Welcome, everybody, to the weekly wrap-up. Happy Easter. Happy Passover. Probably those don't go to the same people generally. But welcome to the weekly wrap-up. Like us on Facebook. Download the show. It's skidrowstudios.com or subscribe free on iTunes. And the last one I'm going to throw in there real quick because, dude, I hate doing this. Please don't forget to call in. 800-893-9562. I like that part, actually. You should like that part. I am joined by Drew Marks. How are you, buddy? I am happy to be here. I was going to say, I haven't seen you happy all that often. I didn't recognize you. I thought it was gas. I've been saving it for today. I was pretty sure it was gas. Turns out it was happy. Nice to know. It's the same face. I said. We'll start off real quick. A sad loss. Mike Wallace. Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes passed away at 93. Too old to skydive. It happened so fast. No, don't make me laugh at that joke. But, yes, our condolences to the family. And it is a loss to the journalism world. An icon. He really was a great guy. An icon. And he will be missed. Okay. We are going to talk. We're going to talk. Certainly, by the way, I lost some of my voice yelling at the Nick game earlier. But we're going to talk a little suspension of Greg Williams. And is a year enough or do you think he should come back? We'll touch in on the Trayvon Martin case. And obviously a little election politics. But first we're going to start off with Guantanamo Bay. Have you been to Cuba lately? I have not. You should go to Guantanamo Bay. I can't believe you're not there now. The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed? Yeah, it's tough. I'll just call him KL. I'm for now. Let's listen to this. Just after he took office, President Obama promised to keep a campaign pledge and close Guantanamo within one year. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the cost of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. Obama also stopped the controversial Bush era military trial system and promised a full review. Now two years on, Guantanamo is still open and the military trials are back. The White House says it's made the system fairer but critics see it as a return to square one. The issue of what to do about Guantanamo Bay has dogged Obama's presidency from the beginning. His political opponents and some of those in his own party have blocked his efforts. The White House wanted to move and try some detainees in US courts but Congress made that impossible. Obama has also found it hard to find countries willing to take them. I'll be out in a minute. those released from Guantanamo, and his administration now says some prisoners will just stay locked up without trial indefinitely. It's a tough way to end a clip. Yeah. Locked up indefinitely. Public trial. Now, remember, he came in, there was that big deal to take, he was going to bring the trials to New York, said we can handle it, New York can handle it, and then there was an outcry, and I believe Congress passed something making the transfer of those people illegal, so they made it impossible. So, military trial. Are you in favor of that, or would you rather have seen it public? I think you have to do so. I favored public trial. I think we could have handled it no problem. Why not? Well, here's why not. OJ left a trail of blood, and he got off. Is there any chance that they would let this guy... I'm not saying this has anything to do with the OJ trial. All I'm saying is that anything, a bad lawyer, a mistake, a technicality, the fact that you found shit out through torture, anything that would let somebody come up with a not guilty verdict, you can't take that chance. I agree, but I also think the whole thing, that applies anywhere, whether it's a public or in Guantanamo. They cannot find these people innocent. It's not an option. Yes, but... It's not going to happen. But you can do that in Guantanamo, and who's going to know? If, hey, most of our evidence, we figured out, while we were punching him in the face, that, you know, who's going to know that he went... I'm pretty sure it was water torture, but, you know, less punching. Whatever it was, yes, and I'm sure some of that was in there, as well as who knows what else. But, I mean, if that happens in the case in Guantanamo, who knows about it? If it happens in the case in New York, everybody knows about it, and you can't... That's inadmissible. True, but do you still think there is a jury in New York that, regardless of what is brought up in court, brought up in trial, is going to go, yeah, yeah, I'm the guy who voted not guilty for the people on trial for the World Trade Center. It's not going to happen. I understand, but still, there would be rules that have to be followed. You know, I mean, I understand, you know, every... Yes, you know, he's on trial for the worst, you know, terrorist act in the States. However, it doesn't matter. You still can't say if certain evidence... You can't admit certain bits of evidence. In which case, if your evidence is, hey, look at the photos of us arresting him, he looks like Laverne's dad, and, you know, I mean, that's not helping anybody. Carmine? No, no, no, that's the boyfriend, Frank DeFazio. Oh, okay. I saw the photo, and I'm like, why are they harassing Frank DeFazio? I have no idea. It turns out he was terrorist mastermind. Captain Lou Albano. Yeah, he's got a little... Yeah, if you put a rubber band in his face, he can have a little Lou Albano in there. Yeah, but I mean, and I agree with you, nobody... They can't take a chance on finding this guy not guilty, which basically, to me, comes back to the point of that's why we try him in Guantanamo. Just on the off chance of, oh, hey, well, you can't use the top seven bits of evidence because, you know, you had his balls hooked up to a car battery. You know, that's not... You know, you can't take that chance. You put him in Guantanamo, and your trial is, yeah, he did it. Okay. I just think they're finding him guilty no matter what. You can't... Whoever the government decides to roll out and go, this is the person responsible, not guilty isn't an option. No, not guilty isn't an option, which is why I think you have a military trial. Yeah. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but do you want to take a chance that... Do you even... You know, I mean, would they want to even take any kind of chance at all? I'm sure they wouldn't. So, I mean, and I also think kind of that, like, comes back to the question of he promised he was going to close Guantanamo Bay. Now, not only did he not close it, he's moving trials that he was promising to make public back to Guantanamo Bay. I think in the benefit of the doubt, I think he had the right intentions, but... I think that falls... It's not... It doesn't fall under... Just because he says he wants to doesn't mean he can. Well, some things he could. He could have tried to close Guantanamo. He chose to not close Guantanamo. But to me, I think that falls... A lot of that falls under the you find certain shit out once you get into the office of president. I mean, I... You know, and I don't know, obviously, he doesn't tell me a whole bunch of private stuff anymore. But, you know, fact is, I think once you become president, you're like, yeah, I want to... That's because you don't cuddle as much as he used to. No, he really doesn't. But I'm thinking once you get into the office and you're like, yeah, I want to close Guantanamo, and then you find out, oh, hey, these people are going to do horrible shit. But the way we found that out, we can't