Speaker 1: Do you want to be an Americans?
Speaker 2: Got flown back on seven hundred wlw welcome to it.
Speaker 2: We are out of the deep freeze into just the
Speaker 2: regular freeze right now, starting off today, the city has
Speaker 2: reversed it's a controversial eleven PM cutoff for food trucks.
Speaker 2: I know, not too many people lining up for a
Speaker 2: slice of pie at two o'clock in the morning when
Speaker 2: it's thirty five thousand degrees below zero. But nonetheless things
Speaker 2: have been right I guess wrongs have been righted here.
Speaker 2: Initially you may recalls a public safety issue because of crime.
Speaker 2: It was a city manager office just issued an edict
Speaker 2: and declared that's it. You got to shut everything down
Speaker 2: at eleven mean on the bar's rubble at two o'clock
Speaker 2: and if you want something to eat when you're leaving
Speaker 2: at closing time, your sol The complaint was that too
Speaker 2: many people were gathering and causing problems and having street beefs.
Speaker 2: And again that sounds like an enforcement issue. Why punish
Speaker 2: the vendor. But at least a little bit of common
Speaker 2: senses have been restored, and she's been leading the charge
Speaker 2: on this. Council. Member Anna Alby, welcome back. How you
Speaker 2: been good.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for having me this spire.
Speaker 2: It feels like a win, doesn't it.
Speaker 4: It does. No, I'm I'm glad that, you know, working
Speaker 4: with the administration, we were able to hit this kind
Speaker 4: of compromise to move the the end time go back
Speaker 4: to one am on Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Great.
Speaker 2: It seems so punitive too that and it was sure
Speaker 2: a long city manager just simply said this is the
Speaker 2: way it's going to be, you know, kind of like
Speaker 2: an executive order almost. And that's the part that struck
Speaker 2: me is awful is the fact that there was no input.
Speaker 2: There was no input from the food truck vendors, There
Speaker 2: was no input from businesses or people. They simply move
Speaker 2: forward as like an emergency order. That was the troubling
Speaker 2: part about this because none of it made sense, but
Speaker 2: only to share a loan.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I totally agree. And and right now we're in
Speaker 4: a phase with the administrations having active conversations with the
Speaker 4: Food Truck Association, which is something that it comes to
Speaker 4: member Mark Jeffries, Vice Mary and Michelle. When McCarney and
Speaker 4: I were all like, hey, have you talked to the
Speaker 4: food truck and Initially, when this edict you called it
Speaker 4: came down at the eleven pm cutoff, they hadn't they
Speaker 4: hadn't yet talked to them, and in fact, it took
Speaker 4: a handful of weeks in coordination through City Council to
Speaker 4: actually get the administration and the food Truck Association in contact.
Speaker 4: They even have these conversations, so they are chatting now,
Speaker 4: and my understanding is there could be more changes coming.
Speaker 4: But to me, it's this open dialogue and looking at
Speaker 4: this holistically and not just coming down with this like
Speaker 4: big eleven pm cut off without the broader conversation.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Did you look at any did you have any data
Speaker 2: or analysis that convinced you eleven o'clock wasn't justified?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. So that was another thing that I really hounded
Speaker 4: administration on the very first time they showed up the Council,
Speaker 4: because they came and gave kind of an oral presentation.
Speaker 4: I said, hey, where's the data. So they did come
Speaker 4: back to us with some data points about a couple
Speaker 4: hotspot areas where food trucks typically gather. But I'll be honest,
Speaker 4: the numbers were not compelling. They kind of compared a
Speaker 4: year over year before and after this, eleven PM was
Speaker 4: into place, and at best it was kind of a
Speaker 4: neutral implementation, and that was really what led me and
Speaker 4: couple member Jeffares to continue to push back to say, hey,
Speaker 4: the data is not supporting that this is making it different. Now,
Speaker 4: there could still be issues you mentioned at the top
Speaker 4: here that you know there were some issues of people gathering. Great,
Speaker 4: let's look at the enforcement and what's actually causing that. Right,
Speaker 4: Something I've been interested in is is there something happening
Speaker 4: at the bars nearby? Is there over serving? Are there
Speaker 4: other things happening not that are separate from the food truck?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 2: And bars can hopital two o'clock, but the food trucks can't.
Speaker 2: And I guess this this compromise is a little bit
Speaker 2: better here too. So it's one o'clock as opposed to
Speaker 2: three am after the bars closed. But what happens if
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, hey, we start having fights and
Speaker 2: problems around the food trucks. To me, that seems more
Speaker 2: whether it's one am or three am, that's a criminal
Speaker 2: enforcement issue shouldn't be on the food truck vendors.
Speaker 4: I agree, And the one am the concept there is
Speaker 4: that gives the CPD and everyone about an hour to
Speaker 4: clear out before the bar is closed, right, right, So
Speaker 4: get people home because part of the issue was people
Speaker 4: were getting out of the bars, going to the food
Speaker 4: truck and then hanging out for hours longer, well into
Speaker 4: the morning time. So this actually has that cut off
Speaker 4: a little bit before the bars get out, so people
Speaker 4: can go home and kind of clear out. So hopefully
Speaker 4: that will, you know, handle that issue with the crowds.
Speaker 4: But if there are issues going forward, to your point,
Speaker 4: let's look at what's happening, what's causing it. You know,
Speaker 4: since time police, we pride ourselves on being problem solvers,
Speaker 4: and to me, this just takes a little bit more
Speaker 4: problem solving and investigation to really figure out what's going on.
Speaker 4: If there are issues, I'm not convinced there will be
Speaker 4: knock on work. Yeah, hopefully everyone will be on their
Speaker 4: good behavior and we can enjoy everything food trucks bring
Speaker 4: to our city.
Speaker 2: Right you mentioned, you know, maybe there's further discussions here
Speaker 2: with the food Truck Association specifically, could could you wind
Speaker 2: up extending hours at some point?
Speaker 4: I think every things on the table right now. One
Speaker 4: of the questions even to who's responsible to kind of
Speaker 4: the areas around. You know, how do we make sure
Speaker 4: we understand where food trucks are setting up, who's responsible
Speaker 4: in the perimeter of the food truck, you know, trash
Speaker 4: or litters left behind, So all those things are in
Speaker 4: conversation now and again at the end of the day.
Speaker 4: My goal here is one absolutely ensure safety, but two
Speaker 4: make sure these small businesses have an opportunity to grow
Speaker 4: and thrive. Right, our food trucks are often the first
Speaker 4: step into getting a brick and mortar and these are
Speaker 4: a lot of small businesses, very narrow margins, right, They're
Speaker 4: independent operators who are just trying to get a leg
Speaker 4: up here. So I'm hoping that in these conversations we
Speaker 4: can figure out for both sides here, right, public safety,
Speaker 4: the public side, but also say the food truck you know,
Speaker 4: what does this industry need to grow and thrive while
Speaker 4: still making sure everyone's safe.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day, and Albi, we're still
Speaker 2: going to have crime, and it's a big city, so
Speaker 2: you will have that. But I think by any metric,
Speaker 2: any measure, and any you know, it doesn't pass a
Speaker 2: sniff test. As how, We've been a approaching crime in
Speaker 2: the city for a long time now, and it looks
Speaker 2: like the things starting to turn to the right way
Speaker 2: as opposed to giving people, you know, enough elbow space
Speaker 2: and free birth to do what they want. The problem
Speaker 2: is it just victimizes business. I bring this up because
Speaker 2: in Madisonville, I don't know if you hear the story not,
Speaker 2: it's a place called the Cheese Kkery and Liz Field
Speaker 2: is the owner there. She started her business looks like
Speaker 2: a nice little shop in that she said she's gonna
Speaker 2: have to close now. And the reason she has to
Speaker 2: close is because of what we're talking about here, and
Speaker 2: that is an element that is causing her employees to
Speaker 2: quit and drow. She can't stay open now. Part of this,
Speaker 2: of course, is the economic climate. We can't ignore the
Speaker 2: fact that their sales are down significantly because of the economy.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't help when largely female workers there are
Speaker 2: being harassed by teenagers who are running around, screaming, throwing things,
Speaker 2: stealing from the store, leaving trash around, threatening employees because
Speaker 2: they're not giving them free items. You have homeless people
Speaker 2: or homeless man confronting employees and customers makes them feel unsafe.
Speaker 2: And it's not just her, it's other businesses on the
Speaker 2: street there in Madisonville, let's see the same thing.
Speaker 6: So it's not isolated.
Speaker 2: And I bring this up because Lumpika by Jeff Ruby
Speaker 2: is closing and part of the concern there was safety downtown.
Speaker 2: So whether it's downtown in the Central Business District or
Speaker 2: right next to the aeronof Center or in Madisonville, it's
Speaker 2: part of a bigger problem here, and that is crime
Speaker 2: that is helping destroy business. In the food truck thing
Speaker 2: didn't help relative to Madisonville. I'm sure you're aware of this,
Speaker 2: and if you're on only informed you that's not a
Speaker 2: good look for the city.
Speaker 4: You know, this is Liza the chief Sakries is a neighbor.
Speaker 4: So when I saw her do her initial post on Facebook,
Speaker 4: I reached out immediately and we had CPD in contact
Speaker 4: with her. And you know, I think with the Sunday night,
Speaker 4: by Monday morning, they're reaching out, and you know, I
Speaker 4: think ultimately she posted last night or yesterday, I think
Speaker 4: that she's been working with a mentor and the decision
Speaker 4: she's making is frankly, to simplify her business. So they
Speaker 4: need grow, so they're going to focus on their one
Speaker 4: storefront and Anderson. You know it is to your point,
Speaker 4: is it tough economic climate right now for small businesses,
Speaker 4: So expanding having to deal with two storefronts is obviously
Speaker 4: going to be a bigger lift than one. So the
Speaker 4: post she put most recently on Facebook was all around
Speaker 4: kind of focusing their efforts in that one store and
Speaker 4: Anderson and really kind of simplifying their operations. So I
Speaker 4: hope the best privilege. Like I said, she's a friend,
Speaker 4: she's a neighbor. I love the cheese cakery. My parents
Speaker 4: live and Anderson, so I'll still be able to enjoy
Speaker 4: her products when i go down to visit them. So
Speaker 4: you know, I'm hoping the best for her. And you know, ultimately,
Speaker 4: you know, Cincinnati, we are tackling you know, all public
Speaker 4: safety across the board head on. And we've actually in Madisonville,
Speaker 4: our crime stats have looked really good for the year,
Speaker 4: and I'm actually very proud of kind of what our
Speaker 4: neighborhood has done over the past you know, decades plus
Speaker 4: where we are a safe neighborhood where people are out
Speaker 4: and about. And really what I'm excited for in our
Speaker 4: business district is actually more businesses in the vacant storefronts,
Speaker 4: because that's really what's going to activate the Madisonville business
Speaker 4: district is getting more people into that space, more businesses,
Speaker 4: more vitality. And that's what I want in every neighborhood
Speaker 4: right when I picture kind of what a city is, right,
Speaker 4: you want to stay kind of people bustling around, going
Speaker 4: into storefronts and.
Speaker 6: All of that.
Speaker 4: So that is my goal for here in Madisonville, but
Speaker 4: across the entire city.
Speaker 2: I think part of the problem too, talking too CPD
Speaker 2: officers there and you may know this as well, in particular,
Speaker 2: one homeless person individual is causing a lot of the
Speaker 2: problems as well in cops quite honestly because of the
Speaker 2: iris rawleys, because of the homeless coalitions and the like.
Speaker 2: If they start running those people off, individuals like that off,
Speaker 2: then you bear their wrath. And the administration seems to
Speaker 2: lean on the side of, you know, the homeless and
Speaker 2: the indigen as opposed to business owners. That I think
Speaker 2: that's also part of the problem. Is that starting to change.
Speaker 2: Are we starting to have more balance or is that
Speaker 2: just simply incorrect from police officers.
Speaker 4: Well, let me just talk about so we have a
Speaker 4: gentleman in our neighborhood and he struggles with mental health.
Speaker 4: He's a known person in our neighborhood and frankly, many
Speaker 4: of the neighbors, residents, store owners here take care of him.
Speaker 4: He frequented other places like mad MoMA and they'll get coffee,
Speaker 4: you know, keep them warm. He'll often go into our
Speaker 4: public library that's right there. They are the staff, They're
Speaker 4: familiar with him. He is a part of our community,
Speaker 4: and frankly, having mental issues is not a crime, right
Speaker 4: Like I am not here to criminalize people who are struggling.
Speaker 4: We need to make sure we're connecting them with the
Speaker 4: care and services they need. So again, when I contact
Speaker 4: the CPD in the city administration about this whole chiefcake
Speaker 4: free thing, I made sure that we understood that this
Speaker 4: gentleman it was put in touch with the people he
Speaker 4: needed to to make sure that he was on his
Speaker 4: care plan and getting what he needs. Because again, at
Speaker 4: the end of the day, we want to make sure
Speaker 4: everyone is safe in our community and those who are
Speaker 4: struggling with mental illnesses, so we got to get them
Speaker 4: into the care that they need so everyone's faces and
Speaker 4: feels comfortable.
Speaker 2: I'm fine with what you said was getting someone in
Speaker 2: need care. I mean, we just saw what happened with
Speaker 2: Rob Reiner and his wife was just terrific. Mental health
Speaker 2: looks like a significant mental health crisis. There are issues
Speaker 2: for sure, or we don't know the full story yet,
Speaker 2: but uh, at some point we will uh in getting
Speaker 2: the people, you know, and there's a whole separate topic
Speaker 2: about mental health, which is a big deal for me.
Speaker 2: And you know, I focus some some of the portion
Speaker 2: of the show on that weekly because it is a
Speaker 2: problem in America. But you know that that attitude is great,
Speaker 2: but at the same time, you have to look at
Speaker 2: it and go, well, if they're harming and they're threatening people,
Speaker 2: they don't feel safe and workers are quitting. To me,
Speaker 2: that crosses the line and there's got to be more
Speaker 2: strict intervention on that. But it doesn't mean you're cruel
Speaker 2: because you're segregating someone or punishing now or whatever it
Speaker 2: might be. I think you also can you know, have
Speaker 2: two two kid glove a feel where I mean, it's
Speaker 2: not entirely the reason why the Cheese Cakeery is closing,
Speaker 2: but make no mistake about it, but it's a it's
Speaker 2: a part of the reason you can't keep employees because
Speaker 2: they're afraid of this one individual.
Speaker 6: We can't have that.
Speaker 4: I agree, And you know, in this situation, I don't
Speaker 4: know all the reasons. You know, it's made her decision.
