November 4, 2024 • 25 mins
Battleground states’ vote-counting rules complicate when a winner is likely to be named. It’s hard to vote in California when you’re homeless. Why it matters when their voices are silenced. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio f kf I AM
six forty Bill Handle. Oh yes, it is a Monday,
November fourth, coming up tomorrow, November fifth, Tuesday, and we
elect a president or not. So here is the real problem,
(00:25):
and this is crazy. Look at the contradiction here, and
that is the more careful the election system is, the
more oversight, the more safeguards are put in place, the
quicker the recounts are established, and just take it may
(00:47):
just take longer because of the new rules that are
set up just to make it safer. Okay, with that
in mind, here's the contradiction I'm gonna throw at you.
Taking longer to make sure it it's safe is really
about taking longer to commit the fraud. It's easier to
commit fraud when you have more time to commit fraud.
(01:10):
So therefore it should go quicker. But wait a minute,
if it goes quicker, then you can't catch the fraud. Wow,
isn't that special? And unless the polls are completely wrong,
and they can be because they had been wrong before.
Look what happened with Hillary and Donald Trump in twenty sixteen.
(01:32):
All these changes, the overhaul of election laws since the
pandemic has put us in a whole new set of rules,
and so a lot of the problem is the delay,
which is going to be delayed because of the patchwork
of rules and how votes are counted, especially in battleground states.
So it is a double hit. We're going to be
(01:55):
really careful. We've made it really difficult to commit any
kind of malfeasons, but it takes time to make sure
it's all in place, and then of course that gives
time for us to commit the fraud. I mean, we're
a custom turning on our TV at least late into
election night and seeing some kind of winner, you know,
prediction from one of the networks. Well, that's no longer
(02:19):
a thing. Change behavior about voters, how we cast our ballots,
the rules that have changed. When mail ballots, for example,
can be tallied, you know, when can they be counted
starting the night of the election, before the election, because
you can do mail in ballots as long as a
month before. Can they be counted before that? It's all different.
(02:40):
By the way, when does that vote count when you
do a mail in? Is it when it's postmarked? Is
it when it arrives at the polling center or at
the counting center. Don't know about that either, different rules,
different places, and in lawsuits of course are hitting, which
is going to delay everything. As of yesterday, seventy six
million Americans have voted, either through mail ballots or in
(03:03):
person early voting. They set up booths, and several states
have reported record breaking early returns, including two that are critical,
Georgia and North Carolina. More than four million Georgians have
cast ballots as a Friday, much further or much greater
in numbers than prior elections. Secretary of State Brad Rafinsberger,
(03:23):
who of course very famous for not caving into Donald
Trump when Trump said, find me eleven thousand votes, he said,
Georgia voters, No, We've made it easy to cast a ballot.
It's just that simple. That's why we have so many
more people voting California. Not that it matters in the
presidential because we know Kamala Harrison has it. We now
(03:46):
use mail in ballots. We send mail in ballots to
every registered voter. By the way, everybody's register too. If
you get a driver's license, you're registered. And that also
happens in the number of battleground states, so it is
really dicey now. In various states before, for example Georgia,
(04:10):
they didn't even start counting until all of the votes,
or didn't start counting until the votes were the last
day of voting before, which means they started counting. It
took a little while. There's the conspiracy theories, fraud. Michigan
was fraud. And if tomorrow's election is going to be close,
and it's going to be close, be prepared again. The
(04:32):
lawsuits are already being prepared, They've already been filed. And
this is why I have such a horrible time with
this election and the legitimate argument that there really is
an attack on democracy. There really is. The attack on
democracy is really simple, and that is those of Trump's supporters,
(04:54):
not all of them, not all of them, but enough
of them. And trump position is, we will not have
a fair election unless he wins. Democracy in this country
is about bringing Donald Trump back. Not bringing Donald Trump
back back back is a violation of the Constitution of
the United States. And unfortunately, so many people, so many
(05:18):
people believe that. I mean, isn't it possible that we
have a fair election where the real winner is elected president?
