All Episodes

June 21, 2024 25 mins
AT&T’s plan to ‘phase out’ landline service in California likely to be denied. Immigration could sway California congressional races, house control. Supreme court votes 8-1 to uphold gun ban for domestic abusers. Are restaurant dress codes discriminatory? Here’s the answer.
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demandfrom KFI AM six forty. Yep,
you are, and this is KFIHandle here morning crew or up till nine
o'clock every single day. I don'tthink I've ever said that, by the
way, this early in the show, just lam okay, never mind.

(00:23):
Let me tell you about AT andT, my absolute favorite carrier in the
whole world. For those of youthat have AT and T cell service,
you hate it, all right?I had it. I hated it.
But then again, that's not sayingmuch because I've had a bunch of other
ones that I hate all of themtoo. I get calls every Saturday about
how horrible cell phone service is.But a lot of people have cell phones,

(00:48):
and a lot of people, Iwould say most people, the vast
majority of people, use the Internetas the source of their ability to communicate.
There is something called a landline service, and it has changed landline service,
and I made sure when I started, when I moved into the Persian

(01:11):
Palace twenty five years ago, Imade absolutely sure I had a landline.
A landline being a copper wire thatgoes to your phones to your house.
And early on we had VoIP voiceoverusing the Internet in early days, and

(01:33):
the technology is just ramped up tothe point where everybody's using the Internet or
cell phones, cell towers. Buthere's where the landline makes absolute sense.
And this is what I always thought. If the cell phone tower goes out,
if the internet goes out, youcan't make a phone call. How
often does the internet go out.I've had to go out a bunch of

(01:55):
times. I've had various areas wherecell phones don't work very well. But
at my house, I always hada landline. I always had a copper
landline. Well. At and T, which provides the company that provides copper
landlines southern California. Once out,they're saying it's expensive to maintain, it's

(02:17):
expensive to support, and we wantout. And they went in front of
the Public Utility Commission to get outof it, arguing that it's impossible to
maintain, it's too expensive to installor to support, therefore we want out.
Here's the problem AT and T hasit's considered a carryer of glast resort

(02:39):
requires the company to offer basic phoneservice to anyone who wants it basic phone
service, and this since nineteen ninetysix and remains one of the only companies
in the state, actually in thecountry to offer traditional copper based landline service,
and they're saying, you know what, we really can't afford it,

(03:01):
like DSL lines that we used touse, which we don't use now.
We broadcast with the internet, andif the Internet goes down, well we've
got a real problem talking to eachother. I mean, we can still
transmit, but we can't get anyinformation. You can't get anything on the
internet. You can't pull any informationout. You're screwed. You're just talking.

(03:22):
So AT and T goes in frontof the PUC and argues, let
us out of this thing. It'scosting too much money. A lot of
backlash, especially among older people,people that don't have computers. If you
ever listen to Handle on the logyou know how many times or I have
said, just use your computer andyou can research this or that, and

(03:49):
people go, I don't have acomputer. I'm old, I'm decrepit.
And I asked, you know whata computer is, because I'm very gracious
to people, and sometimes they sayno, and they have the only way
they can communicate with the phone iseither via cell phone, which they don't
have, or that copper line andit's basically the last emergency way of communicating

(04:15):
and by law, AT and Thas to maintain it because it is considered
a carrier of last resort. Sothey just went in front of the PUC
and the PU said, PUC said, no, you're not leaving, No,
thank you. You're still the carrierof last resort. Now I don't
even know because in my new place, which I haven't moved in yet and

(04:38):
so I really haven't set up anythingother than Wi Fi, I don't even
know if I can get a landline a copper land line. Now they
call a land line that you canget but it's Internet supported. I go,
wait a minute, that's not aland line. A land line goes
through the land. It doesn't gothrough the air, it doesn't go on

(05:03):
a satellite. It's it's a landline. And I don't even know, Neil,
you're our techno, Maven. Canyou even get a landline? Now?
That is a copper wire that goesthrough the land. In certain areas
they still have that wiring, butwe've been told that they're going to be

(05:25):
getting rid of it. Yeah,that's what and that's what I buy landlines
because I was a big proponent ofkeeping one for emergencies. Right, everything
has switched to VoIP basically, right, and that is the problem. And
here's my question. They have tomaintain it. But if you, for
example, I'm moving, I haveto set up a phone coverage, if

(05:46):
I want a landline, if i'mif I'm ordering one, will they give
it to me. I have tolook that up because that's one of the
things I want to look at out. Maybe they have to as a last
resort because when the internet goes outand when the cell service goes out,
let's say there's an earthquake, thelast ability to communicate is with a copper

(06:09):
landline. That's the last one standing, last man standing. And so AT
and T wanted out. The PUCsaid no, thank you. AT and
T says it costs us money tomaintain. The PUC said no, thank
you. AT and T keeps arguing. The PUC said, good luck,

(06:30):
it's not going to happen. Itwas the nanosment's unanimous decision which just happened.
And of course I'm going to readyou the quote from AT and T.
We remain committed to keeping our customersconnected to voice service and will continue
working with State leaders on policies thatallow us to bring modern communications to Californians.

