October 4, 2024 • 37 mins
ICYMI: Hour One of ‘Later, with Mo’Kelly’ Presents – A look at the $50 million state settlement that California drivers may be entitled to “under a state agreement with a gas trading firm accused of tampering with and manipulating prices for California gasoline” AND a new report that reveals over a million Californian households are paying at least $3,000 a month for rent…PLUS – Thoughts on the LAPD’s new crimefighting robot dog “Spot” - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Kf I six it later with Mo Kelly. We're live
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. And let me just say
off the top, I've gotten your message. I've received your messages,
and I'm actually overwhelmed and appreciative that you thought that
you were the first person to send me the story
about Garth Brooks and how he's been accused of forcible
(00:45):
rape and other things, various forms of sexual assault.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I get it.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
You realize that we were first as far as the
music industry Meet too moment.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
But I'm not going to talk about it tonight. I'll
tell you why.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I have a few friends, one who worked directly with
Garth Brooks during the alleged time in question, and some
others who who toured with him a one degree of
separation away from Garth Brooks, and I want to talk
to them plural before I speak about the allegations. I
(01:21):
think I can get some real insight as far as
the time leading up, time during, and the time since
before I weigh in. I will say this, and I
give a lot of credit to Tuala because he verbalized
it before anyone that the music industry's me too moment
(01:42):
was coming.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
We collectively predicted this.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
We told you this, and I don't know some of
you were slow on the uptick, some of you on
the late freight. He didn't believe us, or maybe you
thought that we were over selling what we knew, what
was going on behind the scenes. Garth Brooks, I will
say this tonight. Garth Brooks was arguably, with the exception
(02:07):
of Michael Jackson, the biggest artist of the twentieth century,
hands down, sold more than I think one hundred and
seventy million records, just like MJ. And there's Garth Brooks
right there. I don't really have any personal anecdotes. I
met him once when I was an intern at Capitol Records,
(02:30):
when I think he really took off.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I think his No Fences album hit. At the time,
it was just in passing.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
So I don't have any grand story to share, but
I do know folks who do know him. So tomorrow night,
hopefully I can get all the information that I'm looking
for on Garth Brooks the person, at least from their
point of view, someone who's worked with him for many years,
toured with them, wrote songs with them, so some real insight,
(02:57):
and hopefully I can bring that to you by tomorrow,
So that's why I've.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Gotten your notes.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yes I've seen the story, by goodness, Yes, I've seen
the story. I'm aware of the story. I even told Taala, Oh. Yes,
we're going in on the story. We're just not going
to do it tonight because here on later with Mo Kelly,
we don't need to be first. We just want to
be insightful and accurate. That's more important than anything. So
hopefully we can get you something that you're not going
(03:26):
to hear everywhere else, random just speculation without any real insight.
We try not to do that here as best we can.
So we'll touch upon Garth Brooks in Earnest tomorrow. One
thing I am going to talk about tonight. First there
was Kroger. Now there's Albertson's slash Safeway slash Vaughn's. And
(03:54):
I can see Mark Ronner's smile right now, because we
told you about this, we really did. It's one thing
to talk about, Oh my gosh, inflation, Oh my goodness,
the cost of eggs and milk. It's unconscionable. We've never
seen this before in America. We were trying to tell
you there were some underhanded dealings which were going on.
(04:15):
There was price gouging, and there's this Albertsons, which is
slash Safeway, slash Vonds will pay nearly four million dollars
to settle a lawsuit. This is just the first lawsuit
accusing it of overcharging customers and across all of California.
So if you're complaining about prices, maybe here in California,
(04:39):
maybe you were overcharged by either Albertsons or Safeway or Bonds.
And the complaint was filed in Marine County and joined
by Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Sonoma, and Ventura counties.
Basically the whole damn state accused Albersons of false advertising
(05:03):
and unfair competition.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
For allegedly allegedly allegedly.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Charging items for more than their lowest advertised price.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Let me look at this a different way.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
The lowest advertised price was probably the price which in
reflected inflation, so it was charging more for their lowest
advertised inflated price. Here's some perspective. Albersons is the second
largest grocery chain in North America behind who.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
We want to take a guess. You want to know
who number one is? Kroger. So you have Kroger number one.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
You have Albertson's number two, both dealing from the bottom
of the deck, doing underhanded things to take more money
from you than they actually deserved.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Underhanded. But I know, I know, it's inflation.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
The cost of eggs, the cost of milk, the cost
of cigarette is just two damn high. Biden needs to
do something about this. No, this is capitalism. This is
this is the CD side of capitalism. Not exactly supply
and demand, but it's more like demanding that you pay
more than supply actually is asking for. According to the complaint,
(06:22):
some items were sold by weight, you know, talking about produce, meats,
Big Goods had less product in the package than was
displayed on the package label. This we're not even talking
about shrinkflation. We're not talking about the legitimate downsizing of
the packaging. We're saying it says one thing on the package.
(06:44):
Let's say you're getting five ounces of steak, and actually
in the package is three point nine ounces.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Also, and there's more.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Safeway in Bond stores failed to abide by twenty fourteen
junction mandating they implement a.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Price accuracy policy.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
The policy requires that customers overcharge for an item either
receive it for free or get a five dollars gift card,
depending on the price of the item. So this is
not the first time that they have tried to circumnavigate
their own rules. Boise, Idaho based Alberson's will pay three
(07:25):
point two million in civil penalties and seven hundred and
forty nine thousand, five hundred dollars in cost in restitution
to cover investigation costs and support future enforcement of consumer
protection laws. The seven counties will split the settlement, and
it's nominal. I know we're only talking about four million,
and it's not going to do much, but I think
(07:47):
it highlights the point.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
And let me just say, good evening. Mark Ronner, hope
you've been well. I know you're smiling.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
No, it's boring when we agree, but you are one
hundred percent right about this.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
It's not just one grocery chained, are we one? Type
of underheaded thing? Is more than one, and it's the
top two.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Well, for some for some reason, people seem to want
to make this a political issue about Biden and about inflation.
