08-13-25 - *FULL SHOW* Eliot Ackerman 'Sheepdogs'; Suing Boulder; Training Camp

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do this together, A Rod.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
We're each going to put on our very reflective sunglasses,
kind of like the Blues Brothers one two three.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Now, A Rod and I are both very reflective.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
If you came and looked at us, we'd look like
some I don't know, cicadas or some bug with very
reflective eyes. But we are here. Oh yeah, let's do that.
Let's do let's do a little social media there. So
Arod and I are here at Broncos training camp and
they have not started practice yet. We'll be doing some
updates as the as the show goes along. For those

(00:31):
of you who will listen to the whole show, either
live or podcast or whatever, it will be slightly abbreviated. Today,
the last segment of my show will be preempted by
a relatively early Colorado's Colorado Rockies game today against who
is at the Cardinals?

Speaker 1 (00:46):
They playing the Cardinals? A Rod.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Yeah, Actually, the Rockies beat the Cardinals yesterday three to
nothing for their only their second I think second shutout
victory of the entire season.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
So anyway, there you go. Lots of stuff to do.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
We have an un believable guest coming on in half
an hour, a guy named Elliot Ackerman who he's an author,
but he also badass US Marine Corps raider kicking indoors
in Fallujah Silver Star Winner. Then worked for CIA Ground Branch,
their Special Activities Division. Which of these are the guys
like I could tell you, but I'd have.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
To kill you kind of work. And I'm just really really.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Excited for that conversation that's coming up just around nine forty,
so make sure you're you're here for that. I would
like to follow up on something that Pat Woodard just said.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
In the news.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
The story I hadn't heard until I heard Pat say
it just then, and that is that so okay.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
A week and a half ago or something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
I had Stacy Stegman on from Denver International Airport just
a few hours after they announced that they were going
to consider a feasibility study right preliminary to preliminary to
getting started to thinking about getting started, just very early stuff,
but they were going to look at a feasibility study
for putting a small modul or nuclear reactor somewhere near

(02:06):
Denver International Airport in order to provide electricity for the airport, because,
as Stacy said, Denver International Airport is the biggest consumer
of electricity in the Denver metro area, and it makes
sense for them to have as inexpensive a source of
electricity as possible. And apparently Denver City Council Member Stacy Gilmore,

(02:29):
who represents District eleven that includes the airport, is a
little upset that she had not been consulted before Phil Washington,
who runs the airport, and the mayor announced the plans
just for a feasibility study. And here's a quote from
the city council meeting on Monday night. Quote, there had

(02:50):
been no conversation with myself, the council office, none of
the local neighborhood organizations, no one in my community about
even the idea.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
Of a feasibility study.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
In nothing said about the natural resources that might be
affected by that feasibility study. So look, I'm not gonna
jump down her throat too much. I just hope, as
a general matter going forward, that people are open.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
Minded to this, because it's not just likely.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
It's certain that the very very best way to increase
our electrical generation capacity in the United States of America
is nuclear. It's one hundred percent certain that that is
the best way. I'm not saying it's the only way.
I'm not saying you can't add more natural gas. Gosh,
you could if you want. You could even add solar,

(03:36):
you could even add wind, which is normally a very
bad idea. But if you can do all that without
government subsidies, good for you. But nuclear is clearly the way.
So I hope this is just the city council member
saying what she I hope she means what she's saying,
namely that she should.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Have been consultant, sulted.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
She wants to know a little more, but hopefully she'll
come around at least to a feasibility. There's very very
little downside there, so I wanted to share that with you.
Now I want to do one other thing for a
couple of minutes here, just talking about Denver again. And
this is where you start seeing governments run by far
left people that go from being a little bit daft

(04:20):
to being so ignorant as to be harmful. And Denver
is such a place like Portland, like well, actually, i'll.

Speaker 1 (04:29):
Tell you what.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
San Francisco just booted their far left mayor and they
and they elected a moderate, relative monitor for San Francisco.
They elected a relative moderate, So Denver's a little behind
the curve. Like Denver, Denver hasn't harmed itself enough yet
for there to be the kind of reaction that there's

(04:50):
going to need to be eventually when there is, when
there's even more trouble in the city than there is now.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
And yeah, there, you.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Know, Denver's getting a little better on crime, but there
are just so many other ways in which we're just
just terrible, really terrible. So anyway, this is from nine News,
although it's really not a nine News story.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
It's just a thing.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
The minimum wage in Denver in January of next year,
so what is that a little four months and change
is going to go up to nineteen dollars in twenty
nine cents an hour minimum wage. It's currently eighteen dollars
and eighty one cents an hour. I wonder how many
people who would be working in minimum wage jobs actually

(05:34):
generate enough productivity in that minimum wage job to be
worth nineteen dollars and twenty nine cents per hour, plus
whatever else the costs are of hiring such a person. Right,
even for tipped workers, the minimum wage is gonna go
up to sixteen dollars and twenty seven cents an hour
for you know, waiters, waitresses, tipped workers. And this is

(05:56):
part of the reason that Denver has lost so many restaurants,
so many hundreds of restaurants have closed in Denver in
recent years in large part because of this.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
And the part of the story that I wanted to just.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
Mention briefly was Mayor Mike Johnston of Denver in a
press release said, and I quote, whether it's raising pay
or lowering rent, we are committed to doing everything we
can to make Denver more affordable. And he says our
minimum wage has created new opportunity for Denver residents. This
is so economically brain dead, it's just shockingly ignorant. And

(06:34):
the concept is very very simple. If you say you
are making Denver more affordable by raising the minimum wage
and you say nothing else after that, you forget the
fact that that money has to come from somewhere, and
Democrats always forget this, and that increased minimum wage for

(06:54):
that restaurant worker or target worker or whatever it is
mean that in order to cover all that the store,
the restaurant is gonna have to either it's gonna have
to raise prices, and they're gonna raise prices, and then
you're not gonna be able to afford to go out
to dinner anymore, or the you know, the school backpack
that you wanted to get for your kid that was
seventeen dollars, now nineteen dollars, and now you've got two

(07:19):
dollars left to do something else.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
And it is just shockingly ignorant.

Speaker 2 (07:23):
And I guess I'm beyond being surprised that it never
changes that these people think that somehow raising the minimum
wage makes the city more affordable. Yes, it can make
it a little bit more affordable for those minimum wage workers,
but it makes it much less affordable for everybody else.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
We'll be right back.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
We are here at Broncos Training Camp KOA at Training
Camp is powered by Chevron, committed to our local communities
and safely delivering affordable, reliable energy the powers Colorado Forward.
Thank you very much to Chevron for sponsoring us a
training camp.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
I love that you know they're there. An idea that
I've heard bouncing.

Speaker 2 (08:01):
Around a little bit that I think has some merit,
and I wanted to share a story with you from
a town in New Jersey called Gloucester Township. In New Jersey,
they passed a law two weeks ago or so entitled
the Miners and Parent Responsibility Law, and what it says

(08:24):
is that parents will be quote held accountable for public
disturbances caused.

Speaker 1 (08:30):
By their kids.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
And if kids are found guilty of multiple offenses in
this town, and I'll tell you what those offenses might be.
But if the kids are found guilty of multiple offenses,
the parents parent slash parents could go to jail for
up to three months. Up to three months pretty crazy, huh.

(08:54):
Now this is one of those things. And I got
a couple stories that probably fall into this category today
while we'll see what we have time to get to
of something that is premised on more than a grain
of truth and perhaps somewhat of a good idea. And
the question really then is just, you know, does he
go too far? But here again, this from the New

(09:17):
York Post. The juvenile offenses that fall under the new
law are sweeping. They're twenty eight in total, with quote
being a disorderly person, immorality, destruction of playground equipment, and loitering,
joining other more obvious kinds of crimes like assault and
mugging and being drunk in public and dealing drugs and

(09:38):
the township police over there, Gloucester Township said if a
child is repeatedly found guilty in juvenile court, the caretaker
meaning parents or whoever else I guess, could face up
to ninety days in prison and or a fine of
up to two thousand dollars. The police chief there said
that the law consisted of general legal language and the

(10:00):
parents would receive a warning the first time for their
kids bad behavior. And the police chief said, our ordinance
was actually sampled from other towns. Were not necessarily the first,
but we're probably the first bigger.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
Town to do it.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
This is a decent sized town actually, with a population
of about sixty seven thousand people. The mayor's on board.
The mayor says, we have to hold parents responsible. And
you know, in this article they talk with some parents
saying that a lot of parents there think it's an overstep,
a move towards stripping away parents' rights to make choices

(10:36):
for their children.

Speaker 1 (10:37):
YadA, YadA, YadA.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
But you know what, I I get this, I get this.
You get these stories all the time about these you know,
kids doing you know, getting together as a group and
doing bad things, not necessarily always as bad as like
what we just saw in Cincinnati. There's a picture from
a shopping area in this town, Gloucester Township. Back last year,

(11:00):
the teens brawled and destroyed property in.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
This during this festival day, this township day that they have.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
And I gotta say, I get it. I get it.
I would like to know what you think. I would
like to know what you think. Do you think that
parents should somehow whether it's jail time or a fine
or both or something, but do you think that parents
should somehow be on the hook for their kids' bad behavior,

(11:30):
especially when it's repeated bad behavior? Right, so, the parent's
not going to go to jail for a kid's first offense,
but for repeated bad behavior, multiple offenses, the parent clearly
not getting the kid under control. Do you think the
parents should have any liability an illegal risk? Is it

(11:52):
manifestly unfair or even maybe unconstitutional? I don't know to
say that we're going to put one person in jail
for something that another person did, even if the person
who did the wrong thing as a child who should
be under control the parent, It's a tough call.