Not anymore, doesn't exist anymore. That's the part that's so
depressing for me. Forget about in the policy. I mean,
I disagree with Trump on reproductive rights. I agree with
him on a lot of what he does in terms
(05:41):
of foreign policy. I agree a lot of what he
does with China. I disagree with Kamala Harris on a
lot of stuff. I mean, you know, taxes are her
favorite friend. Where she going to get the money to
do a tenth of what she's saying she's going to
do without making the bank. That's all BS politics. But
(06:04):
what isn't BS politics is to argue that we do
not have fair elections in this country, especially because of
the accusations, because of votes being so close, all of
the safeguards. The safer our elections are, and they're getting
safer and safer more secure, the bigger the argument that
(06:25):
they are fraudulent to the point where if it can
be established that virtually every vote is legitimate, there's gonna
be a few there aren't. You got one hundred fifty
million votes out there. So let's say we set up
a system where it is so secure, it is so crazy,
that every vote is counted legitimately that in and of
(06:50):
itself is fraudulent because Trump loses or if Trump loses,
you know, there's the attack democracy. Do I care if
Trump wins or loses? Well, yeah, but you know, I'm
willing to accept that. You know, yeah, I'm fine with that.
You know, welcome to America. Like the Supreme Court, people
(07:10):
are bitching and moaning about the conservative members of the
Supreme Court. Oh my god, look what he did, three
member conservative members. Hey, read the constitution, guys. You know,
a president nominates the Senate confirms what else is going on? Well,
I shouldn't have done that. He's the president. Of course
he should do that. That's who he is. But the
(07:32):
rest of it, No free elections in this country unless
there's a Republican win. That's scary. That is scary. All right. Now,
let me tell you a group of people that are
really affected by virtually every local ordinance that's passed, every
proposition that's passed out there. It seems the homeless people.
(07:53):
Homeless people are affected, and you know what they don't do.
They don't vote. And why Well, let's start with home
homelessness maybe arguably being the biggest problem facing California, certainly
it is. If you talk to Karen Bass who ran
on the platform of homelessness. Paul Caruso, her opponent, ran
(08:14):
a homelessness Gavin Newsom elected on his promise and his
debt dealing with homelessness his second time out. What was
the biggest problem in California homelessness? And so the very
people that are affected about being affected by being homeless,
who happen to be the homeless, they don't vote. And
(08:36):
it's not that they are purposely kept from voting. I mean,
I don't think anybody is purposely kept out of the
voting booth. I think or mail. I think it's so
I do know, I know it is that you have
to have an address, don't you. Let's say you do
a mailing ballot. We're going to send a ballot to you. Now,
(08:58):
do you know that you can't have as an address
for mailing purposes, for the vote purposes, to ballot purposes.
You can have a po box, okay, you can have
a homeless shelter. That makes sense. And this one absolutely
stunned me when I saw this. You can have the
(09:18):
cross streets on as a mailing address, the corner of
Fourth and Maine, No no, yes, yes, yes, you want
to look this up. This comes out of cal Matters.
And you know when I say stuff like that, I
don't just make it up. I mean I attribute it.
(09:39):
It's as col Matters that came up with this and
cal Matters when you talk about voting issues, no one
really argues about the efficacy of this. So those ballots
can be mailed and you'd registered to vote shelter Cross
Street of the Park Street sidewalk where they in the night,
(10:02):
which is interesting because people don't usually send their addresses
as a street corner. Now they can't register there, but
they can vote out of there. Now. Of course voters
can get who don't do a mailing can go to
a polling place. But again, homeless people, and do homeless
(10:23):
people lack transportation? You bet they do. But here is
another issue which we don't think about very often, and
this was my dealing with homeless my brother's ex fiancee
who I found on the street. She had been living
on the streets for three years when we found her,
and it's a horrific story, and we ended up putting
(10:45):
her in a hotel and she ended up getting governmental
services worked out. But as she explained it she couldn't
get a night's sleep when I always had to be open,
and that's on the sidewalk, which is really easy to
sleep on it because afraid of her stuff being stolen,
afraid of being assaulted. The thought of leaving her stuff
(11:06):
on the sidewalk and going someplace was impossible because it
would all be stolen by other homeless people. And so
the thought of going to a polling place without bringing
everything with you is very difficult. So limited access to
voting information because what do you do on the street,
(11:27):
and you've got a bunch of other things to worry
about tomorrow. I've already voted by mail. But the day
I voted by mail, and it was last week sometime,
I didn't worry about where my next meal was coming from.
I didn't worry about where I was going to sleep
that night. Did I worry about you ripping me off? Well,
(11:48):
of course, that's why I have the German shepherds that
eat people in the alarm systems. But that is a
different issue completely, right, Neil.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yes, yes, yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
The point is it's very very difficult for homeless people
to vote, and it turns out that where you've got
thirty forty to fifty percent voting record, and depending on
the state, depending on which county with the homeless, it's
way less than ten percent. I am surprised it's even
(12:17):
ten percent of the homeless people who actually vote. And
how much do you know? Do the homeless people pay
attention to politics? Do they watch CNN? Do they watch Fox?