And I keep on having to show people one report
after another of corporate price gouging. It's like, I don't
know what you have personally at stake here. But these
are the facts, and here's another one to add to
the pile. After a while, they'll get it. After a while.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Oh maybe they won't, because there will probably be let's say,
the third largest grocery retailer in California found to be
doing something underhanded as well.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
This isn't new.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
I'm just saying this has probably been going on for
quite some time, like maybe years.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
I stopped going to Albertson's because I used to. That's
the closest store to where I live, and I used
to go there all the time. But I found their
apps so frustrating because you have to jump through so
many hoops to get the price you think you're going
to get for something. And I realized, I don't think
I've ever once made it through the line here without
having to go back for a mistake or an omission
or something.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I can't do that anymore.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Well, not only that, I think they're betting on the
fact that not everyone's going to either realize the quote
unquote mistake the discrepancy, or going to waste the time,
energy and trouble to go back and force you the
retailer to give them the correct price. It's kind of
figured into it, like, yeah, we'll get caught some of
the time, but overall our bottom line is better off
(09:29):
doing it this way.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
And this is the illusion you think.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
You know, well, I'm not going to shop at Kroger
anymore because I heard that they are price gouging. So
let's say you go over to Albertson's and Vond's and
then you find they're doing this.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
It's not. It's different, but it's the same.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
You think you're getting a better deal over here, and
you're really not. You're just getting I can't say that
word on the ring.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Yeah you can go ahead.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
You're getting old, just a different way in a different
that's all it is.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Well, if I could just say one thing, it's it's
an old practice. And it reminded me of a long
gone father figure friend of mine who told me his
dad ran a little grocery store and he had a
scam where he'd have a little hand broom by the
scale and when somebody was buying groceries, he'd put that
on there so he could overcharge people, and if they
ever noticed it, he'd be like, oh, whoops, how'd that
(10:24):
get there.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
So that's that.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
This is the modern version of that. Hey, Mark, I
got more good news that's happening. After we come back
from the break. I'll tell you and everyone else about
California drivers who may be entitled to cash from gas
companies for price fixing. No, they would they would never
people complain about you know, the gas was two day high.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
But they seemed like such nice people. Why would they
do that.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Chevron has such nice, colorful gas stations. It would never
do that. They have great commercials.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
He used to have those guys with the hats to
come and put stuff in your car.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
What has happened? What happened to full service? Well it's
just different now. Oh well, something else. It's Later with
mo Kelly.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Can't buy AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
You can't confirm it, but in your gut, deep down,
you know you're getting taken on thumb level. Maybe it's
in the back of your mind, maybe it's in the
pit of your stomach, but there's not any anything you
can do about it, and you can't prove it. Yeah,
that's what I think about most things. It's later with
Mo Kelly, can't I am six forty live everywhere on
(11:41):
the iHeartRadio app. Drivers who purchased gas in southern California,
oh about nine years ago.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
That's the bad news.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
And we've all purchased gas in California about nine years ago.
There really weren't these things called electric cars evs back then,
not nine years ago, not in great quantity. Well, if
you purchase gas, you may be entitled to a portion
of a cash settlement. And this is according to California
ag Rob Bonta. He announced this yesterday. He also went
(12:11):
on to say that drivers who purchased gas specifically between
February twentieth, twenty fifteen and November tenth, twenty fifteen. So
if you bought any gas in that ten month period,
which is probably all of us, we can submit a
claim for payment under the state settlement with gas trading
(12:34):
firms for quote, tampering with and manipulating prices for California gasoline.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Mark Ronner, here we go again. I'm ready blow my
hair back with this.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
I mean, did you know?
Speaker 1 (12:50):
I mean, look, I would drive down the street and
this is any year, and we can go back to
twenty fifteen, but I'm just saying any year. And we
know that gas prices are largely speculative. In other words,
that is not pricing for quantity. It's about what may
happen in the future. So that's why prices would vary wildly.
They'll go up ten cents in a week, or they'll
(13:12):
go up twenty cents in a week when it had
nothing to do.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
With actual supply.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
And I was noticing that this gas station on one
side of the street would be forty cents fewer than
the gas station on the other side of street. It's like,
wait a minute, they're playing comparable rent. How can gas
vary that widely? They're paying the same amount of gas tax?
And deep down inside, I said, something's not right. Quote
(13:39):
market manipulation and price gouging, where we heard those terms before,
are legal and unacceptable, particularly during times of crisis when
most people, when people are most vulnerable. This is according
to Rob Bonta, I am proud to deliver money back
to California into her victims of gas price manipulation.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
Mark.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Remember how they keep blaming gas prices on the president.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Yeah, presidents don't control, then yeah, the presidents absolutely do
not set gas prices.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
If they would, they would make sure that they were
fifty five cents a gallon right before every election.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
I promise you they would.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
There's no reason for any president to have bad economic
news if they could could actually.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Control the economy.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yes, there are policies which can influence certain sectors of
the economy, but as far as price setting, price fixing,
price manipulation, they really can't. I don't have time to
go all macro econ one on one. If I had
more time, maybe, but they really can't. And that's the
one of the big lies out there as far as
(14:46):
the range and reach of presidents. Now, if you would
like to, if you want to rack your brain and
go through your bank statements to see how much money
you might have spent on gas or whether you spent
that much money on gas between November February of twenty
(15:07):
fifteen and November of twenty fifteen, knock yourself out. But
the gas was sold during this time, and wait for it,
here we go. If this sounds a lot like the
last segment, yes it's not your imagination. This applies to
Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Orange County, Riverside County,
(15:29):
San Bernardina. Where are you Current County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara,
San Luis, Obispo and Imperial Counties. Why don't we just
say the whole damn state everyone who bought gas anywhere
and everywhere back in twenty fifteen, you got robbed, you
got taken. It was price gouging, there was price manipulation.
(15:53):
I can't actively remember what was going on in the
world in twenty fifteen. It wasn't an election year. I
don't remember if there was some sort of gas bill somewhere.
I honestly don't remember why. Because I'm old. I can't
remember what I had for lunch last week, much less
when or how much gas I bought back during the
(16:14):
end of the Baba administration. I mean, who the hell knows.
But didn't you know somewhere deep down inside? Didn't you
know in the back of your mind. Didn't you know
in the pit of your stomach.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Didn't you know? It's almost like you were in the matrix.
It was just bothering you. You just couldn't quite figure
it out. Something was off.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
It was a glitch, and you knew that the gas
prices were being manipulated. Now, you wrongly ascribed it to politicians.
You said, Gavin Newsom, you said at that time it
was oh no, it was probably Jerry Brown and or
you wanted to say it was Barack Obama when it
(16:54):
was much more simple to figure out it was capitalism
doing capitalists things and greed doing what greed does.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
And we'll see more stories just like this.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Look, you can go to KTLA dot com and they'll
have the link where you can submit a claim online.
You got to submit your claim by January eighth and
twenty twenty five. You won't be thinking about that then,
because we'll still be fighting over who is actually going
to be the president of the United States, because we
all know this country is going to go to hell
right after the presidential election, fighting over who's going to
(17:28):
be the next president. But you'll probably forget, But if
you can remember, just go to KTLA dot com.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
You can find the link there. But Mark, it's going
to be one of those nights. It's going to be
you and me and we're gonna have to say we
were right. We're gonna have to break our arms on
our back. Can't wait looking forward to it.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
You know, it's almost like I've noticed people have kind
of some people rather have turned a weird corner where
in thinking that they're defending capitalism, which I would defend too,
they wind up defending us getting ripped off, thinking that's capitalism.