Speaker 1 (12:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
I don't know if any of these kinds of cases
have ever been appealed up to a higher level of
court to see whether it's permissible at all. But I
gotta say, look, ninety days in jail sounds like a lie.
And you know, especially maybe you've got a lower income
parent who is just trying to make ends, meat, just
trying to put food on the family, as George W.
Bush would say, And now what you're gonna put him

(12:30):
in jail for one or two or three months, lose
their job, maybe not be able to feed the family.
I don't know, there's there's some real there's some real
issues here. But on the other hand, how are you
going to control these out of control maniac brats.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
Someone's got to control them.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
So at that point, your choices are either do something
to make the parents get them under control, or be
more willing to put the kids in jail. I don't
know what the right answer is, but I have a
lot of sympathy to the idea of somehow holding parents
responsible for kids bad behavior, especially when it's repeated bad behavior.

(13:12):
I would love to know your thoughts on any part
of this text me at five six, six nine zero.
We've got an incredible guest in the next segment of
the show, Keep.

Speaker 1 (13:21):
It right here on Koa.

Speaker 2 (13:22):
We are out at Broncos Park covering Broncos training camp.

Speaker 1 (13:27):
I'll be here today and tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
A few players just starting to walk out onto the
practice field, but literally a few, maybe four or five
players practice. Definitely not actually going yet, but awesome to
be here. I just this is one of my favorite things,
is coming out here and watching these guys.

Speaker 1 (13:43):
Said, Oh, you know, since I.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
I briefly, very very briefly played wide receiver in college,
I didn't even get into a game. I was on
the team. But is the equivalent of practice squad And
now I get I'm maybe one hundred feet from me.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
There is who is that? Is that Valte No catching
balls right now?

Speaker 3 (14:01):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (14:02):
Pat Bryant, Pat Bryan wide receiver. Yeah, and he's.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
He's catching balls coming out of this jugs machine. He's
maybe twelve feet from the machine and the footballs are
coming out like a speeding bullet and he's just catching them.
And I think I said this last time as I
was here, I would really like to catch one from
that machine. I would really like the opportunity to catch one,
although I'd be afraid that I'd misjudge it would hit

(14:25):
me right in the face.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
And break my nose, and that would be just please
make sure I'm recording first. That would be the end
of me.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
So I asked, really, something, We've got an unbelievable interview
coming up in just a few minutes.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
I want to do one.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Other story first before I get to that. So I
mentioned to you, gosh, it was yesterday. Actually, President Trump
was asked in a press conference a question that he
actually seemed a little bit surprised to get, in the
sense that he didn't think people knew about it yet
as a thing that we're talking about. The thing being
the potential reclassification of marijuana from Schedule one. Schedule one

(15:01):
means a drug with a high propensity for abuse and
no medical use. Obviously, marijuana does not.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
Belong in Category one. Really, it probably shouldn't be.

Speaker 2 (15:15):
It probably shouldn't be classified at all, the same way
tobacco isn't, for example, and alcohol isn't.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
It shouldn't be.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
But in any case, he's talking about at least lowering
it down on the classification scale.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
And one of the things I've mentioned this a time or.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
Two, but one of the problems with marijuana being a
Category one drug is that even if it's legal at
a state level, and it makes everything very confusing, right
illegal at the federal level, but they don't enforce it
legal at the state lel. But what it means is
that from the federal perspective, there is no such thing
as a legitimate business that involves marijuana from a federal perspective, right.

(15:57):
And so what that further means is that businesses that
are in the marijuana business cannot take most tax deductions
that normal businesses can take. They can deduct cost of
good soul, right, so if you buy something for a

(16:18):
dollar and sell it for a dollar twenty, you're paying
tax on twenty, not on a dollar twenty. But they
cannot deduct ordinary business expenses like rent, for.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
Example, or salaries, I believe. So it makes it.

Speaker 2 (16:33):
Far, far, far more expensive to run, let's say, a
marijuana dispensary than to run.

Speaker 1 (16:40):
A bar or a cigar shop, each.

Speaker 2 (16:43):
Of which is selling some other kind of substance that
people want to.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
Put into their bodies.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
So if they reclassify it out of category one down
to you know, they're talking about maybe category three, then
suddenly these businesses.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
Will be able to operate like normal businesses.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
They will not have such a hard time getting a
bank account right, so they won't have to be sitting
on so much cash, which makes the whole situation very dangerous.
And I sure hope they do it again. I've never
touched marijuana, I've never tried a cigarette.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
I'm not interested in using any of this stuff.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
But as a matter of just common sense, I really
think they should do it. Here's the other thick, quick
thing I want to mention, and then we're going to
get to this fantastic conversation we're gonna have with Elliott
Ackerman in a moment. And that's and that's the politics
of this. It's very interesting to see Donald Trump in
his first in his campaign, seeing Donald Trump really trying

(17:41):
to appeal to younger voters and in a certain category
of voters. For example, Donald Trump really was aggressively pro cryptocurrency.
And you know cryptocurrency, you're you're mostly talking now when
we're talking about voters, so people at least eighteen, but
you're going to be mostly talking about people under the
age of forty, maybe under the age of thirty, dealing

(18:02):
with cryptocurrency. And that's not a target audience that you
normally think of Republicans as going after but Trump did,
and Trump picked up an enormous percentage of the young
vote part of the reason that he won. And what
I think is so interesting about the discussion about potential
marijuana reclassification out of Schedule one into Schedule three coming

(18:22):
from a Republican president who is famous for not drinking
and not using drugs, is that he knows that there
is a big, big constituency for making it easier, making
it less expensive to access marijuana. So I think the
politics of it are fascinating. And again, to have a
guy like Trump, who doesn't drink hates drugs talking about

(18:42):
declassifying it says something very interesting about the politics of
the situation.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
All right, let's do something completely different.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
I am so pleased to welcome back to the show
Elliot Akerman.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
Oh I've got to get my book. Hold on, let
me go over here, let me get my book. There's
my book. Oh there it is, Okay, my book, Elliott.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
I got the I got the Advanced Reader's edition, which
I love getting these things.

Speaker 1 (19:05):
Uh, okay.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
So Elliott Ackerman is a best selling author and a
legit badass and a and a very interesting guy. His
his career has involved being a US Marine Corps raider,
which is a small organization that you don't hear too
much about.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
Maybe he'll tell us. Uh.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
He was also apparently involved in ground Branch. I'm kind
of surprised that I think we all know that, because
I might think I could tell you, but I'd have
to kill you, you know if if you know special activities
and all this stuff. And just really a remarkably interesting guy.
He writes books of his own. He's also co authored
books with our mutual friend Admiral James Stavridis and h Elliott.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
Is really good to have you back on the show.

Speaker 4 (19:47):
Thank you, Yeah, thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
I finished the whole book. The Elliott's new book is
called Sheep Dogs. I read the whole thing. We're going
to talk about it in a couple of minutes. It's
a really fun read and quite different from most thrillers.
But before can we get to that, I want to
I've been reading a lot about you, and you just
seem like a fascinating dude, and I want to ask you.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
A couple of things. Yeah, how about it, So first
let's start.

Speaker 2 (20:10):
I actually spent much of my childhood living on and
near Camp Pendleton, even though my parents were Navy, so
I got a very soft place in my heart for
the Marine Corps.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
Tell us about what the who the Raiders are.

Speaker 5 (20:25):
The Marine Raiders are the Marine Corps contributions to US
Special operations commands. So you know, the Navy has its Seals,
the Army has its Rangers, and the Marines have the Raiders.
And we're actually the one of the oldest special operations
units in the United States founded after the during the
Second World War, but were stood down and then only
stood up and be back again in two thousand and six.

Speaker 2 (20:48):
That okay, that makes sense, that that would explain why
they're not the Raiders are not as well known as
green Berets, Rangers, Seals and so on.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
But it sounds really badass, and yeah, it's.

Speaker 5 (21:04):
Really it's a it's a it's a it's a great unit.
It was, you know, it was really stood up out
of the Marine Force reconnaissance.

Speaker 4 (21:11):
Units, so kind of sure. How like, if you know
the history.

Speaker 5 (21:14):
Of the Seals, they were stood up out at the UDTs,
the underwater demolition teams. The Raiders were stood up out
of the recon units from the Marine Corps and I
was actually one of the very early raiders, so I was.

Speaker 4 (21:24):
I was a recom marine before I was a Marine raider.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
I read a very interesting piece that described some of
the early interactions between you and I'm going to get
the rank wrong, but maybe master sergeant kind of guy
when you were a fresh lieutenant just coming out of
being I guess first in your class at Quantico. And
it was an interesting story about how at first he

(21:51):
thought he would kind of show the young lieutenant who's
really in charge, and how that developed into a tremendous
working relationship, and also just the way you approached him
initially when you found out he was undermining you. Can
you talk about that a little bit. I'm really interested
in it from sort of a military and management kind

(22:13):
of perspective.