tell anybody how we found that out. So... That and if they just don't have evidence. I'm sure they have some people there where they're like, okay, we know these people are bad, but we don't have actual evidence to hold them. But they're standing there going, if I ever get out of here, I'm going to blow some shit up. That is... Yeah. So what do you do? You keep Guantanamo open. Right. Yes. I mean, and now, to be fair, I think they also, among those horrible people, they also have... Or you could just have a caucus. You don't want to do that. That seems cruel and unusual. Cruel and unusual and smelly. But, I mean, unfortunately, with those same people, you were... You also probably have a whole bunch of people who aren't guilty, but look like those other people. So they're like, you know what? We're just going to keep you in here indefinitely. Really? You think they're holding people because they look guilty? Yes. Do you think not? In that case, I have a bunch of people I would like to send them. You're telling me you think everybody in Guantanamo is guilty? Everybody? Is that what you really think? Did you just get dumber in the last week? What the hell happened to you, dude? No, I mean, I think there are those people in here that we're talking about where they say, you know, I can't put any of this evidence on trial, but this is a bad person. But I think there's also a group of people who's a butcher and not a bad butcher. Like, he's literally just like a butcher and that's his job and he happens to know some bad people. And so they went, oh, well, you know what? Guilty by association. Congratulations. You get a vacation at Guantanamo. Guilty, yes. Guilty by association. And now that you've been in here for four years, we might as well just keep you in here as opposed to paying you. It just sounds like you're implying that there's people in jail that are innocent. Well, if I just implied it, then I'm not saying it strongly enough. Yes, I apologize. And what do you think about how that ended? About that client clip ended with the idea that we can, we have the right, the, well, we, the president has the right to kill, hold someone indefinitely or kill even an American citizen without a trial. How do I feel about it? I don't think it's a good thing, but I also don't think for a second that that has not been happening all along. There are places, whether it's in this country or elsewhere, where I guarantee you we've been holding some people without trial without trial in the last, in the last, this wasn't in the news. Are those people, do you assume some of those people are innocent or are they all guilty? No, they're all guilty. Okay, I was just curious. I just wanted to make sure we were consistent. They're bad, bad bastard people. Well, well, I don't, I don't agree with you, but I do commend you on your consistency. So that is well done, sir. Thank you very much. That is very well done. I mean, I think that also falls under, I mean, that was something, you know, Obama would campaign against and then you get in office and he signed at the end of last year the National Defense, something act and the NDAA, I can call it that. Right, but they had that caveat. He said, look, the government can do this. My administration won't. How does that make you feel? But we can. National Defense Authorization Act. Yes, I won't, but, but I can. Yeah, that's nice. And then is he, I forget, is he in office forever or does he get replaced by somebody else? Well, let's hope not, you know, very soon. Yeah, well, that is true. That is true. But can, so, the other, the other guys, forget it. You and I are both in Guantanamo. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's no doubt. And those other guys, it was basically going to be other guy pretty soon, but we'll get to that. We will get to that shortly. But, while, speaking of trials, while all the trials that they're talking about in Guantanamo, the Supreme Court is still trying the, or discussing now, I guess they're not trying anymore, the Obamacare case. But, while everybody's waiting for that, they did this. The Supreme Court refused to limit strips searches at jails in a five to four ruling Monday, even an arrest for minor offenses. MSNBC reports the decision applies to newly admitted inmates in jails. The ruling does not apply to state or federal prisons. The Supreme Court said, no, it's not unreasonable. It said it's hard to run jails. It's hard to know in advance who's dangerous, especially with 13 million people admitted every year to the nation's jails. The court split along ideological lines with conservative judges ruling in favor of the measure. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy writes that strip searches would, would help stop the trafficking of contraband and the spread of diseases. The Washington Post has it. There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted into the general population. Speaking for the dissenting judges, Justice Stephen Breyer says searches without specific reason were, quote, inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading. WDAM reports a New Jersey man brought the case to the Supreme Court after he underwent two strip searches in seven days. Alberta Florence was forced to undress and submit to strip searches following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine, though the fine actually had been paid. Oops. Yeah. Did he say strip searches could help prevent the spread of diseases? Yeah, yeah, that in prison, which that, that also struck me. That is interesting as if, you know, you have mad cow disease shoved up your ass. Yeah, I don't know. I know. I believe they, they steal the whole cow. The whole cow is up there. Um, yeah, I think also perhaps, uh, preventing prison rape would also help prevent diseases. I don't know how much they're doing for that, but apparently they feel that there's a lot of disease smuggled in their ass, but I don't know if they need to be smuggling anything else. I think a lot of their asses may already have been diseased. Yeah. That's a strange, I'm just saying that's a strange reason. Uh, like, I mean, a lot of it doesn't make sense to me in the aspect of, I understand it getting certain, you know, I understand certain situations, where certain things are smuggled, but it's like, if somebody got pulled over for, you know, a parking ticket or an unpaid fine, like, what do you think they were keeping in their ass just in case they got pulled over? Exactly. How are you driving around going, I'm just going to keep this here just in case? But you know what? I saw, I watched a few episodes of Oz years ago, and, uh, since then, I've been carrying three packs of Marlboros in my ass just in case I ever get pulled over. Yeah. You want to have currency. That's what I'm saying. Once I'm, once I'm there, how am I getting it? No, my family's not going to talk to me once I go to prison, but... Your family won't talk to you if they know you're driving around like that either. No, no, that's, that's true. That's, well, they hate smoking. So, that's not, that's not going to help anybody. Um, I mean, that, that is a strange reason, but it's also, it's another 5-4 decision, uh, along party lines, along with Citizens Unite, uh, Citizens United, which was, you know, obviously we'll talk about in a minute, but, uh, and maybe Obamacare, which seems to be the case. the Supreme Court is not politicized. Yeah. Um. That's what they tell you. Yeah, that is, that is. And, but now, what's, what's strange to me is it's basically a long party, it's, not basically, it's along party