And I I fight that a lot of the time
off the air with friends of mine that I would
argue with.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
One, Mark, you don't have any friends. Okay, well you
busted me on that. My imaginary friends. I look in
the mirror and have arguments with myself in a fake
mustache and the personality still doing that, and I scold
myself for being an idiot. No, you're not an idiot,
(18:25):
because when we come back, Mark, we're going to do
some more of this. Did you know it's now a
record for the number of people here in California, just
in California who are paying more than three thousand dollars
a month for rent. I'm still moving in with you
three thousand dollars a month for rent, but never mind,
(18:51):
we'll save it for after the break.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Did you know that California has more than a million
households which pay at least this is the lower limit,
at least three thousand dollars per month for rent. And
that number has more than doubled in four years. Of
(19:22):
the people who pay three thousand dollars per month for rent,
that number of people in California has doubled in the
past four years. Oh and by the way, by the way,
remember I was the one who said that California turned
down not one, but two chances to implement some form
(19:45):
of rent control.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
I remember I was that guy.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Oh and look you here, there is a rent control
measure on the ballot next month. I'm not here to
tell you how to vote. I'm just letting you know
the facts. There were two previous measures which were voted down.
Give me all the reasons and excuses you like, I'm
(20:10):
just telling you factually they were voted down. There is
another one which will be on the ballot this November,
and the opposing side is spending millions and millions of
dollars trying to tell you and me that it will
make the housing situation worse. I don't know, but my
(20:32):
definition of worse looks very different from their definition of worse.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
But vote your conscience.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
I just remember not a day goes by in which
someone doesn't complain about the rent being too damn high,
or how it's escalatory in nature, where it goes up
and it's up, and it's up and it's up. We
told you about this, and I was just quantifying. The
number of people paying three thousand dollars per month has
(21:00):
doubled in the last four years. Tell me more about
why rent control is just an evil thing. It's such
a bad thing, and I get it. Our economy has
changed in the sense that the idea of home ownership
may be viewed as out of reach for some and
not as necessary for others. I still think it's the
(21:23):
best way to accumulate wealth and also pass it on
from generation to generation and finance college educations or helping
through a medical crisis if need be.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
But this is a problem.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
I would say that California in many respects is a
victim of its own success. This is the place where
certain industries are and land is finite. You have the mountains,
you have the beaches, you have the weather. So it's
always going to cost more just to live in California.
And I'm not making fun or making light of Hurricane Helene.
(21:59):
I will point out the fact that California is a
place which doesn't have to deal with certain natural disasters,
and that also is part of the equation.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Here's something else.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
The three thousand dollars rent club is not exclusive to California.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
It's happening all around the nation.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
It's just that it's happening much more quickly and much
more severely here in California. Last year, eighteen point two
percent of California's renters paid three thousand dollars or more.
That's up from eight point three percent in twenty nineteen.
(22:41):
Not a math major, never was never really good in math.
But that's more than double. That's more than double. For
twenty twenty three, California was second behind Hawaii at twenty
one point two percent. I can understand Hawaii's probably pretty
expensive to buy land. Twenty one point two percent of
(23:03):
Hawaiian Hawaii residents spending more than three thousand dollars. So
you have Hawaii number one, California number two. Third was Washington,
d c. At sixteen point eight percent, Massachusetts at thirteen
point six percent, New York at twelve point eight percent.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Where is the cheapest.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Rent if you want to get a real good deal
on a piece of crap property, say it with me. Mississippi,
North Dakota, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, where less than one
percent of renters pay three thousand dollars plus.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
Alabama's not in there. Nope, interesting, not to be I
would live there either. No, No, but I just thought
that they would have ranked right up there next to Mississippi.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Maybe maybe they're just like one point two percent or something.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
You know, statistical variants a lot.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
I'm just say, as much as we complain about the
cost of living in California, as much as we complain
about the rent being so unbearable, we never miss an
opportunity to take control of that in a small way
that we can, with some form of rent control.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
And you know, we say, no, no, no, it's bad.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
It's not good for renters, it's not good for landlords. Well,
I'll tell you what's not good for landlords them not
making as much money as they can. This is not
this well, let me put it this way. This for
me is another form of price gouging. Rents go up
because they're allowed to go up almost without any ceiling.
We talked about how they can raise rents from eight
(24:43):
to nine percent depending on which county you live in,
every single year, every single year. And again, if you
want to do the math of how that exponentially will
impact renters, you know, go ahead and do that math.
But if you think that it's I want to get
better in the future by doing nothing, you keep on
(25:04):
thinking that because we saw what happened in the past
four years and how the number of people paying three
thousand dollars a month, which is ridiculous, ridiculous, how that
number has doubled in four years.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
You can do something about it or you can do
nothing about it.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I'm just here giving you some math, some analysis, some perspective.
You're the ones who have to live with it and
also pay for it. It's later with mo Kelly KFI
AM six forty. We are live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Another conversation we've had and we bounce back and forth
on and Twala. I want to bring you into the
conversation this next segment because we talked about these robot dogs,
(25:46):
what they are capable of, what type of capabilities they
would have, and the situations in which they would be used. Well,
we get to meet spot LAPD's new crime fighting robot dog.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
We'll talk about that when we come back.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI A six forty and.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
I would to say maybe a year ago or so,
there was a situation which was developing where there was
a suspect who was thought to be barricaded or dead
in a structured and apartment building and LAPD I believe,
sent in a robot dog with a camera to find
(26:30):
out the status of that suspect alleged assailant, and it
provided the opportunity for.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Law enforcement to.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Look and see the status of a suspect without risking
any actual members of law enforcement, and also had more
capabilities than a person would from a technology standpoint. These
robot crime fighting dogs obviously have positives, but there are
those in some communities who feel that it would be
(27:03):
misused or only used in certain communities, and that's the
ongoing discussion. I'm somewhere in between. I've been following the
science and Boston Dynamics, who usually will post these videos
of these miraculous actions by robots. They're the leader in robotics.
(27:23):
You'll they'll show robots navigating a parkour k of course,
they'll show robots doing all these basically human like movements
from jumping, running, flipping, crawling, climbing, and you get to
see the advancements in the technology. And if you mark,
(27:46):
I don't know if you can hear me right now,
but did you watch the television show War of the World.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
It was really bad? It was really really bad. Are
you talking about the recent one that was set in
Victorian times.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
No, I'm talking about the one that was on the
Epics channel. It was really bad and it ran, i
think for two seasons, and they had the robot dogs
in there. Oh no, as part of the series. It's
really bad. You didn't miss it. You didn't miss anything.
