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,
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 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. 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.
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 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 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. 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
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, 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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
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 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 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, 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, 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.
Yes, yes, yeah.
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 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, 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 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?
All right, but masseltov to you one down, one to go.
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 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.
I don't know if you remember many years ago there was a television for Dirt Devil Vacuums that.
Foh yes, I do remember, dare yes.
Dancing around with a vacuum cleaner.
It was controversial at the time because fred Astaire had said in his will that he didn't want anything.
Like that to ever happen.
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 her identity against her will in violation of Illinoi's.
Right of Publicity Act.
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, 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 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.
So that's her claim.
Good Housekeeping and hearst for their side, They say, Okay, we admit.
For sure you are on this list that.
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.
Understood.
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.
You are the list. So it's different.
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.
You're not using you for a commercial purpose. Yeah, does she have a case?
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 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 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 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
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.
Oh well, so did they?
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 that way. What she has is some kind of data private to see gripe that.
Well, I don't like you. I don't want to be on.
This list, right, which is a totally.
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.
All I know, there is.
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.
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, 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.
Okay, all right.
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 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, and they win. Yukon wins. Here's this lady on TV middle finger to the camera. Is it looks like right away?
Oops?
Turns it into a peace sign, but too late, So to jump to the ending of her saga here, they completely cancel her scholarship.
She sues the school. She sues the.
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.
And she brings to the table.
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 got a harsher penalty because she's a lady.
Does she have a case.
I don't think so. I mean, she's arguing selective enforcement is what she is.
She is.
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.
Well they did, But do you want to hear a couple of the examples?
Yeah? Please?
All right?
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.
I would distinguish that one out.
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.
Okay, now that's hilarious. When was that.
This all went down circa twenty eighteen?
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 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.
Well, she wins in the sense, wow, okay, she she wins in.
The sense that she is allowed to proceed with her cause.
Oh I understand, but that's no, that's a win her. The old this appeal was, you know, the the argument is.
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.
There's enough there.
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.
And that's what they said.
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.
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 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.
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,