Do they have access to the internet. I'm reading two
papers a day, three papers a day, while I'm doing
the show during the breaks, while I'm making my coffee,
(12:40):
while I'm cooking up my fritatas, while I'm eating my bagels,
while I'm going to the bathroom. This show actually gets
in the way of this of my life. Have you
noticed how often I have said that, yes, yes, yeah,
it just really gets in the way sometimes. But at
least I get my information. Okay, since it is Monday
(13:02):
and it is the last half hour the show, it
is time for a couple of segments of do they
have a case? With Wayne and Me? So let's dive
right into do they have a case?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
All right, but masseltov to you one down, one to go.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Yeah, he's referring to my daughter Barbara Handel, who is
now Barbara handle Penny. That's what no. I literally, no,
that's Brandon's last name. So she is now missus Penny.
And okay, it's done, and now I go for my
(13:40):
next one. I'm telling her. Actually I did that when
I did my speech. I turned to Pamela and said,
what I'm spending tonight. This is for both of you.
Yours is going to be in Las Vegas in front
of an Elvis impersonator. Enjoy yourself tonight. Okay, let's do
it all right.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
I don't know if you remember many years ago there
was a television for Dirt Devil Vacuums that.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Foh yes, I do remember, dare yes.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Dancing around with a vacuum cleaner.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
It was controversial at the time because fred Astaire had
said in his will that he didn't want anything.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Like that to ever happen.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
But he died and his widow did give permission, so
Dirt Devil was allowed to use Fred Astaire dancing with
a vacuum. Now we come to a lady from ELLINOI
named Elizabeth Huston, who is suing Hurst Communications, the publisher
of many magazines, including Good Housekeeping, who says they used
(14:39):
her identity against her will in violation of Illinoi's.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Right of Publicity Act.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Most states have a law like this company cannot use
your name or likeness without your permission in order to
sell their stuff. Now, what she's talking about is a
list that Hurst sells of all the subscribers to all
of their publications. Nine point one million people on this list,
(15:07):
and they sell it to data miners and aggregators and brokers.
And the idea is they get your information, they see
what you subscribe to, and then they send you ads
in the mail direct mail advertising. So she says, you
are using my identity without my permission in order to
(15:27):
promote Good Housekeeping, which, by the way, I'm still having
trouble believing this bill even though it is in a
published Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. Good Housekeeping itself
has over one point seven million subscribers.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
So that's her claim.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Good Housekeeping and hearst for their side, They say, Okay,
we admit.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
For sure you are on this list that.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
We sell, and we admit we didn't get your permission
to put your name on this list. However, you have
no case because we're not doing it. We're not using
you for a commercial purpose.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Understood.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
She says, of course you are. You're selling this, you're
selling this list. And they say, we're not using you
to sell the list.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
You are the list. So it's different.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Fred Astare dancing with a vacuum is clearly using fred
Astare to sell a vacuum. We're not using you holding
up the list and saying you love the list, you're
the list.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
You're not using you for a commercial purpose. Yeah, does
she have a case?
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Oh this gets this is really interesting stuff. So now
first first argument, because I'm sure the court hasn't seen
this before, is does her activities fall within the definition
of that law? Okay, that's what the courts have to
deal with when we really don't know and see if
I tell me if the court was going this way
of thinking, and that is, the court quite often, in
(17:10):
absence of anything else, will look at legislative intent. What
do we think the intent of the legislature was when
they passed this law. Is it the way you described
that fred Astaire dancing where it's there's no issue where
it's very clear cut, or does it encompass her situation
(17:32):
about these mailing lists? And that is the issue of
just the very definition of using her name, her likeness,
certainly her name. Then there's two other issues. One is
simply practicality. If she has a case, one point eight
million people have cases, they can all sue. Okay, So
(17:55):
that just blows everything up, And there are a couple
of ways of dealing with if the courts could even
argue this legislature can saying that Good Housekeeping simply has
to send to all of its subscribers. You opt out,
we can't share the list, which is in the way
that it's going. I am going to argue she does
not have a case because it does not fall within
(18:18):
the parameters of the law that was written. This is
brand new stuff, way outside of the law, and for
her to try to cram it into the existing law
doesn't fly. That's the way I would interpret it.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Oh well, so did they?
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Wow, Yeah, she has no case and this really is
this law? You said, what's paramount here is the intent
of the law. The intent of the law is to
protect people from having their identity used to make it
seem as if they are endorsing some kind of product
or service when they never gave permission to be used
(18:55):
that way. What she has is some kind of data
private to see gripe that.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Well, I don't like you. I don't want to be on.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
This list, right, which is a totally.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Different marketers, Well, that's a different it's a completely different issue.