But my point is these robot dogs have been used
on the screen already, so people would have a reference
point if you saw the TV show.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Well, don't forget the black Mirror episode. That's terrifying, right right.
I did forget that.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
As a matter of fact, that there is a cultural
reference point for these robot dogs. They have been used,
They've been seen in a variety of situations and circumstances.
Now LAPD has its own crime fighting robot dog named
Spot Boston Dynamics, who I told you about, says that
(28:45):
it is prohibiting any use of these dogs with police agencies,
law enforcement agencies to have any type of weaponry, so
to walla sharp. This is where I want to bring
you into the conversation because you are a very vocal.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Say opponent of these dogs.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
Originally, absolutely, and I love that Boston Dynamic says that
police departments cannot under any circumstances arm these dogs. They
forgot to say dot dot dot for now, because it's
just a matter of time. There was already when we
first started talking about this. It was after the dog
(29:28):
was used to search out the suspect. I can't remember
what the date was, but it was when the suspect
was up and hiding. We talked about how that can
save lives, and this, that and the other. Fast forward,
when LAPD first started petitioning to actually deploy these we
were questioning under whose guidance, into which communities, so forth
and so on. But after that they started implementing what
(29:53):
into these dogs AI technology to start making them more
intuitive and easy or to program. These are all the
reasons that I have problems with these things. These things,
as you said, and all these videos are capable of
all types of feats. Now you want to program them
with a program that teaches itself and learns, And there's
(30:17):
only a matter of time before some way, somehow, whether
it be the police unions or whichever law enforcement agency,
says it is absolutely crucial that we arm these things,
then we are sol.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
I don't know if we will follow the path that
you're talking about, but history suggests that it will. History
suggests that when you use these types of tools, there
is an invariable escalation. And if you're programming them, then
it's going to be reinforced by data, which is going
to be unfavorable to certain communities. If it's programmed to
(30:56):
believe that crime is happening more over here or there,
then it's going to be implemented more over here or
there than other communities. And I'm concerned about the oversight
or lack thereof. I want to know who LAPD in
this particular instance, because we're talking about SPOT, which is
going to be with LAPD, who would be the oversight
(31:19):
or the agency or i'll say the backstop for when
it is used, how it is used, and what.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Type of tools it will have.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
And just because Boston Dynamics says, hey, you can't equip
them with weapons, It doesn't mean it can't be modified
to use some sort of deadly force. We remember when
I think it was Dallas, correct me if I'm wrong,
where they send in the robot with a bomb to
blow up the suspect.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
I don't know if that was how the robot was tooled,
but it was modified for that.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
You know, there are capabilities that can be added to
it that has nothing to do with Boston Dynamics what
it may have programmed into it.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
Not to be funny, but I do want to highlight
this is an intersection of my concerns with the autonomous
vehicles and Mark Ronner's concerns with AI more generally, when
you leave it up to AI, I'm not at the
point where I can trust it to make any life
and death decisions.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
No, I'm not there yet.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
I don't want to go on a limb here, but
I am one hundred percent against the dystopian future of
exploding robots.
Speaker 5 (32:30):
Okay, look, these things are scary enough without bombs. Yes,
they are crawling around on all forms like a air
quotes here dog, but these things can stand These things
are extremely strong, and it is just a matter of
time before they say, hey, Musk, we want to actually
implement some of your humanoid Tesla bots. They just have
(32:51):
a contract with Boston Dynamics. That doesn't say they cannot
get a contract with must to get implement his Tesla bots,
who would absolutely arm them these things. That's what I'm saying.
This is a slippery slope. Once you allow this, then
that can happen. The next thing, the next excalation can
easily happen. That is a problem. This is a slippery
(33:11):
slope where you are implementing robots to enforce crime and Moe,
you asked this question the last time we talked about it.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Who is going to be in charge? What is the oversight?
Speaker 5 (33:22):
I'd like to see something we haven't seen anything since,
and that was like at least five months ago.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
I think we as citizens, as Lay's citizenry, I think
we have a responsibility to pose certain scenarios and ask
certain questions and be skeptical in advance of something happening.
You can't wait until something happens and say, ah, we
should have thought of that. No, we have to try
(33:49):
to think of it in advance. How this could adversely
affect people? How this could harm someone? Can it differentiate?
I mean, how much autonomy does the robot have When
you're talking talking about AI?
Speaker 2 (34:02):
You know under what circumstances.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
So yeah, I would want a full demonstration, but I
need to see more. I would have to know more
before I would be comfortable with it. And I would
like to think of myself as being consistent. I have
always been slow on the uptick when it comes to
new types of science. I am doctor Ian Malcolm in
that regard where I think we can run too fast,
(34:25):
try to do too much too soon, with too little
oversight and too little forethought.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
I am always that person, if.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Only because it may seem like a good idea now,
and it may have all sorts of benefits, But I'm
always always thinking about unintended consequences, and this for me
says that there may be unintended consequences. Am I absolutely
on the side of protecting law enforcement? Yes, one hundred percent.
(34:55):
I don't think anyone can argue the upside here. But
just like justice system is supposed to be constructed, where
one person wrongly going to prison is an indictment of
the whole system, one person being unnecessarily harmed or killed
hypothetically by one of these robot dogs would be an
indictment of that system.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Oh, it's going to be about where I come out.
You know it's going to happen. And pardon me for
sounding immodest here, but I haven't thought of a different
name for Mark's law of new technology, which is, whenever
there's any new technology, imagine the very worst, most horrifying
thing that could be done with it. It is one
hundred percent guaranteed that that's going to happen. And so
you call it unintended consequences, They are intended by some people,
(35:41):
and that's where regulation has to come in. I thought
all new technology goes back to porn. Well that's true,
that's not my rule. There's going to be a different
name for that.
Speaker 5 (35:50):
No telling what's going to happen with these robot dogs
in that case.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
See now, Tula, I figured you would want to take
a ride with a robot dog in an autonomous car, right?
Speaker 2 (35:58):
No? No, what, No, I absolutely do not.