Speaker 4: It sounds like she's working with a mentor.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 4: Like what I can say is there are other businesses
Speaker 4: and organizations in Madisonville that are familiar with this gentleman
Speaker 4: and have not had the same issues and he and frankly,
Speaker 4: I'll be honest. I the next day received many calls
Speaker 4: from Madisonville community leaders, community council, the business chamber, the
Speaker 4: development corporation, many of them who were worried about this
Speaker 4: gentleman safety himself because posts online were so threatening towards
Speaker 4: this man that people were going to hunt him down,
Speaker 4: that people were worried about his safety. So you know, again,
Speaker 4: we don't want to create any hype of environment where
Speaker 4: anyone put.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she is a council member, an I'll be on
Speaker 2: the show. We have a new food truck law in Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: They have eased back on the restrictions closing stuff down
Speaker 2: eleven o'clock and where you can congregate, and like, is
Speaker 2: that also part of the issue too, is where the
Speaker 2: food truck set up because it seems to me the
Speaker 2: whole person of the food truck is putting the parking
Speaker 2: the truck where people are. We talked about different zones
Speaker 2: and areas, but you know, I think, you know, within reason,
Speaker 2: it should be up to the person who owns the
Speaker 2: truck or I've detructed, determined where the crowd is to
Speaker 2: feed them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and right now, the ordinance that council passed right
Speaker 4: before I got on opened up those parking to kind
Speaker 4: of anywhere there's a parking space food trucks can go.
Speaker 4: They still congregate in places where you would sink right
Speaker 4: ear bars in your activities, right, you don't want to
Speaker 4: be off, you know, far away from everything. But I
Speaker 4: do think it's worth a conversation with the administration because
Speaker 4: if one of the questions is how do we make
Speaker 4: the areas around food truck safer, well, do we need
Speaker 4: to consolidate and come back to food truck zone that
Speaker 4: are in those you know, fun area areas of the
Speaker 4: town to make sure that we can have you know,
Speaker 4: maybe extra patrols in that space, or that we're actually
Speaker 4: providing additional safety with a well list spot. So I
Speaker 4: think there's probably a middle ground here. Right somewhere between
Speaker 4: go wherever you want, and you can only be in
Speaker 4: this one spot that somehow gives us a balance into Hey,
Speaker 4: we want you to be close to where all the
Speaker 4: fun things are happening, but we also want to have
Speaker 4: an idea of where you're going to be. That way,
Speaker 4: we can make sure that you're in a spot that has,
Speaker 4: you know, good lighting cameras. Maybe we have an extra
Speaker 4: officer patrol nearby just in case. So I'm hoping the
Speaker 4: conversations with the city administration, the food Truck Association can
Speaker 4: talk through all this because I think that is what
Speaker 4: will hopefully get us to the best outcome at the end.
Speaker 2: Well, ultimately, once you right size the police staff, right,
Speaker 2: we're one hundred and fifty officers short. Now we're working.
Speaker 2: We're behind the eight ball, working to try and get
Speaker 2: more on the street. But that's part of the problems.
Speaker 2: You don't have patrols out there to saturate areas where
Speaker 2: people congregate, and so you just respond and you chase
Speaker 2: calls as opposed to having a visible presence. Every time
Speaker 2: I'm downtown, I do see more mark units, whether it's
Speaker 2: CPD or sheriff's vehicles that are just simply parked there,
Speaker 2: and that's a deterrent I would think for a lot
Speaker 2: of people because they think, you know, obviously an officer
Speaker 2: is close by, and so adding more patrols and officers
Speaker 2: is going to help remedy the situation and everyone can
Speaker 2: have fun again in our city and that's what it
Speaker 2: should be about. And I'll be a council member. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much for joining on the show this morning. Great
Speaker 2: to talk to you. And happy holidays.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thanks so much, Happy holidays, Take care.
Speaker 6: All the best.
Speaker 2: I got to get a news update in in just
Speaker 2: minutes on the big one seven hundred WLW when we
Speaker 2: return here on the Scott's Loan show. Just made me
Speaker 2: think of something. How this is related to what happens
Speaker 2: Sunday at pay Course Stadium? Wait, what what do food
Speaker 2: trucks have to do with pay Course Stadium? I'll tell
Speaker 2: you coming up after news on seven hundred WWT.
Speaker 6: All right, d freeze is over y'all.
Speaker 2: Onward and upward till Saturday and we'll get more snow
Speaker 2: a winter, baby winter. What you're doing well Scott's Loan
Speaker 2: here on seven hundred WLWT. Thanks for checking out the show.
Speaker 2: We can take you anywhere. The iHeartRadio app follows around,
Speaker 2: will follow you as that sound will stalk you. You
Speaker 2: may need a restraining order. Council member Anna A'll of
Speaker 2: be minutes ago on the show talking about the peeling
Speaker 2: back the rules regarding food trucks. It makes a lot
Speaker 2: of sense now, you know, as cold has been with winter,
Speaker 2: certainly not a big a deal as it is in
Speaker 2: the summer. But fortunately the city and the administration listen.
Speaker 2: You know, initially I was extremely critical of the city
Speaker 2: manager share Along when she you know, rolled his edict
Speaker 2: out and just simply said, I'm dictating this policy with
Speaker 2: any thought or input whatsoever. Is the problem is the
Speaker 2: food trucks. No, the problem is the criminals, the problems.
Speaker 2: You don't have enough cops, the problems. You haven't taken
Speaker 2: it seriously for so long that people just feel empowered
Speaker 2: to do what the hell they want. Get in fight,
Speaker 2: start trouble, make noise, make a mess, shoot at one another.
Speaker 2: Around ninety nine point nine percent of people are just
Speaker 2: out there to get a slice of pizza or a
Speaker 2: burger or a hot dog or whatever it might be.
Speaker 2: After they went out and had a good time at
Speaker 2: the bars. That's all this is and those are the
Speaker 2: people that need to be taken away. I you know,
Speaker 2: the mentality that I'm going to get in a street
Speaker 2: fight and the street be even to shoot people strangers
Speaker 2: in front of food trucks is insane.
Speaker 6: Is insane.
Speaker 2: As the guy convicted yesterday for shooting a customer and
Speaker 2: a worker at the Walmart and Fairfield. God, dude got
Speaker 2: twenty six years stealing some crappy Walmart electronics and there
Speaker 2: were some resistance. He pulls out a gun and Walmart
Speaker 2: shoots two people, kills one or a thirty five year
Speaker 2: old man.
Speaker 3: Day.
Speaker 2: There's people like that out there in society that you know.
Speaker 2: That's why we need more cops on the streets. That's
Speaker 2: why we need to take this stuff seriously. And I go, well,
Speaker 2: you know, they're victims. To know, when you pull out
Speaker 2: a gun or you assault someone, you're now a criminal.
Speaker 2: You're not a victim. Quit watering down what victimhood is.
Speaker 2: The thirty five year old man who died and the
Speaker 2: guy work in a Walmart, those are victims.
Speaker 3: This guy.
Speaker 2: I'm tired of the everyone said, well they're victims. No
Speaker 2: they're not. You're predators. That's the difference. And that was
Speaker 2: kind of like the mindset for a while. While we're
Speaker 2: just going to punish good people, then that would be
Speaker 2: the food truck vendors who have very very thin margins
Speaker 2: and you know that extra a few hours of being
Speaker 2: opened may wind up ruining their business. How does that
Speaker 2: help us? How does that help the tax base or
Speaker 2: anything else? And us to grow and thrive. And so
Speaker 2: fortunately council got together and reapproached this whole thing, and
Speaker 2: it was a communication issue. It's like, okay, we communicated
Speaker 2: now with the vendors, with the business, with citizens, We
Speaker 2: looked at data, we talked to the cops, we wait
Speaker 2: everything and came up with a fair compromise. That's how
Speaker 2: you do things. And I said, you know, how does
Speaker 2: this relate to what happened Sunday at pay corps Field. Well,
Speaker 2: it leads down. Granted it's a little bit lagging here
Speaker 2: with sheerlong did and maybe she learned from this, Probably not,
Speaker 2: And it made sure learned from this going on, maybe
Speaker 2: we have to be more thoughtful and talk to people
Speaker 2: involved before we make rash decisions. But there was an
Speaker 2: effort to communicate that there's some communication going on here.
Speaker 2: They talk to people who were involved in this thing.
Speaker 2: That's what you're supposed to do. What happens Sunday at
Speaker 2: Paycorp is just part and parcel for what problems alde Bengals,
Speaker 2: and that is the absolute lack of communication letting people
Speaker 2: know what's going on. And it's just it's so basic,
Speaker 2: it's so grade school, and yet time and time again,
Speaker 2: a lot of the problems that pop up involving this
Speaker 2: football team, this organization, this franchise gets back to communication.
Speaker 6: You know, we're here stories.
Speaker 2: In addition to the seats is the fact that I
Speaker 2: guess because of the cold weather, possibly because not enough
Speaker 2: workers showed up because it was so cold, I don't know.
Speaker 2: But for people who are lined up cue up at
Speaker 2: to get into the stadium at twelve o'clock, I guess
Speaker 2: there are people who couldn't get their seats at like
Speaker 2: one thirty because some of the scanners are down or
Speaker 2: there are enough people to scan the tickets to get
Speaker 2: you to the stadium. And so you missed it. Fortunately
Speaker 2: for you, good good part of the game. And you know,
Speaker 2: at some point you issue a message of going, hey,
Speaker 2: here's what happened with the Here's what happened with the scanners,
Speaker 2: we apologize, We're sorry. No communication whatsoever. No, there has
Speaker 2: been no statement whatsoever about the Bengals relative to snow
Speaker 2: removal from the field of in the fact that the
Speaker 2: NFL looked and said, yeah, they did the bare minimum,
Speaker 2: bare minimum. Bengals did the bare minimum required to remove
Speaker 2: snow from the seats, the cold, hot chocolate, all that
Speaker 2: other stuff. Never address. We don't talk about those things.
Speaker 2: And it's not like other franchises don't have problems.
Speaker 6: Well they do.
Speaker 2: They apologize, but there's season ticket holders, their core customers,
Speaker 2: and go, hey, we may have to stay. Hey, here's
Speaker 2: what we're working on. No communication whatsoever. We just simply
Speaker 2: ignore things. And when you do that, you lose control
Speaker 2: the message. But more importantly, you act like you don't care.
Speaker 2: And maybe they don't. But you know, there's an easy
Speaker 2: way to make it look like even you know, again
Speaker 2: it's about money, but make it look like you give
Speaker 2: a damn, and that is to actually acknowledge that we
Speaker 2: weren't good this time. But you know, the only one
Speaker 2: who's allowed to talk is the head coach, z Act Taylor.
Speaker 2: And that's a huge problem with this football club. That's
Speaker 2: a huge problem with that franchise, there's no no one
Speaker 2: takes any account to accountability, responsibility.
Speaker 6: No one from the front office talks. That's how they've
Speaker 6: always been, that's how they do business.
Speaker 2: And this day and age where we expect instant, clear communication,
Speaker 2: they failed to do that. It's like they're living in
Speaker 2: I don't know, the nineteen fifties or something like that.
Speaker 2: There's no communication. What's horror, I'll be honest you and
Speaker 2: you see this elsewhere in the world. The Catholic Church,
Speaker 2: for example, what the scandals and problems that they've had.
Speaker 2: Horrible about communication. And if you don't get the word
Speaker 2: out there, people are going to make their own minds up.
Speaker 2: And it's not good for the product, not good for
Speaker 2: the bottom line when you're you know, especially when you
Speaker 2: wear Cincinnati on the front of your jersey. So again,
Speaker 2: I look at what's going on with the food trucks.
Speaker 2: A wrong was righted, a compromise was made. The food
Speaker 2: truck vendors seemed not completely pleased about this, but you know,
Speaker 2: staying open till one am is far cry better than
Speaker 2: eleven pm. And also where they can park, and all
Speaker 2: these the restrictions that were just picked out of the
Speaker 2: ether by the city manager and made a rule. Now,
Speaker 2: it took a while for this to happen, but hopefully
Speaker 2: no one went out of business lost their jobs because
Speaker 2: of that poor knee jerk decision to try and you know,
Speaker 2: rather than address a criminal issue, we're going to punish
Speaker 2: the people who are doing the right thing. But in
Speaker 2: the case the Bengals, there's you know, it's a communication thing,
Speaker 2: and there's just they simply don't see it.
Speaker 6: It really is incredible.
Speaker 2: It's something else and it just goes on year after
Speaker 2: year after year, and it's easier than ever before to communicate.
Speaker 2: You have social media. You could put something out on
Speaker 2: the Twitter feed. You could put out something on social
Speaker 2: to let people know what's going on or apologies. There's
Speaker 2: nothing wrong with that, but they act like, hey, you know,
Speaker 2: if we ignore it, then it's not a problem, and that,
Speaker 2: of course is simply not true.
Speaker 6: That's insane, I know.
Speaker 2: But also moving on today, Nick Reiner in custody for
Speaker 2: the murder of his dad and his mom, Rob Reiner
Speaker 2: and Michelle Singer Reiner both dead. He is the prime suspect.
Speaker 2: He's in custody. He has been I believe charged. We
Speaker 2: do know that mental illness and self medication are the
Speaker 2: top motives here. He struggled with mental health for a
Speaker 2: long time, but the subject of a movie and also
Speaker 2: had a drug problem, was actually homeless for a while.
Speaker 2: A horrible story because you know, to go to show
Speaker 2: you that that mental health knows no socio economic boundaries,
Speaker 2: that people with extreme wealth and have all the access
Speaker 2: to the best care in the world still can't get that.
Speaker 2: And of course if you're poor, you have less of
Speaker 2: a chance doing that. But the Nick Reiner in custody
Speaker 2: for the murder, it was most likely mental illness and
Speaker 2: maybe self medication. Their drug problems the top motives certainly
Speaker 2: not politics. And I think it's really interesting the focus
Speaker 2: of this is now not on Nick Reiner in the Rhiners,
Speaker 2: but rather on President Trump, because he's now doubled down
Speaker 2: in his comments that his death was a result of
Speaker 2: Trump derangement syndrome. They described Reiner as a tortured and
Speaker 2: struggling individual who suffered from massive, unyielding, incurable affliction with
Speaker 2: Trump de rangement syndrome. It seems like the more we
Speaker 2: progress into the second term here that President Trump himself
Speaker 2: suffers from Trump de arrangement syndrome more than anyone else
Speaker 2: in this country, I think. And for those who I
Speaker 2: guess the boot lickers who will always apologize for him,
Speaker 2: saying that, well, why would you expect he was Rob
Speaker 2: Reiner was always targeting Donald Trump and simply doesn't like
Speaker 2: Donald Oh, he doesn't like all Republicans. He's a died
Speaker 2: in the wool leftist liberal, as a lot of people
Speaker 2: Hollywood are. But you know, when you take the job
Speaker 2: as commander in chief, and you take the job as
Speaker 2: a representative which president is, you're going to have people
Speaker 2: shooting arrows at you. I mean, you know, when Biden
Speaker 2: was president, half the country didn't like Biden. Half the
Speaker 2: country doesn't like Trump. That's how it is. Just kind
Speaker 2: of goes along with the job. And I think it's
Speaker 2: also especially difficult because we had the shootings at Brown
Speaker 2: and what happened on Australia and the three Americans in Syrian.
Speaker 2: It's been a steady drumbeat to this and the thing
Speaker 2: coming out from the President was well, it's because he
Speaker 2: hated me. I'm not quite sure the connection there between
Speaker 2: him disliking Donald Trump and his death. And also i'd
Speaker 2: point out Charlie Kirk you know. I mean, there are
Speaker 2: a lot of influencers out there who said we're not
Speaker 2: going to celebrate or mock the death of a political opponent,
Speaker 2: and everyone got that mount maybe a lot of Mega
Speaker 2: supporters got that message, except for President Trump. A surprise
Speaker 2: that Rob Reiner is a leftist. But I think overall,
Speaker 2: I mean, the bigger issue here is, you know, you're
Speaker 2: trying to sell an agenda, a controversial agenda at that,
Speaker 2: with a lot of things, whether it's ice and immigration
Speaker 2: or whether it's terriffs, and you could go on and on.