(06:53):
Any idea what that means other thancomplete hogwash? It's it's your typical.
Our customers are our most important partof our business. Airplane falls out
of the sky. We continue tomaintain safety as the most important feature of
our company. Sure all right.One of the big issues that we're going

(07:16):
to see where I think Joe Bidenis in a lot of trouble this election
coming up is the issue of immigrationon a couple of levels. Simple immigration,
or simply put, immigration is somethingwe're concerned about. Too many illegal
migrants coming over the border and askingfor asylum, and by law they have

(07:38):
to be given a court hearing,and there's all kinds of controversy about that.
The other thing that is so importantin this discussion are the politics.
Donald Trump is running on immigration asone of his platforms one of his big
issues. Is there a little hitocracythere? Of course there is. Finally,

(08:01):
Joe Biden came to the table afew months ago in a non partisan
or bipartisan deal. A bill wasintroduced that both Republicans and Democrats wanted to
pass, and Biden was prepared tosign it. Donald Trump calls the Speaker

(08:22):
Mike Johnson and says, kill thatbill. That bill, by the way,
is exactly what the Republicans wanted.Why did that happen? Donald Trump
wants to win, wants to runon immigration, and an immigration bill that
Biden signs as bipartisan just cuts himoff at the knees. That's the horrific
politics of this. The other sideof it is Joe Biden pandering because all

(08:46):
of a sudden he has accepted immigrationas a major issue. He comes into
his presidency and he is Emma Lazarus. There's a plaque at the base of
the Statue of Liberty, give meyour wretched, give me your poor yearning
to be free. Okay, thatmeans every immigrant coming in now. When

(09:07):
the Statue of Liberty was put up, we wanted immigrants to come in.
Now not so much, not somuch because a number of illegal immigrants.
Numbers are astronomical, And so theDemocrats have gone from open arms and all
of a sudden their arms start closingbecause you can't say give us everybody you

(09:31):
have. There's still some liberals thatsay there should be no borders. We
want everybody you can for Cynthi Fox, who was President of Mexico maybe twenty
five years ago, set it outright. There is no border. It's
just a line. Much like whenyou go to Nevada. The only thing
you know that you're going to Nevadais a sign that says welcome to Nevada.

(09:54):
That's it. That's the border betweenstates. And that's what he wanted
as a border between the United Statesand Mexico. That's a problem. And
so now you have immigration could reallysway congressional seats in the House. Here
in California. It can swing bothways, which means it's not just another

(10:18):
one or two congress people going oneway or the other. It is the
control of the House we're talking about. And I can't wait to see the
debate where Trump is going to attackBiden on immigration policy, and I think
rightly so, I think Biden iswrong the wrong side of history on that

(10:39):
one. And then Biden is goingto come back and say, but you
killed the bipartisan bill. Why didyou do that? Who wins on that
one? I don't know, Idon't know. You know, I'm pretty
liberal in many aspects LGBTQ rights andyou know, abortion, etc. But

(11:01):
when it comes to the border,I got to tell you, you reach
a point when it comes to insanetaxes, we reach a point where no,
thank you. You know you can'tdo that when it comes to spending
public money, my money, yourmoney, and just throwing it at problems
and all the money just disappears intothe abyss. You know, Conservatives have

(11:22):
a very good point. Let privateenterprise run these companies. The problem is
private enterprise is so corrupt there there'sno way to win on this. And
I think the same thing with immigration. So we'll see what happens with the
congressionals on this one, because thatis really really important. And I think

(11:45):
the congressional the congressional races are goingto be decided based on immigration policy.
I think that is the number oneissue. All right, coming up,
and Neil's gonna join me on thisone. Dress code are they discrimination?
Are they discriminatory in restaurants? Sinceyou can't see below the waist and you're

(12:07):
sitting down, can I go commandoand still maintain address code? Much like
I'm broadcasting now from home, soyou know, we're zooming each other and
so you can't see below the waist. Got us what pretty close on that
thing. Yeah, this is JeffreyTubin broadcasting live and this news literally came

(12:30):
down just a couple of minutes ago. And that is a decision by the
Supreme Court, which, as Itold you yesterday, the last part of
June, it's decision after decision thatcomes down all the major cases we hear
about, and we'll see over thenext few days more and more cases that
are decided, or at least theyhaven't decided. We're told about it.

