You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM six forty.
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. It's the Bill Handles Show. He's back from vacation Monday. Wayne Resnik here with you until nine o'clock. Then Gary and Shannon are gonna come aboard, and we have some new information in both the New Orleans terror attack and
the truck explosion in Las Vegas. And after I give you a little update, we're gonna get into a very uncomfortable aspect of both of these Both of these events, as authorities have been searching for some connection between them, there is one. It's not one that really is going to be comfortable to talk about, though. But first some updates.
We now know that the active duty soldier who was inside the Tesla cyber truck when it exploded in front of Trumpeter National Hotel in Las Vegas had, by the way, I guess, trigger warning alert whatever, there's some graphic things coming. He three two one. He shot himself in the head just before the explosion detonated. Seven people were injured with minor injuries. There was virtually no damage to the building. Now authorities think that this guy wanted a bigger attack,
of more damaging attack. But what happened is the steel sides of the cyber truck took a lot of the blast, and also most of the force of the explosion went up, out and up, so it didn't go out horizontally so much. It went up mostly vertically into the air. The doors from the hotel were just a few feet away and
didn't theion didn't hit those doors. Now, there's a special Agent in charge of ATF named Kenny Cooper said that the level of sophistication is not what we would expect from an individual with this type of military science experience. Excuse me, So what I don't understand is is he does he mean this was very sophisticated.
Or is he saying I would have thought a guy.
Who was a Green Beret and served and has five Bronze stars.
Would have done a better job with it. I can't.
I can't clock where he's coming from on this because it does not seem particularly sophisticated, and even seems like he didn't think about whether a cyber truck would be the right vehicle to use.
I guess look, thank goodness for that. Now over to New Orleans.
I mean, the big news is that after being very convinced that multiple people were involved in planning and or executing that attack, the government now is convinced that there weren't and that the perpetrator there acted alone. He drove to New Orleans, he made bombs in his rental home. He put pipe bombs in ice chests along Bourbon Street. He drove the rented electric Ford F one fifty pickup truck into the crowd. He got out and shot at people,
and he was shot by police. And he did all of that by himself, suggesting that since he since he did not detonate the bombs before he drove the truck through the crowd, the implication is his plan was to drive through the crowd, get out, start shooting people and they and detonate some pipe bombs on top of that. And I guess he didn't realize that most police officers
are pretty good at taking down suspects. And there's also some speculation that he chose to rent an electric vehicle so that it would be quieter and he could in essence sneak up on people more stealthily in that vehicle.
Now, this is the connection.
There's an organization at the University of Maryland and it's called START, which but START means the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. And they have so much data about mass casualty offenders, mass shooters, bombers, the whole thing. They have detailed information on almost every, if not every mass casualty event.
Going back to at least nineteen ninety. The connection is the military service.
According to their data, the single if you're gonna pull one data point out as the strongest predictor that someone will carry out extremist violence. That one factor is military service, more highly correlated than mental health issues. The number each year of people with military backgrounds who commit extremist crimes
is going up. If you look at the period from ninety to about twenty ten, it was averaging seven people a year with military backgrounds did something like this, and then it started going up, and now it's almost forty five, forty three to forty five a year. In just the last fourteen years, basically, there's been seven hundred and thirty people with military backgrounds who committed crimes that were motivated by the political beliefs or social beliefs or religious goals
that they had or economic goals that they had. Now one of these events, I don't think this is skewing the numbers in terms of how many or whether it's a predictor or a risk factor. One of these is the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in nineteen ninety five, three hundred and fourteen deaths, almost two thousand injuries. But the fact of the matter is, when you crunch these
numbers as they do, this is what stands out. To try now on the fly to speculate as to what that means would be foolish and would be an insult to the fact that the overwhelming majority, the percentage that is so close to one hundred percent that it's virtually one hundred percent of people who have and do serve in the military, never ever do or would do something like this. But there's something there the combination of military service and some there's something else, and you put them
together and you do get this this connection. Now, LAPD stats show an increase in robberies in some parts of the city. Okay, crime ebbs and flows, and we've certainly been living with a mindset. I would say that there's more retail theft going on, there's more shoplifting going on, there's more people going into stores and grabbing stuff and walking out and threatening security guards or pulling knives or knocking them down or bumping into them or.
What have you.
And so the statistics are saying that in some parts of the city those numbers are up, but others are saying, ads is not really right, this is not really fair. And the La Times has a big piece where they say, hey, we looked at a lot of these incidents, and you know a lot of them started as shoplifting. So I guess the idea is that the LAPD is taking a shoplifting case and then they're scoring it as a robbery. And so why would they do that? What's their game?
Do they want to scare us? Do they want to use higher robbery stats to get more funding or more cops on the street or more equipment. And it doesn't look like that's what's going on at all. And in fact, even though it's a little it might be counterintuitive, but it seems to be.
The correct way to do it.
I'm going to tell you why I'm on the side of the LAPD here with reporting these incidents that they do report as robberies reporting them as robberies, even if they did begin as a shoplifting. So somebody picks up some stuff in the store and they're starting to leave, and at this point what happens next is largely in the hands of the staff or the security at the store.