Speaker 5 (22:15):
Yeah, it's a kind of a longer story, but basically,
you know this idea he was.

Speaker 4 (22:20):
He was actually a young sergeant.

Speaker 5 (22:21):
I was a young lieutenant, so we were you know,
I think he was like twenty two and I was
twenty four. I'm a very competent guy, like probably one
of the best sergeants in our battalion of a thousand Marines.
But you know, he didn't like the young new guy,
and I asked him to do something and he didn't
do it, and I told him that, you know, the
leadership is basically it's not only being loyal to your people,
it's also being loyal to you, to your seniors. And

(22:43):
so we kind of were butting heads for a while.
And at one point, about a month or two into
being in Iraq together, we got into a firefight. We
were ambushed and I was dealing with a wounded marine
who lost his leg and some other things, and he
asked me a question the firefight and I and I
turned him said, you know, go go fight your squad,
like you know, you're you're, you're, you're one of the

(23:04):
best arted, Like, just go fight your squad, like I
trust you, go do your thing. And he the Layer
told me, he's like, you know, that really turned a
corner with me, that you would just trust me, even
though we had such a hard relationship, and he and
I became like great friends. We fought in Fallujah together.
I was in his wedding. We hang out, We hang out.
I think I saw him about I don't know. I
saw him last month and we went and had burgers

(23:25):
in New York City. So you know, you get really
deep lasting friendships here and we still we still laugh
about that one.

Speaker 1 (23:32):
We're talking with Elliot Ackerman.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
His new book is called Sheep Dogs, and we want
to talk more about the book in in in one second.
Uh you you you mentioned Falujah. It seems like, based
on what I read about you, that you were involved
in some of the most intense fighting in in all of.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
The Iraq War.

Speaker 2 (23:54):
And tell me if the story is right, because kind
of a remarkable story. But if you guys were the
tip of the spear over and over and over again,
and an incredibly high rate given what you were doing
of members of your battalion or platoon or whoever you're
going out with getting injured.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
But nobody died, is that right?

Speaker 4 (24:18):
In my platoon? No Americans? No Americans died in my life.

Speaker 5 (24:22):
Yeah, yeah, we had over fifty percent you know, casualty rate.

Speaker 4 (24:27):
But we you know, we just got lucky.

Speaker 5 (24:28):
I mean, you know, the one thing I think you
learn you learn pretty quickly on the battlefield is you
know whether or not people ever dies off and it's
just a matter of luck. I mean, it's a matter
of inches. So I attribute that one too, dumb.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
Luck all right, Well, I get what you're saying, but
I'll also say fortune favors the well prepared, so there's
probably a little of both there.

Speaker 5 (24:53):
Yeah, like this is in false monest I mean listened, Like,
incompetence can definitely get a lot of people killed, for sure,
But I also know some really competent gu who did
their missions really well, and sally, some people done.

Speaker 4 (25:03):
Everybody going to come home.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
I saw you on television yesterday with our mutual friend Leland,
and you made a really interesting comment that I wanted
to ask you about today, And my memory is so
bad that I won't even remember exactly what Leland asked you,
but it was along the lines of Vladimir Putin is
willing to sacrifice an unlimited number of men to get

(25:28):
what he needs. So why should we think this war
is going to end up in any way other than
something that's more or less a Russian victory. And I
don't know if you remember your answer to when he said,
Vladimir Putin is willing to keep throwing men at this
Do you remember what you said yesterday?

Speaker 5 (25:46):
It's thing effective like he's willing to and the Russian
people are willing to until they aren't and then everything collapses,
and that's very difficult. It's very difficult to know when
you're you know, you're playing uncle with somebody. So everybody
looks very strong until they suddenly don't. I mean, listen
in our experience, I think right an example that is Afghanistan.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
What happened a few years ago where.

Speaker 5 (26:06):
We had, you know, so many resources, the Afghan Army
had had so much money thrown at it. You know,
they had hundreds of thousands of men on the books,
you know, and then.

Speaker 4 (26:14):
Just sort of collapse.

Speaker 5 (26:17):
So that's sort of you know, we often forget that,
like warfare is fundamentally politics, and you know, we've all
seen stunning upsets in American political life recently, and someone
who's definitely going to lose and tell boom, they win,
and it's the same.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
Yeah, that the Afghan Army was. The was the Potempkin
Village of armies for sure. Yeah, And you know, you
you remind me a bit of a By the way,
I'm president of the Bad Analogy Club. I'm not sure
if you knew that, but there's a line I like
a lot from Herbstein, who used to be Richard Nixon's

(26:52):
chief of his Council of Economic Advisors, and he talked
about something that really relates to economics, but I think
it ties into what you just said. He said, if
something cannot go on forever, it will stop. And it
seems trite, but nobody ever thinks of it. People think
that stuff's gonna.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Go on forever.

Speaker 2 (27:09):
They extrapolate everything in a straight line. And I just
loved that point that you made with Leland yesterday. Russia
can throw men at it until they can't.

Speaker 5 (27:20):
Yeah, and uh, you know, and we see that and
then and then after it happens in hindsight, everybody, you know,
everybody predicted it, but it's important, Like it feels like
in the moment where it's like, oh my god, you
know that this thing's a juggernaut. There's no way, there's
no way, you know that the underdog can ever win,
and then they do. I mean, so I'm not predicting
it because I think predicting these things is a fool's
Errand the only thing that I predict is that, like,

(27:41):
it'll probably be surprising, and you know, when the collapse
comes one way or another, it will probably be very.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
Fast, right, Yeah. Nothing dumber to try to predict than war.

Speaker 2 (27:51):
Right, Yeah, there's literally nothing more chaotic in the human
experience than war. Let's talk about Sheep Dogs. So again
for listeners, we're talking with Elliot Ackerman. His new thriller
novel is called Sheep Dogs, and I want to talk
about it carefully because they don't want to give away much.
But it's it's very very you know, I read a

(28:11):
lot of thrillers, you know, a lot of my friends are,
and is a real it's really different in style, in plot,
in everything. It's in a way it's more fun than
most of them. I think the style is lighter, more conversational.
And also, to me, this was a big thing. The

(28:32):
nicknames and call signs of characters in this book are
so ridiculous. It like kept a smile on my face
through the entire book.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (28:42):
Well, yeah, I wanted to, like, I wanted to tell
a story that was very much rooted in the fact
that and I've written a lot of books. A lot
of my books are pretty serious. The reality is like
war is too serious.

Speaker 4 (28:53):
To take it seriously all the time.

Speaker 5 (28:55):
And the truth is, like, guys, who I've been in
a lot of very tense situations and guys were constantly
cutting jokes and cutting up and it's really like a
it's a way to off gas tension, but it's also
a way to like, all right, as bad as things are,
like I'm in control, it's I'm still in control because
I can tell a joke right now. So I want
to just kind of capture the humor and that vibe
and a thriller.

Speaker 4 (29:15):
I mean, the books about these two guys. One's name Swirl.

Speaker 5 (29:18):
He's a down on his luxier guy raider like me.
The other's named Cheese. He was like Afghanistan's Maverick, the
greatest pilot they ever produced, as Waal Sun was the
big Cheese disease. And they become international repo men. And
the book opens in the repossessing a jet for a
guy named sheep Dog, and nobody knows who sheep Dog is,
and that's sort of one of the mysteries behind the book.
But I want it to be fun and I wanted

(29:39):
to kind of capture and be a portrait of this
world that I know, where, yes, the serious stuff we
often see, all the serious, intense stuff, we don't see
how funny a lot of these guys are.

Speaker 4 (29:48):
And it's the truth like, you know.

Speaker 5 (29:50):
Dudes in the special operations community are pretty damn funny.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
I'm at the risk of making this a little bit
more serious. A thread that runs through the plot of
the book is a military action that happens within the
book that seems to parallel something you dealt with when
you were in the military yourself. And I'm curious, you know,

(30:16):
how much is it supposed to really be like what
you went through. How much of it is just a
vague little hook that let you build up the kind
of the thing that's in the book.

Speaker 5 (30:28):
I mean, you know, listen one of the things I saw,
you know, I mean I was over for eight years,
and so I was involved in and since where you know,
everything wasn't always what it was seemed. I was involved
in raids where everyone on the target wasn't necessarily you know,
enemy or Taliban, and you had to deal with that,
and I wanted to, you know, I wanted to hang
the story on some of those complexities which are very

(30:49):
real and don't always get talked about. You know, the
fact of the matter is like the wars in Iraq
in Afghanistan. If you want to do like a movie parallels.
I love those movie parallels. It's not really saving Private Ryan.
It's more like the God or the Sopranos, and you,
as a service member entered into a world where there
it really isn't a very clear line between the good
guys and the bad guys. There's a lot of gray area,

(31:10):
and it's a real challenge to navigate that gray area.

