here from all Worth Financial. This show is simply Money.
Theres at six o'clock on fifty five KRC weeknights, and
maybe not fully tonight because Andy can't talk. Nonetheless, Andy,
what do you feel like some don'nut stuck in air?

Speaker 6 (01:36:03):
What's going on?

Speaker 3 (01:36:03):
Yeah? I don't know.

Speaker 11 (01:36:05):
I had a frog in my thur that happens, I
feel But anyway, you know, Fedchhairman Power is very particular
about wage growth and also the unemployment rate, and he
feels like if wage growth continues to increase at a
high rate, that will spurn inflation fears because people when
they have more money to spend, obviously, that creates more
demand and ultimately higher prices. Now, I've read a lot

(01:36:26):
of economists that don't believe that is necessarily the case
and take a more dubbish approach to that. But you
have to understand where fed Chairman Power and his leadership,
you know what they're really looking at, and one of
them is the unemployment rate. The other is wage growth.
And we're starting to see the unemployment rate why rise
a little bit, and also.

Speaker 3 (01:36:42):
We're starting to see wage growth rise.

Speaker 11 (01:36:44):
So what that tells me is there's a good chance
that we're going to see maybe even more than two
percent cuts next year.

Speaker 6 (01:36:50):
Okay, gotcha.

Speaker 2 (01:36:51):
If we add a third cut next year, it's probably
because we're going to start to see the labor market
really start cooling off, right, And we don't. It's one
of those things you want to see a rate cut,
but if it means that people are losing their jobs,
you don't want that.

Speaker 11 (01:37:04):
Yeah, And he wants to make sure that we continue
to spurn a lot of more jobs and keep our
labor markets strong. So you're exactly right. Furthermore, you know
when his communication and you know, after the FED announcement
during the press conference, he basically said, Hey, we're seeing
the trends of inflation cooling down. We do think that
inflation will get down to about two point four percent

(01:37:25):
next year, and we think that the effect of taris
on inflation is going to be short lived. We are
still seeing some lingering effects of that, but that will
start to dissipate in the first part of next year
and into the second quarter.

Speaker 2 (01:37:36):
Okay, Andy Schaefer from all Worth Financial. The other numbers
out retail sales, how we look at, Yeah.

Speaker 11 (01:37:41):
Retail sales remained pretty flat about three point five percent,
not really much of a change. I still think that
you have to take the seasonality into it. I suspect
that the retail sales after I look a little bit
deeper into it in the different areas where you know
the consumer was spending money is a little bit skewed.
Lot of that has to do to the holidays. Obviously,

(01:38:02):
people spend more over the holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas is you know,
starting starting off honka, things like that, And so you
know this November and December are really tricky to uncover
what retail sales really means. And I think we'll get
a better idea come January of next year. And that's
another reason why the FED has a little bit more.

Speaker 6 (01:38:20):
Yeah, it makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:38:21):
Wait until we get back to I guess normal or
a cooling off here and see what retails comparatively. And
I know you haven't had a chance to deep dig
into the daity yet, Andy, but would you just compare
November over November last year and maybe over the last
three or four years.

Speaker 3 (01:38:35):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 11 (01:38:36):
But remember we just went through COVID not too Yeah,
so there's you know, some of those numbers.

Speaker 3 (01:38:41):
Are still skewed over the past two or three years.

Speaker 11 (01:38:43):
I do think, you know, another bit of data that
was interesting was the Joltry Report, and the joltryport is essentially,
you know, the job openings and labor Turnover survey, and
what that says is people that have a job, are
they actively looking for a new job because they think
the prospects are favorable for them. And we're seeing those
numbers continue to diminish because people that are currently in

(01:39:06):
a job are really not looking for another position or
a step up in you know, their careers, because they're
fearful that there's not going to be out there. So
that's another bit of the report that I found a
little bit fascinating. That also also shows some cooling as well.

Speaker 2 (01:39:20):
Okay, good, what are we looking forward coming up with numbers?
We did jobs rates or a jobless we did retail?
What's coming up next?

Speaker 11 (01:39:27):
Yeah, Today's a big day and I'm looking forward to
kind of unpacking all that and trying to, you know,
make an analysis of where I think things are going
to be. But you know, I think, you know, we're
going to get some FED chairman speakers again. But Thursday,
we're going to get the CPI, the Consumer Price Index
that's the measure of inflation. We're going to get the
core CPI, the feds preferred inflation measure when you strip
out transportation and energy and food. They believe that they

(01:39:52):
don't really have an effect on that. So that's going
to be telling as far as inflation is concerned. I
do expect it will stay steady or maybe even tick
down a little bit. And then we're going to get
home sales on Friday, so that would be interesting as well.

Speaker 2 (01:40:02):
Okay, good, all stuff to look forward to. So we're
holding steady at this point, and that's all I got
to answer.

Speaker 11 (01:40:08):
Yeah, And I think that's the the you know, the
lesson here is that, you know, I'm kind of in
a neutral position right now. I'm trying to stay nimble,
to be able to put the brakes on if I
need to, and be able to accelerate if we need
to as well. But right now things seem to be
doing just fine, and not really a whole lot of
big surprises, just you know, just some small changes that
we didn't expect.

Speaker 2 (01:40:26):
All Right, we talked next week. You in next week?
Oh yeah, all right, all right, we'll figure it out then, Andy,
have a great week. I appreciate you buddy. Thanks again,
you too got to sloany with Willie on the way
in just minutes after news update on the home of
the best Bengals covered seven hundred WLW, Cincinnati,