Speaker 5 (36:02):
This is where my love for all things technology and
AI integration with cars and flying Hella cars and all that,
this is where I draw the line, and it is
largely based in my fear of a terminator like future,
but also because I know that mankind is one of
(36:27):
the most destructive forces on this planet. And we get
something that on the surface is meant to enforce the law,
it's only a matter of time before its run them
up and destroy society with something that I believe is
this dangerous. I think it is wrong for LAPD to
be implementing SPOT under the guise of protecting officers. I
(36:50):
think that's a lie. They just want to use this
robot and see what it can do. They want to
see it go and knock down doors and maybe drag
someone out of a house. That's me putting my own
fear spin on it, but I believe that that's.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
What's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Well, one of us is going to be right, and
hopefully all of us are wrong. It's later with Mo
Kelly k IF I am six forty. We're live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
Shot bullets stimulating tongue.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
There's k f I M K O S T E
H D two Los Angeles, Orange County
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Live everywhere on the Heart Radio
Kf I six it later with Mo Kelly. We're live
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. And let me just say
off the top, I've gotten your message. I've received your messages,
and I'm actually overwhelmed and appreciative that you thought that
you were the first person to send me the story
about Garth Brooks and how he's been accused of forcible
(00:45):
rape and other things, various forms of sexual assault.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I get it.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
You realize that we were first as far as the
music industry Meet too moment.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
But I'm not going to talk about it tonight. I'll
tell you why.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I have a few friends, one who worked directly with
Garth Brooks during the alleged time in question, and some
others who who toured with him a one degree of
separation away from Garth Brooks, and I want to talk
to them plural before I speak about the allegations. I
(01:21):
think I can get some real insight as far as
the time leading up, time during, and the time since
before I weigh in. I will say this, and I
give a lot of credit to Tuala because he verbalized
it before anyone that the music industry's me too moment
(01:42):
was coming.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
We collectively predicted this.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
We told you this, and I don't know some of
you were slow on the uptick, some of you on
the late freight. He didn't believe us, or maybe you
thought that we were over selling what we knew, what
was going on behind the scenes. Garth Brooks, I will
say this tonight. Garth Brooks was arguably, with the exception
(02:07):
of Michael Jackson, the biggest artist of the twentieth century,
hands down, sold more than I think one hundred and
seventy million records, just like MJ. And there's Garth Brooks
right there. I don't really have any personal anecdotes. I
met him once when I was an intern at Capitol Records,
(02:30):
when I think he really took off.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I think his No Fences album hit. At the time,
it was just in passing.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
So I don't have any grand story to share, but
I do know folks who do know him. So tomorrow night,
hopefully I can get all the information that I'm looking
for on Garth Brooks the person, at least from their
point of view, someone who's worked with him for many years,
toured with them, wrote songs with them, so some real insight,
(02:57):
and hopefully I can bring that to you by tomorrow,
So that's why I've.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Gotten your notes.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yes I've seen the story, by goodness, Yes, I've seen
the story. I'm aware of the story. I even told Taala, Oh. Yes,
we're going in on the story. We're just not going
to do it tonight because here on later with Mo Kelly,
we don't need to be first. We just want to
be insightful and accurate. That's more important than anything. So
hopefully we can get you something that you're not going
(03:26):
to hear everywhere else, random just speculation without any real insight.
We try not to do that here as best we can.
So we'll touch upon Garth Brooks in Earnest tomorrow. One
thing I am going to talk about tonight. First there
was Kroger. Now there's Albertson's slash Safeway slash Vaughn's. And
(03:54):
I can see Mark Ronner's smile right now, because we
told you about this, we really did. It's one thing
to talk about, Oh my gosh, inflation, Oh my goodness,
the cost of eggs and milk. It's unconscionable. We've never
seen this before in America. We were trying to tell
you there were some underhanded dealings which were going on.
(04:15):
There was price gouging, and there's this Albertsons, which is
slash Safeway, slash Vonds will pay nearly four million dollars
to settle a lawsuit. This is just the first lawsuit
accusing it of overcharging customers and across all of California.
So if you're complaining about prices, maybe here in California,
(04:39):
maybe you were overcharged by either Albertsons or Safeway or Bonds.
And the complaint was filed in Marine County and joined
by Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Sonoma, and Ventura counties.
Basically the whole damn state accused Albersons of false advertising
(05:03):
and unfair competition.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
For allegedly allegedly allegedly.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Charging items for more than their lowest advertised price.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Let me look at this a different way.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
The lowest advertised price was probably the price which in
reflected inflation, so it was charging more for their lowest
advertised inflated price. Here's some perspective. Albersons is the second
largest grocery chain in North America behind who.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
We want to take a guess. You want to know
who number one is? Kroger. So you have Kroger number one.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
You have Albertson's number two, both dealing from the bottom
of the deck, doing underhanded things to take more money
from you than they actually deserved.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Underhanded. But I know, I know, it's inflation.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
The cost of eggs, the cost of milk, the cost
of cigarette is just two damn high. Biden needs to
do something about this. No, this is capitalism. This is
this is the CD side of capitalism. Not exactly supply
and demand, but it's more like demanding that you pay
more than supply actually is asking for. According to the complaint,
(06:22):
some items were sold by weight, you know, talking about produce, meats,
Big Goods had less product in the package than was
displayed on the package label. This we're not even talking
about shrinkflation. We're not talking about the legitimate downsizing of
the packaging. We're saying it says one thing on the package.
(06:44):
Let's say you're getting five ounces of steak, and actually
in the package is three point nine ounces.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Also, and there's more.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Safeway in Bond stores failed to abide by twenty fourteen
junction mandating they implement a.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Price accuracy policy.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
The policy requires that customers overcharge for an item either
receive it for free or get a five dollars gift card,
depending on the price of the item. So this is
not the first time that they have tried to circumnavigate
their own rules. Boise, Idaho based Alberson's will pay three
(07:25):
point two million in civil penalties and seven hundred and
forty nine thousand, five hundred dollars in cost in restitution
to cover investigation costs and support future enforcement of consumer
protection laws. The seven counties will split the settlement, and
it's nominal. I know we're only talking about four million,
and it's not going to do much, but I think
(07:47):
it highlights the point.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
And let me just say, good evening. Mark Ronner, hope
you've been well. I know you're smiling.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
No, it's boring when we agree, but you are one
hundred percent right about this.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
It's not just one grocery chained, are we one? Type
of underheaded thing? Is more than one, and it's the
top two.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Well, for some for some reason, people seem to want
to make this a political issue about Biden and about inflation.