Speaker 2 (31:13):
One of the things that fascinates me about Sheep Dogs,
and again I don't want to say too much, but
in retrospect looking at it, it's hard to say that
there's anybody in that book who is really a bad
guy where you know, right, like and you read some
of your friends and mine, Jack Carr, Brad Taylor, these guys,

(31:38):
there's always someone in the book who is evil and
you shoot him in the head yourself if you could, right,
there's nobody like that in your book.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
And even when.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
Guys are doing something that seems kind of wrong, then
you finish the book and like, you know what, there's
really it really is remarkable how nuanced these characters are.

Speaker 5 (32:01):
Yeah, I think, and that's you know, that's how I
experience life. You know, I want to write something that's
action pack, that is fun, but it's true, and you know,
I walk through those worlds I didn't meet. I met
a lot of people who are very complicated, who've done
some really hard and brutal things, but they weren't mustache
twisting villains. You know, no one's evil in their own head.

(32:21):
You know, everyone's got their reasons. Everyone's the hero of
their own story. And so, you know, I want when
I write a character in a book, I want that
character when they're on the page and you're reading about them.
They're making their case to you the reader, like they're
making their case before God, and you might not agree
with them, or at least you get the world according
to them.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
Yeah, folks, we're talking with Elliott Ackerman. His new thriller
novel is called Sheep Dogs, and I highly recommend it.
It's just a wonderful summer read with some really interesting characters,
including a lady who works as something more or less
like a dominatrix, which is really quite a funny character
who's she based.

Speaker 5 (32:57):
On nobody, But you know, like Squirrel, the protagonist, he's
a former ground branch guy like me, who basically got fired.
He's down on his luck and he's had he's lived
this whole sort of double life, and he's lived on
the margins of society for a long time. Nobody knows
who he is or really what he does. And he
and he meets Shane, this dominatrix, uh, kind of at
a dark night. He goes to see her, and you know,

(33:20):
and he realizes they have a lot in common. They
both live on the margins of society.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
You know.

Speaker 5 (33:24):
She basically tells him, I'm no different than the therapist.
You know, i both beat the shit out it. We
both beat the shit out of people to help the
problems of sorry, and and anyways, so you know, it's
about people who are kind of on the outs of
American life finding common ground with each other.

Speaker 4 (33:40):
And that's sort of where she said.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
Sim Elie Ackerman's new book is called Sheep Dogs. Clear
to me at the at the end, there will be
another one with these characters. I sure hope. So, I
sure hope. So it's just a lot of fun, folks.
You want to get a thriller novel that you can
just sit read, enjoy, sit at the beach or the pool,
and you know, and just just have a smile on
your face the whole time.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
The Sheep Dogs will do that for you, Elliot.

Speaker 2 (34:04):
Ackerman, thanks for your time, thanks for another wonderful book,
and thank you most of all for your service to
our country.

Speaker 4 (34:12):
Thanks Ruch, thanks for having me on.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Glad to do it. We'll take a quick break. We'll
be right back on KOA.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
I want to go right now to our special guest,
Phil Goldberg. Phil is special counsel for the Manufacturer's Accountability Project,
and what we're going to talk about here for a
few minutes is a lawsuit that, on the surface is
about Boulder, but really has major national implications. It's a

(34:39):
lawsuit brought by the kind of people who I frequently
describe to you as claiming they love the planet but
actually just hating people and it.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
So I don't need to say more here. Let's go.

Speaker 2 (34:52):
Let's go right to our guest, Phil. Welcome to KOA.
It's good to have you here.

Speaker 6 (34:56):
Ross, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (34:59):
So why don't we just start with telling us what
the lawsuit not your lawsuit. Your lawsuit is about another lawsuit.
Tell us what that other lawsuit is about first, and
then we'll get to your lawsuit.

Speaker 7 (35:09):
Yeah, well, I appreciate that, Ross, and trust me I'd
rather be talking football right now as we get ready
for a fun season, but unfortunately we're talking about litigation
and climate change and those kinds of things. So there's
been an effort by you know, the individual I guess
you've described to make climate change a litigation issue, but

(35:31):
their litigation is not about doing anything about climate change,
is not going to be meaningfully solve anything. It's really
just a political ploy to try to raise, you know,
raise the issue.

Speaker 6 (35:43):
But that's not what but that at the end of
the day, if these.

Speaker 7 (35:46):
Lawsuits succeed, it's really going to cost a lot of
US money because it's going to raise the price of
energy because it make it more expensive for the kind
of things that we need to do every day.

Speaker 6 (35:55):
And the manufacturing community is very.

Speaker 7 (35:57):
Concerned about this litigation, not just because because are the cost,
but because it tries to target them and make them
responsible for they are really these these social political issues,
and that's not what the courts are for. And so
this case has been has been put before the US
Supreme Court this week and hopefully the court will take

(36:17):
the case and take a look at it. But it's
something that should be of concern to everybody that listens
to this show and that uses energy for their homes
and their cars and all that stuff. Because if this
is successful, it's going to make a lot more expensive
to do that.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
So Boulder is suing sun Core and I don't know
who else Exon and just one last thing on their
lawsuit and then we'll get to the nuts and bolts
of yours.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
What do they want?

Speaker 7 (36:44):
So what they're saying is that that they want to
be able to say we want to blame one company
or two companies for climate change and make them pay
us money being Boulder and for things that they say
are climate change related harms they you know, years ago.
So this litigation started out as directly trying to use
the courts to make energy policy. That all got thrown

(37:07):
out of the courts because the courts aren't the place
to do that. The Congress and federal agencies and all
that is where you make energy policy. So they just
rejiggered the litigation. They trying to make it sound different,
but really it's all about the same thing.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (37:19):
So to me, it's absolutely crystal clear obvious that this
lawsuit cannot be allowed at state court because these involve
federal and international issues, and it went to the State
Supreme Court, and the State Supreme Court said, yeah, it
can go ahead. There was a very strong dissent by

(37:40):
Justice Somemore joined by Boatwright.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
So is your lawsuit essentially arguing that almost.

Speaker 2 (37:49):
Regardless of what you think of the claims by Boulder,
and I do think they're frivolous, but even if you didn't,
that this cannot be a case that precedes in state court.

Speaker 6 (37:59):
Well, that's exactly right.

Speaker 7 (38:00):
So what the what the you know, what the defendants
in the case, the Exxon and UH and some core saying,
is these are issues dealing with climate change, dealing with
energy policy, how energy is and UH fuel is produced,
sold market, all that all around the world cannot be

(38:20):
decided by any state's law. That is something that is national,
international in scope, and so UH and what Bould is
trying to do is say, no, we just want to
we want to be able to get money.

Speaker 6 (38:29):
We want to be able to do this under Colorado laws.

Speaker 7 (38:31):
So if we're telling you what you can or can't
do in other states and other countries, we're allowed to
do that. And that's what the that the Colorado Supreme
Court said is that they're allowed to proceed under state
law and let state law govern the international production, sale,
and marketing of fuel. And that's just not what the
law could be because every state would do it differently,

(38:51):
and every state would try to do it in a
very selfish way. And that's why when you have these
kind of international these interstate issues, it's always been something
at the federal level has to decide. Because they could
decide it one way, they can decide it for the
whole country. Then they're not hitting every state against each other.

Speaker 2 (39:08):
I thought that there was precedent kind of along these
lines already saying you know, this kind of thing is
clearly federal and can't be in a state court. But
if the state supreme court said you can go ahead,
maybe I'm wrong. I mean, is there a precedent. Do
you think there's precedent that, yeah, you're not wrong.

Speaker 7 (39:28):
About fourteen years ago, the US Supreme Court had a
very similar case where they said, you know, it would
be inappropriate to use any state law to decide these
kinds of issues, that they are a special federal interest.
But that case was brought under federal law. It was
not brought under state laws. So to try to get
around that they you know, that's why these cases have

(39:49):
been repackaged and reframed in ways to try to make
it sound like it's just a normal, you know, run
of the mill Toork lawsuit, but it's really not. Unfortunately,
the Colorado Supreme Court or said they're allowed to go
forward with it. But at the end of the day,
I think the US Supreme Court is going to have
to step in because they're about three dozen of these
floating around the country about you know, A bunch of

(40:11):
the states have said no to them already, a lot
of courtses said no to them. A couple of courses
said okay, so you're really ending up with this pock
marked landscape of decisions that just can't survive the end
of the day.

Speaker 6 (40:26):
It has to be we have to have a uniform
response to this kind of litigation.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
Okay, So last question for you.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
So the status right now is that the defendants in
the case with amicus brief from you guys and some
others are trying to get the Supreme Court to agree
to hear the case.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
Is that where we are trying to get.

Speaker 7 (40:46):
That's exactly right. I said, there's about three dozen these
cases around the country. We need a uniform answer, and
then we want the Supreme Court to step in now
so that we can avoid all these years of litigation,
which is very expensive and time consuming, and just get
to the right answer.

Speaker 1 (41:01):
Now.

Speaker 7 (41:02):
What the others are saying is no, the Supreme Court
can hold off on this decide it later because they
want to use the litigation as a political cudgel, and
that's not really what litigation is for.

Speaker 6 (41:12):
Litigation is really meant to solve rights and wrongs and
that kind of thing, and that's not what this case
is about.

Speaker 2 (41:17):
Phil Goldberg is special counsel for the Manufacturers Accountability Project.