Speaker 2: It's certainly a novel approach to things, and you're gonna
Speaker 2: upset a lot of people because you are rocking the
Speaker 2: appl card. And Donald Trump most assuredly is very anti
Speaker 2: status quo and that is a reason one of the
Speaker 2: big reasons why he got elected. But if you're trying
Speaker 2: to sell your agenda to I don't think you'll ever
Speaker 2: convince a Rob Reiner of the world. And I went
Speaker 2: in Hollywood that you know, your agendas is good. There
Speaker 2: are a lot of people who are in the middle.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of independents who are hearing these
Speaker 2: words and going, well, you know, it just makes it
Speaker 2: tougher to sell your agenda to the undecided or the
Speaker 2: middle part of the country, Like, I don't know why
Speaker 2: you would hurt yourself so and I get you know,
Speaker 2: before it was about getting attention, getting elected you kind
Speaker 2: of the brand. It was in the first term, it
Speaker 2: was really refreshing. It's like, wow, this guy is completely unschained.
Speaker 2: It's interesting to hear a president's or a presidential Kenyoway
Speaker 2: speak in those terms. But by two terms now, it's
Speaker 2: kind of exhausting. And you know, in this world of
Speaker 2: everything shocks you, it is awfully difficult to say things
Speaker 2: that top the last statement, and he has a pretty
Speaker 2: good track record of that. And it's unfortunate because I think,
Speaker 2: you know, he does bring some good ideas or different
Speaker 2: approaches to things that, given time, may work, and too
Speaker 2: numerous to list here. But the problem is, you know, you,
Speaker 2: when you do this kind of stuff, it makes it
Speaker 2: awfully difficult to like the man. And part of whether
Speaker 2: you like it or not, part of being a pologist,
Speaker 2: there's got to be a likability quotient there. There's got
Speaker 2: to be an empathy. And I said, you know, one
Speaker 2: thing that is missing from his his arsenal is the
Speaker 2: empathy genie, he just doesn't happen. And sometimes, as commander
Speaker 2: in chief, as leader of the free world, you have
Speaker 2: to engage in empathy. He's just not empathetic at all
Speaker 2: to anything at all times. And that that really, I
Speaker 2: think that, really, above all else, hurts his agenda.
Speaker 6: I really do.
Speaker 2: Five three seven four nine seven thousand, The Big One.
Speaker 2: It's talked back on the iHeart Radio app. You for
Speaker 2: listening on the stream this morning. Let me roll to, uh,
Speaker 2: where're we going to? Jerry and Mercer County on the
Speaker 2: Big One. Good morning, Jerry.
Speaker 1: Hey, I disagree with what Trump did, what he says,
Speaker 1: but he could have used it as a leverage point
Speaker 1: that guy Nick was hooked on cocaine or whatever. I
Speaker 1: wondered if he could have got an idea of what
Speaker 1: Ron Reyer thought about him bombing on drug boats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sure Rob Reiner disagreed with that, and that
Speaker 2: is that's a great connection right there. And we don't
Speaker 2: know if he was on drugs at the time. I mean,
Speaker 2: eventually that's all going to come out. It's pretty clear
Speaker 2: he's the one who did this this atrocity. But you know,
Speaker 2: killing your own parents and someone is revered. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not a fan of his politics, but any stretched
Speaker 2: the Rob Reiner, but his his resid of me is iconic.
Speaker 2: Let's put it that way. The films he's made and
Speaker 2: the things he's been and it's absolutely in cred incredible
Speaker 2: streak of movies. I appreciate Rob Reiner as a talent,
Speaker 2: but the same time I look at this going wow,
Speaker 2: it's you're making Donald Trump is making it about him
Speaker 2: when it's not about him at all. And my point is,
Speaker 2: I think it just turns off a lot of people
Speaker 2: to a lot of a thing, well hearing anything in
Speaker 2: his agenda at all, because he just overshadows it with
Speaker 2: dumb stuff that comes out of his mouth or off
Speaker 2: his fingertips.
Speaker 1: Well, I just wonder what Rob Ryner would have thought
Speaker 1: about drug if he made any comments.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but yeah, I mean you know again,
Speaker 2: I and thanks with a call.
Speaker 6: I don't you know. That's just so I don't know.
Speaker 2: A watch of award shows, I really don't care what celebrities
Speaker 2: think about things. Yeah, I don't know bout it. I
Speaker 2: don't know whose influence. Maybe if you're younger, you are
Speaker 2: and like, hey, what's Taylor Swift's take on this? Because
Speaker 2: you know that's your that's your world. She's iconic. Uh,
Speaker 2: if you're older, I think I don't know me anyway,
Speaker 2: I look at I got. I don't really care what
Speaker 2: Rob Reiner thinks. I really don't care what any actor, actress,
Speaker 2: whether they're on the right of the left, I don't care.
Speaker 2: Rob Reiner is certainly in titled his opinion, and he
Speaker 2: has a platform that's pretty large. I get that, But
Speaker 2: I don't go around going wow, well, Rob Briiner think
Speaker 2: I gotta think the same way.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: They're all sorts of opinionists and influencers out there. Sure,
Speaker 2: but I don't spend a lit I don't know about you.
Speaker 2: I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what
Speaker 2: Rob Reiner thinks. I worry about the direction of the country.
Speaker 2: I worry about policies that may or may not be working.
Speaker 2: Some of them do, some of them don't. That seems
Speaker 2: to be in play if you criticize that. But again,
Speaker 2: there's so many people afraid to step out of line
Speaker 2: with Trump for fear. I think, on the end, I
Speaker 2: think Marjorie Tayl Green is right about that there's so
Speaker 2: many people that follow the company line they're afraid to
Speaker 2: step out and say, yeah, this is wrong and speak up.
Speaker 2: It's starting to happen now because while the president is
Speaker 2: approaching lame duck territory at this point, and I think
Speaker 2: you're going to see a lot more of this as well.
Speaker 2: But then there's still people that will defend everything that
Speaker 2: comes out of his mouth or fingertips or just simply ignore,
Speaker 2: which is the same thing.
Speaker 3: At five.
Speaker 2: Bethel and Joel High on the Scottsland Show, What's up.
Speaker 5: Going, Scott. I don't know if you heard what Rob
Speaker 5: Reiner said about Charlie kirk whin he was assassinated. He
Speaker 5: just he he was on with uh Piers Morgan and
Speaker 5: just said how how awful it was and it was horrific,
Speaker 5: and uh, no matter how you align politically, it's not correct.
Speaker 5: And you know, obviously mister Ryder he was a he
Speaker 5: was a big left that's like many in California and Hollywood.
Speaker 5: It was just a very dignified and you know, dignified
Speaker 5: way what he said about Charlie. And it just shows,
Speaker 5: you know, I'm a millennial and uh, you know, Trump
Speaker 5: has just destroyed the GOP. In my opinion, I think
Speaker 5: the GOP's only hope is to get behind people like
Speaker 5: Thomas Massey.
Speaker 7: Uh that that really value.
Speaker 5: This country because at the end of the day, Trump's
Speaker 5: ego is just the size of a grave of sand.
Speaker 5: And it's it's just it's so exhausting.
Speaker 2: It is indible how he had made the murder of
Speaker 2: Rob Ryin or his wife about him. I mean, that
Speaker 2: is that is such a different That's like four D egotism.
Speaker 2: I've never you're looking at that, go what and and
Speaker 2: you know what? What he tweets and what he says
Speaker 2: is often outrageous, and that's part of his brand. Do
Speaker 2: you know how hard it is to continually top yourself
Speaker 2: from the last time.
Speaker 6: It's got to be exhausted.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, it's it's awful. And I voted for Trump
Speaker 5: three times. I'm a big you know, in my opinion,
Speaker 5: I might true make America great again conservative and Trump
Speaker 5: is that. I think He's always kind of been a Democrat,
Speaker 5: you know, New York conservative. And I think just as
Speaker 5: true colors are showing it and the only one it's
Speaker 5: turning is JD Vance in twenty eight.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that the Trump's shadow and these
Speaker 2: these are the things are just because of such a
Speaker 2: shadow and tarnished the brand. And what I fear is
Speaker 2: as voters, and you can see it already that they're
Speaker 2: holding them responsible for those actions and what he's doing,
Speaker 2: what he's saying. And if you think it's bad, if
Speaker 2: you think it was bad under Biden, uh, the next
Speaker 2: term after Trump is going to scare the hell out
Speaker 2: of me, because unless something desperately changes, it is gonna
Speaker 2: be like Rob Reiners running the country, for God's sakes,
Speaker 2: but the commander was just slaughtered on those own bed
Speaker 2: by son, for God's sakes. Just shut the hell up.
Speaker 2: You're not helping anybody. You're not helping yourself for sure.
Speaker 2: News on the Way, Scott's Loan Show. This is seven
Speaker 2: hundred ww Cincinnati.
Speaker 6: I don't want to be a Manican back.
Speaker 2: You went to Scott's Flow with you here seven hundred
Speaker 2: witty things for checking off the shell on air and
Speaker 2: be the free iHeartRadio app wa if you go tick
Speaker 2: the stream with your waight after do the podcast.
Speaker 6: We make it easy, make it easy.
Speaker 2: You may recall, let's go back to last spring, remember
Speaker 2: when we had those two dog attacks and consecutive weeks
Speaker 2: in Chlorine Township. Yeah, it was horrible. The one woman
Speaker 2: was attacked by two large dogs in front of her kids,
Speaker 2: trying to profict your kids, and she said she felt
Speaker 2: like a human chew toy. And then the following week,
Speaker 2: another pack of dogs killed a couple of chickens, threatened
Speaker 2: a bunch of neighbors, and we learned about Ohio law,
Speaker 2: the nuances of Ohio law that the only way to destroy,
Speaker 2: to euthanize a dog in Ohio is if it kills
Speaker 2: a second time. Let me run that back a second.
Speaker 2: So you kill someone if you're a dog, and okay, well,
Speaker 2: just as long as it doesn't happen again. Well that's insane, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, we don't do that with other crimes. I
Speaker 2: would do that with a dog. Well, good news is
Speaker 2: that looks like it is about to change. It's called
Speaker 2: Avery's Lots on Mike dewinesess right now in A co
Speaker 2: sponsor of Avery's Law is Ohio Representative Adam Bird out
Speaker 2: of Clairemont Conye.
Speaker 6: I'm welcome, Harey Scott.
Speaker 7: It's great to be with you this morning.
Speaker 6: Thanks appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Boy, that's just such an asonine law and how that
Speaker 2: stayed in the books for so long that you mean
Speaker 2: to tell me that if a dog kills someone, you
Speaker 2: pat it on the head and go, okay, just don't
Speaker 2: let it happen again. But if a human being does that,
Speaker 2: they go to prison maybe for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 2: That that's insane that we can make it to twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five with that law in the books.
Speaker 7: Like that, absolutely, And I'm very thankful to be a
Speaker 7: part of this bill, and it has a lot of
Speaker 7: support among my colleagues, and it is on the governor's
Speaker 7: desk right now. My report is that he will likely
Speaker 7: sign it by the end of the week, and thankful
Speaker 7: for that because we've got to protect young children. And
Speaker 7: you mentioned that it's named after a young lady named
Speaker 7: Avery from Central Ohio that was viciously attacked twice by
Speaker 7: two different dogs. And you know, she's scarred and maimed
Speaker 7: for life in her face from from the attack.
Speaker 2: Horrible, absolutely horrible, and someone has to suffer like that,
Speaker 2: and it took this law to get those laws changed.
Speaker 2: As I recalled during the Coal Raine tragedy as well
Speaker 2: as Avery, that there's criticism aimed towards dog wardens and
Speaker 2: a dog wardens showed up, it didn't take the dog
Speaker 2: or didn't destroy the dog. Does this new law empower
Speaker 2: dog wardens?
Speaker 7: Absolutely? It gives the local dog warden the authority the
Speaker 7: see is a dog immediately following an attack. And you know,
Speaker 7: it also imposes criminal penalties on it dog owner if
Speaker 7: the dog owner negligently fails to keep the dog from
Speaker 7: committing you know, an attack on someone. So you know,
Speaker 7: I think we're making some legitimate steps here that people
Speaker 7: will appreciate, especially and light of the fact, Sonny, I
Speaker 7: don't know if you know this or not, seventeen thousand
Speaker 7: dog bites across the Ohio or reported every year and
Speaker 7: I think Hamilton County gets about a thousand a year.
Speaker 2: Wow, a thousand dog bite. Now, granted you're not going
Speaker 2: to about all thousand dogs are are going to be destroyed,
Speaker 2: but it goes to show you how pervasive the problem is.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Absolutely, And you know I don't have the data
Speaker 7: for surrounding counties, but you know that's a lot. And now, now,
Speaker 7: this bill, which is soon to become law, is not
Speaker 7: going to mandate the termination of the dog just for
Speaker 7: biting someone. It's only if it kills or seriously andrew someone.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I talked to the sponsor this I remember this is
Speaker 2: probably right after the the attacks, and I suggested that,
Speaker 2: you know, here's the thing. If you have a vicious
Speaker 2: dog or dangerous dog, it's bit someone in the past.
Speaker 2: I think at that point you need to start carrying
Speaker 2: some insurance policy. It has to there has to be
Speaker 2: either money, an escro or a liability insurance involving a
Speaker 2: owner of a dog if they you know, not all
Speaker 2: dogs bite. I mean, the majority of dogs aren't going
Speaker 2: to bite someone. But if you have a bier, you
Speaker 2: should be forced, I think, to have to carry some
Speaker 2: sort of insurance because in the past people have just
Speaker 2: simply ducked out. We had a horrible cases where an
Speaker 2: elder lady was mauled in her garden in the back
Speaker 2: of her house. Her husband in a wheelchair to watch
Speaker 2: his wife of like I think forty years fifty years
Speaker 2: mauled to death by a dog that got out and
Speaker 2: killed her. It wasn't the first time the dog attacked
Speaker 2: her or someone else. And then later that afternoon they're like, okay,
Speaker 2: well she killed the neighbor. They were at the casino gambling,
Speaker 2: like how hartless is that it was a horrible, horrible story.
Speaker 2: And I know that the suggestion that we have liability
Speaker 2: insurance for those owners of vicious dogs is part of
Speaker 2: this as well.
Speaker 6: How would that work?
Speaker 7: Well, yeah, I mean they do have to carry insurance.
Speaker 7: And I think the real takeaway here, Scott is that
Speaker 7: you are responsible for your animal, and you're responsible for
Speaker 7: your dog, and you need to keep your dog in
Speaker 7: a muzzle if required, on a leash and behind a finch.
Speaker 7: In fact, if you've got a dog that can climb
Speaker 7: a fench, you've got to put a top on top
Speaker 7: of that so that they can't get out. You, as
Speaker 7: a dog owner, are responsible for any vicious acts of
Speaker 7: your dogs.