lines again, and what seems to be the case is the party line, that side, that's, you know, that's all about small government. We want small government, and I don't know about this mandate. Let me go into some broccoli bullshit story. I'm not so sure about that mandate, but, you know what, you never know who could be smuggling stuff, so check everyone's ass. Yeah. Like, that seems, I don't understand the consistency of, of. Stay out of people's lives. Yeah, small government for, you know, a mandate seems a little intrusive, but Jimmy's finger isn't that intrusive. Well, between that and the whole woman thing, they're very crotch oriented. They, yeah, they do have a lot to say about other people's crotches. That is, that is strange. Was that a band, other people's crotches? I think that was a band. I think that was a band. And if it's not, it should be a band. Maybe we can make one of those. Copyright, Ken August. Yeah, I mean, that, that seems, like, I mean, if you're going to pick that side, that, hey, don't overstep your boundaries, then sure. But there was always, it's not like strip searches were always illegal. They were illegal up until 2008 without a specific reason to strip search. But now, from that point on, now it's, well, if you're going to jail, you could be smuggling stuff, but I don't. It does seem a little odd, just depending on what your crime is. You know, I wrote a bad check, tax evasion. Okay, strip it down. Yeah. Seems a little excessive. I'm going to be honest with you. I think if you, specifically, they're going to ask you to keep your clothes on. But for the most part, and I mean, Did you just tell me I'm not good looking? Not in those words. I did not say that in those words. It kind of sounded that way. God, damn it. I'm not used to people listening to me. I think I deserve to be strip searched. I am not. That is why I usually actually show up to the airport naked. I request it and I found that that was the fastest way to get to it. I work out. I wish I had that song not on a button right now. But, I mean, yeah, it seems, I agree with you. It's like, but that was always the case. If there was a specific law for that, you say, okay, great. Or not a law, a specific reason, a suspicion for this person may be smuggling something. But, you know, how much in advance, you know, what I was joking about before, but how much in advance is somebody going to put something somewhere in order to make sure, well, you never know when I'm going to get pulled over. Yeah. I mean, that seems like a strange violation, you know, literally, a strange violation. And it's another 5-4 rule. We're also, at this point, we've just been talking about men. You've got the whole woman issue as well. It applies to them. That is true. That is true. I'm just saying, so as far as, like, shoving things up your ass, it's not just guys. That is, that is a valid point. And, I mean, Women have more options. So we should, we should start a, we should maybe start some sort of pool. I don't know if we're allowed to legally gamble, but we should put something up as to how many sexual harassment cases until they try to drop that. Now, it's funny. I mean, a woman, you know, has, if they do a strip search, it's always a woman has to do a woman. And a guy has to do a guy. But it's not really even because if you give the guy the option, he'd probably prefer it be from a woman. Yeah, well, it depends. You ever get a massage? Yeah. I prefer it as a woman, but mostly because I'm scared I'm going to have the same reaction if it's a guy giving me the massage. So, yes, maybe, but, you know, here's my point. I don't mind, like, people freaking out over the, when you go through security at an airport and they have, you know, the, you can, hey, you can see through all my clothes, it's not like it's a, it's not like it's a centerfold, you know what I'm saying? So it's, you know, fair enough if you're, and I remember there was a case of there being a very attractive woman who they basically brought people in and kept making her go through and, you know, that was all sorts. Wasn't that a Saturday Night Live sketch? Eventually, it probably was, yes. But there was a woman, yeah, who basically filed suit and said exactly what I just said. And so, I mean, I don't know whether that happened or not, but I understand that those cases are going to happen. But as far as security purposes, I don't care about any of that. You know, for the most part, you know, you don't need to strip search me unless you have a reason. But outside of that, sure, I'm fine with you looking through my body. Well, that's the other thing. Can't you, don't we have the capability just to have them walk through an x-ray? Like, wouldn't that show anything that a strip search would show? Doesn't show my torn rotator cuff. Need an MRI. Gotta get him to sit in a skinny tube. No? Really? Sure. Yeah, but I'm saying as far as foreign objects. I don't know. I don't know. So, yes, I mean, I would assume that would be the case. I would assume that would be the case and now it's fast. Like, I mean, I just had an x-ray when I, you know, a couple of weeks ago and it was, I mean, immediately on the computer. Right, but wouldn't that eliminate the need for a strip search? Yes, but there would be, there would be, there are not, there are people who don't like going through, you know, getting x-rayed. And I mean, even for health, I hear you, but even for health reasons, there's a reason they throw a lead thing on you before that happens. So, there's going to be problems with that. So, give them a choice. But what is, whatever the technology is now, what's the technology now? That's what I'm talking about, where you stand in there and they put your hands up and they look basically through you, that new scanner that people are having a problem with. That's, it's not x-ray, but it's that version of it. It's a safer version of it. But you could also give someone getting arrested, okay, you have an option. Line A is the machine you stand there that takes a picture of you. Line B, Roger with a rubber glove. Yeah. Yeah. Um, well, yeah, I mean, I guess it depends what Roger looks like and we'll change the line, but, but. I'm going option A, but hey, that's just me. That is just you and probably a lot of other people, but, you know, we got both sexes out there. You never know, but I don't, I don't have a problem with that. I'm saying, I don't have a problem with the security part of it, but when you're saying, well, you have a right to do anybody that may go to jail for any offense, even if it may eventually be just a clerical error, you know, you can strip search them. Like that, that seems to go beyond just security. That, that, and that, that's what I'm saying. I don't mind, I don't mind if it's like, well, there's a reason to do this or we're going to look through your body and yeah, we won't see your clothes, but who cares? I'm fine with that. You're an adult, live with it. But, you know, better that than wait for a plane to blow up and then be like, oh, okay, well, you know what? We could have searched for that, but didn't want to. So I have no problems with that, but I have a problem when it seems to be unnecessary. You're like, well, just give them the, give them the option. People seem to always make the right choices. It's ridiculous. I mean, I don't know how that's, how that's even possible, but you know, you were talking, you brought women into it and the problems that they're going to have to deal with. It looks like it's going to be Romney versus Obama. And, and then the question is, is, is he going to be able to move enough to the middle to get the women back? I don't think so. You don't think so? No. Well, I mean, well, the reason I ask obviously is because they're, you know, the big argument is whether or not the Republicans have this war on women. The Republicans say they don't, obviously. Let's listen to this. We'll talk about it after. The head of the party told Bloomberg TV the Republican war on women, it doesn't exist. If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars, then every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we'd have problems with caterpillars. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is it's a fiction. And the thing is, Republicans don't have any policies to close the gender gap. Reince Priebus says the war on women is fiction, but there were more than 1,100 bills introduced across the country last year to restrict women's health rights. So it's not just small-time lawmakers writing these bills either. Keep that in mind. The stars of the Republican Party are front and center of this war on women. Ohio Governor John Kasich signed six new abortion restriction bills into law last year. And, of course, in Pennsylvania, there's Governor Tom Corbett who told women to, just close your eyes when it comes to the state's new mandatory ultrasound bill. 35 anti-women's health bills were introduced to the state of Virginia and the House of Delegates. And Governor Bob McDonnell, well, he supported medically unnecessary ultrasounds. And, of course, there's Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, whose budget repeals a state law requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. Maybe he just doesn't understand the Blunt Amendment. Maybe he forgot that one. But, you know, that's when Senator Roy Blunt wanted to allow employers to refuse any kind of health care service for moral reasons. Nice. I love how they say, you know, there were 1,100 bills to repeal women's rights. I had no idea women had that many rights. No, and I also didn't know Congress worked that hard to even propose that many bills. I didn't think they've done anything. But, no, 1,100. That's a lot of rights. That is. That is. You think too many? You want to cut it? You want to cut it back to like 900? I would. You know, women are getting spoiled. Apparently not. Apparently they're trying to pull that back. Well, first of all, before we get more to that, because I'm sure we'll be on that topic for a little bit, my question to you is, I'm assuming it's already Romney. Do you think it's officially Romney? Yeah, definitely. You think everybody's behind Romney? I think Santorum at this point is looking for a way out. He's... I don't even know if he'll make it through Pennsylvania. I mean, I know he says he's going to, but... It's risky. It is. If he loses Pennsylvania, he ruins... Well, here's the thing. I don't think he has a chance anyway in four years, but in his head, I'm sure he does. So if he loses his home state, Pennsylvania being his home state, and his thought is, if I win in Pennsylvania, you know, new life. I have new life. Everyone's going to be... And he's got some Southern contests coming up. Yeah, and he can... And so he can at least... But he still can't get... He can't get enough delegates. No. So it would basically be, let me get enough momentum. That I can go to a brokered convention, and then maybe they would pick me. And maybe I can keep him from getting enough. Yes. But it's not going to happen. No, I agree with that. But the risk of staying in, even to Pennsylvania, and then quitting then, if he loses, is, one, he started off in the polls ahead in Pennsylvania, his home state, for a while. Now, depending on which poll you look at, Romney is inching ahead. And if he loses his home state, any thoughts he had in Pennsylvania, in four years of running, he kind of just lost that, hey, I was, you know, I was almost the inevitable. Now I'm the inevitable. I'm the next in line to, wow, I couldn't even win my home state last year and not be considered a real candidate. That being said, we're talking about a party that also considered Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Donald Trump. So I don't know about real candidate. It's not always necessarily. And even Santorum, nobody thought he was going to be a real option. But I think you'll see him gone before Pennsylvania. But then let me ask you this question now, because a lot of Republicans, and I understand why, and I don't argue with them, but for their sake, are saying just, and this is why I think also agree with you why it's going to be Romney for many reasons, but is that people eventually in the later states start falling in line. They don't want to keep having their two possible nominees hacking each other apart in the press. And then one of them wins, but is damaged reputation wise. They want to start focusing on the, you know, against the press. Yes. And not spend any more money against each other. However, my question is that wouldn't these states basically that have their primaries towards the end feel somewhat shorted in the aspect of, I mean, and not just in this Republican, but if it was Democrats as well, if your state is one of the handful of the last third, even of states to have their primaries, by the time it gets to you, are they pretty much not saying, all right, we'll just fall in line already. They actually made it so, you know, more places count now. It used to be even worse. It used to be over by like the first couple of contests. When was this? In the past with Republican primaries. They just changed the rules for this last year. I mean, it's, I don't know what they changed it from, but it seems, you know, and I understand it. Like I said, I understand the logic of it, but yet it's not like they switch around. You know, it's not like, it's like, okay, next year we're going to have our primary first. So whoever's the last third is like, well, by the time we get to you. It used to be, I think over by either like Ohio or Florida. Like it was pretty much done. Right. Well, Florida is a big, Florida is a big state. I mean, Florida is a- California never counts. No, no, but I mean, Florida is big as in important. You know, it's not- Because it's a swing state. It's a swing state. It's not late. It's got a lot of delegates. A lot of stupid people in Florida. Are you listening? If you're listening, you're one of the smart ones. Sorry, mom. You're also one of the smart ones, mom. And, and, and, and, and my mom. They're old and Jewish. Where else are they going to go? But- Yeah. That's, I mean, still, that is a swing, that is a swing state that is enormous. But that's earlier in the process. So they always feel hugely important. And Iowa, for some unknown reason, they go first, right? Yeah. Iowa is important and it shouldn't be. I don't understand. And it's not like they pick, you know, they don't usually pick the winner. No. No. Iowa picks, you know, the craziest person to the right. Let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase that. They picked the farthest- The farthest person to the right. Michelle Bachman. Good. Good. She, she would be good in foreign affairs. I want her talking for me as much as possible. I mean, that's- She could scare other world leaders just with a good stare. That is, that is true. Confusion. Don't piss off the crazy lady. Okay. So we're in agreement, you think, and I think pretty much everybody, and here's the thing, I think everyone knew from the beginning it was going to be Romney. I don't think any of these other people, that's