Speaker 1 (41:22):
Thanks for your time, Phil.

Speaker 2 (41:23):
We'll keep up with you on this very very important
case that happens to be local to us.

Speaker 7 (41:28):
I appreciate that and enjoy the rest of the day
at the Broncos practice facility.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
Very good, Thank you, Phil.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
All Right, So, yeah, Boulder is nuts and people and
people who elect the people in Boulder are nuts, and
they want to raise our costs of living massively with
this lawsuit. Again, to me, I was actually kind of
surprised that our state Supreme Court allowed it to go forward.
And it just puts you one more nail in the
coffin of our state Supreme Court. We have one of

(41:57):
the worst state supreme courts in the country. Hopefully the
or Supreme Court will overturn them soon we'll be right
back on Kowa.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
Of course, this.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
Reminds me of my favorite movie of all time, Monty
Python in The Holy Grail with the Killer Bunny.

Speaker 1 (42:08):
You know, the Killer Bunny.

Speaker 2 (42:10):
So this is a so apparently down in Florida, they've
got South Florida in particular, they've got a big, big
problem with pythons. And at some point somebody probably released
a pet python and got down in the wild, maybe
was pregnant. Whenever, they've got lots and lots of pythons
down there. It's a big problem. And they're not very

(42:30):
easy to catch, you're not very easy to kill, not
very easy to deal with. And so the folks in
Florida trying to figure out what to do. And of course,
what you'd want to do with something like that, with
an animal that's well camouflaged in hiding, is you'd want
to lure him out, And with pythons, a really good
thing to lure them out is bunnies.

Speaker 1 (42:51):
And this is let's see, where's this from?

Speaker 2 (42:54):
Click Orlando dot com is this is this site and
they're talking to a guy named Mike Kirkland, who is
the lead invasive animal biologist for the South Florida Water
Management District from Nick's old neighborhood. And he says, for
the python issue, detection is our biggest challenge. So the

(43:14):
first phase involved using live rabbits in the field. These
were rabbits kept in pens and they had food, shelter, water,
toys for enrichment. I like that, even kept under strict
animal husbandry standards. And these rabbits were actually able to
lure pythons out of their holes to check out the bunnies.

(43:35):
But dealing with live bunnies like this costs a lot
of time, costs a lot of money, and you know,
obviously bunny might just run away.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
You know, you who knows what a live bunny is
gonna do.

Speaker 2 (43:47):
So what they're doing now is they're replacing the live
bunnies with robot bunnies.

Speaker 1 (43:51):
I think this is awesome. So here's what he says.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
These are just toy rabbits that were purchased on Amazon,
I think, and they already have some movement to them.
They've been rich fitted with a heating source and we
give them some extra movement. So the idea is a
lot of these snakes kind of see more towards the
infrared spectrum, so they can kind of see heat, if
you can imagine that. So if you're going to take
just a cold little robot bunny and put it out there,

(44:16):
it might not it might not fool the snake. But
you put a little heat supply, a heating source on
the little robot.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
Bunny, and the snake might come out and get it.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
And then the other thing that they're gonna do to
make the robot bunnies even better is they're gonna put
some kind of little rabbit stink on them, some kind
of little rabbit smell emitter thing that should really that
should really fool the fool the snake.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
So I like this at all. Let's see what else
does he say. He says that they're also gonna put.

Speaker 2 (44:47):
AI cameras to try to determine on the bunnies, to
try to determine whether the thing coming at the bunny
as an actual snake. And I was wondering whether the
python would actually eat a robot bunny. And this is
where I was hoping the story was gonna go. But
it's not going here.

Speaker 1 (45:03):
But I'll just tell you what I was hoping. I
was hoping that it was a robot bunny.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
Ied and that the python would swallow the robot bunny
and then the robot bunny would explode and then take
out the These guys are looking at me like, wouldn't
that be awesome? Otherwise you gotta go catch the snake.
And a Rod's shaking his head. Nobody is down.

Speaker 8 (45:25):
With this idea. I'm totally down with it. You remember
the movie Tremors with Kevin Bacon. Yeah, they used a
little stick of dynamite and the tremmor ate it and
blew up all the guts everywhere.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Bring it on a little robot bunny ied. But that
that's not what they're doing.

Speaker 2 (45:39):
I guess they're just using it to lure the bunnies out.
They lure those snakes out, and then they'll catch the
snakes and do whatever they're gonna do. Yeah, they say,
the detection system, that's what the cameras for the camera
will detect whether a snake has.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
Come out, gonna come out. That will alert.

Speaker 2 (45:53):
Somebody and then a private contractor who the city or
the state will hire, will come out and remove the python.
They detected, by the way, twenty six pythons in three months.

Speaker 1 (46:03):
So they say that's a lot. We don't know. But
I still think.

Speaker 2 (46:07):
I still think a robot bunny I ed would be
would be awesome. Arod is sounding frustrated about about something.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
All right, I tell you what. We're at training camp here.

Speaker 2 (46:17):
I'm and practice going now a little bit at least,
and we're gonna have Ryan Edwards and join us. And
if Nick Ferguson will deign to sit down with us,
I don't know if we have headphones for him, but maybe.
But we'll talk a little bit about what's going on
in in Broncos training camp, and I might drag these
guys into just some random conversations about some non football nonsense,

(46:39):
which is always fun too. Keep it here on KOA.
We are at Broncos training camp. KOA at Training Camp
is powered by Chevron, committed to our local communities and
safely delivering affordable, reliable energy that powers Colorado forward.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
Hi, Ryan, how's going?

Speaker 2 (46:54):
It's going? God, You've got a better view than I do.
We'll talk a little about what's going on at training.

Speaker 1 (46:59):
Which place is you? Uh oh, that would be interesting.

Speaker 5 (47:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
Now I think it's more important that you have a
better view than I do. Uh So.

Speaker 2 (47:06):
One of the things I talked about briefly with a
Rod yesterday when when when he was on with me
is the first preseason game. Uh is obviously just the
first preseason game. You don't need too much into it.
But as you know, a guy who watched the season
last year, the especially the beginning of the first preseason game,
felt oddly familiar with an offense that was sputtering a

(47:28):
little bit. They got it going, but it's sputtering a
little bit and a bit of a slow start. And
and again, this is what you do every day talking
about this stuff. But I have a vague recollection of
something Sean Payton has been talking about a fair bit
as wanting to avoid slow starts. Right, So pick that
up and go wherever you want to with it. Yeah,
well that was not a fast start on defense or

(47:50):
on offense.

Speaker 8 (47:51):
Right.

Speaker 9 (47:51):
You gave up seven points before you could blink on defense,
and then the offense when well they didn't go through
and now they ran seven plays, but they got to midfield,
had a punt anyways, and then they didn't score points.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
In the second drive.

Speaker 9 (48:02):
It wasn't until the third drive when the defense got
a turnover that they were able to get only three
points out of it. So that is considered by everybody's
metric a slow start. But it's preseason. Yeah, so it's
one of those weird things like you kind of have
to measure this in a couple different ways because if
this was a regular season game, I think we would
have a significantly different take than a preseason game where

(48:22):
you aren't working on some concepts, both teams are working
on some things. You're not actually game planning for your opponents.
You're looking for some compete mode moments in the game,
and so you can measure those.

Speaker 1 (48:36):
Hey, you drop this Passcortland sudden? Hey B Nicks, you
missed an open receiver. Hey RJ.

Speaker 9 (48:43):
Harvey, you should have seen the gap with a hole
where you could have punched it through instead of bouncing
it outside. I think those things are absolutely fair to measure,
But when it comes to the overall productivity, I think
that there always has to.

Speaker 2 (48:54):
Be again, a measured way to look at it. Just
a little thing I noticed this morning. I don't know
if it's leading to a question for he would all
just mention it. So this morning they had the jugs
machine over there and Courtland Sutton was catching some balls
out of the machine and I saw him catching, you know,
catching a few, and then next thing I look up,
Sean Payton is standing right with him, and only Sean

(49:16):
Payton standing right with him, and I saw Peyton.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
Now stand up so I can show Ryan.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
But Sean Payton was doing you know this like like
the the most minute detail of coaching Courtland Sutton, who's
our best receiver on footwork, And.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
I thought that was really interesting that level of detail. Yeah,
he does that a lot.

Speaker 9 (49:38):
I mean he'll actually do that with really both sides
of the football, which is kind of cool to watching
in an offensive minded coach getting into the minutia and
he cares about it a lot. Yeah, As he said,
he had fourteen things that were not even related to
the game that pissed him off with the weekend. But
he gets into the minutia and including out here on
the practice field, there's a specific way he wants to

(49:59):
see it. His coaches to coaches, and he'll let everybody know,
right and whether it's the individual player the individual coach groups.
It's fun to see him sometimes when they're practicing situational
moments in games and he'll talk to both sides of
the football. He'd be like, all right, so this is
what you're trying to do. This is what you're trying
to do. This is how much time has left. This

(50:20):
is how many timeouts each of you has. This is
the point in the game that this is happening. And
so I want you to put yourself in that situation defense.
You cannot give up this offense. This is what you
need to accomplish. And it's really kind of cool to watch.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
Yeah, I found it as a guy who like briefly
kind of sort of tried to play wide receiver in college.
Watching that interaction I found really, really, really fascinating. Last year,
one of the weak spots for the Broncos, I thought, again,
I don't know much, so you tell me, but I
thought one of the weak spots was running back. And

(50:54):
this year it seems like we've got a veteran and
a and a young guy who have some potential and
I haven't seen him much.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
So what are you seeing from RJ. Harvey And what's
sailor at Dobbins. Yes, JK. Dobbins, you don't give yourself
enough credit. Ross. I'm just saying you're absolutely right. Running
back was a weak point.