(12:54):
And there was one Second Amendment casethat was really important to the Second Amendment
advocates and there is a federal lawand we talked about this that bans guns
for domestic abusers, and the gunadvocates said that is a violation of Second

(13:16):
Amendment rights. Keep in mind,the gun advocates go nuts when it comes
to any restriction of firearms ownership.You know, for example, assault weapons
are not really assault weapons, they'resports weapons. And to keep assault weapons
being sold, they are saying thatSecond Amendment rights are violated. It's kind

(13:43):
of crazy, it really is.I mean, there is no limitation in
their argument. Slippery slope. That'sit. You allow something and down it
goes. Well, the slippery slopejust happened. The Supreme Court upheld the
law barring domestic abusers from owning guns. Federal law said, you know what,

(14:03):
there are certain people that can't ownguns. One of those are felons,
which, by the way, that'sbeing attacked by the Second Amendment because
if you are a felon and youget popped for anything not involving a gun,
you should be able to own agun. How about if you got
popped four using a gun to murdersomeone. Okay, Second Amendment folks will

(14:26):
say, okay, we'll give youthat one. Not a problem. It
is wide open. And so theargument. And by the way, anytime
there's a federal law prohibiting anything dealingwith guns, Second Amendment folks are going
to hit it because their philosophy isvery simple, and that is, you
can't pass laws restricting the ownership ofguns. And by the way, the

(14:50):
argument with the assault weapons literally,even though they are designed to kill people,
that is it. They are notdesigned for sport. They are not
designed for example, protection of yourhome. Well at least that's certainly what
the manufacturers are going to say,that they're designed for everything. I like

(15:13):
the sports argument by the way,that one I really like. It's like
hunting rifles. So the Feds passthis law. Domestic abusers are so dangerous
that we're not going to let themhave a weapon. Why not? Well,

(15:33):
it really isn't there's no connection.You can abuse and beat your wife
or your husband to a pulp,but you know you're not using a weapon
to do it. You're only usinga frying pan. And therefore, what
do they have to do with yourright to bear arms? What does they
have to do with your right tohave a weapon. The two are not

(15:54):
connected at all. And the issueis the argument that I find astounding.
Now I am biased, you know, I believe in gun control, although
I suggest to gun control people justgive it up because it'll never happen.
And that is that the premise thatthe Second Amendment should be universal, allowing

(16:18):
anybody, virtually everybody from having agun or any ban should be unconstitutional.
The argument is, the only peoplethat shoot up shopping centers, schools,
any place where, bars, they'reall mentally ill. And that is the
problem. We have to deal withthe mentally ill, because if we deal

(16:41):
with all mentally ill people who couldget a weapon, we wouldn't have this
problem, not at all. Soto the US government and to the state
government, and to the county government, stop with the weapons, go to
the mentally ill, deal with allthe mentally ill people in this country,

(17:02):
and that will stop the problem.Then we will not have shootings. Then
we will not have people shooting upschools. It simply wouldn't happen. And
you go, wow, how manymentally ill people are there in this country
that have mental ill issues? Howmany people have mental ill issues that we

(17:23):
mental ill issues, that mental illnessthat we don't even know they're out there
with mental illness, and we discoverafter the fact, we discover they're squarely
and crazy because they post the shootingeither live on YouTube or you see these
crazy posts after the fact. Sowhat we should do is, well,

(17:49):
let's make sure that we have everybody'sposts and we have some kind of an
algorithm or AI that then determines whatmental illness is. A wait, a
sec mental illness is a legal proposition. In order to stop mentally ill people
from having a weapon, It's goingto take a judge, it's going to

(18:10):
take a legal process. Someone hasto decide how far mentally ill is what
if you are all you're doing isyou're hurting yourself, right, What if
you're cutting yourself up with a knife? Is that enough? Well you have
to figure this out, because that'sgoing to take it. That's going that's
what's going to stop people from shootingit up. That's how crazy that argument

(18:33):
is. So the Supreme Court justsaid no to the Second Amendment folks on
this one. That law that barreddomestic abusers from owning guns is legitimate.
It is not a violation of SecondAmendment rights. It's a fairly big win
for the gun control people. Okay, I didn't think court was going to

(18:56):
go that way. And by theway, it was an eight to one
decision. I thought Clarence Thomas andSam Alito would go by way of the
gun folks only Clarence Thomas. Didyou know, there's a problem when a
Supreme Court justice walks in on theSupreme Court wearing a bandolier that has ammunition
and carrying a few weapons on him, that becomes problematic. You sort of

(19:21):
know which way it's going to go, don't you. Dress codes. I'm
bringing Neil in here because dress codes. It is being argued in and of
themselves are discriminatory. First of all, of course they're discriminatory. You don't
if you wear shorts, you're notcoming into our restaurant. Certainly, that's

(19:42):
the discriminatory against people that want tobe casually dressed, and both goes both
ways. Interesting book. A guywith the named Richard Ford wrote Stanford Law
School professor, and he wrote thebook dress Codes, How the Laws of
fat and made History. And hesays, you can look at it two