Speaker 2: And the liability interest, as I call it, you'd have
Speaker 2: to carry one hundred thousand dollars liability policy.
Speaker 6: How would that work?
Speaker 2: What is the trigger that the dog has to bite
Speaker 2: someone first before that policy, before you're forced to carry
Speaker 2: that policy?
Speaker 7: I believe that's correct, and so you know, it is
Speaker 7: one hundred thousand dollars, you've got to you know, I
Speaker 7: mean that's a lot. And you know, one hundred thousand
Speaker 7: dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. When
Speaker 7: it comes to medical bills and requiring someone's face that
Speaker 7: it's been damaged.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the woman in col Ray, Emily Renchler was your name.
Speaker 2: I believe herb medical bills were in excess of two
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars for that attack in Chlraine.
Speaker 7: That's crazy, And you know it's just so, I mean,
Speaker 7: that's that's our good first step. Yeah, one hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 7: And as you know, we do things often incrementally here
Speaker 7: in Ohio. And if we find out that one hundred
Speaker 7: thousand dollars isn't it up, I'm sure we'll be looking
Speaker 7: to consider change on that in the future.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And for those people I think it's breed specific. It's
Speaker 2: not about punishing breeds. It's about holding the owners of
Speaker 2: the dogs responsible because the dogs aren't you know, it's
Speaker 2: not up to the dog whether or not they're in
Speaker 2: a yard or restrained, or if you let your dog
Speaker 2: roam free, if you let them be untrained or go
Speaker 2: put themselves in unsafe situations. That's not the dog. That's
Speaker 2: a dog in the dog. That's up to the owner
Speaker 2: to do that. That's a difference.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know anything about the
Speaker 7: dog breed either. I think we all know that certain
Speaker 7: breeds that are a little more likely to do something.
Speaker 7: And so you as an owner, if you're going to
Speaker 7: take that hants and you're going to want to keep
Speaker 7: a breed that is more likely to do that, you
Speaker 7: have got to take legitimate steps to protect your neighbors
Speaker 7: and to protect And it's not just other people, it's
Speaker 7: it's your neighbor's dog. You know, sometimes they'll they'll attack that,
Speaker 7: the neighbor's dog or whatever. So if it's incumbent upon
Speaker 7: the owner to protect protect others from from harm that
Speaker 7: their own dog might do, what is it.
Speaker 2: I think that's an important facet of this too. And
Speaker 2: I want to get back on the one hundred thousand
Speaker 2: dollars policy to begin with. But let's say someone just
Speaker 2: simply disregards as law. What is the tooth of the
Speaker 2: law no pun intended towards the owner of a dog.
Speaker 2: If they just like, oh, I'm not getting insurance and
Speaker 2: my dog's out and bite someone and kill someone who cares,
Speaker 2: what does the what kind of power do authorities have
Speaker 2: to detain, arrest and charge that person.
Speaker 7: Yeah, there's criminal penalties for the dog owner that increase
Speaker 7: in severity as you continue you to ignore the law. So, uh,
Speaker 7: it's a it's a misdemeanor at this point. And but
Speaker 7: but if you continue to ignore it, it the charge
Speaker 7: is climbed. So you are you know, you're going to
Speaker 7: be charged if you don't take care of this with
Speaker 7: your dog.
Speaker 2: If you have that, a dog escalates, it starts biting people,
Speaker 2: biting in the in the taxi, and you don't pay
Speaker 2: attention to it. And let's say I don't know a
Speaker 2: kid or in this case, this lady Emily gets mauled
Speaker 2: and they'd wind up dying. Could someone in that situation
Speaker 2: face a murder charge under this icide perhaps?
Speaker 7: No, No, that's that's not true. But you you know,
Speaker 7: I mean if that, if that were to continue, I
Speaker 7: guess we would have to consider change. But right now,
Speaker 7: if that dog attacks one time and and and kills
Speaker 7: or severely injure someone, you know, that's uh, that dog's
Speaker 7: going to be put down. And that's that's a requirement
Speaker 7: in this bill, that that the the dog warden sees
Speaker 7: the dog immediately and that following due process, that the
Speaker 7: dog would be humanly destroyed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you mentioned the one hundred thousand dollars liability insurance.
Speaker 2: And I point out to Emily Wrenchler's bills were in
Speaker 2: access to two hundred thousand dollars. Does that number need
Speaker 2: to be upped in the future? Why is that the
Speaker 2: insurance or criminal level that wouldn't cover the cost?
Speaker 7: Wow, you know, that's that that might be something that
Speaker 7: we have to consider change in the future. But that's
Speaker 7: that's where we're at right now. It's a big step
Speaker 7: forward from where it is currently. And and so if
Speaker 7: one hundred thousand dollars isn't en up, I'm sure, sure
Speaker 7: we'll consider change in the future. But I hadn't heard
Speaker 7: that the person in Cole Rain had had experienced two
Speaker 7: hundred thousand dollars worth of medical bills.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean some of these are so severe
Speaker 2: and the you know, it's it's also about not only
Speaker 2: of a wound treatment in traumacare, but it's also about
Speaker 2: the rehabilitation and that could be extremely expensive. Unfortunately, you know,
Speaker 2: the law now until the governor signs is saying it
Speaker 2: dollar Doug kills twice before mandatory euthanasia under this bill,
Speaker 2: what a dog that severely mul someone. Let's say, I
Speaker 2: mean not kills him, but life altering injuries, but not death.
Speaker 2: They'll be abowed to live. I mean, where where's the
Speaker 2: line there? Does it have to be the death before
Speaker 2: the dog's destroyed.
Speaker 7: No, it's not depth, it's severely injures. And so I guess, uh,
Speaker 7: you know, the judge will have to decide whether that
Speaker 7: standard is met or not. And so I guess I
Speaker 7: guess it could still cause controversy if if we're trying
Speaker 7: to decide whether you know, the damage that's been done
Speaker 7: to someone's face or whatever, you know, meets that requirement
Speaker 7: or not.
Speaker 2: He is from Claremont, that's Ohio. Represent Adam Bird on
Speaker 2: the Scotslan Show seven hundred w BLW on Avery's Law,
Speaker 2: it's on de Waine's death, past the Senate, past the
Speaker 2: House Representedve Bird is a co sponsor of this soon
Speaker 2: to be law hopefully here and it has to do
Speaker 2: with vicious dog attacks. We had the dog attacks too
Speaker 2: in two weeks in col Rane Township. There's been others
Speaker 2: across the state. Represented Bird just mentioned there's a thousand
Speaker 2: in Hamlin County alone, different types of dog bites in
Speaker 2: a t as well. And the law up to this
Speaker 2: point said that a dog can't be euthanized until it
Speaker 2: kills a second time, meaning it kills a person, so
Speaker 2: the first one, if your dog is free. Humans don't
Speaker 2: have that kind of leeway. Why would we allow that
Speaker 2: with a dog. The law is finally changing in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty Smith looks like probably twenty twenty five here almost
Speaker 2: at twenty twenty six, are almost there and fortunately we
Speaker 2: know we're cooler has there prevailing here and we are
Speaker 2: getting some good law in there as well. Up to
Speaker 2: this point, dog wardens, I think when there was testimony
Speaker 2: given in the Colorine attack said look, we don't have
Speaker 2: any authority whatsoever. We're underfunded and powerless under Colonel Law.
Speaker 2: What power and also do we see any funding issues
Speaker 2: that are addressed by this.
Speaker 7: They're no funding from the state of Ohio on this.
Speaker 7: But you know, like I said, the dog warden will
Speaker 7: now have the authority to take such a dog immediately
Speaker 7: in that situation, and it definitely empowers them because we
Speaker 7: want to keep people safe and it's outrageous that a
Speaker 7: dog that has killed in the past is not immediately
Speaker 7: taken by the dog warden. And you rightly pointed that out, Scott,
Speaker 7: that we had that situation where the dog can kill
Speaker 7: somebody and it doesn't have any impact. So I'm thankful
Speaker 7: that we've made this common sense change. I think people
Speaker 7: will appreciate that. I really have not heard many complaints
Speaker 7: about this at all, even from dog owners, and people
Speaker 7: understand that if you're going to own a dog, that
Speaker 7: you're responsible for for the actions that your dog might take.
Speaker 2: I think most all dog owners are that way. Of course,
Speaker 2: there's people out there that have dog or dogs and
Speaker 2: they just simply don't care. They you know, may chain
Speaker 2: them up outside during inclement weather like this said, they
Speaker 2: don't give a damn. I mean that used to be
Speaker 2: conventional wisdom, you know, years and years ago. But dogs
Speaker 2: and cats to some degree have become family members. We're
Speaker 2: not dog owners anymore. We're pet parents, right, It's the
Speaker 2: whole narrative has changed. We're feeding our dogs better food
Speaker 2: than we put in our own bodies. Put it that way,
Speaker 2: the farmer's dog looks better than what I had for
Speaker 2: dinner last.
Speaker 6: Night myself at.
Speaker 7: Yeah, there you go, go.
Speaker 2: Adam bird one of the other things. And we mentioned
Speaker 2: the powerlessness here of the dog wardens themselves sound like
Speaker 2: a cut out there for just a second, and the
Speaker 2: funding thing has to be dressed probably at the local
Speaker 2: level there too. But what happens to a dog owner
Speaker 2: can't aford one hundred thousand dollars liability insurance after the
Speaker 2: dog attacks.
Speaker 7: Someone whoa You know, I'd say that if you can't
Speaker 7: afford that, I don't think that there is a The
Speaker 7: failure to obtain liability insurance is going to be a
Speaker 7: fourth degree misdemeanor. So you're going to be charged if
Speaker 7: you don't have that, And you know, I would think
Speaker 7: that people would would take, you know, take that to
Speaker 7: heart and would would you know if you're not going
Speaker 7: if you're going to get if you don't have it
Speaker 7: and you get a charge with a fourt of mcgreen,
Speaker 7: that's remain or you're going to you know, it's going
Speaker 7: to start racking up on you here soon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, maybe you should not have
Speaker 2: a dog if you can't afford the insurance. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you have a dog, presumably you can afford vet
Speaker 2: bills and the food that dog, especially bigger dogs are
Speaker 2: going to need and all things go along with it. Maybe,
Speaker 2: you know, if you can't afford the gas, don't buy
Speaker 2: the car.
Speaker 7: There you go. So you know, and honestly, I'm not
Speaker 7: sure what the cost is to one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 7: in liability. What is you know what that might be.
Speaker 6: Scott, I have no idea. That's a that's a great.
Speaker 7: Question, good insurance question for one of your insurance agents.
Speaker 7: Probably a rider on your homeowner's insurance.
Speaker 6: I would think.
Speaker 2: Also, you know, an umbrella policy would cover that as
Speaker 2: well too, and that's those are fairly affordable. But again,
Speaker 2: you know, if you don't have that kind of money,
Speaker 2: maybe not that. Maybe a dog is a bad idea
Speaker 2: for you, you know, unlike you know, kids might be
Speaker 2: a different thing simply because of the nature of it.
Speaker 2: But you know, you choose to go and fish get
Speaker 2: a dog or procure a dog, and it might be
Speaker 2: a free dog, but there's costs associated with the care, feeding,
Speaker 2: and maintenance of the dog. And it's not fair of
Speaker 2: the dog either because you know, they're not born vicious,
Speaker 2: they're treated that way or bred that way. That's completely
Speaker 2: up to human beings, not the not the breed, or
Speaker 2: not the animal itself. And you know, given that it
Speaker 2: looks like the house and sent the past different versions.
Speaker 2: I think there's something in here, the playful behavior protections,
Speaker 2: I think is interesting. Uh that their protections are dogs
Speaker 2: exhibiting what they call age appropriate behavior. And I'm guessing
Speaker 2: that has to do more with puppies.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, there you go. And and so you know,
Speaker 7: because sometimes little puppies are gonna, you know, kind of
Speaker 7: chew around on things, and uh, we you know, we
Speaker 7: don't want we don't want that happening. But I don't
Speaker 7: I do believe that both versions Scott have been approved
Speaker 7: by both the There's been one version approved by both chambers,
Speaker 7: and and that's why I get sent to the Governor's
Speaker 7: death So I don't think we have to have any
Speaker 7: kind of conference committee or to agree to changes. And
Speaker 7: we have one bill. It's been approved by both houses.
Speaker 7: It's on the governor's desk, and my sources say that
Speaker 7: he'll sign it by Friday.
Speaker 2: Of course, there is always the law of unintended consequences,
Speaker 2: things like this Adam Bird years ago. Our good friends
Speaker 2: are next door neighbors have a Chihuahua dog and dress
Speaker 2: it up Halloween. Kids are coming over and kids will
Speaker 2: get trick or treat. They come up and she say, hey,
Speaker 2: listen to know the dogs the dog's cute now, but
Speaker 2: don't don't get too close to the dog because she
Speaker 2: gets a little protect if she may nip at you.
Speaker 2: And of course everyone listens except one kid who decides
Speaker 2: to go over and you know, mess with the dog. Well,
Speaker 2: sure enough, the dog nips them. The kids fine, doesn't cry,
Speaker 2: his parents get all worked up. The kids starts crying.
Speaker 2: They take them to the emergency room. Skin's not broken.
Speaker 2: It's a whole thing. I just wonder does that law
Speaker 2: protect people who are innocuous in this thing?
Speaker 6: That's a lot of dogs.
Speaker 2: It's you know, you're not going to destroy you take
Speaker 2: a dog or you know, go after someone's house and
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars in damages because you get nipped
Speaker 2: in your repul stay away from the dog. Are there
Speaker 2: protections there for those individuals?
Speaker 7: Yeah? Absolutely there. Their due process is required here and
Speaker 7: and so there is a hearing and uh, you know
Speaker 7: it's it's the dog. Warden can take that dog immediately.
Speaker 7: That doesn't mean that their dog's going to be humanly
Speaker 7: put down right away, but there is going to be
Speaker 7: a due process hearing, and you know you're gonna you're
Speaker 7: going to have an opportunity if if to make sure
Speaker 7: that that in the case that you just described, a
Speaker 7: dog wouldn't be put down for that.
Speaker 6: Right, I got you, all right?
Speaker 2: So are we one hundred percent confident governor to why
Speaker 2: who's going to sign this as it?
Speaker 7: Well, I'd like to think that he is. And I say,
Speaker 7: you know, if Scott Swoan thinks it's a good bill,
Speaker 7: and Adenburgh thinks it's a good bill, he probably should
Speaker 7: sign it. And uh, he's running out of time, as
Speaker 7: you know, He's got ten days discounting Sundays to sign
Speaker 7: a bill. And I think this is one that's that's
Speaker 7: worth worth doing because you know, the governor often speaks
Speaker 7: about his desire to protect kids and protect families and
Speaker 7: you know he's Ohio's first grandpa, yep, And so you
Speaker 7: would think that somebody that cares about kids and families
Speaker 7: with tiny belle like that.
Speaker 2: Now, this is good law and long overdue. So congratulations
Speaker 2: and thanks for that. He is Representative Adam Bird out
Speaker 2: of Claremont County, co sponsor of Avery's Law, awaiting the
Speaker 2: governor's signature and some common sense dog vicious dog laws
Speaker 2: in the state of Ahio. All the best Merry Christmas,
Speaker 2: and thanks for coming on.