Speaker 9 (51:12):
For the team, which is why they spent a second
round pick on RJ. Harvey, and then after they got
into OTA's they added JK. Dobbins as a free agent
because they needed a veteran in the room, and then R. J.
Harvey represents a bit of that upside swing for them.
A guy that has a lot of explosive nature iness
is running ability, plus he can catch passes out of

(51:33):
the backfield.

Speaker 1 (51:33):
So the way they did it, they knew they needed
to improve that, but they also improved some of the
blocking they're doing along the offensive line.

Speaker 9 (51:39):
It's the same guys, but from a technique standpoint, they're
doing some different things out there. So I won't get
into the nitty gritty of that, but I'll just say
that they took.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
A look at the run game. They said none of
it is good enough.

Speaker 9 (51:52):
But they felt and they said it to us at
the combine that they identified it more so on for
the running back than the offensive line itself. They thought
the holes were there for the offensive line, the running
backs were just not executing it, which is why they
added those guys. Now to your point, you won't see
a lot of it out here at camp. They will
run the ball, but it's tough to know really how

(52:13):
good the running game is because if a running back
breaks a tackle, well, in the game, you know what
that looks like. Out here, they don't tackle to the ground,
so you'll never know, right so it's like, oh, well,
you know, two hand touch, he's down out here.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
But in the game, that running back, maybe JK. Dobbins
or RJ.

Speaker 9 (52:31):
Harvey might break that tackle and take it to the house,
and that matters, especially in a game so out here,
it's tough to really know how good the running game is.

Speaker 1 (52:38):
But we got a sense of that, and I think
we saw some good early returns, especially we're in the depth.
When they got into the third and fourth team.

Speaker 9 (52:45):
We saw some of the running backs Audre Guesta, may
Tyler Bade, Blake Watson had a couple of really nice runs.
Jelan McLoughlin would have had a twenty two yarder on
top of everything they did, but it got called back
on penalty.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
But I saw saw some really nice things.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
In the game of the guys who were on the
team last year at running back, Which of them do
you think will make the team this year?

Speaker 1 (53:07):
Boy, that is such a great question. You can put
that on the board. I'd say that right now.

Speaker 9 (53:14):
My lean still remains Julil McLoughlin as the third guy.
Odrick estime definitely has a chance as the fourth guy.
But then they have to keep four running backs. Last
year that Gilly kept three in a full back. So
in a room of six, if there's only three spots
and two of them are for sure taken, then it's
down to whatever they're going to do with that third spot.

(53:36):
Sometimes it's you're doing some gymnastics with the roster right
around cut down, because you have a sense of some
guys that you could release and then bring back to
the practice wise, so like.

Speaker 1 (53:46):
Tyler Bidet is the guy they really like mm hmm.

Speaker 9 (53:48):
If they feel like they can get him back on
their practice squad, they'll release him around fifty three, even
if they like him a lot, because they know they
can bring him back into the building. Same thing with
maybe Addrick Estimey who was a fifth round or last week,
if they feel like they can get him back. Jialil
McLoughlin might have might have he's been in the league
nowt for a few years.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
He might have done too much.

Speaker 9 (54:06):
Some team out there would say, oh, Jelim mcgloffalin, let's
go ahead and go grab him now that he's a
street free agent. And if it's only the option to
come back on the practice, but he may take him
an active roster role, which is more money.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
Let's talk about defense a little bit.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
Uh, I don't know that there were more than zero,
and if there were, weren't wasn't a lot more than
zero passes thrown toward the toward Pets or Tan's side
in that in that game, I mean, everybody knows to
stay away from him, which puts an immense amount of
pressure on the other side. So how are we holding

(54:41):
up on the other side? How is uh, what's his name,
Johnny Barron?

Speaker 1 (54:45):
Is that right? Yep?

Speaker 2 (54:46):
That?

Speaker 1 (54:46):
So how's he doing so far? What do you think?

Speaker 9 (54:49):
I think they're they're in pretty good shape. Actually they're
they're one of the deeper secondaries in the NFL. Adding
John Ay Barron certainly helps that. It's it's nice to
see Jaquon McMillan, By the way, who is the guy
that he's kind of replacing at Nickel. He's had an
interception right interception of the game, he had interception in
practice yesterday. He's been great, and we're gonna actually have
him on KWA Sports tomorrow. There is a little bit

(55:09):
of a pree for that. He'll be on tomorrow, I
think five o'clock. But the point of it is is
that that's your fourth corner right there, assuming jod Day
ends up being the third guy at Riley Moss on
the opposite side, he's playing the boundary and he's been phenomenal.
I mean, he had a little bit of a struggle
at the tail end of last year because he was
coming back from an injury.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
Yeah, he just wasn't himself.

Speaker 9 (55:30):
And sometimes you can see that when a guy goes
out there, he's clearly not one hundred percent. He's trying,
But at that position you kind of almost need to
be at at high level as you could possibly be.

Speaker 2 (55:39):
So are our corner starters certain and Moss for almost
for sure. If nobody gets hurt, that's correct, and then
so is Jodday. Baron Nicol, you move m inside and
play safety.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
What do you do with him? Well? At Texas he
played what is considered the star role or the joker.

Speaker 9 (55:54):
I guess, if you want to take it from Sean
Payton's technology, he played all over the place. He played
some linebacker, he played some safety, he played some corner,
he played some nickel.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
I mean, he played all over the place. Yeah. So
the fact is is you added a guy that has
all that versatility.

Speaker 9 (56:08):
Now he's a rookie, you certainly want to narrow in
a little bit of his learning because maybe eventually he
can be a guy you move around as a chess piece.
But right now you need him to learn nickel, and
you need him to learn outside. And if he can
learn those two things and pick those two things up,
he could be out on the field being productive early
on in the season.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
All Right, a couple more questions for you, and we're
talking with Ryan Edwards, co host of KOA Sports weekdays
three pm to six pm. So Sherfield had a remarkable game,
remarkable enough to get him really thought about as a

(56:46):
guy who's gonna play frequently as a wide receiver and
not just special teams guy.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
I think.

Speaker 9 (56:52):
So, I mean, he's been again, for every team that
he's been on, he has used a lot as a
special teams ace, right, a gunner, a guy that is
gonna be a special teams captain for this team. That's
why you brought him in here. But he's always had
that ability. And and again, you you sort of get
a guy that has a couple of roles for you,

(57:12):
and you get him on a relatively i want to
say cheap contract, but affordable contract, let's say that.

Speaker 1 (57:17):
And and you see what he can do, right, I mean,
he's he's certainly he's not a one.

Speaker 9 (57:20):
He's like, he's not gonna be Jamar Chase By in
each other stretch, but can be a strong four for you,
absolutely right. And and you know last year, I'd say
the four was probably like a little Jordan Humphrey, different
body types, but both kind of special teams guys. Little
Jordan Humphrey maybe a little bit better in the run block.
But again, Trench Surfield isn't isn't bad there. What he

(57:41):
does is some dirty work for you. Yeah, and then
he'll he'll make some clutch catches to this year, I'm
just gonna guarantee you that Trence Sherfield is going to
show up in big time moments for this team.

Speaker 1 (57:51):
Obviously, Bonnix is the starting quarterback.

Speaker 2 (57:53):
But in that first preseason game, uh, Jared Stidham had
the best game maybe any brons player, and there were
a few Broncos players that had really good games. Does
that change anything? I don't mean, is it going to
make him a starter? But does that do anything at all?
The fact that he had that and anything not really,

(58:14):
And I don't.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
Mean to be dismissive of it.

Speaker 9 (58:15):
I understand your question, and I think it's a fair
one because he did have a nice game, right, I mean,
he and he didn't play a full game, but he
had a pretty good stat line, completed a couple of touchdowns. Certainly,
you'd like him to be able to do that against
third team right in the preseason, when they're not game
planning against you get to come in and you're playing
against guys that may not even make an NFL roster. Yeah,

(58:37):
you'd like to see your backup quarterback kind of shred that.
But that doesn't really completely dismiss him either. He's a
good quarterback. He's a high, higher end backup quarterback for
a reason. There's a reason the Broncos continue to prioritize
bringing him back because not only is he good for
Bonnicks to build him up? But if there's something were
to happen to Bow, then you can turn to Jared
Steadham and the team isn't going to fall off the rails.

Speaker 1 (58:57):
And that's that's ultimately what you're looking for from him.
But yeah, he had another good practice yesterday. He's been
steady the entire time. We call him steady, stid him
for a reason. Yeah, steady the entire time.

Speaker 9 (59:07):
And and you're you're happy to have that guy in
the room, but he doesn't represent the upside you ultimately
need at the position.