And I keep on having to show people one report
after another of corporate price gouging. It's like, I don't
know what you have personally at stake here. But these
are the facts, and here's another one to add to
the pile. After a while, they'll get it. After a while.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Oh maybe they won't, because there will probably be let's say,
the third largest grocery retailer in California found to be
doing something underhanded as well.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
This isn't new.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
I'm just saying this has probably been going on for
quite some time, like maybe years.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
I stopped going to Albertson's because I used to. That's
the closest store to where I live, and I used
to go there all the time. But I found their
apps so frustrating because you have to jump through so
many hoops to get the price you think you're going
to get for something. And I realized, I don't think
I've ever once made it through the line here without
having to go back for a mistake or an omission
or something.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I can't do that anymore.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Well, not only that, I think they're betting on the
fact that not everyone's going to either realize the quote
unquote mistake the discrepancy, or going to waste the time,
energy and trouble to go back and force you the
retailer to give them the correct price. It's kind of
figured into it, like, yeah, we'll get caught some of
the time, but overall our bottom line is better off
(09:29):
doing it this way.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
And this is the illusion you think.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
You know, well, I'm not going to shop at Kroger
anymore because I heard that they are price gouging. So
let's say you go over to Albertson's and Vond's and
then you find they're doing this.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
It's not. It's different, but it's the same.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
You think you're getting a better deal over here, and
you're really not. You're just getting I can't say that
word on the ring.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Yeah you can go ahead.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
You're getting old, just a different way in a different
that's all it is.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Well, if I could just say one thing, it's it's
an old practice. And it reminded me of a long
gone father figure friend of mine who told me his
dad ran a little grocery store and he had a
scam where he'd have a little hand broom by the
scale and when somebody was buying groceries, he'd put that
on there so he could overcharge people, and if they
ever noticed it, he'd be like, oh, whoops, how'd that
(10:24):
get there.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
So that's that.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
This is the modern version of that. Hey, Mark, I
got more good news that's happening. After we come back
from the break. I'll tell you and everyone else about
California drivers who may be entitled to cash from gas
companies for price fixing. No, they would they would never
people complain about you know, the gas was two day high.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
But they seemed like such nice people. Why would they
do that.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Chevron has such nice, colorful gas stations. It would never
do that. They have great commercials.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
He used to have those guys with the hats to
come and put stuff in your car.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
What has happened? What happened to full service? Well it's
just different now. Oh well, something else. It's Later with
mo Kelly.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Can't buy AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
You can't confirm it, but in your gut, deep down,
you know you're getting taken on thumb level. Maybe it's
in the back of your mind, maybe it's in the
pit of your stomach, but there's not any anything you
can do about it, and you can't prove it. Yeah,
that's what I think about most things. It's later with
Mo Kelly, can't I am six forty live everywhere on
(11:41):
the iHeartRadio app. Drivers who purchased gas in southern California,
oh about nine years ago.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
That's the bad news.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
And we've all purchased gas in California about nine years ago.
There really weren't these things called electric cars evs back then,
not nine years ago, not in great quantity. Well, if
you purchase gas, you may be entitled to a portion
of a cash settlement. And this is according to California
ag Rob Bonta. He announced this yesterday. He also went
(12:11):
on to say that drivers who purchased gas specifically between
February twentieth, twenty fifteen and November tenth, twenty fifteen. So
if you bought any gas in that ten month period,
which is probably all of us, we can submit a
claim for payment under the state settlement with gas trading
(12:34):
firms for quote, tampering with and manipulating prices for California gasoline.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Mark Ronner, here we go again. I'm ready blow my
hair back with this.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
I mean, did you know?
Speaker 1 (12:50):
I mean, look, I would drive down the street and
this is any year, and we can go back to
twenty fifteen, but I'm just saying any year. And we
know that gas prices are largely speculative. In other words,
that is not pricing for quantity. It's about what may
happen in the future. So that's why prices would vary wildly.
They'll go up ten cents in a week, or they'll
(13:12):
go up twenty cents in a week when it had
nothing to do.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
With actual supply.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
And I was noticing that this gas station on one
side of the street would be forty cents fewer than
the gas station on the other side of street. It's like,
wait a minute, they're playing comparable rent. How can gas
vary that widely? They're paying the same amount of gas tax?
And deep down inside, I said, something's not right. Quote
(13:39):
market manipulation and price gouging, where we heard those terms before,
are legal and unacceptable, particularly during times of crisis when
most people, when people are most vulnerable. This is according
to Rob Bonta, I am proud to deliver money back
to California into her victims of gas price manipulation.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
Mark.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Remember how they keep blaming gas prices on the president.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Yeah, presidents don't control, then yeah, the presidents absolutely do
not set gas prices.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
If they would, they would make sure that they were
fifty five cents a gallon right before every election.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
I promise you they would.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
There's no reason for any president to have bad economic
news if they could could actually.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Control the economy.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yes, there are policies which can influence certain sectors of
the economy, but as far as price setting, price fixing,
price manipulation, they really can't. I don't have time to
go all macro econ one on one. If I had
more time, maybe, but they really can't. And that's the
one of the big lies out there as far as
(14:46):
the range and reach of presidents. Now, if you would
like to, if you want to rack your brain and
go through your bank statements to see how much money
you might have spent on gas or whether you spent
that much money on gas between November February of twenty
(15:07):
fifteen and November of twenty fifteen, knock yourself out. But
the gas was sold during this time, and wait for it,
here we go. If this sounds a lot like the
last segment, yes it's not your imagination. This applies to
Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Orange County, Riverside County,
(15:29):
San Bernardina. Where are you Current County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara,
San Luis, Obispo and Imperial Counties. Why don't we just
say the whole damn state everyone who bought gas anywhere
and everywhere back in twenty fifteen, you got robbed, you
got taken. It was price gouging, there was price manipulation.
(15:53):
I can't actively remember what was going on in the
world in twenty fifteen. It wasn't an election year. I
don't remember if there was some sort of gas bill somewhere.
I honestly don't remember why. Because I'm old. I can't
remember what I had for lunch last week, much less
when or how much gas I bought back during the
(16:14):
end of the Baba administration. I mean, who the hell knows.
But didn't you know somewhere deep down inside? Didn't you
know in the back of your mind. Didn't you know
in the pit of your stomach.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Didn't you know? It's almost like you were in the matrix.
It was just bothering you. You just couldn't quite figure
it out. Something was off.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
It was a glitch, and you knew that the gas
prices were being manipulated. Now, you wrongly ascribed it to politicians.
You said, Gavin Newsom, you said at that time it
was oh no, it was probably Jerry Brown and or
you wanted to say it was Barack Obama when it
(16:54):
was much more simple to figure out it was capitalism
doing capitalists things and greed doing what greed does.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
And we'll see more stories just like this.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Look, you can go to KTLA dot com and they'll
have the link where you can submit a claim online.
You got to submit your claim by January eighth and
twenty twenty five. You won't be thinking about that then,
because we'll still be fighting over who is actually going
to be the president of the United States, because we
all know this country is going to go to hell
right after the presidential election, fighting over who's going to
(17:28):
be the next president. But you'll probably forget, But if
you can remember, just go to KTLA dot com.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
You can find the link there. But Mark, it's going
to be one of those nights. It's going to be
you and me and we're gonna have to say we
were right. We're gonna have to break our arms on
our back. Can't wait looking forward to it.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
You know, it's almost like I've noticed people have kind
of some people rather have turned a weird corner where
in thinking that they're defending capitalism, which I would defend too,
they wind up defending us getting ripped off, thinking that's capitalism.