Speaker 7: Merry Christmas to you and your family as well. Thank
Speaker 7: you for the honor of being on your show. And
Speaker 7: and you know, let's let's keep our family safe and
Speaker 7: and let's make sure we're taking care of our dogs
Speaker 7: and not putting our dogs in a position where they.
Speaker 3: Might arn somebody.
Speaker 2: Amen, brother, gotcha, Thanks again for the time, appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Have a good one. Let me get to a news update.
Speaker 2: Scott'slan continues after this seven hundred Wtlon on seven.
Speaker 6: Hundred all hard to believe, to believe it was five
Speaker 6: years ago? When at all?
Speaker 2: And I'm talking about COVID, the score on COVID five
Speaker 2: years later. What happened here? How did we get to
Speaker 2: this point right now? In history? Arguably we suffered more
Speaker 2: COVID deaths than all during all foreign worst combined. We
Speaker 2: have the largest employment loss, some twenty two million people
Speaker 2: essentially went on layoff or got fired, completely lost their
Speaker 2: their career, biggest number since a great depression, greatest increase
Speaker 2: in the national death since the Second World War. When
Speaker 2: you stack us up to all the other developed nations
Speaker 2: in the world, no one had it worse than we did.
Speaker 6: And I love the.
Speaker 2: Historical perspective on this because often, you know, you get Congress,
Speaker 2: you get political hacks that often infiltrate shows and we'll
Speaker 2: try to spin things, is in mistruths, and I just
Speaker 2: want the facts from history, history perspective, and Ronald Grunner
Speaker 2: provides that in COVID Wars.
Speaker 6: Ronald, welcome to the show. How are you.
Speaker 9: I'm just trying and thanks for the invitation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks for coming on. Yeah, this is a unique
Speaker 2: I lived through nine to eleven. You did as well,
Speaker 2: I'm sure, and we remember we're like united them by
Speaker 2: a common foe. America came together, albeit briefly, but we
Speaker 2: came together. This was even more fleeting than that there
Speaker 2: was here in Ohio. We had wine with the wine
Speaker 2: the governor, and snacking with Acting Amy, acting the Ohio
Speaker 2: Health Director, and all of a sudden, within literally a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks, everything turned and the hatred and vitriol
Speaker 2: for Mike, the wine changed on the dime, largely by Republicans,
Speaker 2: same for Amy Acton, and we saw us going at
Speaker 2: each other's throats. We didn't district, we distrusted healthcare disinformation
Speaker 2: ran rampant, and I'm just I'm curious as to how
Speaker 2: we got to that point in history where we didn't
Speaker 2: believe anything anymore.
Speaker 9: Well, Scott, I think it was primary due to so
Speaker 9: many conflicting sources of information. I mean, I'm not familiar
Speaker 9: with them, all the issues in Ohio, but I mean
Speaker 9: we had on a number of cable channels of people
Speaker 9: claiming early in the pandemic that it was all a
Speaker 9: democratic plot to demonize the president or undermine the president
Speaker 9: President Trump.
Speaker 3: So that was one aspect.
Speaker 9: But there's information coming at people from all different directions,
Speaker 9: from the Internet, from social media, from cable news, indicasion
Speaker 9: from newspapers. So it was a very confusing time and
Speaker 9: people tended to polarize early in the pandemic, as early
Speaker 9: as February March of twenty twenty, and they never really
Speaker 9: changed their minds about the situation, unfortunately.
Speaker 2: But the scientific method has never changed since the scientific
Speaker 2: method became a thing, and that's long long before we
Speaker 2: came here. Right, is that you have an hypothesis you tested,
Speaker 2: if it's proven a scientific fact, at some point it
Speaker 2: can be completely endermind. But this thing happened so quickly.
Speaker 2: And also the vaccine, the Arna vaccine was developed so
Speaker 2: quickly we didn't have that history, and so we know
Speaker 2: much more today about RNA. We know much more today
Speaker 2: about the vaccines than we did when they were first developed,
Speaker 2: and rather quickly, for that matter. Instead of celebrating, we
Speaker 2: start attacking them. I think that's a difference.
Speaker 6: Though.
Speaker 2: The scientific method we looked through that out the window,
Speaker 2: going now, well, yeah, you know what we thought we
Speaker 2: knew about. It is tested and either it passes or
Speaker 2: fails to test. What am I missing there?
Speaker 9: Well, what you're missing, I think is that the scientific
Speaker 9: method depends on the reliable data. Reliable data, and so
Speaker 9: a lot of that data was missing. Things were moving
Speaker 9: so quickly, people didn't have the data or didn't trust
Speaker 9: the data to really say, okay, I can draw some
Speaker 9: solid conclusions about the data I'm being presented. Either wasn't
Speaker 9: there or was considered unreliable, and that was one of
Speaker 9: the factors I think that led to so much disbelief
Speaker 9: about the vaccines, and even if the covid itself was
Speaker 9: a real virus as opposed to just a bad case.
Speaker 6: Of the flue.
Speaker 2: We also learned too, that we had known about this
Speaker 2: the country, and those scientists and even the president as
Speaker 2: far back as two thousand and five knew about this.
Speaker 2: But again, we're one of those things where okay, well,
Speaker 2: if we know a super pandemic is coming, how do
Speaker 2: we prevent that from knowing about it or having in
Speaker 2: advanced warning and what it might look like very vague
Speaker 2: at that is one thing, But doing something about what
Speaker 2: you don't know is about to happen is entirely different.
Speaker 9: Well, that's a good part. You're referring to George W.
Speaker 6: Bush.
Speaker 9: President Bush. In two thousand and five, I identified the
Speaker 9: risk of a pandemic and actually had Congress authorized seven
Speaker 9: billion dollars for a pandemic funding. But over the next
Speaker 9: fifteen years that got spent, you know, fighting that swine
Speaker 9: flu and ibola in Africa and other small epidemics, and
Speaker 9: there was no money left on the equipment left on
Speaker 9: the shelf. When the COVID pandemic app actually hit, Congress
Speaker 9: never renewed those funds.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately.
Speaker 9: That's why we had no mass, no personal protection equipment
Speaker 9: in the early stages of the pandemic.
Speaker 6: But George W.
Speaker 9: Bush, he had the insight to in two thousand and
Speaker 9: five to say, a pandemic will come eventually, we need
Speaker 9: to be prepared.
Speaker 2: To his credit, Ron, remember that day when the president
Speaker 2: came on. President Trump came on and said, hey, we're
Speaker 2: in a global pandemic. We're going to basically shut lock
Speaker 2: things down, and he introduced Operation Warp Speed to develop
Speaker 2: a COVID vaccine, and then all of a sudden that
Speaker 2: became an attack on the same vaccine he wanted to develop.
Speaker 9: Take me through that, well, I mean, it's Trump's tremendous credit.
Speaker 9: He authorized in mayor twenty twenty, Operation web Speed to
Speaker 9: develop vaccines for COVID as quickly as possible. But the
Speaker 9: thing that's really still not understandable is why once the
Speaker 9: vaccines became well coming out, he never really promoted them.
Speaker 9: Every president that went to a pandemic or epidemic, like Eisenhoward,
Speaker 9: George Gerald, Ford and Obama were the first to get
Speaker 9: vaccinated and were very clear about their feelings about the vaccine.
Speaker 9: President Trump didn't do that. He got vaccinated silently, with
Speaker 9: no publicity and never talked about it. His one interesting
Speaker 9: data point is that during twenty twenty, President Trump issued
Speaker 9: over twelve thousand tweets. As you know, that's how he
Speaker 9: communicated with the public. Of those twelve thousand tweats, only
Speaker 9: a few more than one hundred, like a one hundred
Speaker 9: ten tweets even mentioned the word vaccine, which is astonishing
Speaker 9: to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you're helping develop that, and Trump is the
Speaker 2: best self promoter we'll ever see, you think you would
Speaker 2: take advantage of that. What happened to the point where
Speaker 2: he decided not to do that? When did it become toxic?
Speaker 2: I guess for Trump to attach himself to a vaccine
Speaker 2: he put on the fast.
Speaker 9: Rug that I can't answer. I mean, I've done a
Speaker 9: lot of research and that's really not clear why he
Speaker 9: didn't support that.
Speaker 5: More.
Speaker 9: I think that part of it was his base was
Speaker 9: turning against the lockdowns and were opening up and even
Speaker 9: declaring that the pandemic was over. As you may have
Speaker 9: read in my book, Vice President of Piss did a
Speaker 9: major Wall Street Journal editorial saying that pandemic is over,
Speaker 9: there is not a second wave. So if there's not
Speaker 9: a second wave, if the pandemic is over, what do
Speaker 9: you need a vaccine? And perhaps President Trump was supporting
Speaker 9: that viewpoint.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I get the need for a vaccine,
Speaker 2: so it doesn't happen again, Although we will see it
Speaker 2: mutate and do other things as often as the case
Speaker 2: when it comes to viruses, But relative to the lockdowns themselves,
Speaker 2: it became pretty clear after a period of time. Initially,
Speaker 2: I think most Americans are like, Okay, we're going to
Speaker 2: lock this down, and you know, we're gonna get subside
Speaker 2: from the government, which I get because no one can
Speaker 2: go to work.
Speaker 6: But at some point it big game clear.
Speaker 2: There wasn't gonna be the big second wave, and yet
Speaker 2: we continue doing Now, how look at Biden's policy of
Speaker 2: continued to hand up COVID relief money long after the
Speaker 2: long after COVID wasn't a problem.
Speaker 9: Yeah, and of course it led to a tremendous inflation
Speaker 9: inflationary wave we're still suffering from.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 9: But no, the as I'm sure you know, there was
Speaker 9: a second wave of the COVID starting in November of
Speaker 9: twenty twenty that was even more deady than.
Speaker 3: The first wave.
Speaker 9: And part of the problem was that virus was mutating
Speaker 9: through different strains, through six different strains in the last
Speaker 9: five years, and we had a hard time chasing that
Speaker 9: with vaccines. They had to be updated continually to go
Speaker 9: after the next strain, and that's one of the reasons
Speaker 9: the vaccines were not as effective as they thought they
Speaker 9: would have been. Early in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: We also when it came to response, we didn't do well.
Speaker 2: There the a lot of confusion about the severity of
Speaker 2: the virus that the public health emergency was to called
Speaker 2: I think the last day of January twenty twenty, but
Speaker 2: everything else after that was I mean, really, the government
Speaker 2: once again, those people who want more government in our life,
Speaker 2: I questioned you, because look at their task with doing
Speaker 2: the CDC. The test kits didn't work. I remember that
Speaker 2: there's really no national strategy. You could certainly lay it
Speaker 2: on the hands of Trump, but we had infrastructure that
Speaker 2: was built in to make sure that that was handled
Speaker 2: by the CDC, FEMA. When it comes to natural disasters,
Speaker 2: these agencies that are tasked with making sure that when
Speaker 2: a major, major crisis hits were at least a little
Speaker 2: bit prepared. It looked like they had no game plan whatsoever,
Speaker 2: and I think that also helped to the public perception
Speaker 2: like we don't know what's going on here, why are
Speaker 2: we doing this?
Speaker 9: No, that's correct, there was no game plan, although they
Speaker 9: had done significant war game planning in twenty nineteen and
Speaker 9: they didn't follow those plans that was done at the administration,
Speaker 9: and for some reason, it just was an area of
Speaker 9: total confusion with the federal government for the first six months.
Speaker 9: I think later on they began to get better work,
Speaker 9: but the first six months were very confusing. Of course,
Speaker 9: it was a movie target that was part of the problems,
Speaker 9: and people lost faith. People lost faith in what they
Speaker 9: were hearing from the CDC in the federal government.
Speaker 2: Well, the mixed messages. I think Fauci had a very
Speaker 2: interesting role on this. I think come to the conclusion
Speaker 2: most well. I think if you're on the right, you
Speaker 2: absolutely despise Fauci. I'm not sure where those progressives and
Speaker 2: LUNs of the left stand. What's his legacy.
Speaker 9: Well, I think time's going to have to sort that
Speaker 9: out my opinion, which may not be a PARTA. And
Speaker 9: I think Fauci was made a bit of a scapegoat personally,
Speaker 9: and we'll let the historians up later on sort that out.
Speaker 9: He made a lot of mistakes. He should have gotten
Speaker 9: a good public relations course before he'd been talking to
Speaker 9: two hnd and thirty million Americans about things that could
Speaker 9: affect their lives. So he talked way too much off
Speaker 9: the cuff and confused people. But I don't think he
Speaker 9: was malicious intentionally as some people believe, and I don't
Speaker 9: believe he should be jailed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I look at him and as soon as a
Speaker 2: character because he is a doctor, but I think he
Speaker 2: more of a policy You're a politician at that point too,
Speaker 2: and I think that's the thing. You look at someone
Speaker 2: always a physician, you know, as you're talking about it's
Speaker 2: different when you become a political being. That all goes
Speaker 2: by the wayside. I don't care if you're a doctor
Speaker 2: or a general.
Speaker 9: Well, that is certainly true. And he had been in
Speaker 9: the government, as you know him for forty years, so
Speaker 9: he had become mighty politicized. He was a political character
Speaker 9: and he tended to behave that way. But I think
Speaker 9: most of the fact that he just was he saw
Speaker 9: himself as a public health official, and that was all
Speaker 9: he worried about. Effect on the economy, the effect on
Speaker 9: jobs and businesses. That was all secondary as opposed to
Speaker 9: his view of trying to protect every possible life. Honestly,
Speaker 9: that was where I believe he was coming from.
Speaker 2: Ron Gerner's on the show COVID wars America struggle of
Speaker 2: a public health and personal freedom. He's not a politician,
Speaker 2: he's not a physician. He is a historian. And it's
Speaker 2: always interesting seeing historical perspective on things like this to
Speaker 2: change our live and certainly a seminal moment in our
Speaker 2: lives was five years ago when we had the COVID outbreak.
Speaker 2: Hot was handled mishandled in some cases, although at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, the fact that they developed that
Speaker 2: vaccine in such record time is something else. There's still
Speaker 2: people say, well, the vaccine is killing people, it's not
Speaker 2: the virus. And I got friends that believe that the
Speaker 2: facts that the virus didn't exist at all. I mean,
Speaker 2: you get so many different alternate forms of reality out
Speaker 2: there competing in the space of I don't know, maybe
Speaker 2: of common sense, but of science. That's that's really the
Speaker 2: problem here. I think social media added so much more
Speaker 2: to this h and made it more detrimental than necessary.
Speaker 9: Well that's the true now the advice I give to
Speaker 9: people then they asked me what should we turn to
Speaker 9: if this happens again. What the advice I give is
Speaker 9: that we've got We're blessed in the United States with
Speaker 9: some of the best medical institutions in the world. We
Speaker 9: have the Male Clinic, for example, in Minnesota, Massachusetts, General Boston, Stanford,
Speaker 9: and California Cleveland Clinic all over the country. So if
Speaker 9: you don't trust the government, and that's understandable, then I
Speaker 9: would go to those top medical institutions and take their
Speaker 9: advice and follow it. So if they say the vaccines
Speaker 9: work and a minimal in terms of risk, didn't trust
Speaker 9: that because they're the best institutions in the world and
Speaker 9: I believe they'll be honest with their medical advice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but there are people don't distrust them as well
Speaker 2: because they see it as an extension of Anthony Fauci
Speaker 2: that they're just simply not going to believe. You know,
Speaker 2: we had a lady here in Ohio as an example.