And and to your point, yes, there should certainly be
a way to opt out of your information being shared
on this list, and for.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
All I know, there is.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
And she just got a lawyer who went down the
wrong road and really went all the way down to
the end of the road and lost.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
And it would be up to the legislature to make
that law, which they are doing, as you said, across
the board in terms of privacy, in terms of the
data mining, and as a matter of fact, a lot
of the major players are doing that on their own
because of political pressure. That is, you want to opt
out of whatever, you know, data mining or this information whatever,
(19:52):
we can't use it or unsubscribe. Okay, we're gonna come back. Damn.
I'm a good end that one. I thought I was
making most of that up. I did.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
We have a story, a case of a young lady
in her middle finger. The young lady a soccer player
at the University of Connecticut on a one year scholarship,
and the scholarship does come with some strings attached, particularly
the part that says your scholarship can be reduced or
canceled if you engage in serious misconduct that brings substantial
(20:29):
disciplinary penalty. And in the student Athlete handbook it specifically
says you're not allowed to do unsportsmanlike behavior, including, but
not limited to obscene or inappropriate language or gestures. So
they get to the national finals against Florida I believe
it was or it was the University of South Florida,
(20:50):
and they win. Yukon wins. Here's this lady on TV
middle finger to the camera. Is it looks like right away?
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Oops?
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Turns it into a peace sign, but too late, So
to jump to the ending of her saga here, they
completely cancel her scholarship.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
She sues the school. She sues the.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
School not for First Amendment violations. No, no, no, you know,
in the last case, the lawyer like went down the
wrong road. This lawyer at least went down the right road.
She sues for Title seven sex discrimination because she flipped
the bird momentarily on a TV broadcast after winning a championship.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
And she brings to the table.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Stories of several male athletes who did things that were
arguably as bad and in some cases were not punished
at all, and in some cases were punished little bit.
And so she tries to make the case that she
(22:06):
got a harsher penalty because she's a lady.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Does she have a case.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
I don't think so. I mean, she's arguing selective enforcement
is what she is.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
She is.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Let's it straight out selective enforcement. I can think of
all kinds of reasons, different time, different place, different circumstances.
I don't know if the court brought that up. I
don't know if the school brought that up.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Well they did, But do you want to hear a
couple of the examples?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Yeah? Please?
Speaker 2 (22:37):
All right?
Speaker 3 (22:38):
So there was a male football player who kicked the
dead ball into the stands during a game against Brigham Young.
He got, of course, it was a fifteen yard penalty,
no discipline, not the sapline at all. Yeah, not the
same for kicking that ball.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
I would distinguish that one out.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Here's another one. There was a male soccer player. He
was arrested for theft. And this is the male athlete
that got the worst punishment of the examples that she
gave he got a warning, and he was required to
participate in a workshop called living your Values.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Okay, now that's hilarious. When was that.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
This all went down circa twenty eighteen?
Speaker 1 (23:27):
No, I'm talking about the males who were disciplined, same
period of time. Okay, Well, I think that helps her
case if it's in the same the same timing, because
you argue with same group of people. Depending on when
they decided to enforce it. New policy going to be stricter.
I think I don't think the discrimination is going to
(23:48):
fly because what flipping the bird at someone is that
is blatant right there, And certainly this thinction between the
football player kicking the football in the stands the other
one arguable. But I think she loses.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
Well, she wins in the sense, wow, okay, she she
wins in.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
The sense that she is allowed to proceed with her cause.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
Oh I understand, but that's no, that's a win her.
The old this appeal was, you know, the the argument is.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Due, you have a case here, you have you not
even allowed to try to have a case, right, So
the circuit court said she's allowed to try.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
There's enough there.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Okay, As you know, at this stage. Uh, the burden
is very small to prove that you have something that
you should be allowed to pursue.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
And that's what they said.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
They said, well, there's enough there that she should be
allowed to pursue it. That does not mean, as you
point it out, that a jury is going to it.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
I understand, but no, she does have The point is
she does have a case. So I mean, thank you
for trying to help me worm my way out of
that one. And I appreciate that. But no, I it's
one for one today, all right, Wayne, We'll catch you
again next Monday when we do this again. Hey, tomorrow's
election day, and we start at five am with wake
(25:11):
up call, and that's Amy, Neil and I come aboard
at six and all of us are here from six
to nine, and of course An and Cono also here
five o'clock, six o'clock, at ten o'clock, eight o'clock at night,
and they just work their asses off, which is a
good thing. I have no problem with that. This is
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
(25:33):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch My
show Monday through Friday six am to nine am and
anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app,
You're listening to KFI AM six forty the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio f kf I AM
six forty Bill Handle. Oh yes, it is a Monday,
November fourth, coming up tomorrow, November fifth, Tuesday, and we
elect a president or not. So here is the real problem,
(00:25):
and this is crazy. Look at the contradiction here, and
that is the more careful the election system is, the
more oversight, the more safeguards are put in place, the
quicker the recounts are established, and just take it may
(00:47):
just take longer because of the new rules that are
set up just to make it safer. Okay, with that
in mind, here's the contradiction I'm gonna throw at you.