And I I fight that a lot of the time
off the air with friends of mine that I would
argue with.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
One, Mark, you don't have any friends. Okay, well you
busted me on that. My imaginary friends. I look in
the mirror and have arguments with myself in a fake
mustache and the personality still doing that, and I scold
myself for being an idiot. No, you're not an idiot,
(18:25):
because when we come back, Mark, we're going to do
some more of this. Did you know it's now a
record for the number of people here in California, just
in California who are paying more than three thousand dollars
a month for rent. I'm still moving in with you
three thousand dollars a month for rent, but never mind,
(18:51):
we'll save it for after the break.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Did you know that California has more than a million
households which pay at least this is the lower limit,
at least three thousand dollars per month for rent. And
that number has more than doubled in four years. Of
(19:22):
the people who pay three thousand dollars per month for rent,
that number of people in California has doubled in the
past four years. Oh and by the way, by the way,
remember I was the one who said that California turned
down not one, but two chances to implement some form
(19:45):
of rent control.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
I remember I was that guy.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Oh and look you here, there is a rent control
measure on the ballot next month. I'm not here to
tell you how to vote. I'm just letting you know
the facts. There were two previous measures which were voted down.
Give me all the reasons and excuses you like, I'm
(20:10):
just telling you factually they were voted down. There is
another one which will be on the ballot this November,
and the opposing side is spending millions and millions of
dollars trying to tell you and me that it will
make the housing situation worse. I don't know, but my
(20:32):
definition of worse looks very different from their definition of worse.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
But vote your conscience.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
I just remember not a day goes by in which
someone doesn't complain about the rent being too damn high,
or how it's escalatory in nature, where it goes up
and it's up, and it's up and it's up. We
told you about this, and I was just quantifying. The
number of people paying three thousand dollars per month has
(21:00):
doubled in the last four years. Tell me more about
why rent control is just an evil thing. It's such
a bad thing, and I get it. Our economy has
changed in the sense that the idea of home ownership
may be viewed as out of reach for some and
not as necessary for others. I still think it's the
(21:23):
best way to accumulate wealth and also pass it on
from generation to generation and finance college educations or helping
through a medical crisis if need be.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
But this is a problem.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
I would say that California in many respects is a
victim of its own success. This is the place where
certain industries are and land is finite. You have the mountains,
you have the beaches, you have the weather. So it's
always going to cost more just to live in California.
And I'm not making fun or making light of Hurricane Helene.
(21:59):
I will point out the fact that California is a
place which doesn't have to deal with certain natural disasters,
and that also is part of the equation.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Here's something else.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
The three thousand dollars rent club is not exclusive to California.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
It's happening all around the nation.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
It's just that it's happening much more quickly and much
more severely here in California. Last year, eighteen point two
percent of California's renters paid three thousand dollars or more.
That's up from eight point three percent in twenty nineteen.
(22:41):
Not a math major, never was never really good in math.
But that's more than double. That's more than double. For
twenty twenty three, California was second behind Hawaii at twenty
one point two percent. I can understand Hawaii's probably pretty
expensive to buy land. Twenty one point two percent of
(23:03):
Hawaiian Hawaii residents spending more than three thousand dollars. So
you have Hawaii number one, California number two. Third was Washington,
d c. At sixteen point eight percent, Massachusetts at thirteen
point six percent, New York at twelve point eight percent.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Where is the cheapest.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Rent if you want to get a real good deal
on a piece of crap property, say it with me. Mississippi,
North Dakota, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, where less than one
percent of renters pay three thousand dollars plus.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
Alabama's not in there. Nope, interesting, not to be I
would live there either. No, No, but I just thought
that they would have ranked right up there next to Mississippi.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Maybe maybe they're just like one point two percent or something.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
You know, statistical variants a lot.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
I'm just say, as much as we complain about the
cost of living in California, as much as we complain
about the rent being so unbearable, we never miss an
opportunity to take control of that in a small way
that we can, with some form of rent control.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
And you know, we say, no, no, no, it's bad.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
It's not good for renters, it's not good for landlords. Well,
I'll tell you what's not good for landlords them not
making as much money as they can. This is not
this well, let me put it this way. This for
me is another form of price gouging. Rents go up
because they're allowed to go up almost without any ceiling.
We talked about how they can raise rents from eight
(24:43):
to nine percent depending on which county you live in,
every single year, every single year. And again, if you
want to do the math of how that exponentially will
impact renters, you know, go ahead and do that math.
But if you think that it's I want to get
better in the future by doing nothing, you keep on
(25:04):
thinking that because we saw what happened in the past
four years and how the number of people paying three
thousand dollars a month, which is ridiculous, ridiculous, how that
number has doubled in four years.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
You can do something about it or you can do
nothing about it.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
I'm just here giving you some math, some analysis, some perspective.
You're the ones who have to live with it and
also pay for it. It's later with mo Kelly KFI
AM six forty. We are live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Another conversation we've had and we bounce back and forth
on and Twala. I want to bring you into the
conversation this next segment because we talked about these robot dogs,
(25:46):
what they are capable of, what type of capabilities they
would have, and the situations in which they would be used. Well,
we get to meet spot LAPD's new crime fighting robot dog.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
We'll talk about that when we come back.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI A six forty and.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
I would to say maybe a year ago or so,
there was a situation which was developing where there was
a suspect who was thought to be barricaded or dead
in a structured and apartment building and LAPD I believe,
sent in a robot dog with a camera to find
(26:30):
out the status of that suspect alleged assailant, and it
provided the opportunity for.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Law enforcement to.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Look and see the status of a suspect without risking
any actual members of law enforcement, and also had more
capabilities than a person would from a technology standpoint. These
robot crime fighting dogs obviously have positives, but there are
those in some communities who feel that it would be
(27:03):
misused or only used in certain communities, and that's the
ongoing discussion. I'm somewhere in between. I've been following the
science and Boston Dynamics, who usually will post these videos
of these miraculous actions by robots. They're the leader in robotics.
(27:23):
You'll they'll show robots navigating a parkour k of course,
they'll show robots doing all these basically human like movements
from jumping, running, flipping, crawling, climbing, and you get to
see the advancements in the technology. And if you mark,
(27:46):
I don't know if you can hear me right now,
but did you watch the television show War of the World.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
It was really bad? It was really really bad. Are
you talking about the recent one that was set in
Victorian times.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
No, I'm talking about the one that was on the
Epics channel. It was really bad and it ran, i
think for two seasons, and they had the robot dogs
in there. Oh no, as part of the series. It's
really bad. You didn't miss it. You didn't miss anything.
But my point is these robot dogs have been used
on the screen already, so people would have a reference
point if you saw the TV show.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Well, don't forget the black Mirror episode. That's terrifying, right right.
I did forget that.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
As a matter of fact, that there is a cultural
reference point for these robot dogs. They have been used,
They've been seen in a variety of situations and circumstances.