why it was so shocking is everybody that became the main, competitor to Romney, everyone was like, really? Trump? Really? Herman Cain, the pizza guy? Really? Bachman? At any point in time? I mean, so I think, you know, what else are you going to do with the 24-hour news cycle? But I think everyone's now finally falling in line. They are getting in line. It's just, the whole thing was just, it wasn't even that they liked the other candidates. It's just, we don't like him. We don't trust him. Is there anything we can try and get behind that's not him? Yeah, you'll still hear the occasional, I mean, even the endorsement, are, of course, I'm going to endorse Romney because he's going to be the nominee. Right. And you're like, oh, that's sweet. You know, I don't know what that is. That is, well, what else am I going to do? because she's here. Yeah. Yeah. Which also would go over hugely well. I'm not falling for that trick a third time. There's, it's strange, dude. I mean, it's, but I guess, you know, I guess that's probably always the case. When was the last brokered convention? It's been, it's been a while. I have no idea. Exactly. I knew when I asked that question. You know why? Has there been one? Yes, there has been, but it hasn't been for decades. Decades. I'm coming. I'll keep it vague. But yes, it's been decades. And it's, you know, I mean, obviously nobody, no party wants that because, you know, for obvious reasons. But, you know, I think, I think that's pretty much over. And I would not be surprised if Santorum gets out before Pennsylvania. Yeah. Although, you know, I mean, there's a lot of people calling for him to get out. He doesn't have the general support to stay in. More people see him as doing harm than good. Yeah, that's, that's not a great, that's not, I wouldn't put that on a poster. No, it's not a ringing endorsement to keep up the fight. And he's also, he's not, you know, at least I don't think he's getting much money anymore. No, no, no. Okay, so now let's assume it's Romney. No, I don't believe he is. I believe him, but he never had a lot of money compared to Romney anyway. But now let's assume, going with the assumption it's Romney, now we're talking about basically, basically whether or not he can move to the middle enough to get the woman vote. I, you know, here's the thing. Do you think he's just going to change his positions that much? I mean, I understand moving to the middle, but as long as he stands behind the let's cut funding and get rid of Planned Parenthood, it doesn't matter what else he does. That's going to be a huge issue for women. He may back off then. He's shown a history of not being afraid to back off stuff. Absolutely, but. He said, oh, Planned Parenthood, I misunderstood the question. I thought you said, are you against murder? Okay, but even if he does that, let's say he just says, well, okay, you know what? Either I never said it or you misunderstood me or he can't just come out and go, I changed my mind. The gotcha media. Yeah, but that's his side. So let's say he does that to try and win him over. Do you think for a second the Democrat, are going to not run the ad 24 seven showing him saying, get rid of Planned Parenthood, get rid of it. It's they're going to use that. So I just think that's going to be a stronger argument than him going, oh, no, no, no, I'm fine with Planned Parenthood. No, I know. I agree with that. I mean, it'll come down to more than Planned Parenthood as well. The problem, I mean, Republican to be, you know, to be fair, it's not just Romney. The Republicans usually have a, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a gap, a gender gap. Not as wide as this year. It's, it's huge this year. Are you being, are you being, I don't know if you're being dirty. No, you're not. No, no, I'm not making a huge gap. Okay. Joke. I thought for sure you were being dirty. Turns out it was me. I was being dirty. Well, yeah. Well, and what cracks me up is, is that when it's brought up, when these issues are brought up and I understand that the Democrats want to keep it in, you know, when they have the opportunity. Front and center. Yes. As much as they can, especially in an election year. But when the Republicans argument for that is, well, stop bringing it up. There's no war on women. It's you guys that are bringing it up. It's like, yes, but they're bringing it up because you're doing stuff. We're bringing up the laws that you are proposing. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. It's like, why are you focusing on the things we're doing? What's wrong with you? We should be talking about the economy. Yeah. We want to talk about jobs because we can rag on Obama about jobs. Women don't care about this stuff. You're like, no, no. Women didn't have to care about this stuff for the last few decades because, because the issue was already, for the most part, was already taken care of. No one was changing anything. But, yes, but now, and once again, now we go back to the people that are big on small government. They're big on small government. There's no war on women as long as women are fine with men making decisions for them. Then they're fine with there being no war on women. So, you know, it's abortion. You know, and we'll take, obviously, some people are adamantly against abortion. Fair enough. And I'm not arguing that point. But, the, it was already, there was already a Supreme Court case. It was already decided. So, until that gets overturned, what drives me nuts is, well, that's the law, so what we'll do is we'll pass as many laws as possible to make that already bad experience worse for the woman, so maybe she won't do it. And, and that's, you know, it's, you had your day in court. If you're going to eventually get another day in court, that may happen. But, you've had your day in court. You lost it. Stop looking for ways around the law. Yeah. What I think is scary is they've been fighting that fight nonstop. It's just now they're making a lot more headway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. And, you know, and it's, here's the thing is, if it wasn't an election year, it may not have caught as much media attention. I mean, maybe it would have, but maybe it would not have. It certainly would not probably have been driven into the media as much as it has been because, you know, you're in an election year. What better way to get, you know, to fill airtime than with a device. I'm just surprised they can even pass it on local levels. Like these things about the ultrasound and all that. It's amazing to me that they can pull that off. And, you know, and it brings me back to the inconsistency I was talking about earlier. You know, when you say the, you know, there's certain, you know, the forced, forced ultrasound laws and things along those lines. And you're saying, and there's proposed bills to make them watch another woman have an abortion. You know, things to that extreme. All under less intrusive government. Yes. All under smaller government. A mandate is too intrusive, but let's force these people to do this. And by the way, let's make it clear. It's not like people are like, oh, cool, let's go have an abortion this weekend. I mean, that's not something people, it's not, they make it sound like, you know, they're stopping people from doing these things for fun. You know what I'm saying? It's a horrible thing to go through already. I can tell you from experience, I have been in an abortion clinic. They're not happy people. No, no, no. It's a horrible experience to have to go through for whatever reason you're going through it. Yeah. Jokes were not going over well in that room. No, no, no. But I have no doubt you tried. But I mean, you know, it's the same people that, you know, that feel women need to be more informed before making, you know, a decision as big as this. Yet that usually those same group of people feel that gun owners are informed enough to shoot first. Like, I don't understand where the information, like. Less background checks. Yeah, less background checks. You know what? If it's a stand your ground law, he doesn't need to know what's going on. Let him shoot and ask questions afterwards. That information is fine. When a woman makes this kind of decision, she may not be thinking clearly. Let me, you know, let's make this as bad for her as possible. But concealed weapons and bars shouldn't be any problem there. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, that's not a problem. And those same people, by the way, more strip searches. Let's, let's make strip searches as legal as possible. Yet, get the government out of my life. Can I do that? My house? I thought you already had that policy. I do. I do. I just don't know if it's legal. I'm surprised you didn't ask me why I show up naked at your house as well. I assume that was the policy. But, you know, now there's also some embarrassing stuff for Obama as Romney starts to focus in on him. The GSA, whether you can blame it on Obama or not, obviously, the GSA, here, listen to this. What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay there and it's costing some federal employees their jobs. That senior official is GSA Chief Martha Johnson. She has stepped down saying the spending was a significant misstep and taxpayer dollars were squandered. A few GSA employees have been dismissed in light of their review from the Inspector General. The report indicates that money was spent on a team building conference just outside of Las Vegas. The New York Post breaks down some of the budget. The conference spent $3,200 on the Mind Reader in addition to hiring a clown and a comedian. Another $6,300 was spent on commemorative coin set complete with velvet boxes and $75,000 on training on how to build a bicycle. The White House was quick to respond to the scandal. CBS reports. President Obama isn't happy either. His chief of staff said the president is outraged. He actually started a program with the vice president in charge to cut government waste. The GSA issued a statement saying it is appalled with the excessive spending on the conference. GSA officials said they will put in place the changes suggested by the Inspector General's review. Nice. Now, when, uh, when the, basically the department in charge of, you know, government spending and streamlining and waste, yes, uh, is found to be very wasteful. That's a little embarrassing. First of all, who likes clowns? Who spends that much on a clown? Go to Venice Beach, get one for like $9 and a sandwich. But, a Mind Reader, you're spending way too much on a Mind Reader as well. Although he should know what you're willing to pay during the negotiating process. Um, but, you know, but it brings up really the question of you find, I mean, there would be the argument of, that whole department sucks, get rid of it because look how much money they're wasting. But it's basically the difference between, yes, government's not efficient. Do you fix it or do you just say, well, it doesn't do anything good, let's scrap everything. Well, that's always the argument that drives me nuts. They're like, government can't do things right. The answer is not to get rid of government. It's to make it work more effectively. Yeah. But no one ever really seems to want to focus too much on that. No. Well, that's when there's some, I mean, if your argument is smaller government and unless you're talking about a woman's pants, you're talking about you want government out of everything else. So when you get an example of a government department being wasteful, you use that. Now, I can understand that if that is your belief, then, you know, but it really just comes down to an argument of if something is bad, is it necessarily worthless? Do you fix it or do you scrap it? Well, they gave him a sort of shining example. You're handing him ammunition with this one. I mean, there's no excuse for what these people did. Fucking horrible. That was horrible. None. That was horrible. Yeah, Obama had to be pissed. Oh, my God, was he angry, I'm sure. Yeah, no doubt. All right, let's check in on the Trayvon case. There was the audio analysis of the screams in the background. Let's listen to this. In the aftermath of Trayvon Martin's death, two forensic voice identification experts have analyzed a 911 call from one of George Zimmerman's neighbors. Here's part of the call from YouTube. Is it a male or female? It sounds like a male. And you don't know why? I don't know why. I think they're yelling help, but I don't know. Just send someone quick. Shouting can be heard in the background of the call. An audio expert explains to the Orlando Sentinel how he used the same software used in courtrooms to examine the audio. I took all of the screams and put those together and cut out everything else. The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48% match. Owens said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90%. As a result of that, you can say that with reasonable scientific certainty, it's not Zimmerman. The Sentinel also had a second expert take a look at the tape. He tells the paper he agrees the screams are not Zimmerman's and says he knows who the shouts belong to. I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background. Without a doubt, that's a young man screaming. Okay, so does that mean anything to you? What does that prove? Scream analysis. The kid screaming, they're saying it was definitely not George Zimmerman. Well, the problem I think that it raises is that George Zimmerman claimed he was the one doing the screaming. And you obviously can't ask the other guy because he's dead. Well, George Zimmerman we haven't heard from. George Zimmerman's dad and brother said that. And his lawyer. Didn't he claim that at first? I don't believe so. I don't believe he claimed anything. I don't know what he claimed yet because we don't know a whole lot of his story. Okay, I thought I heard that he said he was screaming for help. That 911 tape came out afterwards. We didn't even know there was a scream until the 911 tape came out. So I don't know. I don't believe he claimed that was him. I mean, he probably did. That's probably where his brother and dad got it. But... Got that story. But you basically have both sides saying that's my son. And yet, now you have two different forensics people saying that's not at least, that's not him. Right. And I doubt it's a third party which would make it Trayvon. Well, it's like the other one where they kept claiming they would play it over and over saying it sounded like he said coon. As many times as I listened to that, I didn't hear it. Well, you know what? Here's the thing. They cleaned that up. Listen to this. I said, well, have you asked George Zimmerman about that? They said, yes, they did. George has told him the words he used were effing punks. Okay. Then independently, I got a hold of Tom Owen of Owen Forensic Services, which is a company that specializes in audio enhancement. He was able to isolate that interference, remove it, slow it down to a few other things. And this is what he got. What he says, what he says they can change it five times right in front of my face give me a cookie oh