Taking longer to make sure it it's safe is really
about taking longer to commit the fraud. It's easier to
commit fraud when you have more time to commit fraud.
(01:10):
So therefore it should go quicker. But wait a minute,
if it goes quicker, then you can't catch the fraud. Wow,
isn't that special? And unless the polls are completely wrong,
and they can be because they had been wrong before.
Look what happened with Hillary and Donald Trump in twenty sixteen.
(01:32):
All these changes, the overhaul of election laws since the
pandemic has put us in a whole new set of rules,
and so a lot of the problem is the delay,
which is going to be delayed because of the patchwork
of rules and how votes are counted, especially in battleground states.
So it is a double hit. We're going to be
(01:55):
really careful. We've made it really difficult to commit any
kind of malfeasons, but it takes time to make sure
it's all in place, and then of course that gives
time for us to commit the fraud. I mean, we're
a custom turning on our TV at least late into
election night and seeing some kind of winner, you know,
prediction from one of the networks. Well, that's no longer
(02:19):
a thing. Change behavior about voters, how we cast our ballots,
the rules that have changed. When mail ballots, for example,
can be tallied, you know, when can they be counted
starting the night of the election, before the election, because
you can do mail in ballots as long as a
month before. Can they be counted before that? It's all different.
(02:40):
By the way, when does that vote count when you
do a mail in? Is it when it's postmarked? Is
it when it arrives at the polling center or at
the counting center. Don't know about that either, different rules,
different places, and in lawsuits of course are hitting, which
is going to delay everything. As of yesterday, seventy six
million Americans have voted, either through mail ballots or in
(03:03):
person early voting. They set up booths, and several states
have reported record breaking early returns, including two that are critical,
Georgia and North Carolina. More than four million Georgians have
cast ballots as a Friday, much further or much greater
in numbers than prior elections. Secretary of State Brad Rafinsberger,
(03:23):
who of course very famous for not caving into Donald
Trump when Trump said, find me eleven thousand votes, he said,
Georgia voters, No, We've made it easy to cast a ballot.
It's just that simple. That's why we have so many
more people voting California. Not that it matters in the
presidential because we know Kamala Harrison has it. We now
(03:46):
use mail in ballots. We send mail in ballots to
every registered voter. By the way, everybody's register too. If
you get a driver's license, you're registered. And that also
happens in the number of battleground states, so it is
really dicey now. In various states before, for example Georgia,
(04:10):
they didn't even start counting until all of the votes,
or didn't start counting until the votes were the last
day of voting before, which means they started counting. It
took a little while. There's the conspiracy theories, fraud. Michigan
was fraud. And if tomorrow's election is going to be close,
and it's going to be close, be prepared again. The
(04:32):
lawsuits are already being prepared, They've already been filed. And
this is why I have such a horrible time with
this election and the legitimate argument that there really is
an attack on democracy. There really is. The attack on
democracy is really simple, and that is those of Trump's supporters,
(04:54):
not all of them, not all of them, but enough
of them. And trump position is, we will not have
a fair election unless he wins. Democracy in this country
is about bringing Donald Trump back. Not bringing Donald Trump
back back back is a violation of the Constitution of
the United States. And unfortunately, so many people, so many
(05:18):
people believe that. I mean, isn't it possible that we
have a fair election where the real winner is elected president?
Not anymore, doesn't exist anymore. That's the part that's so
depressing for me. Forget about in the policy. I mean,
I disagree with Trump on reproductive rights. I agree with
him on a lot of what he does in terms
(05:41):
of foreign policy. I agree a lot of what he
does with China. I disagree with Kamala Harris on a
lot of stuff. I mean, you know, taxes are her
favorite friend. Where she going to get the money to
do a tenth of what she's saying she's going to
do without making the bank. That's all BS politics. But
(06:04):
what isn't BS politics is to argue that we do
not have fair elections in this country, especially because of
the accusations, because of votes being so close, all of
the safeguards. The safer our elections are, and they're getting
safer and safer more secure, the bigger the argument that
(06:25):
they are fraudulent to the point where if it can
be established that virtually every vote is legitimate, there's gonna
be a few there aren't. You got one hundred fifty
million votes out there. So let's say we set up
a system where it is so secure, it is so crazy,
that every vote is counted legitimately that in and of
(06:50):
itself is fraudulent because Trump loses or if Trump loses,
you know, there's the attack democracy. Do I care if
Trump wins or loses? Well, yeah, but you know, I'm
willing to accept that. You know, yeah, I'm fine with that.