(20:03):
ways. Number one, perfectly reasonablefor people for restauranteurs to have dress codes,
or restauranteurs agree to that, ormany of them do upscale saying,
hey, this is an upscale restaurant. We don't want people look like slobs.
We want people to enjoy our restaurant. And it's not only the quality
and the price of the food,but it's also the ambience. And if

(20:26):
you're wearing shorts and flip flop,there goes the ambience now. And by
the way, things like baggy pantsso you look like a gang banger,
or grills on your teeth so yousmile, and all of a sudden you
have diamonds and all that stuff,and their restaurants say no, thank you,
and their restaurants to say coat andtie. And I have gone to

(20:47):
restaurants where I didn't take them veryseriously because most restaurants will let you in
anyway, because you know, theenforcement is ridiculously low. Where I was
given a coat and a tie,they said here and they offered that.
Neil, let's talk about that.Legitimate makes sense. Is it discriminatory?

(21:10):
Yes, and yes it is legitimatewhen used legitimately, but it can be
abused. So I believe that ifyou are creating a vibe an atmosphere there's
white cloth and fresh flowers on thetable, then yeah, you have to
control it. If you are ata clubhouse where people are going to be
coming off of the tennis courts orthe golf course or something, then it's

(21:36):
going to accommodate that particular crowd.Yeah, there's no dress code there.
They accommodate. But the minute youstart and I think, you know,
baseball caps and certain baggy clothing andbandanas and like, I get that they
don't want anything representing a gang lifestylethere. But when you get into like
large gold chains or even the grills, then you start getting into something that

(22:00):
is I think specifically targeting a group, and that would be problematic. But
there are certain places. For instance, I was a member of the Magic
Castle for many, many, manyyears, and they have a dress code.
They relaxed it for a while andthen they brought it back because it
didn't feel right in the context ofthe club. Do I love throwing on

(22:25):
a tie in a suit, notin particularly, but it was important to
that atmosphere to have that. Nowthere's some I read some there's a dress
code at a place that says youcan't have an undershirt. A sleeveless undershirt
I don't wear. For the mostpart, I don't wear T shirt undershirts.

(22:45):
I wear a cuts a cut undershirts, and that wouldn't be allowed in
certain places. I don't find thatdiscriminatory. Toy all right, let me
make a point of discrimination. Whenyou're talking about baggy clothes, you're talking
about twelve pounds of gold hanging offyour neck grills, for example, on

(23:07):
your teeth. You think a restauranttour would want those people because they're the
ones that have a pile of money. If you've got twelve pounds of gold,
let me tell you you bought itunless you stole it. You've got
a ton of money, and youwould want those people in because they're going
to spend money and lots of it. Yeah, and trends change and style

(23:27):
changes, and I understand that,but creating a vibe. They don't want
people in T shirt and jeans ina place that it that they want,
you know, sexy people. No, right, but it's life. Yeah,
I get that, but it's moresort of coat and tie and relaxing
that and to a place. AndI think I mentioned this on the Era
a couple weeks ago. I wentto a place in New York to a

(23:48):
speak easy and you needed to bewearing leather shoes, and a guy behind
me was wearing Prada tennis shoes andthey wouldn't let him in. I could
see that it didn't matter that theywere proud of or it's right. It
is a dress code. It's thatsimple. Now, I don't know how
many people actually go on the websiteor call and say, is there a

(24:11):
dress code? You know, I'vebeen on cruises before and they say,
it's real simple. Dining room certaintimes, certain places you have to wear
a coat and tie, you haveto people show up in shorts and they're
allowed in and it's just a questionof enforcement. And that's the other thing.
The enforcement of dress codes. Hasthat fallen apart over the last few

(24:34):
years, you know, it's becomea problem. When I was in management
at the station, there were timeswe had to enforce certain dress codes.
Is that I don't discriminatory? Yeah? Yes, So I remember how pissed
off I was when you told meI had to wear pants. It was
the people were squinting a lot andbumping into walls. So let's okay,

(24:59):
we had to end that. Ofcourse, we have to end with stupidity
of every segment, even if it'sa serious segment. Okay, and we
start with it too, And that'scorrect the middle. So that's absolutely correct.
Fair enough. KFI AM six fortylive everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
You've been listening to the Bill HandleShow. Catch My Show Monday through Friday
six am to nine am, andanytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.

The Bill Handel Show News

Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC
Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK? For 60 years, we are still asking that question. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination, legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner teams up with award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien to tell the history of America’s greatest murder mystery. They interview CIA officials, medical experts, Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, eyewitnesses and a former Secret Service agent who, in 2023, came forward with groundbreaking new evidence. They dig deep into the layers of the 60-year-old question ‘Who Killed JFK?’, how that question has shaped America, and why it matters that we’re still asking it today.

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.