Speaker 2: I don't she was a doctor. I'm a physician, I forget,
Speaker 2: but she said the VACU She's the lady who said
Speaker 2: the vaccines were causing her body to become magnetic and
Speaker 2: put a spoon on her nose that didn't stick during
Speaker 2: testimony at the state House. But it became a meme obviously,
Speaker 2: because you know, the vaccine's not making you magnetized.
Speaker 9: Well, I discussed her in my book. I do have
Speaker 9: that there's a couple of pages discussing her in her
Speaker 9: testimony before the Ohio one of the commissions there. But no,
Speaker 9: I don't think Anthony Fauci has enough political power to
Speaker 9: affect the Male Clinic, which has been around her seventy
Speaker 9: five years, or Massa Chuttus General, which is just as older.
Speaker 9: These tough top hospitals, I mean, they are independent, private
Speaker 9: organizations and they're going to do what they think is
Speaker 9: right for their for their patients, and so I think
Speaker 9: they're absolutely trustworthy. They made be wrong occasional because they
Speaker 9: had they interpret the data wrong, but they're trustworthy and
Speaker 9: in terms of trying to be honest with their opinions.
Speaker 2: I agree on those sources. I also trust my physician.
Speaker 2: And if you have a good relationship with your general
Speaker 2: practitioner and you mainly see them once or twice a year,
Speaker 2: as I do, maybe see them more often, and you
Speaker 2: like that person, that'd be the one I asked, because
Speaker 2: they know you and they know your conditions, and you
Speaker 2: know I would think your values and also that is
Speaker 2: in line with them, and so that would be my
Speaker 2: go to resource. Hey, what should I do Should I
Speaker 2: get the vaccine? I was told, yeah, absolutely, get the vaccine.
Speaker 2: I did, got the first booster, and after that they're like, Okay,
Speaker 2: you're probably pretty good for a while. Don't worry about it,
Speaker 2: and so here and here. I am never really suffered
Speaker 2: too badly from COVID maybe other stuff. The flu, that's
Speaker 2: a different story entirely. How do you explain the medical
Speaker 2: equipment shortage that was also part of the plot, We're
Speaker 2: going to kill Americans here because we don't have enough PPE.
Speaker 2: I'd contend that we didn't see this coming and it came,
Speaker 2: and you don't. You don't we eat PPE and masks
Speaker 2: and gowns and all that stuff For an event like this,
Speaker 2: you know, you got to get caught up. And with
Speaker 2: industry being shut down supply chains, that also added to it.
Speaker 2: It's not like you have all this stuff laying around
Speaker 2: ready to go in the event you had some unforeseen
Speaker 2: virus breakout.
Speaker 9: Well, that was George Bush's objective. I mean, he spent
Speaker 9: seven billion dollars to buy PPE and masks and all
Speaker 9: kinds of equipment for handing a pandemic, and then that
Speaker 9: got used in three specific incidents in the next fifteen years,
Speaker 9: and Congress never reapproved funds. Obama tried to after Ibula.
Speaker 9: Obama tried his best to get those funds replenished or
Speaker 9: at least partially replenished, and we were in sequestration cutting budgets,
Speaker 9: and that money never got funded. So PPE never got funded,
Speaker 9: and those shelves were empty when Trump came on board,
Speaker 9: like he said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, we didn't. We used it, never bothered
Speaker 2: replenishing it because oh well, we're good.
Speaker 3: We got an.
Speaker 2: Unlimited supply of this, and we really didn't. I think
Speaker 2: the thing that's emitted for most Americans, too, Ronald, was
Speaker 2: when you know, you saw folks in nursing homes that
Speaker 2: couldn't have contact with anyone from the outside world except
Speaker 2: you know, their nurse would be on loading dock, smoking
Speaker 2: a cigarette and hanging out with people and then go
Speaker 2: back and treat your love, and meanwhile you can't make
Speaker 2: contact with them. And of course they saw people being
Speaker 2: hauled out in body bag from them same kind of
Speaker 2: facilities that those images there. I think that really stuck
Speaker 2: with Americans, and not in a good way.
Speaker 9: I think that that may well have been an overreaction.
Speaker 9: Thank you point out I'm not a position, but I
Speaker 9: think that they surely could have found a way when
Speaker 9: people were passing on their family and elders could see
Speaker 9: them in their last moments or before, you know, shortly
Speaker 9: before that, there must have been a way of doing that.
Speaker 9: If nothing else, they would get completely dressed up in
Speaker 9: PPN wear masks as opposed to doing that over a
Speaker 9: zoom call.
Speaker 6: I think we've learned from that, hopefully. Yeah, and just
Speaker 6: so much.
Speaker 2: You know, the misinformation out there was certainly a cause
Speaker 2: of this thing, no doubt about it. But when this
Speaker 2: thing came down pretty clearly the political divides and it
Speaker 2: was politics over science. What surprised you the most is
Speaker 2: in your recent about that divide and about that part
Speaker 2: of level partisanship.
Speaker 9: Well, it surprised me is that politicians supported it. Just
Speaker 9: in my opinion, they weren't necessarily representing the interests of
Speaker 9: their constituents in terms of their health. And I'm ashamed
Speaker 9: to say this, but there's a huge difference in death
Speaker 9: rates between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats tended to open their
Speaker 9: schools more slowly, in the communities more slowly, and were
Speaker 9: much more highly vaccinated as opposed to Republicans who had
Speaker 9: much much lower vaccination rates which affected death rates, and
Speaker 9: the data is all in my book, which is just
Speaker 9: a tragedy.
Speaker 2: Well, well, I would say Florida seemed to do. Everyone
Speaker 2: pointed to Florida's being while we opened back up, we
Speaker 2: didn't lock stuff down, and then we were fine.
Speaker 9: Well, Florida had slightly below average death rates, so that's true.
Speaker 9: I mean that they were fine. But in terms of
Speaker 9: the states that were you can compare what I can
Speaker 9: have a strong comparison between Vermont and Florida. Vermont's got
Speaker 9: a sniffeting out of population in Florida, which is surprises,
Speaker 9: as does Maine. Yet they had death rates compared to Florida,
Speaker 9: roughly one third the death rate of Florida. So there's
Speaker 9: a lot of interesting comparisons that are yet to be
Speaker 9: done to understand what actually happened.
Speaker 2: Do you think we'll ever have a total grasp of
Speaker 2: what occurred and why?
Speaker 9: I think eventually I think that data would come out,
Speaker 9: but it may take a couple of generations. It's interesting,
Speaker 9: Scott that the first really in depth analysis of the
Speaker 9: nineteen eighteen Spanish fluid didn't come out until nineteen seventy eight,
Speaker 9: almost fifty years later, and that was what motivated being
Speaker 9: right in my book COVID Wars to try to get
Speaker 9: a solid history of what happened much much sooner.
Speaker 3: We'll see if that actually worked.
Speaker 2: And the final point is as a historian, Ronald, do
Speaker 2: we ever learn from this? I say no, we never
Speaker 2: ever ever learn.
Speaker 9: Well, that's funny, a realistic view, but I like to
Speaker 9: think of myself as optimistic. I think over time, I think, Scott,
Speaker 9: when the emotion washes away. There's so much emotion right now,
Speaker 9: when that washes away, and what's left to the facts
Speaker 9: that people do look at and come get some conclusions. Yes,
Speaker 9: I think we'll learn from this.
Speaker 2: It's Ronald Gruin a COVID Wars, America struggle or a
Speaker 2: public health and personal freedom. He's a historian, so not
Speaker 2: a political book or a medical book, but rather from
Speaker 2: a historical perspective on this, which I love.
Speaker 6: Ronald all the best, Thanks again.
Speaker 9: Thank you, good chatting with you.
Speaker 2: Seconds away from news on seven hundred WW then we return.
Speaker 2: If you get that hot libertarian streak and you're like me,
Speaker 2: you're gonna like this one. We've talked about this in
Speaker 2: the past. And it looks like maybe it's coming to
Speaker 2: a head. Finally, you're not sure. Bob All from Buckeye
Speaker 2: Institute on an Ohio man facing prison because he makes
Speaker 2: his own alcohol. You can make pretty much everything else
Speaker 2: as long as you consume it in your own household,
Speaker 2: whether it's beer, wine, you know, vegetable garden, bakery at
Speaker 2: whatever federal law says. You cannot make your own alcohol.
Speaker 2: You cannot distill a beverage. Otherwise you're looking at five
Speaker 2: years in prison. Whiskey tango, foxtrot. We'll get that next
Speaker 2: seven hundred WW Do.
Speaker 1: You want to be American? Good?
Speaker 2: Marty Scott Flows Show on seven hundred w W question,
Speaker 2: would you be willing to go to prison for your hobby?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 2: Unless your hobby is being a Bengals, I don't want
Speaker 2: to go down. That's a little dark. But your hobby
Speaker 2: guy's name is James Reem, and mister Reem lives in Newark,
Speaker 2: Ohio's up the road from us, and he wants to
Speaker 2: distill small qualities of alcohol. He likes bourbon, he likes rye,
Speaker 2: he likes whiskey, and he has fascination with brewing. Owns
Speaker 2: a bur mini broad microbur as a matter of fact,
Speaker 2: and he wants to make some alcohol own home for
Speaker 2: his personal consumption. If he decides he's going to do that,
Speaker 2: he is subject to felony conviction ten thousand dollars in fines.
Speaker 2: We're talking about five years in prison, longer than a
Speaker 2: murderer might get, simply because he is making his own
Speaker 2: distilling his own alcohol in his own home for his
Speaker 2: own use, not giving it away, certainly, not selling it,
Speaker 2: but of his own use. That is a crime in America,
Speaker 2: and I think that is a crime overall. Robert Alt
Speaker 2: is President and chief executive officer of the Buckeye Institute
Speaker 2: in Columbus, where they have taken up this case im
Speaker 2: and fighting for James Rimm for a while. Robert, Welcome
Speaker 2: to sunny Cincinnati, which I think. I think you're warmer
Speaker 2: today than we are here in Cincinnati.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 8: No, I think we're enjoying a balmy couple degrees warmer
Speaker 8: than you.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the bald met too. Civil Ohio. This time let's
Speaker 2: look warmer than it was yesterday. Let's talk about John
Speaker 2: Reams case here. He lives in Newark, Ohio, retired engineer,
Speaker 2: I think, and he owns a micro brewery, and his
Speaker 2: wife said, well, you know what, here, here you go.
Speaker 2: Here's a home brewing kid. He does that making money.
Speaker 2: It's great. It's called truck brewing, by the way. And
Speaker 2: now want to get into home distilling. Why is that illegal?
Speaker 2: That's a darn good question. And the answer is, there's
Speaker 2: a there is a law.
Speaker 6: On the book.
Speaker 8: This is a federal law. This isn't the state law
Speaker 8: which prohibits you from distilling any alcohol for sumption in
Speaker 8: your own home, even if you don't sell it, even
Speaker 8: if you're just doing it as a hobby. So you
Speaker 8: can you can make beer in your own home. That's
Speaker 8: perfectly legal. You commit find in your own home. I
Speaker 8: don't necessarily advise it. I don't know if I've ever
Speaker 8: had good homemade one.
Speaker 6: But you can do it.
Speaker 8: But if you make any amount of whiskey, it's a felony.
Speaker 8: And not only you lifted off these penalties. On the
Speaker 8: website for the enforcement agency, they make clear not only
Speaker 8: can you get fined, not only can you get imprisonment imprisonment,
Speaker 8: but they'll go after your house, They'll go after wherever
Speaker 8: it is that you were engaging in this unlawful conduct.
Speaker 8: And potentially try and seize that as well. The penalties
Speaker 8: here are absolutely draconian. But the real issue here is
Speaker 8: how is it that the federal government has the authority
Speaker 8: to go ahead and regulate what you do in your
Speaker 8: own home as a hobby. If they can regulate this,
Speaker 8: there's literally nothing that the federal government can't regulate.
Speaker 2: It's a victim of crime. Now, if you sell it
Speaker 2: distributed to get maybe something there. But if you make something,
Speaker 2: whether it's alcohol, whether it's bread, whether it's a pie,
Speaker 2: then the only person you're gonna harm is yourself if
Speaker 2: you get it wrong. Does this law let's go back
Speaker 2: in history, is this Does this stem from prohibition when
Speaker 2: people were literally poisoning others but with things like bestub gin?
Speaker 8: This actually the law I believe actually predates prohibition. But
Speaker 8: you know, if we're concerned about regulating the production of
Speaker 8: alcohol for public safety, you know who's actually really good
Speaker 8: at do it at handling these sourtces of regulations are
Speaker 8: the states, and in fact the Constitution of the under
Speaker 8: the twenty first Amendment, the states have you know, special
Speaker 8: authority to regulate in this space. And if you take
Speaker 8: a look, I mean Ohio regulates in this space. But
Speaker 8: Ohio actually doesn't have any prohibition on home distilling. There
Speaker 8: are some states that do in addition to the federal government,
Speaker 8: but Ohio doesn't, And so there's really just no purpose
Speaker 8: for this law.
Speaker 2: You know, maybe there was a time where people would
Speaker 2: get sick in poison and maybe that stems from this,
Speaker 2: but now it just reaks a protection because we have science.
Speaker 2: You know, you could learn how to do anything really
Speaker 2: in the comfort of your own home, if you're going
Speaker 2: to use it for your own consumption or if you're
Speaker 2: you know, if you're a neighbor like, hey, I'd like
Speaker 2: to try some of your whiskey. As long as money's
Speaker 2: not changing hands, there's no violation. But if he wanted
Speaker 2: to do this, would he then have to go through
Speaker 2: the process of getting a federal license?
Speaker 6: And what does that look like?
Speaker 8: So he would have to get a federal license, he's
Speaker 8: actually lawfully prohibited under the statute. It is not permissible
Speaker 8: to distill in your own home, and the statue is
Speaker 8: written in a very bizarre fashion. If you happen to
Speaker 8: have a large piece of property and potentially had a
Speaker 8: shanty way out in the woods, perhaps that would be lawful.
Speaker 8: But if you're trying to do so where most people
Speaker 8: are going to actually try and engage in this, if
Speaker 8: they're doing as a hobby, you know, in your own home,
Speaker 8: say in your basement or in your garage, that you
Speaker 8: can't get a permit.
Speaker 6: To do that.
Speaker 8: And if you if you engage in distilling without a permit,
Speaker 8: that will rack you up felony felony charges. As I
Speaker 8: go to this, the big question here is, you know,
Speaker 8: you take a look and you would ask the question,
Speaker 8: how is it that Congress has the authority to regulate this?
Speaker 8: To begin with, Congress only has limited and enumerated powers
Speaker 8: on the Constitution. They can't just regulate anything willy nilly.