You know, welcome to America. Like the Supreme Court, people
(07:10):
are bitching and moaning about the conservative members of the
Supreme Court. Oh my god, look what he did, three
member conservative members. Hey, read the constitution, guys. You know,
a president nominates the Senate confirms what else is going on? Well,
I shouldn't have done that. He's the president. Of course
he should do that. That's who he is. But the
(07:32):
rest of it, No free elections in this country unless
there's a Republican win. That's scary. That is scary. All right. Now,
let me tell you a group of people that are
really affected by virtually every local ordinance that's passed, every
proposition that's passed out there. It seems the homeless people.
(07:53):
Homeless people are affected, and you know what they don't do.
They don't vote. And why Well, let's start with home
homelessness maybe arguably being the biggest problem facing California, certainly
it is. If you talk to Karen Bass who ran
on the platform of homelessness. Paul Caruso, her opponent, ran
(08:14):
a homelessness Gavin Newsom elected on his promise and his
debt dealing with homelessness his second time out. What was
the biggest problem in California homelessness? And so the very
people that are affected about being affected by being homeless,
who happen to be the homeless, they don't vote. And
(08:36):
it's not that they are purposely kept from voting. I mean,
I don't think anybody is purposely kept out of the
voting booth. I think or mail. I think it's so
I do know, I know it is that you have
to have an address, don't you. Let's say you do
a mailing ballot. We're going to send a ballot to you. Now,
(08:58):
do you know that you can't have as an address
for mailing purposes, for the vote purposes, to ballot purposes.
You can have a po box, okay, you can have
a homeless shelter. That makes sense. And this one absolutely
stunned me when I saw this. You can have the
(09:18):
cross streets on as a mailing address, the corner of
Fourth and Maine, No no, yes, yes, yes, you want
to look this up. This comes out of cal Matters.
And you know when I say stuff like that, I
don't just make it up. I mean I attribute it.
(09:39):
It's as col Matters that came up with this and
cal Matters when you talk about voting issues, no one
really argues about the efficacy of this. So those ballots
can be mailed and you'd registered to vote shelter Cross
Street of the Park Street sidewalk where they in the night,
(10:02):
which is interesting because people don't usually send their addresses
as a street corner. Now they can't register there, but
they can vote out of there. Now. Of course voters
can get who don't do a mailing can go to
a polling place. But again, homeless people, and do homeless
(10:23):
people lack transportation? You bet they do. But here is
another issue which we don't think about very often, and
this was my dealing with homeless my brother's ex fiancee
who I found on the street. She had been living
on the streets for three years when we found her,
and it's a horrific story, and we ended up putting
(10:45):
her in a hotel and she ended up getting governmental
services worked out. But as she explained it she couldn't
get a night's sleep when I always had to be open,
and that's on the sidewalk, which is really easy to
sleep on it because afraid of her stuff being stolen,
afraid of being assaulted. The thought of leaving her stuff
(11:06):
on the sidewalk and going someplace was impossible because it
would all be stolen by other homeless people. And so
the thought of going to a polling place without bringing
everything with you is very difficult. So limited access to
voting information because what do you do on the street,
(11:27):
and you've got a bunch of other things to worry
about tomorrow. I've already voted by mail. But the day
I voted by mail, and it was last week sometime,
I didn't worry about where my next meal was coming from.
I didn't worry about where I was going to sleep
that night. Did I worry about you ripping me off? Well,
(11:48):
of course, that's why I have the German shepherds that
eat people in the alarm systems. But that is a
different issue completely, right, Neil.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yes, yes, yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
The point is it's very very difficult for homeless people
to vote, and it turns out that where you've got
thirty forty to fifty percent voting record, and depending on
the state, depending on which county with the homeless, it's
way less than ten percent. I am surprised it's even
(12:17):
ten percent of the homeless people who actually vote. And
how much do you know? Do the homeless people pay
attention to politics? Do they watch CNN? Do they watch Fox?