Now LAPD has its own crime fighting robot dog named
Spot Boston Dynamics, who I told you about, says that
(28:45):
it is prohibiting any use of these dogs with police agencies,
law enforcement agencies to have any type of weaponry, so
to walla sharp. This is where I want to bring
you into the conversation because you are a very vocal.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Say opponent of these dogs.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
Originally, absolutely, and I love that Boston Dynamic says that
police departments cannot under any circumstances arm these dogs. They
forgot to say dot dot dot for now, because it's
just a matter of time. There was already when we
first started talking about this. It was after the dog
(29:28):
was used to search out the suspect. I can't remember
what the date was, but it was when the suspect
was up and hiding. We talked about how that can
save lives, and this, that and the other. Fast forward,
when LAPD first started petitioning to actually deploy these we
were questioning under whose guidance, into which communities, so forth
and so on. But after that they started implementing what
(29:53):
into these dogs AI technology to start making them more
intuitive and easy or to program. These are all the
reasons that I have problems with these things. These things,
as you said, and all these videos are capable of
all types of feats. Now you want to program them
with a program that teaches itself and learns, And there's
(30:17):
only a matter of time before some way, somehow, whether
it be the police unions or whichever law enforcement agency,
says it is absolutely crucial that we arm these things,
then we are sol.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
I don't know if we will follow the path that
you're talking about, but history suggests that it will. History
suggests that when you use these types of tools, there
is an invariable escalation. And if you're programming them, then
it's going to be reinforced by data, which is going
to be unfavorable to certain communities. If it's programmed to
(30:56):
believe that crime is happening more over here or there,
then it's going to be implemented more over here or
there than other communities. And I'm concerned about the oversight
or lack thereof. I want to know who LAPD in
this particular instance, because we're talking about SPOT, which is
going to be with LAPD, who would be the oversight
(31:19):
or the agency or i'll say the backstop for when
it is used, how it is used, and what.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Type of tools it will have.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
And just because Boston Dynamics says, hey, you can't equip
them with weapons, It doesn't mean it can't be modified
to use some sort of deadly force. We remember when
I think it was Dallas, correct me if I'm wrong,
where they send in the robot with a bomb to
blow up the suspect.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
I don't know if that was how the robot was tooled,
but it was modified for that.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
You know, there are capabilities that can be added to
it that has nothing to do with Boston Dynamics what
it may have programmed into it.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
Not to be funny, but I do want to highlight
this is an intersection of my concerns with the autonomous
vehicles and Mark Ronner's concerns with AI more generally, when
you leave it up to AI, I'm not at the
point where I can trust it to make any life
and death decisions.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
No, I'm not there yet.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
I don't want to go on a limb here, but
I am one hundred percent against the dystopian future of
exploding robots.
Speaker 5 (32:30):
Okay, look, these things are scary enough without bombs. Yes,
they are crawling around on all forms like a air
quotes here dog, but these things can stand These things
are extremely strong, and it is just a matter of
time before they say, hey, Musk, we want to actually
implement some of your humanoid Tesla bots. They just have
(32:51):
a contract with Boston Dynamics. That doesn't say they cannot
get a contract with must to get implement his Tesla bots,
who would absolutely arm them these things. That's what I'm saying.
This is a slippery slope. Once you allow this, then
that can happen. The next thing, the next excalation can
easily happen. That is a problem. This is a slippery
(33:11):
slope where you are implementing robots to enforce crime and Moe,
you asked this question the last time we talked about it.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Who is going to be in charge? What is the oversight?
Speaker 5 (33:22):
I'd like to see something we haven't seen anything since,
and that was like at least five months ago.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
I think we as citizens, as Lay's citizenry, I think
we have a responsibility to pose certain scenarios and ask
certain questions and be skeptical in advance of something happening.
You can't wait until something happens and say, ah, we
should have thought of that. No, we have to try
(33:49):
to think of it in advance. How this could adversely
affect people? How this could harm someone? Can it differentiate?
I mean, how much autonomy does the robot have When
you're talking talking about AI?
Speaker 2 (34:02):
You know under what circumstances.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
So yeah, I would want a full demonstration, but I
need to see more. I would have to know more
before I would be comfortable with it. And I would
like to think of myself as being consistent. I have
always been slow on the uptick when it comes to
new types of science. I am doctor Ian Malcolm in
that regard where I think we can run too fast,
(34:25):
try to do too much too soon, with too little
oversight and too little forethought.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
I am always that person, if.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Only because it may seem like a good idea now,
and it may have all sorts of benefits, But I'm
always always thinking about unintended consequences, and this for me
says that there may be unintended consequences. Am I absolutely
on the side of protecting law enforcement? Yes, one hundred percent.
(34:55):
I don't think anyone can argue the upside here. But
just like justice system is supposed to be constructed, where
one person wrongly going to prison is an indictment of
the whole system, one person being unnecessarily harmed or killed
hypothetically by one of these robot dogs would be an
indictment of that system.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Oh, it's going to be about where I come out.
You know it's going to happen. And pardon me for
sounding immodest here, but I haven't thought of a different
name for Mark's law of new technology, which is, whenever
there's any new technology, imagine the very worst, most horrifying
thing that could be done with it. It is one
hundred percent guaranteed that that's going to happen. And so
you call it unintended consequences, They are intended by some people,
(35:41):
and that's where regulation has to come in. I thought
all new technology goes back to porn. Well that's true,
that's not my rule. There's going to be a different
name for that.
Speaker 5 (35:50):
No telling what's going to happen with these robot dogs
in that case.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
See now, Tula, I figured you would want to take
a ride with a robot dog in an autonomous car, right?
Speaker 2 (35:58):
No? No, what, No, I absolutely do not.
Speaker 5 (36:02):
This is where my love for all things technology and
AI integration with cars and flying Hella cars and all that,
this is where I draw the line, and it is
largely based in my fear of a terminator like future,
but also because I know that mankind is one of
(36:27):
the most destructive forces on this planet. And we get
something that on the surface is meant to enforce the law,
it's only a matter of time before its run them
up and destroy society with something that I believe is
this dangerous. I think it is wrong for LAPD to
be implementing SPOT under the guise of protecting officers. I
(36:50):
think that's a lie. They just want to use this
robot and see what it can do. They want to
see it go and knock down doors and maybe drag
someone out of a house. That's me putting my own
fear spin on it, but I believe that that's.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
What's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Well, one of us is going to be right, and
hopefully all of us are wrong. It's later with Mo
Kelly k IF I am six forty. We're live everywhere
on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
Shot bullets stimulating tongue.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
There's k f I M K O S T E
H D two Los Angeles, Orange County
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Live everywhere on the Heart Radio
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.