Speaker 8: And so the big claim that they make here is
Speaker 8: that they're regulating interstate commerce. But this is a situation
Speaker 8: in which they're regulating something which is neither commerce nor
Speaker 8: interstate I mean literally, what's happening in the confines of
Speaker 8: your own home. If they can regulate this, they could
Speaker 8: regulate bread baking, they could regulate your having a home garden.
Speaker 8: It really doesn't matter how local, how non commercial it is,
Speaker 8: it would be within the ambit of congressional regulation. And
Speaker 8: that's just not what the Constitution said, yeah.
Speaker 6: Not at all.
Speaker 2: And if you're selling it, different story. There's no commerce
Speaker 2: going on here, so you said interstate commerce, but there's
Speaker 2: no commercial enterprise.
Speaker 6: Doesn't it fail that test? Absolutely?
Speaker 8: And to the extent The interesting thing here is to
Speaker 8: the extent that there are some court decisions that have
Speaker 8: had more expansive interpretations of what that means. Congress still
Speaker 8: has to be regulating the interstate market. It has to
Speaker 8: be necessary and proper to regulate the non commercial market.
Speaker 8: In this particular case, the home distilling prohibition, it's not
Speaker 8: regulating an interstate market. This really is getting to non
Speaker 8: commercial activity.
Speaker 2: Okay. The argument from the government on this one basically
Speaker 2: is it's the reason why this is prohibited. It's uniquely dangerous.
Speaker 2: Unlike home bread baking or vegetable gardening or whatever it
Speaker 2: might be. No, no one's died. People may die if
Speaker 2: you don't do this right. It probably could say the
Speaker 2: same thing about beer or wine. I suppose taste good,
Speaker 2: and it's why, but someone can get sick and die
Speaker 2: from a poorly made homemade whiskey. However, I would say,
Speaker 2: if you grow vegetables and you have a surplus of vegetables,
Speaker 2: a lot of people like the can my mom used
Speaker 2: to do to make your own pickles and put up
Speaker 2: tomatoes and stuff like that as well. I'm sure it's
Speaker 2: very rare, But what about food born botulism? What about
Speaker 2: food borne illnesses from poor canning techniques? If I gave
Speaker 2: my neighbor a can of i don't know, pickled beets
Speaker 2: or something like that, and it turns out that I
Speaker 2: didn't do it right they got sick and died, how
Speaker 2: much How is that any more dangerous than we're talking
Speaker 2: about here.
Speaker 8: Well, and here's the other thing. Ultimately, that doesn't give
Speaker 8: the federal government anymore authority. The fact that they may
Speaker 8: come up with, you know, and they really haven't crossed
Speaker 8: too hard on the health rationale. But even if they do,
Speaker 8: there isn't a general protect health clause in the US Constitution.
Speaker 8: They're protecting health and welfare that is traditionally a set
Speaker 8: of powers which belongs to the state. And so if
Speaker 8: we're concerned about that, the states have the ability, they
Speaker 8: have the authority, and they do regulate actively in that space.
Speaker 8: And so if that's our concern, there are other governmental
Speaker 8: eneities that can do that. The fact that the federal
Speaker 8: government might be able to point to some justification that
Speaker 8: doesn't create a fount of new power for them.
Speaker 2: He is a Robert Ohl, President CEO of the Buckeye Institute.
Speaker 2: Interesting story about your hobbies. Guy named James Reem and
Speaker 2: New York, new not New York, Newark, Ohio. He wants
Speaker 2: to sell small quantities of alcohols on home, make his
Speaker 2: own whiskey, basically for his own personal consumption, not for distribution,
Speaker 2: not for given away, just because he's into it. That's
Speaker 2: his hobby. If he does that, though, he's looking at
Speaker 2: five years in prison, He's looking at a felony conviction
Speaker 2: and up to ten thousand dollars in fines just for
Speaker 2: creating alcohol for his own use. We allow home brewing
Speaker 2: with a home wine making and a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: other things you can do in your house. Why is
Speaker 2: alcohol so dangerous that you need a federal exemption and
Speaker 2: a license in order to do it? That is the
Speaker 2: argument before the court, and the Buckeye Institute is leaning
Speaker 2: into it that as a friend of the court and
Speaker 2: a friend of mister Reim. And he's on the show
Speaker 2: this morning to discuss here on seven hundred WLW. You
Speaker 2: know you mentioned earlier about Article one and the authority
Speaker 2: to criminalize home distilling. If you go back to prohibition,
Speaker 2: the federal government needed the eighteenth Amendment to ban alcohol
Speaker 2: production and consumption. Does that show that Congress lacks the
Speaker 2: authority to criminalize home distilling?
Speaker 8: You know, I think this goes to, yes, the limitations
Speaker 8: on government power, the fact that you couldn't just simply
Speaker 8: have Congress go ahead and restrict it across the board.
Speaker 8: You needed a constitutional amendment to actually get to a
Speaker 8: flat prohibition broadly.
Speaker 6: On this.
Speaker 8: And if you take a look in this particular case,
Speaker 8: I mean, the other argument that they make in this
Speaker 8: case is that it's somehow necessary to the taxing power.
Speaker 8: But it's it's interesting in this case, producing alcohol is
Speaker 8: potentially subject to an excise tax, but the prohibition actually
Speaker 8: prevents the federal government from collecting any tax. As we've
Speaker 8: said in this case, and we actually not just a
Speaker 8: friend of the court, we directly represent mister Reem in
Speaker 8: this particular case, mister Reim would be willing to pay
Speaker 8: a tax on producing the alcohol, uh, if they would
Speaker 8: just let him actually produce the alcohol for his own consumption.
Speaker 8: So the interestly that oddly the federal government is preventing
Speaker 8: itself from getting the tax revenue.
Speaker 2: I mean, what would cost for a LICEI. I'd imagine
Speaker 2: it's a lot of them. It's like a federal firearms
Speaker 2: later to distribute firearms or something like that. It's it's
Speaker 2: exceptionally expensive to do that. Yeah. I look at this
Speaker 2: and it's like the same thing. And this guy's willing
Speaker 2: to do it to pay the tax, and they still
Speaker 2: won't let them. There's no, there's no, that's unreasonable. I
Speaker 2: guess that's a great exist I think that's a helpful
Speaker 2: illustration for your case.
Speaker 6: Don't you.
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 6: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 8: Well, and you know, we we just had oral arguments
Speaker 8: down there in Cincinnati last week before the Sixth Circuit
Speaker 8: Court Appeals and I'll tell you it was I felt
Speaker 8: like it was. It was a bad day to be
Speaker 8: the federal government's attorney. The the the the government actually
Speaker 8: had tried to just argue a very narrow set of
Speaker 8: issues in the briefs. The court asked the government to
Speaker 8: be ready to discuss the constitutional arguments beyond the narrow
Speaker 8: standing arguments. Uh and the government essentially refused to do so.
Speaker 6: So the court.
Speaker 8: The court was none to please there was some test
Speaker 8: the exchanges, and the court actually went ahead and sent
Speaker 8: an additional order to the government to provide additional briefing
Speaker 8: responding to the Bakay Institute and mister Reems constitutional clients.
Speaker 2: I'm not an attorney. I'm a simple layperson with a
Speaker 2: simple mind. But I would read that as they don't
Speaker 2: even have an argument as to why this is the law.
Speaker 6: That's what it sounds like.
Speaker 8: Well, you know, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll see what We'll
Speaker 8: see what they come up with. But but suffice it
Speaker 8: to say it was it was. It was a better
Speaker 8: day to be representing mister Reeve. I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess the question would be is if their
Speaker 2: job is to enforce the law and fight for the
Speaker 2: law in this case and they can't even come with
Speaker 2: a reason why making your own alcohol for your own
Speaker 2: consumption and your home is illegal, is that indicator that
Speaker 2: the state should just give up?
Speaker 8: Well yeah, again, as someone who's arguing on behalf of
Speaker 8: mister rehim, I will say, I don't think that the
Speaker 8: government should be regulating in this space. I don't think
Speaker 8: they've been able to articulate a good reason. You've actually
Speaker 8: articulated stronger reasons for why it is that they might
Speaker 8: be able to regulate in this space I think than
Speaker 8: the government has.
Speaker 2: That's that's frightening. Either I'm in the wrong place or
Speaker 2: the government's really stupid. Anyway, Bob Alti is here, President,
Speaker 2: Robert Hall, President, chief executive for the Buckeye Institute. So
Speaker 2: what's next before the Sixth Circuit? It sounds to me
Speaker 2: like and you never can read the tea leaves when
Speaker 2: it comes to court and a judge obviously or judges obviously,
Speaker 2: but it sounds like they're going to side with you.
Speaker 2: What happens if that's the case, and moving forward?
Speaker 8: Well, right now, the government actually has a brief due
Speaker 8: next month. The court has given us a very short
Speaker 8: one week time to respond to that brief. If the
Speaker 8: Sixth Circuit were to rule in our favor, as we
Speaker 8: hope that it does, presumably at that point the government
Speaker 8: might appeal the case to the US Supreme Court. So
Speaker 8: we will see. But I have a feeling that whoever
Speaker 8: loses this case, it's likely to keep on going up
Speaker 8: through the courts, and the next stop would be the
Speaker 8: Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: You recall, there's an argument in all your years as
Speaker 2: an attorney in studying the law, Robert, that there's been
Speaker 2: an instance where the government has no solid reasons to
Speaker 2: watch something as banned or is the law, and yet
Speaker 2: they continue to fight for keeping the status quoe.
Speaker 3: Why is that?
Speaker 2: If they represent the people and it's in the people's
Speaker 2: best interest, going, yeah, I mean maybe there's a time
Speaker 2: in America where we needed that, but clearly that time
Speaker 2: has passed, especially when you look at the deregulation of
Speaker 2: things like marijuana for example, and guess what, you know,
Speaker 2: gay marriage, whatever it might be. You know, the earth
Speaker 2: is still spinning and we're just fine despite all of
Speaker 2: these horrible things going to destroy the fabric of our
Speaker 2: country and our makeup, and yet we continue to march
Speaker 2: on forward. Alcohol home home distilling of alcohol seems to
Speaker 2: fit into that category as well. So, if they represent
Speaker 2: the people and are fighting for the people, because that's
Speaker 2: the state the people versus in this particular case, why
Speaker 2: they continue to fight.
Speaker 8: For this, you know, that is an excellent question, and
Speaker 8: it's one that uh, you know, at times I do
Speaker 8: think sometimes the government just you know, there there is
Speaker 8: this there is a practice within the Justice Department to
Speaker 8: defend any statute that's on the book, so long as
Speaker 8: there's any conceivable legal justification for doing so. You know,
Speaker 8: and and I this is this is the policy, regardless
Speaker 8: of who the administration is. But this is one of
Speaker 8: those cases of that I think really makes you scratch
Speaker 8: your head as to why is it that we're spending
Speaker 8: government resources to defend a statute that really doesn't serve
Speaker 8: any good purpose and for which the government really, you know,
Speaker 8: lacks the authority to have regulated here to begin with.
Speaker 2: If you start distributing this stuff and selling it, we
Speaker 2: know that, you know, there will be federal agents. It'll
Speaker 2: be breathing down in your act, and you're facing rightly
Speaker 2: so stiff finds penalties, jail time if you're selling and
Speaker 2: distributing your alcohol. We have a law in Ohio that
Speaker 2: says I can grow up to you know, twelve pot
Speaker 2: plants and do with it what I believe. And yet
Speaker 2: somehow home distilling is is.
Speaker 6: Something worth fighting for.
Speaker 2: It makes this argument makes no sense whatsoever, which tells
Speaker 2: me this argument will continue to go on for years
Speaker 2: to come.
Speaker 8: Unfortunately, sometimes it seems like the things that are the
Speaker 8: most common sensical those are the things that are the
Speaker 8: hardest to actually succeed on in government.
Speaker 2: This is what we're fighting for. Robert All, President, CEO
Speaker 2: of the Buckeye Institute, representing James Reim out of Newark, Ohio.
Speaker 2: I'm definitely on team Alt and Tim Reem. Thanks again
Speaker 2: for the time, Robert, Thanks for having me appreciate it
Speaker 2: all the best. It's maddening and think of like, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: these are government employees that work for us, and they're
Speaker 2: supposed to protect our interests. Why is fighting against and
Speaker 2: spending millions of dollars trying to prevent a guy from
Speaker 2: making his own alcohol and his own home for his
Speaker 2: own consumption worth all of that effort, one may ask.
Speaker 2: It's a good question, and that is the core problem
Speaker 2: with our government. Scott Flums Show seven hundred WW.
Speaker 10: Time to talk about money, how to make it, how
Speaker 10: to keep it, and how to keep others off your stack.
Speaker 10: This is all worth advice with Andy Schaeffer Andrew.
Speaker 6: Good morning, has life.
Speaker 3: Everything's great, Scott, how are you doing?
Speaker 2: Everything is fine? Thanks for asking. We will jump right
Speaker 2: in this morning. We've got some job numbers, who've got
Speaker 2: retail sales numbers coming out earlier this morning, and I'll
Speaker 2: begin with something I saw. I always love throwing a
Speaker 2: curveball as the first pitch. Here Ford an ounce there,
Speaker 2: discontinuing the much hyped but very slow selling electric pickup truck,
Speaker 2: the F one fifty Lightning. I remember a couple of
Speaker 2: years ago in to KM and they rolled this thing out.
Speaker 2: I'm like looking at it, going, look, i'd drive a
Speaker 2: I have a two fifty service truck for you know,
Speaker 2: with all my remodeling and rentals and all that stuff.
Speaker 6: I got my tools in.
Speaker 2: I look at that going on, how many contractors are going, wow,
Speaker 2: I really need to be an electric truck now. The Tesla,
Speaker 2: I guess that pick up sells fairly well, but again
Speaker 2: that's more of a vanity, you know, luxury kind of thing.
Speaker 2: If you're driving at one fifty, two, fifty, three, fifty,
Speaker 2: whatever it is, you're looking at that going yeah, for
Speaker 2: what I haul, the battery ain't gonna make it work now. Granted,
Speaker 2: F one fifties, you know, the entry level regular passenger
Speaker 2: pickup truck not sarily a work truck, but it's a
Speaker 2: big best selling pickup truck of all time. And I
Speaker 2: think the lesson there, correct me if I'm wrong, is
Speaker 2: that when the government decides, hey, we're going to have
Speaker 2: to mandate and push these cars because this is what
Speaker 2: we want, not what the consumer wants. You're gonna wind
Speaker 2: up costing everyone billions of dollars automobile companies like Ford
Speaker 2: and the rest, because we the consumer eventually pay for
Speaker 2: those mistakes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this was really no surprise to me.
Speaker 11: I did see the headlines on it, but I haven't
Speaker 11: had a chance to dive in too deep to it.
Speaker 11: But I did notice that, you know, they were ending
Speaker 11: the production of the all electric F one fifty lightning,
Speaker 11: you know, over the next few weeks. And I don't
Speaker 11: think it's really much of a shock if you've been
Speaker 11: watching the market shifts since the elimination of the seventy
Speaker 11: five hundred dollars federal ev instead of this year, right,
Speaker 11: And so that's the big thing, and that's starting to
Speaker 11: decrease demand. You know, Ford's shifting more to higher return opportunities,
Speaker 11: you know, more I would say, hybrid trucks and vans
Speaker 11: and that.