Do they have access to the internet. I'm reading two
papers a day, three papers a day, while I'm doing
the show during the breaks, while I'm making my coffee,
(12:40):
while I'm cooking up my fritatas, while I'm eating my bagels,
while I'm going to the bathroom. This show actually gets
in the way of this of my life. Have you
noticed how often I have said that, yes, yes, yeah,
it just really gets in the way sometimes. But at
least I get my information. Okay, since it is Monday
(13:02):
and it is the last half hour the show, it
is time for a couple of segments of do they
have a case? With Wayne and Me? So let's dive
right into do they have a case?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
All right, but masseltov to you one down, one to go.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Yeah, he's referring to my daughter Barbara Handel, who is
now Barbara handle Penny. That's what no. I literally, no,
that's Brandon's last name. So she is now missus Penny.
And okay, it's done, and now I go for my
(13:40):
next one. I'm telling her. Actually I did that when
I did my speech. I turned to Pamela and said,
what I'm spending tonight. This is for both of you.
Yours is going to be in Las Vegas in front
of an Elvis impersonator. Enjoy yourself tonight. Okay, let's do
it all right.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
I don't know if you remember many years ago there
was a television for Dirt Devil Vacuums that.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Foh yes, I do remember, dare yes.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Dancing around with a vacuum cleaner.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
It was controversial at the time because fred Astaire had
said in his will that he didn't want anything.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Like that to ever happen.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
But he died and his widow did give permission, so
Dirt Devil was allowed to use Fred Astaire dancing with
a vacuum. Now we come to a lady from ELLINOI
named Elizabeth Huston, who is suing Hurst Communications, the publisher
of many magazines, including Good Housekeeping, who says they used
(14:39):
her identity against her will in violation of Illinoi's.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Right of Publicity Act.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Most states have a law like this company cannot use
your name or likeness without your permission in order to
sell their stuff. Now, what she's talking about is a
list that Hurst sells of all the subscribers to all
of their publications. Nine point one million people on this list,
(15:07):
and they sell it to data miners and aggregators and brokers.
And the idea is they get your information, they see
what you subscribe to, and then they send you ads
in the mail direct mail advertising. So she says, you
are using my identity without my permission in order to
(15:27):
promote Good Housekeeping, which, by the way, I'm still having
trouble believing this bill even though it is in a
published Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. Good Housekeeping itself
has over one point seven million subscribers.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
So that's her claim.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Good Housekeeping and hearst for their side, They say, Okay,
we admit.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
For sure you are on this list that.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
We sell, and we admit we didn't get your permission
to put your name on this list. However, you have
no case because we're not doing it. We're not using
you for a commercial purpose.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Understood.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
She says, of course you are. You're selling this, you're
selling this list. And they say, we're not using you
to sell the list.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
You are the list. So it's different.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Fred Astare dancing with a vacuum is clearly using fred
Astare to sell a vacuum. We're not using you holding
up the list and saying you love the list, you're
the list.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
You're not using you for a commercial purpose. Yeah, does
she have a case?
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Oh this gets this is really interesting stuff. So now
first first argument, because I'm sure the court hasn't seen
this before, is does her activities fall within the definition
of that law? Okay, that's what the courts have to
deal with when we really don't know and see if
I tell me if the court was going this way
of thinking, and that is, the court quite often, in
(17:10):
absence of anything else, will look at legislative intent. What
do we think the intent of the legislature was when
they passed this law. Is it the way you described
that fred Astaire dancing where it's there's no issue where
it's very clear cut, or does it encompass her situation
(17:32):
about these mailing lists? And that is the issue of
just the very definition of using her name, her likeness,
certainly her name. Then there's two other issues. One is
simply practicality. If she has a case, one point eight
million people have cases, they can all sue. Okay, So
(17:55):
that just blows everything up, And there are a couple
of ways of dealing with if the courts could even
argue this legislature can saying that Good Housekeeping simply has
to send to all of its subscribers. You opt out,
we can't share the list, which is in the way
that it's going. I am going to argue she does
not have a case because it does not fall within
(18:18):
the parameters of the law that was written. This is
brand new stuff, way outside of the law, and for
her to try to cram it into the existing law
doesn't fly. That's the way I would interpret it.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Oh well, so did they?
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Wow, Yeah, she has no case and this really is
this law? You said, what's paramount here is the intent
of the law. The intent of the law is to
protect people from having their identity used to make it
seem as if they are endorsing some kind of product
or service when they never gave permission to be used
(18:55):
that way. What she has is some kind of data
private to see gripe that.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Well, I don't like you. I don't want to be on.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
This list, right, which is a totally.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Different marketers, Well, that's a different it's a completely different issue.