If they stand aside and let the person go, probably nobody's going to be hurt, nobody's going to be threatened, and you are not going to have anything that you could possibly call a robbery. But if somebody decides to intervene, it might be successful the person puts the stuff down, but also it could.
Lead to a threat.
It could lead to buffaloing through the person, you know, the person who's stealing the stuff, kind of like bowls over the security guard, punches, the security guard threat pulls out a knife, says he has a knife when he doesn't have another knife, and at that point, uh, it becomes a robbery. Because robbery is loosely defined as using force, fear,
or intimidation to get property from somebody. It doesn't you know, you don't have to have a gun, you don't have to point a gun at a person, you don't have to have a weapon that's why there's robbery, and separately, there's armed robbery. Because some robberies don't have a weapon and you don't have to touch anybody. There are certain threats that are enough. And this all goes back to a guy named Curtis Estes.
Way back in the day.
Curtis Estes tried to leave a Sears store in Vallejo. He was wearing a down vest and a coat they didn't pay for, and an armed security guard, you know, stopped him in the parking lot. And this guy pulled out a knife and said linealonar will kill you. And then he did end up surrendering and he was convicted of felony robbery. And then he appealed and said, you can't convict me of robbery because and it wasn't about
the knife and the threat. His thing was, you can't convict me of robbery because the guy I threatened it wasn't his property. He's the security guards for Seers. He's not the owner of the stuff I was trying to steal. And the appeals Cauard said no, no, no, no, no. You can be the victim of a robbery even if you don't own the property that somebody's taken for you.
So cops will and DA's will often charge somebody with robbery under this standard if it started as a shoplifting but the person either threatened violence or became violence, or used some kind of force or fear to try to get away with the property. And then later on, you know, secutor can look at it and say, let's knock this down to a misdemeanor, or let's dismiss it. You can
handle these things after the charges have been filed. But even when that happens, the LAPD is still going to count it as a robbery because to them, it started as a robbery. Now the accusation that perhaps the LAPD wants to juke the robbery stats to get more money or people, I don't think.
I think it's the opposite.
These stats, yes, they're used for funding requests and resource requests, but they're also used to gauge the success of the different stations and the leaders of those stations. If I were a captain in LAPD, I would not want the robbery numbers to go up. I would want them to go down because that's the feather in my cap that I need career wise, and I certainly wouldn't be looking to screw around and say things are robberies when there's no basis to say that they were robberies. The fact
of the matter is some shopliftings. It's not that some shopliftings are being erroneously counted as robberies, which is what I feel like the La Times article is trying to get at. I think that's what they're trying to have you come away with. I think it's that some shopliftings turn into robberies because the shoplifter is aggressive and the security guard decides to be aggressive. And I don't feel like blaming the security guard in a situation like that.
So when people apply for financial aid to go to college, they fill out a FAFSA, a Free Application for Federal Student Aid, and it helps you calculate what you might be eligible for. And you could get a PEL grant, which is a help to go to college that you don't have to pay back, or you could get a student loan.
There are other kinds of assistants that are available.
And there was a problem already with this form where they wanted to make it better, and they did make it shorter for the twenty twenty three twenty twenty four season financial aid season. But instead there were glitches, there
were data entry problems, there were delays. Everybody was frustrated, and according to the Government Accountability Office, this debacle led to a decline in first time college I'm sorry, in first time submissions for financial aid to go to college of nine percent, literally almost ten percent down because it was too much of a pain in the keyster. It looks like they've got most of that worked out, but
now there's a new problem. It doesn't have anything to do with the form, and it doesn't have anything to do with currently the Department of Education that administers this form. It has to do with the fact that a new administration is coming in for you. See, when you fill out the FAFSA, one of the things that wants you to put down are your parents' Social Security numbers. But guess what, some parents of US citizen students are not themselves legally here, so they may not have a Social
Security number. And now the fear of these kids who just want to go to college is that if they apply and they fill out this form, they will be outing a parent as an undocumented person. Now it's not they it shouldn't be that they're afraid because the Higher Education Act absolutely prohibits the use of whatever you put on this form for anything other than determining what you're eligible for in financial assistance and awarding you that financial assistance.
So the law would say nobody from immigration should be
looking at this information. Nobody should ever know outside of the Education Department, and even the people inside the Education Department, they might see the form and they might clock that I guess maybe this person since a parent is not here legally, they would they're not allowed to do anything about it, and that then the Department of Education recently said that, oh, you know, we are gonna continue to protect this, but we have a new administration coming in
and so we now can't really assure you that the information won't be used for other things. It would be breaking the law as it's currently written for it to happen. But I don't think that anybody it would be surprised to hear that some law breaking goes on in the
government sometimes. And because of the new administration, because of the focus on illegal immigration, and because of the promises of very very aggressive action about it, many people think it's at least plausible that there will be some kind of whether it's a formal executive order that the Department of Education will now share these forms with I don't know, Customs Enforcement, or whether it will be more of a behind the scenes hey why don't you or whether I
don't know, ICE agents will show up at the Department of Education and say, hey, do you mind if we look at these forms that in some way this will be used as a resource to identify people who may be deportable, which, you know, there's two things going on here, because let's say we have we have a person who is here unlawfully, and we have their child who is here lawfully. So now we have a situation where one person may face a bad consequence, but it's something that comes with the territory.