Speaker 3: So it's it's not.
Speaker 11: That Ford doesn't understand that, you know the future is
Speaker 11: probably more clean energy. We all want clean energy, but
Speaker 11: you're also running a business that shareholders rely on. And
Speaker 11: if you don't see the demand in the purchase of
Speaker 11: these vehicles, you know you're gonna see some cuts that
Speaker 11: come down the pike as far as corporate decisions are
Speaker 11: being made. So this isn't really much of a surprise
Speaker 11: to me, you know, but you know, you have to
Speaker 11: figure out ways to make your company productive, and this
Speaker 11: just hasn't been very profitable for them.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no question about it.
Speaker 2: And I look at that and necessarily not everyone who
Speaker 2: drives an F one fifty or you know, maybe two
Speaker 2: or three fifty. Our contractors will worry people who are
Speaker 2: in the trades. But you know, I think there's a
Speaker 2: certain lifestyle element to that as well, that you're going
Speaker 2: to haul stuff at some point. I just don't see
Speaker 2: that there's reliable and you know, years ago and they decided, hey,
Speaker 2: we're going to go and totally go all in on
Speaker 2: ev as opposed to hybrids, I think that's a mistake
Speaker 2: because you've got to you've got to make a transition.
Speaker 2: If we all grew up on an internal combusting engines
Speaker 2: and you're trying to get off that, okay, but the
Speaker 2: hybrid engine where you have gas or diesel as a
Speaker 2: backup and then the battery kicks in and you can
Speaker 2: get you know, you know, seventy to one hundred miles
Speaker 2: a gallon. Who doesn't like that, Who doesn't like saving
Speaker 2: money in that regard and the costs built into the
Speaker 2: truck maybe a little bit more, but you're getting money
Speaker 2: back as opposed to just a straight electric vehicle that
Speaker 2: you have to charge. There's no backup plan there, and
Speaker 2: I think that that's a turn off for a lot
Speaker 2: of people. And the government was way over aggressive with
Speaker 2: stressing going from internal combustion to straight battery.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and I think you make a good point there, Scott.
Speaker 11: I think a lot of it does have to do
Speaker 11: with lifestyle. You know, I live out in the country
Speaker 11: outside of Cincinnati, and most of the workers all have
Speaker 11: pickup trucks up here.
Speaker 3: They need for their job.
Speaker 11: They need to all not only tools, equipment materials, and
Speaker 11: needs to start when they need it to start. You know,
Speaker 11: my father in law has a electric vehicle and he
Speaker 11: has an issue with his battery right now. Well, he
Speaker 11: was explaining to me how expensive it is to get
Speaker 11: a battery replaced in one of the cars. And so,
Speaker 11: you know, as far as your comments about the lifestyle.
Speaker 11: I think, you know, the electric vehicles make more sense
Speaker 11: for smaller sedans and things like that to where you're
Speaker 11: you're traveling to and from work as opposed to hauling
Speaker 11: major materials for your everyday blue collar job. And so,
Speaker 11: you know, the market has shifted. We've seen players like
Speaker 11: Honda hedging its best with assembly lines capable of multi
Speaker 11: multiple power plants. Tariffs have played a role into this
Speaker 11: as well, and that you know, manufacturers have been forced
Speaker 11: to rethink some of these long term strategies on the
Speaker 11: EV side. And I think we're going to see just
Speaker 11: you know, in the into the future on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's and it's not like people in the train.
Speaker 2: I hate this one as well because you know, knuckle draggers. Again,
Speaker 2: you diminish an entire group of people. And I'll fight
Speaker 2: tooth and dog tooth and nil for contractors because that's
Speaker 2: my line of work. Is that you know, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: I have a diesel truck, but all my tools, almost
Speaker 2: all my tools are battery operated. It's not like we're
Speaker 2: afraid of batteries or you know what. You know, you
Speaker 2: can go and get a i don't know, like a
Speaker 2: miosot chop saw and run trim and casing and crown
Speaker 2: welding all day long on one battery. Just a few
Speaker 2: years ago you couldn't do They could do that now.
Speaker 2: So it's not like the you know, trades people don't
Speaker 2: like battery power stuf.
Speaker 6: That's insane.
Speaker 2: It's the fact that it's just not practical and the
Speaker 2: government and the decision makers to the top never got that.
Speaker 2: Let me pivot here. We have jobs numbers, retail sales
Speaker 2: numbers coming in. Give me the goods. Yeah, they all
Speaker 2: came out at eight thirty this morning. I've been able to,
Speaker 2: you know, go into the headlines a little bit. I
Speaker 2: haven't been able to deep dive and try to look
Speaker 2: under the hood. But essentially, the jobs report were fairly tepid.
Speaker 2: We saw the unemployment rate rise to a four year
Speaker 2: high of four point six percent. The expectation was four
Speaker 2: point five. So that initially strikes me as, you know,
Speaker 2: something I need to take a look at. And so
Speaker 2: in addition to that, we saw retail sales be a
Speaker 2: little bit weaker in October as well.
Speaker 3: It's about three point five percent month over month.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 11: So I think what this tells us is that we
Speaker 11: are still starting to see some cracks in the labor market.
Speaker 11: You know, we did add about ninety five thousand new
Speaker 11: jobs in October. That was way better than we saw
Speaker 11: in October of one hundred and five thousand losses of jobs.
Speaker 11: But I do think, you know, the October numbers well
Speaker 11: had a lot to do with more seasonality.
Speaker 3: We still had, you know, as of October first.
Speaker 11: That's when the government furloughs, the job eliminations occurred, So
Speaker 11: I think that number was a little bit skewed. So
Speaker 11: as far as the addition of new jobs, that was
Speaker 11: a welcome site, but the four point six percent unemployment
Speaker 11: rate was.
Speaker 3: A little bit of a surprise.
Speaker 2: Okay, So sixty four thousand up, sixty four k after falling, Okay,
Speaker 2: I got it in October, still got some of those back.
Speaker 11: Yeah, Yeah, And I think you know, this this kind
Speaker 11: of you know, gives kind of a blueprint for the
Speaker 11: FED moving forward. You know, we just got interest rate
Speaker 11: cuts of a quarter percent last week. You know, that
Speaker 11: puts the target range at three point five to three
Speaker 11: point seventy five percent. So that's the third straight quarter
Speaker 11: percent cut. I do think it's fairly noteworthy that there
Speaker 11: were three descents of the Federal Reserve. There were two
Speaker 11: people that wanted to keep rates where they were due
Speaker 11: to inflation uncertainties, and there was actually one of the
Speaker 11: FED members that wanted a steeper cut of a half
Speaker 11: a percent. So there is some you know, conflicting ideas
Speaker 11: about where the economy is going within the FED. But
Speaker 11: it does appear that we probably will see two more
Speaker 11: cuts into twenty twenty six as well.
Speaker 2: Wow, okay, and you know you look back at the
Speaker 2: September data and indicate that that is coming forward here too.
Speaker 2: So we're only going to two cuts in fiscal twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and I think you know, the announcement was one
Speaker 11: thing we expected that there was going to be a cut.
Speaker 11: But again, you know, I always look at the post
Speaker 11: meeting projections by FED Chairman Poowe, and he did paint
Speaker 11: a more optimistic macro picture. He looked at raising its
Speaker 11: twenty twenty six GDP forecast to two point three percent
Speaker 11: growth from one point eight and he also reduced their
Speaker 11: twenty twenty six inflation anticipation to two point four percent
Speaker 11: from two point six percent. So you know, the FED
Speaker 11: right now does feel like moving into twenty twenty six
Speaker 11: that things are projecting in the right way. Now, we'll
Speaker 11: see what the data tells us as we move forward.
Speaker 11: But that also is in line with the fedes communication
Speaker 11: about not being in an hurry to cut rates moving forward.
Speaker 11: They want to see what the data looks like, you know,
Speaker 11: into twenty twenty six, you know, see if there's some
Speaker 11: lingering impacts of the tariffs, to see if you know,
Speaker 11: what kind of industry that we've been able to drum
Speaker 11: up from the tariffs and bringing a lot of manufacturing
Speaker 11: back to the United States. So there's still a lot
Speaker 11: to be said, but I think right now the FED
Speaker 11: feels pretty good about where they are and what the
Speaker 11: optim is for optimism is for twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: So would you say, like the labor market, it's not collapsing,
Speaker 2: but it's kind of cooling off.
Speaker 11: It's cooling off, and that's the reason that the FED,
Speaker 11: you know, wants to keep an eye on it and
Speaker 11: is prepared to cut rates even further, you know, Fed Shairman, Powe.
Speaker 3: Excuse me, Yeah, it is very particular.
Speaker 6: Sorry, you're right, very particular about Let.
Speaker 2: Me talk for a second while you clear your throat,
Speaker 2: Andy Shaffer, is that's called a fill? Andy Shaefer is
Speaker 2: here from all Worth Financial. This show is simply Money.
Speaker 2: Theres at six o'clock on fifty five KRC weeknights, and
Speaker 2: maybe not fully tonight because Andy can't talk. Nonetheless, Andy,
Speaker 2: what do you feel like some don'nut stuck in air?
Speaker 6: What's going on?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I don't know.
Speaker 11: I had a frog in my thur that happens, I
Speaker 11: feel But anyway, you know, Fedchhairman Power is very particular
Speaker 11: about wage growth and also the unemployment rate, and he
Speaker 11: feels like if wage growth continues to increase at a
Speaker 11: high rate, that will spurn inflation fears because people when
Speaker 11: they have more money to spend, obviously, that creates more
Speaker 11: demand and ultimately higher prices. Now, I've read a lot
Speaker 11: of economists that don't believe that is necessarily the case
Speaker 11: and take a more dubbish approach to that. But you
Speaker 11: have to understand where fed Chairman Power and his leadership,
Speaker 11: you know what they're really looking at, and one of
Speaker 11: them is the unemployment rate. The other is wage growth.
Speaker 11: And we're starting to see the unemployment rate why rise
Speaker 11: a little bit, and also.
Speaker 3: We're starting to see wage growth rise.
Speaker 11: So what that tells me is there's a good chance
Speaker 11: that we're going to see maybe even more than two
Speaker 11: percent cuts next year.
Speaker 6: Okay, gotcha.
Speaker 2: If we add a third cut next year, it's probably
Speaker 2: because we're going to start to see the labor market
Speaker 2: really start cooling off, right, And we don't. It's one
Speaker 2: of those things you want to see a rate cut,
Speaker 2: but if it means that people are losing their jobs,
Speaker 2: you don't want that.
Speaker 11: Yeah, And he wants to make sure that we continue
Speaker 11: to spurn a lot of more jobs and keep our
Speaker 11: labor markets strong. So you're exactly right. Furthermore, you know
Speaker 11: when his communication and you know, after the FED announcement
Speaker 11: during the press conference, he basically said, Hey, we're seeing
Speaker 11: the trends of inflation cooling down. We do think that
Speaker 11: inflation will get down to about two point four percent
Speaker 11: next year, and we think that the effect of taris
Speaker 11: on inflation is going to be short lived. We are
Speaker 11: still seeing some lingering effects of that, but that will
Speaker 11: start to dissipate in the first part of next year
Speaker 11: and into the second quarter.
Speaker 2: Okay, Andy Schaefer from all Worth Financial. The other numbers
Speaker 2: out retail sales, how we look at, Yeah.
Speaker 11: Retail sales remained pretty flat about three point five percent,
Speaker 11: not really much of a change. I still think that
Speaker 11: you have to take the seasonality into it. I suspect
Speaker 11: that the retail sales after I look a little bit
Speaker 11: deeper into it in the different areas where you know
Speaker 11: the consumer was spending money is a little bit skewed.
Speaker 11: Lot of that has to do to the holidays. Obviously,
Speaker 11: people spend more over the holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas is you know,
Speaker 11: starting starting off honka, things like that, And so you
Speaker 11: know this November and December are really tricky to uncover
Speaker 11: what retail sales really means. And I think we'll get
Speaker 11: a better idea come January of next year. And that's
Speaker 11: another reason why the FED has a little bit more.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Wait until we get back to I guess normal or
Speaker 2: a cooling off here and see what retails comparatively. And
Speaker 2: I know you haven't had a chance to deep dig
Speaker 2: into the daity yet, Andy, but would you just compare
Speaker 2: November over November last year and maybe over the last
Speaker 2: three or four years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 11: But remember we just went through COVID not too Yeah,
Speaker 11: so there's you know, some of those numbers.
Speaker 3: Are still skewed over the past two or three years.
Speaker 11: I do think, you know, another bit of data that
Speaker 11: was interesting was the Joltry Report, and the joltryport is essentially,
Speaker 11: you know, the job openings and labor Turnover survey, and
Speaker 11: what that says is people that have a job, are
Speaker 11: they actively looking for a new job because they think
Speaker 11: the prospects are favorable for them. And we're seeing those
Speaker 11: numbers continue to diminish because people that are currently in
Speaker 11: a job are really not looking for another position or
Speaker 11: a step up in you know, their careers, because they're
Speaker 11: fearful that there's not going to be out there. So
Speaker 11: that's another bit of the report that I found a
Speaker 11: little bit fascinating. That also also shows some cooling as well.
Speaker 2: Okay, good, what are we looking forward coming up with numbers?
Speaker 2: We did jobs rates or a jobless we did retail?
Speaker 2: What's coming up next?
Speaker 11: Yeah, Today's a big day and I'm looking forward to
Speaker 11: kind of unpacking all that and trying to, you know,
Speaker 11: make an analysis of where I think things are going
Speaker 11: to be. But you know, I think, you know, we're
Speaker 11: going to get some FED chairman speakers again. But Thursday,
Speaker 11: we're going to get the CPI, the Consumer Price Index
Speaker 11: that's the measure of inflation. We're going to get the
Speaker 11: core CPI, the feds preferred inflation measure when you strip
Speaker 11: out transportation and energy and food. They believe that they
Speaker 11: don't really have an effect on that. So that's going
Speaker 11: to be telling as far as inflation is concerned. I
Speaker 11: do expect it will stay steady or maybe even tick
Speaker 11: down a little bit. And then we're going to get
Speaker 11: home sales on Friday, so that would be interesting as well.
Speaker 2: Okay, good, all stuff to look forward to. So we're
Speaker 2: holding steady at this point, and that's all I got
Speaker 2: to answer.
Speaker 11: Yeah, And I think that's the the you know, the
Speaker 11: lesson here is that, you know, I'm kind of in
Speaker 11: a neutral position right now. I'm trying to stay nimble,
Speaker 11: to be able to put the brakes on if I
Speaker 11: need to, and be able to accelerate if we need
Speaker 11: to as well. But right now things seem to be
Speaker 11: doing just fine, and not really a whole lot of
Speaker 11: big surprises, just you know, just some small changes that
Speaker 11: we didn't expect.
Speaker 2: All Right, we talked next week. You in next week?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, all right, all right, we'll figure it out then, Andy,
Speaker 2: have a great week. I appreciate you buddy. Thanks again,
Speaker 2: you too got to sloany with Willie on the way
Speaker 2: in just minutes after news update on the home of
Speaker 2: the best Bengals covered seven hundred WLW, Cincinnati,