that's like yeah no and i mean so but here's the thing is when i heard when i did hear that it certainly didn't sound like he said coons it certainly sounded it certainly did not sound this time more cleaned up like he said like he said the the racial slur but my my whole point being this is that and this there's surveillance tape that came out they're like look this proves everybody said this proves that he wasn't hurt because there's no cut on his head and then they somebody cleaned up the video and you're like oh there is a cut on his head and you go what does that prove it proves it it proves that the case should not be tried with the bullshit evidence that comes out in the media right there should be an actual case arrest the man so you can have an actual case yeah present all your evidence on both sides the way a case is supposed to be run and then see the way how it goes but the problem obviously i think here is that they didn't do the proper investigation right away it's all coming now the police botched this thing from the beginning from the beginning but the lead investigator said he thought there was enough reason to to arrest the man and his superior said no uh bill lee i believe it was said no don't do it and so you know he would that guy who's who recommended arresting him in the first place said you know i look forward to the evidence coming out but you know an interesting thing about this is i mean it splits just how how people see it obviously uh in certain polls it just came out recently that twice as many blacks and hispanics say uh I was going to name the guy, but you went with 12, so that is nice. Blacks are more likely as non-blacks given what they know today. I was going to say Michael Steele has friends. Yes, white ones. It says, given what they know about the case today, black 72% to 32% whites feel that Zimmerman is guilty, definitely guilty. That's kind of my problem. Do I feel he's guilty? Yes. So I don't know how I would answer a poll question. Do I think he's guilty? More than likely, yes. Would I convict him? No, not until there's a case. I mean, show me some, you know, present the case. There seems to be enough evidence of the bullshit that's leaked. But the problem is, you know, everything's getting tried in the media, and then like politics, people make up their mind and then just defend what they've already decided. Absolutely, but on the way of racial divides, the people of color, whether it be Mexicans, black, they're going to have a... a much more visceral response to racism because they're the ones that encounter it. No one is ever accusing police of racially profiling the white people. I fucking hate white people. Oh, my God, they're horrible. No, no, no doubt. I mean, if you have to deal, you know, with years of that, you're going to not only be more sensitive, you're going to be more aware of it. Right. It plays a part in their lives, which it does not to, you know, to the Republicans. Yeah, no. There's, that is, that is definitely true. And I mean, my only thing is I want it to be, arrest the guy and have the case. Don't, don't force everybody to already make up their mind because you guys are trying everything through the media. Every bit, all this stuff is all coming out. Now, I know there's an investigation going on now, but, you know, with any of this stuff, the fact that somehow they're saying there wasn't enough probable cause to, you just need probable cause to arrest them. You're not convicting them, just arrest them. And, and I hope they do it. Yeah, they wouldn't have even held, they wouldn't have even held them in jail. He would have been arrested. He would have posted bail and he would have been out. He would have said my dad used to be a judge and he would have been out immediately. But yes, still do it. And then, and then do your investigation. All right. So hopefully that'll happen. I mean, but not a lot else has really happened other than just here's some evidence. And then here's another view of the same evidence. And now we can both argue over it. So until they arrest him and actually have a case, you know, which hopefully happens soon, there's not going to be a whole lot more to report on. But, you know, I want to go to a different shady character in Greg Williams. We're going to talk a little sports right after this. We don't fucking apologize for how we're going to play. Kill the head, the body. We've got everything in the world to make sure we kill Frank Gore's head. We want him running sideways. We want his head sideways. We hit fucking Smith right there. Remember me. I got the first one. I got the first one. So lay that motherfucker out. We're going to dominate the line of scrimmage and we're going to kill the fucking head. Every single one of you, before you get off the pile, affect the head. Early, affect the head. Continue, touch and hit the head. They're going to come in. They're going to be shocked. but did he call him an effing coon or a punk? I couldn't really tell. I'm almost certain if he would have said either one of those words, he would not have made it out alive, which probably would have been good for many people. That, for anyone who does not know, that is Greg Williams, former defensive coordinator of the New Orleans Saints, who has been suspended indefinitely for running a bounty program of paying. When he said during that clip, part of it, he said, when you hit Alex Smith, I got the first one. He supposedly was rubbing his fingers together, showing a money sign, meaning he will pay for the first big hit on Alex Smith. I wouldn't have a problem if I'm going to pay for a big hit. But especially in a day and age now where they are getting, I think there's over 600 lawsuits against the NFL from former players for head-related injuries, brain-related injuries. And not only after all of that, and he already has that knowledge, then they have already been warned at the beginning of the playoffs. So a previous, just one week before this game, and he makes a speech where he over and over again says, hit the head, hit the head. Or his ankle, yeah. The ankle. But even when he says hit the head, he doesn't always, and it's bad enough to say that, but he even says, before you get off the pile, hit his head. Over and over again, you know everything you're trying to do to save the players, do the opposite. Cut down on concussions. Yes. And he's saying, as much as you can, injure the ankle. These people's brains. That's what he was saying. And to me, because of that, I don't think he should be allowed to coach again. I don't think a year suspension like Sean Payton currently has, while he's awaiting his appeal, at least currently has a year, I don't think Greg Williams should be allowed to coach again. I agree. Also, he was told by the team owner, the team owner, when he was made aware of the bounty program, told the coach, no bounty program. He said, no, I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. And they defied it. Yeah. And I mean, now, you can blame more than one person for this, you know, all going down, obviously, but Greg Williams is the one that was running it. He's the one that ran it in multiple teams that he worked at. He brought it to every, you know, that system to wherever he worked. Now, I will say this, though. Tim Hasselbeck, former quarterback, and Antonio Pierce, former defensive player, both said this is really almost, almost all of it is common and nothing that they haven't heard before. However, when defending, they're not really defending Greg. Well, Antonio Pierce, who's played for Greg Williams, I