Speaker 1 (59:14):
And who's our third quarterback?

Speaker 9 (59:15):
Now?

Speaker 1 (59:16):
He is Sam Elliger And what do I need to
know about him? Good? Mobility, really good.

Speaker 9 (59:21):
You know, he actually spends the ball a little bit
better than I I remember watching with Indianapolis.

Speaker 1 (59:26):
I think that's where he was last year.

Speaker 9 (59:28):
But he's Yeah, he's got great mobilities, real fast and
and and if you had to put him in, and
let's say he was active for game day now, he'd
probably be an emergency third quarterback.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
Which means he doesn't get to play unless the other
two guys go down.

Speaker 9 (59:40):
But if you decide not to do that, you could
do some packages with him, like sort of where he
he has the option to run the ball or pass it,
kind of like you saw with Taysom Hill out there
in New Orleans.

Speaker 1 (59:53):
That's a that's a good comparison if he can be
that good. Yeah.

Speaker 9 (59:56):
Well, and he throws the ball better than Taysom Hill. Yeah,
and as far as he's not as big as Taysom Hill,
but Tasom Hill is also.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
A seat versatile.

Speaker 9 (01:00:03):
Can he got well, I don't think you're gonna see
him out of routes, So it's not quite Taysom Hill,
but it's more like the idea of a guy that
can play multiple roles back there.

Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
Yeah, very good.

Speaker 2 (01:00:13):
Ryan Edwards, co host of KAA Sports three pm to
six pm week days. Julia McLoughlin on the show tomorrow.
Any interviews already confirmed for today or not? Yeah, Jakewon McMillan,
Jayqwon McMillan, Yeah, tomorrow, anything for today yet?

Speaker 1 (01:00:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:00:25):
I'm gonna interview Adam Troutman after practice, which would be
a good one. He always has a lot to say,
and I think that there are a lot of people
that are kind of concerned about the offense right now
after watching As you mentioned, the beginning of that game
with the first team, and then yesterday it wasn't a
bad practice for the first team, but they just don't
They're not quite as crisp as we're used to seeing
at this point in training camp. So I think that

(01:00:46):
there's some questions, and I think that he tends to
have a really good pulse.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
Of that thing. Very good.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
Everybody listened to Ryan and the whole gang starting at
three pm every weekday.

Speaker 1 (01:00:55):
Thanks Ryan, appreciate it. Any talk.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
All right, I'm gonna do just a few minutes with
you on something completely different. So I saw a story
this is over at newser But the most stolen car
in America?

Speaker 1 (01:01:08):
What do you think it is? The most stolen? I
was actually a little bit surprised.

Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
The most stolen car in America is actually a fairly
expensive car. And I'll give you another hint. It's not
a truck. There are a lot of trucks that get
stolen a lot. But the most stolen car in America
is now the Chevy Camaro z L one being swiped.
Check this out thirty nine times the rate for average

(01:01:35):
theft of vehicles. The sort of less flashy version of
the Camaro, the standard Camaro is I think second most
or maybe no third most stolen after an accurate TLX.
Believe it or not, I don't know why thirteen times,
but the regular Camaro thirteen times the rate of being
stolen of most other vehicles.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
And I had this the whole list, and for some reason.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
I think it's because of the maybe the particular internet
connection I have. It's given me trouble getting to the
whole list of of all the most stolen cars. But
there's a lots and oh I got it, lots and
lots of trucks on this list. So most stolen car
Chevy Camaro z Eal one, then accurate TLX, then the

(01:02:21):
regular Chevy Camaro, then the next the GMC Sierra twenty
five hundred, then another accurate TX. See when I when
I see these like two Camaros to TLX is two
different versions of the GMCCI era and then and then
you've got Chevy Silverado, Dodge Durango. Like most of the
rest of this list is pickup trucks. The thing that

(01:02:43):
occurs to me is like, why can't you make these
things harder to steal?

Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
How? How hard can that be?

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
So one of the things that I learned though, that
was really kind of introde by the way, it used
to be Hyundai and Kia or the top of this
list all the time.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
Because they were so freaking easy to steal.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
And I guess, thinking back on that story, the way
I read it was Hyundai and Kia had anti theft
devices in the vehicles that the manufacturers didn't enable, like
they wanted to charge people more to turn them on
or something, and so the cars just kept getting stolen
all the time.

Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
It's pretty pretty crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
But what apparently is going on with some of these
vehicle thefts is they've got here.

Speaker 1 (01:03:28):
Let me just share this with you. This is from
the International Highway Safety Institute.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
Thieves can steal modern vehicles by cloning the owner's key
fob with an electronic device. Ordinarily, they need access to
the fob in order to copy it, but some media
outlets have reported that thieves are able to clone the
key code for newer Camaros by accessing the onboard ports

(01:03:56):
the technicians use to receive diagnostic codes and monitor data,
fuel economy, and other things like that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:03):
So I think this is called OBD. It's been a
while since I dealt with this kind of thing.

Speaker 2 (01:04:06):
But they've got these little porch You plug a little
handheld computer into the thing and it reads the car's computer.
Cars are basically computers on wheel these days, right, And
it reads the computer and it can tell you everything.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
They got sensors everywhere.

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
It's like being in a hospital and hooked up to
some monitor and they can tell you absolutely everything. So
apparently now that there are some weakness in these in
these systems where the bad guys, if they can get
into your car, they can then connect to that thing
and they can get your keys code out of that
and use that to program the keyfob and then just

(01:04:41):
use that to steal your car. So I assume at
this point that that all these car manufacturers know this stuff.
The other thing actually, let me go find the rest
of this list here the least stolen cars. You might
not be surprised to know that most of the least
stolen cars are electric cars. The top three least stolen

(01:05:04):
cars are Tesla's. Then is a Rav four that's a hybrid,
then another Tesla, then a couple of Volvos, because who
really wants a Volvo anyway, And then you've got the
all electric Ford Mustang you've got the electric Volkswagen, then
you've got super ru cross track and it goes on
from there. Anyway, super interesting that the electric cars aren't

(01:05:27):
getting stolen. And I don't know whether that's because they're
harder to steal or whether that's because a thief doesn't
want one. Right, because you can go steal an electric car,
then you're gonna have to charge it somewhere.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
How are you gonna do that?

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
Right, you're gonna steal an electric car, You're gonna drive
it for a little bit, and then what right? You
can't go to a gas station, you can't fill it up,
you can't do anything with it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:49):
So I did think that's pretty interesting. How let's see
the of the.

Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
Top like ten least stolen cars, almost all of them
are electric or hybrid, and then the other two were
Volvos that I don't think anybody really wants.

Speaker 1 (01:06:06):
Anyway, we'll be right back on Kowa.

Speaker 2 (01:06:08):
As always, a big thank you to Chevron, who sponsors
our broadcast from Training Camp.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
Chevron is committed to our local communities.

Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
And safely delivering affordable, reliable energy that powers Colorado forward.

Speaker 1 (01:06:22):
So I always love.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Having Nick Ferguson on the show, because I have no
idea like what's on his mind at any given moment.
He's got so many interesting stories and approaches to things.
And so we were just sitting here shooting the whatever
just before we went on the air, and Nick, you
started talking about basically like perseverance. Yes, and so I'd

(01:06:45):
like you to just tell listeners kind of what you
were telling me. But what I really want to know
is why you're thinking about that today.

Speaker 3 (01:06:51):
Well, I'm glad you asked that question. Yesterday, I had
an opportunity to talk to some kids, and doing those conversations,
it was about motivating those kids, trying to get those
kids to really see their true self. And I was
telling some of the parents, like I always tell people,
put your kids in sports. Some parents don't like it

(01:07:12):
because they're like, well, sports are not the end all
be all, And I say, well, that's not the reason
why i'm telling you that. I'm telling you that because
it's gonna teach your kids how to win and lose
in the sport, because that's what life is going to
introduce to you, wins and losses.

Speaker 1 (01:07:27):
And I was talking to these.

Speaker 3 (01:07:29):
Kids, trying to explain to them, and I even took
one of the kids and showed him the Broncos players.
I said, if you aspire to get to this point,
what are you willing to sacrifice to get to that point?
As a kid, I sacrifice time with my brothers, time
with my friends, and it all, you know, panned out
because God blessed me to play the sport that I

(01:07:50):
love so much. And when I think about life and
how things happen, so many times we go through a
lot of situations and some people may feel as though
because I was a former player and I played a
decade in the league, my life is different from theirs.

Speaker 4 (01:08:04):
No it's not.

Speaker 3 (01:08:06):
We all have challenges that we have to face. And
you got two options. I either used to come to
those challenges or you search forward. And I say, well,
I like to live my life and the form of
validating people telling them what they did well. Because and
whatever job that you work, dad, father, football player, doctor,

(01:08:27):
whatever it is, radio hosts, someone's invalidating you in some
way telling you what you didn't do. Nine times out
of ten, you're going to be told what you didn't
do well, opposed to being told what you do well.

Speaker 6 (01:08:39):
And I've adopted that same philosophy with my kids.

Speaker 3 (01:08:42):
I said, well, if I can tell my kids and
criticize them and tell them what they did wrong, hell,
I should be able to tell them what they did right.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
So that was on my mind based on what happened today.