If you're here.
Unlawfully, you really are not generally in entitled to avoid scrutiny. So you have someone who might get dinged, the parent, and then there's an argument that well, they knew all along.
That at some point they could be dinged.
There's any number of other ways that the authorities could become aware of the situation, or maybe they're aware of it and a current administration doesn't feel like doing anything about it. But that doesn't entitle you to get the same treatment from a new administration.
So that's one thing.
And then you have somebody, the child, who absolutely doesn't deserve to be hurt this way. They clearly didn't do anything wrong, and here they are now and they may not be able to go to college because they're too afraid to ask for financial help that they could get.
So I don't have an answer for you.
I don't have one except we have to figure out a way to not let bad things happen to the people who in no way deserve them, who in no way did anything to make those bad things a possibility.
That's my thought. Members gets you don't need no money to qualify. Don't bring your check making you're broken.
Christ to kf I am six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. It's the Bill Handle Show. He's back on Monday. Wayne Resnik here and it is.
Time for members only.
A series of news stories connected by a by a factor near and dear to men and the people who love them. And uh, I don't know if you heard about this, but there was a big fracas. Be quiet, serie. I didn't call for you. There was a big fracas at Mister Chow restaurant. Mister Chow is a Chinese restaurant Beverly Hills. I've never been here.
That is way way way, way, way way way.
Out of my league, but a lot of celebrities go to Mister Chow. And one night, right before the holiday season began, or as it began, Jamie Fox was having a birthday dinner at Mister Chow and up in the VIP area that had been rented out by the production company that makes the Jackass movies and TV show, and they sent a drink down to Jamie Fox for his birthday and he didn't drink it because he apparently stopped drinking.
But in any event, shortly.
After that, the people up there were like, hey, hey, hey, and somebody the table said hey, they're saying hello to you, and he looks up and they're all laughing up there. And at this point I'm relating to you Jamie Fox's side of the story, which is heavily denied by the Jackass people and their attorney. So just that's how I'm presenting it. This is what Jamie Fox says, why are
they laughing? And then he realizes that somebody has a laser pointer and is projecting a penis on Jamie Fox's table at mister Chow, I didn't know such things existed, but I.
Guess they do.
And his family was there and he did not like that one little bit, and apparently he went upstairs and there was a big, tense confrontation. And that's what Jamie Fox says. But an attorney representing the Jackass Fellas says that his version of events is very, very wrong and inaccurate and unfair. So who knows what really happened except I don't see anybody denying that they did project a
laser penis onto Jamie Fox's birthday dinner table. So that's just people saying this is what I say happen to me.
That's not science of any kind. Here is science.
Here's a study that is the opposite of what some people thought. From nineteen forty two until twenty twenty one, that time period, researchers looked at over fifty five thousand men from all over the world, all ages, who took part in a study where their penis size was measured both at rest and I guess battle ready because they wanted to see how this has changed over the last thirty years, whatever it's been now A lot of experts, including this guy up at Stanford Medicine, he's a professor
of urology. He said, well, what they're gonna find out is it's gotten smaller because we've seen, for example, declines in sperm count with men. We know there's more environmental exposure to chemicals, pesticides, even hygiene products now have things in them that affect our hormone systems, and there's endocrine disrupting chemicals, and so the bottom line is, you know, men have less sperm, and I assume the thing is getting smaller.
But the results are the opposite once you.
Adjust for geographic region and age and the total subject population. This study found that battle ready length has gone up twenty four percent in the last twenty nine years, the twenty nine years covered by the study, which seems amazing, which seems like happy news to go up from an average.
By the way, and men, I'm gonna tell you this because I'm telling you never ever ever be worried or nervous, or or or feel inadequate, because we are talking about average battle ready size increasing from four point eight inches to six.
So you're fine. I promise you're fine.
But it's not happy news because all of the experts are saying, well, even if it's the opposite result of what we thought, it's still for the same reasons. We still say this is happening because of all the chemical
exposure and the impacts on reproductive health. And maybe this is me now jumping off from the study and wondering if, from an evolutionary standpoint, if you become less fertile, does the body try to compensate for that by increasing the size of the delivery system, even though I don't see how that would actually help. And also, thirty years is a very short time for an evolutionary effect to take place. But anyway, that's what they found. And now I leave
you with this. Be happy that you are not. Be happy that you're not a super hot male porn star. Yes, they make a lot of money. Josh Moore is one of them. He's one of the leading male performers in
the adult entertainment industry. And he makes like five hundred thousand dollars a year on only fans, and he jet said around the world, and he lives in a fancy house and you may be like man, that would be the life, except he has to pay five hundred dollars a month for insurance for you know what, Chefs have life insurance. Actors often ensure their faces. There's been some celebrities who were famous for their legs, for example, that
had million dollar insurance policies on their legs. And if you work in the adult industry, you know what you.
Need to ensure.
He knows it. He needs to five hundred bucks a month. It's KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
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.