believe in Washington, did defend Greg Williams, Antonio Pierce. And he was basically saying, you know, that's the mentality. You know, that's what you have to do. I would play for him again tomorrow. He said all that. And when the one person that was interviewing him said, well, what about, you know, what about when he says take out the ACL? Oh, well, you know what? For that sentence, he went too far. Well, yeah, I understand. I don't have a problem with the cursing and the knock him on his ass and make him run sideways and all of that. Hit him hard and make him fear you. Yes, all of that is coach speak. And, you know, and I have no problems with, you know, with the war analogies. I mean, you shouldn't make them necessarily, you know, publicly outside because there's people really going through way more tragic shit than your sports game. But I understand that mentality when you're playing sports. However. However, when you're specifically saying hit his head or when you're injuring, I want to injure this person to the point where he can't play again and not necessarily forever, but you'd never know how badly you're going to injure a person. He didn't care about any of these people's careers. I think it's just a bad, bad precedent and bad for the image of sports in general. It's bad for kids getting into sports. It's just not the image you want where you're encouraging the idea of physically injuring. Someone and maybe ending their career. There's no room for that in sports. It's unsportsmanlike. We have penalties during games for unsportsmanlike conduct. This takes that to an entirely different level. Now, people will say, well, people should get a second chance. Michael Vick killed dogs. He got a second chance. Your argument for that? One. Well, I'm not one of those people that necessarily felt, you know, he should get a second chance. I thought he should have been fed to dogs. That's just me. But I think the difference there would be. What he did was outside the game as opposed to this was directly involved in the game. I don't argue with you. I mean, he was looking to hurt what the game is based on, the players. Yeah. And did not care about their careers. And my biggest problem is that, you know, now he says, oh, I'd like to be an advocate for player safety. Bullshit. If he didn't get caught, you would still be doing it. Right. And that's my problem with that. As far as Michael Vick, yes, it's outside the game. It's a crime. He went to prison. Greg Williams isn't going to go to prison for this. Right. And this is a blemish on the game. Michael Vick's life, other than just his job and his salary, were affected. He was incarcerated for years. I'm fine with a second chance. And I'm fine with Greg Williams getting a second chance, just not as a coach. He should not be allowed to coach. But then now, should Pete Rose? Pete Rose gambled on the game. Should he be allowed in the Hall of Fame? Or back in the game? You want to keep him out of the game, that's fine. I don't think. He should be kept out of the Hall of Fame. I agree with that. I think fact. The Hall of Fame is based on what you did in the game. I agree with that. I mean, you can't ignore the fact that he has the most hits. So put in a plaque. Don't let him coach. He should never be allowed to work in the game. I'm fine with that. But he should certainly be allowed. Certainly be allowed. Oh, let me rephrase that. Not be allowed. They should put his name and plaque in there. And you can say was banned from the game for this, for gambling on it. Right. But to me, you know, once the integrity of the game is in question, you know, you've lost your privilege to be in that. The Masters, Tiger Woods collapsed. I don't know how today ended, so we're not going to talk too much about it because golf usually puts me to sleep. Let's go to headlines real quick. Virginia Beach, Navy plane crashed. Nobody, nobody killed. Some said God had a hand in it, which is amazing to me that God had to make a plane crash and ruin. Just to save some people. Yeah, just to say, hey, look what I can do. I can save you right after I made bad shit happen. But that apartment pissed me off. Whitney Houston, the autopsy report came out. It looks like she was standing outside her, actually standing outside the bathtub and then had some sort of seizure or heart attack and collapsed into it. They found what they refer to as a small spoon with white crystal-like substance and a rolled up piece of paper and a small powdery substance on a portable mirror. I wonder what it could be. What could that possibly be? I don't know. Fun Dip is my guess. Levi Johnson, Bristol Palin's former fiance and father of her child, who also owes her $39,000 in child support, by the way, is expecting another child with girlfriend Sunny Oglesby. I see he's big on the birth control thing. Yeah. Because it works so well for him the first time. Yeah. He's one illegitimate child away from playing cornerback for the New York Jets. I think he and Kevin Federline should get a reality show where they open a kid's daycare center. Titanic and 4D in Europe, they have like the seats will move and they'll have bursts of air and a smell. That's fantastic. And Usher comes up and just throws a glass of water in your face. Could be a new... You just turn around and spit at the person behind you. I sometimes do that anyway. I just wanted to make this a little more real for you. It could be an interesting breakthrough for the porn industry. Although I'm sure those actors... Sure those actors already have their own problems with scratch and sniff. Okay, so time, we got about two minutes. What's wrong with people, dude? Who's your douche of the week? That's a long list. My douche of the week, I'm going with Renz Priebus. Say it again, say his name again for me. Isn't it Renz Priebus? That's awesome. Go ahead. First of all, just because of his name. Yes, he is. That's more than enough of a reason. He is the one that talked about the war on caterpillars. Yes, that's just it. To really... To really start a fight with something as innocent and sweet as a little caterpillar, you're really picking a fight with the innocent. Those bastards. Those caterpillars are coming to get us. You got to get them before they change. I'm very resistant to change. I'm going to have to go with Greg Williams. It's hard to not go with Greg Williams. I mean, you have a career as a coach in, you know, in one of the premier sports leagues in the world and you mess that up. They say it's number one now. Football has taken over. Well, I hope he enjoys it from his living room because they should never let him coach again. What a douche. No, not in a real sport. I mean, they can let him work in soccer, you know, something like that. Coach skee-ball. That's what they should make him do. Coach skee-ball. Ladies and gentlemen, Drew, you have a show coming up. I do. And actually, Kenneth August is going to be one of my main guests coming up. We start next Wednesday. It's a show called Bad Advice, right here on Skeetball. Right here on Skid Row Studios. It is going to be one very funny show. People can call in, talk to a panel of comics, ask a question on any subject at all, and since we're completely untrained and unqualified, we're here to help. It's going to be a good time. Bad Advice? Bad Advice, where the advice is free and worth every penny. Maybe overpaying. That is fantastic. Thank you, buddy. I look forward to Wednesday. Thank you for joining me. Thanks for having me. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today. Thank you for waiting for today.