Speaker 3 (01:08:55):
And when I just see random people, whether they're fans
or members of the media, I just validato is.

Speaker 9 (01:09:01):
You never know.

Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
How your validation is going to be received by that individual,
but more importantly, the level of impact that it may
make for that particular person.

Speaker 1 (01:09:12):
All right, I got a couple of things to say
about that.

Speaker 2 (01:09:15):
First, our current program director, Dave Yes, the probably the
only program director I've ever had who seems to go
out of his way to tell me and you and
others what we did right and not just what we
did wrong in the past.

Speaker 1 (01:09:31):
I agree, mostly had folks. They weren't bad people.

Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
It was just when you're in management, you're thinking about
solving a problem right.

Speaker 1 (01:09:38):
And the squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:09:41):
And it's not like I go around thinking I do
a heck of a long wrong, heck of a lot
wrong in my job. I probably wouldn't have the job,
and you probably wouldn't have your job if we did
a lot wrong, but Dave is just I'm very grateful.

Speaker 1 (01:09:52):
To have a guy like that who, well, he's living
by the philosophy.

Speaker 2 (01:09:56):
You just described. So that's that's one thing. The other
thing that I wanted to know, this is a question
for you, now, what was as you look back on
your path to becoming an NFL player and then being
in the NFL for a decade, was there ever a

(01:10:17):
thing that, as you look back on it now, you
would say, gosh, I came so close to being stopped there,
or to stopping myself there, or to taking the knee,
and like the closest you ever came to not pushing through,
whether it was your own mentality or someone putting an
obstacle in front of you.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
Yeah, it was when I was in camp with the
Chicago Bears and I was coming off of two seasons
I played NFL Europe and then I play another season
in the CFL with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, and then
I got a chance to be with the Chicago Bears,
and I made it to the final cut. I thought
I finally made it. That next morning, around noon, I

(01:11:01):
was told, hey, listen, the GM wants to see you.
And that's when I was told, hey, listen, we need
offensive line help. We got some guys injured, we need
your roster spot.

Speaker 1 (01:11:12):
So we got to let you go.

Speaker 3 (01:11:14):
And to be totally honest, George Peyton was in Chicago
during that time, but he was in Pro Personnel. And
this is why I love George, you know, to this day,
because he was always there to just kind of give inspiration.
And in this world of professional football, not everyone does that.
Now we always say, Okay, it's a team environment. Not

(01:11:36):
so true, because you know, coaches get hired and fired,
and some guys have different mentalities. And once again, you know,
George had a mentality where he wanted to assist. He
couldn't really guarantee that I would make the team because
he was in the GM. But what you want to
do is go out and support your players. You want
them to go out and compete. You want to instill
in them that there's an opportunity if you keep working,

(01:11:59):
something's gonna happened for you. So for me, I've had
people in my career who've done that for me. And
you know, Bill Parcells was a great person in my
life because I needed what he supplied at that time,
which was kind of an idea of I really don't care.
I mean, he was so in New York with his mentality,

(01:12:21):
and you can say that even though I went through
struggles in life, I had never encountered anything of that
magnitude where no matter what you did, it wasn't good enough.
And then it got to a point where I've said,
to hell with him, I'm not trying to impress him anymore.
I'm gonna go out there and play for myself. And
I think at the time and even now, that was

(01:12:42):
the overall message.

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
So we got about a minute here, go back to
your bear's story. Yes, so they said they needed the
roster space for O line.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
What happened?

Speaker 3 (01:12:52):
Then I got cut and then it was a rough
time for me, and I was thinking, like, this is
never going to work for me.

Speaker 6 (01:13:00):
Is not in the cards for me. I went back to.

Speaker 3 (01:13:04):
The Canada, did another cycle in NFL Europe, and that's
when aj Smith, who was works for the Washington Commanders
but most noted for working with the Chargers, he saw
me and he was with the Bills at that time,
and that's how I got my opportunity with the Buffalo Bills.
So you know, Aj Smith rest in peace, but he

(01:13:27):
gave me an opportunity. I met well Wade Phillips and
then my career to golf.

Speaker 2 (01:13:32):
All right, last, very quick question. You're a kid from Miami. Yeah,
Miami doesn't have a ton of snow.

Speaker 1 (01:13:40):
What was it a ton of snow, no snow at all?
What was it like moving to Winnipeg. It was different.

Speaker 3 (01:13:45):
It was a culture shock because once again, growing up
in the South, there were color barriers. When I went
to Canada, those color barriers were kind of lifted and
I was like, wait a minute, is there a place
where people see people in this way?

Speaker 6 (01:14:00):
And I was thrown off.

Speaker 1 (01:14:01):
Because of it. Wow. Yeah, So that wasn't a weather answer.
That was a much more important answer. Yeah. Wow, that's
a heck of a thing. That's Nick Ferguson.

Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
You can listen to Nick and his partner in crime
Ben Albright every night from six pm to eleven pm
on Broncos Country to Night.

Speaker 1 (01:14:18):
He's just full of so many great stories. Thank you, Nick.
That was great. We got to do this again, man,
we did.

Speaker 3 (01:14:22):
I enjoy it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:23):
We definitely do. We'll be right back on Kowa.

Speaker 2 (01:14:25):
Yeah, a little rush there A listener sent in on
the text line of the top ten rock songs of
all time all ten or Tom Sawyer.

Speaker 1 (01:14:31):
That's that guy.

Speaker 8 (01:14:32):
Dragon almost played Tom Sawyer. But then I was like,
wait a minute, I did that recently, so I've gotta yeah,
you did just a little you did that recently.

Speaker 1 (01:14:38):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
So you heard on Kway newscast and I see this
thing on KADIVR or our news partners at Fox thirty
one on the website about a guy named Jose Barcoe,
and I just want to do a little clarification because
I get I get frustrated when I think an important

(01:15:01):
part of the story is being left out. And so
the story as you've as you've heard it so far
is and here's let's see. Here's the headline from our
news partners at Fox thirty one, Colorado combat veteran who
earned purple Heart, detained by ice and facing deportation, and

(01:15:22):
it's about a guy named Jose Barco who served in
the United States Army.

Speaker 1 (01:15:29):
I believe it was, and it was awarded a purple Heart.

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
And has been has been detained by Ice and maybe
deported back to Venezuela. And you know what you hear
all to talk about is you know, he's he's afraid
he might be tortured if he got there, and I
can I can imagine that, right, I can imagine that
that he, having served in the US military, might not
be very welcome in.

Speaker 1 (01:15:53):
A place like Venezuela.

Speaker 2 (01:15:56):
I also note that he applied for US citizenship. He
came here illegally when he was four, right, so he
is what you might call a dreamer. Served in the military,
two tours in Iraq, injured in combat. He applied for
US citizenship in two thousand and six, but his representatives

(01:16:17):
say that the government.

Speaker 1 (01:16:20):
Lost his paperwork. Actually, his family is from Cuba.

Speaker 2 (01:16:27):
They went to Venezuela and then they came here as
political refugees. And Jose Barco has no ties to either
of those countries, Cuba or Venezuela. And it's a case
that sure does seem like while this guy is really

(01:16:47):
being wronged, he served to you know, he served in
the US military, he was injured, he apparently applied, he claims.
His people claim he applied for citizenship and it should
have been granted by now, and if it had been
done properly, they wouldn't be able to deport him. And
I get all that, and I stipulate to all of that,

(01:17:07):
and I also stipulate to the fact that when folks
come back A lot of times, when people come back
from war from combat, they suffer some psychological scars, some
mental trauma. And this guy did and probably didn't get
the help that he needed and the help that he deserved.

(01:17:29):
But the part of the story that you haven't been told,
and even in this KDVR piece, you have to go
two thirds of the way through the article until you.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
Learn and I'm quoting now.

Speaker 2 (01:17:43):
After leaving the military, Barco served fifteen years in prison
for attempted murder, right, And I'm not saying he's a
bad guy.

Speaker 1 (01:17:51):
I don't know the situation.

Speaker 9 (01:17:52):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:17:53):
He was found guilty by a jury of attempted murder
when he opened fire at a party and one of
his gunshots hit a nineteen year old pregnant woman in
the leg, and Missus Barco says, Look, Jose Barco was
dealing with some really significant psychological stress suffered in combine

(01:18:15):
in Iraq. He did not yet proper treatment. You couldn't
even talk about it, really, so he wasn't getting help.
They were, you know, throwing some pills at him and
that was it, and they didn't have what they have
now to try to treat traumatic brain injury and all that.
And look again, I am not saying, I am not
saying that this person is a bad person. I am

(01:18:37):
not saying he shouldn't be allowed to stay in the
United States. I'm not saying the government didn't either screw
up or mistreat him or.

Speaker 1 (01:18:45):
Anything like that.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
But what I am saying is I have found it
pretty frustrating how much of the coverage portraying him as
sympathetic and indeed he may well feed ignores the fact
that he was convicted.

Speaker 1 (01:18:58):
Of attempt at murder. Just like to have the story straight.
All right, the Rockies trying to win the series against
the Cardinals. Game coming up right now, Go Rockies. I'll
talk to you tomorrow.