And and to your point, yes, there should certainly be
a way to opt out of your information being shared
on this list, and for.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
All I know, there is.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
And she just got a lawyer who went down the
wrong road and really went all the way down to
the end of the road and lost.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
And it would be up to the legislature to make
that law, which they are doing, as you said, across
the board in terms of privacy, in terms of the
data mining, and as a matter of fact, a lot
of the major players are doing that on their own
because of political pressure. That is, you want to opt
out of whatever, you know, data mining or this information whatever,
(19:52):
we can't use it or unsubscribe. Okay, we're gonna come back. Damn.
I'm a good end that one. I thought I was
making most of that up. I did.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
We have a story, a case of a young lady
in her middle finger. The young lady a soccer player
at the University of Connecticut on a one year scholarship,
and the scholarship does come with some strings attached, particularly
the part that says your scholarship can be reduced or
canceled if you engage in serious misconduct that brings substantial
(20:29):
disciplinary penalty. And in the student Athlete handbook it specifically
says you're not allowed to do unsportsmanlike behavior, including, but
not limited to obscene or inappropriate language or gestures. So
they get to the national finals against Florida I believe
it was or it was the University of South Florida,
(20:50):
and they win. Yukon wins. Here's this lady on TV
middle finger to the camera. Is it looks like right away?
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Oops?
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Turns it into a peace sign, but too late, So
to jump to the ending of her saga here, they
completely cancel her scholarship.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
She sues the school. She sues the.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
School not for First Amendment violations. No, no, no, you know,
in the last case, the lawyer like went down the
wrong road. This lawyer at least went down the right road.
She sues for Title seven sex discrimination because she flipped
the bird momentarily on a TV broadcast after winning a championship.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
And she brings to the table.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Stories of several male athletes who did things that were
arguably as bad and in some cases were not punished
at all, and in some cases were punished little bit.
And so she tries to make the case that she
(22:06):
got a harsher penalty because she's a lady.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Does she have a case.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
I don't think so. I mean, she's arguing selective enforcement
is what she is.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
She is.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Let's it straight out selective enforcement. I can think of
all kinds of reasons, different time, different place, different circumstances.
I don't know if the court brought that up. I
don't know if the school brought that up.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Well they did, But do you want to hear a
couple of the examples?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Yeah? Please?
Speaker 2 (22:37):
All right?
Speaker 3 (22:38):
So there was a male football player who kicked the
dead ball into the stands during a game against Brigham Young.
He got, of course, it was a fifteen yard penalty,
no discipline, not the sapline at all. Yeah, not the
same for kicking that ball.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
I would distinguish that one out.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Here's another one. There was a male soccer player. He
was arrested for theft. And this is the male athlete
that got the worst punishment of the examples that she
gave he got a warning, and he was required to
participate in a workshop called living your Values.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Okay, now that's hilarious. When was that.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
This all went down circa twenty eighteen?
Speaker 1 (23:27):
No, I'm talking about the males who were disciplined, same
period of time. Okay, Well, I think that helps her
case if it's in the same the same timing, because
you argue with same group of people. Depending on when
they decided to enforce it. New policy going to be stricter.
I think I don't think the discrimination is going to
(23:48):
fly because what flipping the bird at someone is that
is blatant right there, And certainly this thinction between the
football player kicking the football in the stands the other
one arguable. But I think she loses.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
Well, she wins in the sense, wow, okay, she she
wins in.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
The sense that she is allowed to proceed with her cause.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
Oh I understand, but that's no, that's a win her.
The old this appeal was, you know, the the argument is.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Due, you have a case here, you have you not
even allowed to try to have a case, right, So
the circuit court said she's allowed to try.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
There's enough there.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Okay, As you know, at this stage. Uh, the burden
is very small to prove that you have something that
you should be allowed to pursue.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
And that's what they said.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
They said, well, there's enough there that she should be
allowed to pursue it. That does not mean, as you
point it out, that a jury is going to it.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
I understand, but no, she does have The point is
she does have a case. So I mean, thank you
for trying to help me worm my way out of
that one. And I appreciate that. But no, I it's
one for one today, all right, Wayne, We'll catch you
again next Monday when we do this again. Hey, tomorrow's
election day, and we start at five am with wake
(25:11):
up call, and that's Amy, Neil and I come aboard
at six and all of us are here from six
to nine, and of course An and Cono also here
five o'clock, six o'clock, at ten o'clock, eight o'clock at night,
and they just work their asses off, which is a
good thing. I have no problem with that. This is
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
(25:33):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show. Catch My
show Monday through Friday six am to nine am and
anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app,
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com