2-6-25 - *FULL SHOW* SuperBowl Stats; LA's Huge Fail; CIA Blunder; Prison Phones

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
My wife's been away for a few days. So so
I got to get the kid to school, and get
the kid home from school and go to this appointment
and go to that appointment. Yesterday was an optometrist to
get a new prescription, and and today it's going to
be going to the DMV to get new license plates.
And it's just, oh, man, I'm just oh, I need
a nap. I need a nap. It's one of the

(00:22):
or a bourbon or bo. I don't know, I don't know.
I am looking forward to the super Bowl, even though
I I you know, I mentioned in the in the
cross talk with Marty and Gina that my preferred outcome
in the Super Bowl would would be for both teams
to lose. And I mentioned that, Well, I didn't say
that to them. What I said to them was, we're

(00:42):
gonna be talking with Rick Weiner, who is the Broncos
road statistician, and he's going to be covering actually in
this game. He's going to be doing stats for the
Chiefs for their Spanish language broadcast for the second year
in a row. Anyway, Rick's actually a very interesting dude.
He's a practicing psychiatrist and then a nerd on the side,
which is just my kind of human you know. But

(01:04):
I'm going to ask him since he knows all the numbers,
in what percent of previous Super Bowls? And there have
been fifty eight of them, although the first two, as
we learned from Chad Bowery yesterday, were not called super Bowls.
In what percent of previous Super Bowls? Have both teams lost?
Because I think that's an uncommon occurrence, both teams losing.

(01:28):
Don't think it happens very often. Don't have all the
data in front of me, and I'm just hoping we
can end up with a Super Bowl where both teams lose.
And for the record, just as a Broncos fan, I
would want the Chiefs to lose. But I have to
say may there may not be on the planet. Well,

(01:48):
I shouldn't say on the planet. In the United States
of America, there are probably not worse people than Philadelphia
Eagles fans. I am going to root for the Chiefs
even though I don't like them, because I cannot stand
Eagles fans. They're the American equivalent of Welsh soccer hood looms.

(02:14):
You think that's a rough comparison, Channon or about right
about right? So anyway, but I'm looking forward to watching
the game and I'm gonna bet on it. I don't
know what I'm gonna bet. All kinds of wacky little bets. Okay,
a ton of stuff I want to talk about today.
I think you've probably heard enough for now about the
King Soopers strike. I was going to start with that,
but I should have realized that wouldn't be necessary because
the Kawa News desk because all over that story, and

(02:37):
producer Michelle went and spoke with some Kingsoopers workers and
all that. I may actually after today's show, I may
stop by the King Soopers. That's the store that I
normally shop at for my groceries, and see if I
can interview a striking worker or two. I don't have
a strong opinion about this. My gut instinct is I

(02:58):
don't have much sympathy for either side. Like freaking work
it out so that I can go back and you know,
buy over priced eggs without having to walk through a
line of angry people. And I am willing to walk
through a line of angry people. I'm definitely willing to.
I wouldn't necessarily go out of my way to walk
through the line, but if it's more convenient for me
to go to the Kings sooopers and walk through the line,

(03:20):
then I will. And if it's more convenient for me,
if happens to be more convenient to go to some
other place that selles groceries, and I'll do that too.
I just the only thing, let me just put it plainly,
the only thing I care about in this strike is
my convenience, absolutely the only thing. Let's move on. This
is another story that you will probably not hear on

(03:44):
any other broadcast media outlet, so I wanted to make
sure to share it with you. And part of the
reason this interests me so much is, as you know,
if you've been with me for a while, that I
my major in college was foreign policy, and I studied,
among other things, I studied Soviet politics. I also studied
Chinese politics and nuclear strategy and national security. Did you

(04:07):
know that, Jennon, Yeah, you knew that already. So anyway,
I love this story. So this is an ap story,
and the dateline is from Vilnius, which is the capital
of Lithuania. Nearly three and a half decades after leaving
the Soviet Union, the Baltic countries of Estonia Latvia and
Lithuania this weekend will flip a switch to end electricity

(04:31):
grid connections to neighboring Russia and Belarus and turn to
their European Union allies. The severing of electricity ties to
oil and gas rich Russia is steeped in geopolitical and
symbolic significance. Work toward it sped up after Russian President
Vladimir Putin ordered his troops to invade Ukraine three years ago,

(04:53):
battering Moscow's EU relations. The President of Lithuania, whose name
I will not attempt to pronounce, says, this is physical
disconnection from the last remaining element of our alliance on
the Russian and Belarussian energy systems.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
The head of the EU, her name is Ursula Vonderlyon.
She's supposed to be there on Sunday. As a specially
made thirty foot tall clock in downtown Vilnius counts down
the final seconds of the Baltic states electricity ties to Russia.

(05:32):
I love this. Let me skip ahead a little bit.
Sixteen power lines that used to connect the three Baltic
States with Russian and Belarus were dismantled over the years
as a new grid linking them with the rest of
the EU was created, including underwater cables in the Baltic Sea.
On Saturday, all remaining transmission lines between the Baltic States

(05:52):
and Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad. Coliningrad is a very weird thing.
It's basically a Russian city that's kind of stuck there
by itself between Poland and Lithuania right on the ocean.
But they've got I guess power lines going to Kaliningrad too.
Those are all gonna turn off. Coliningrad is odd because

(06:14):
it's it's Russian, but it doesn't border Russia, but it's
Russian territory, And like what would it be like like
the American base Guantanomo on Cuba. Right, It's it's a
that's probably not that's probably a bad example because this
isn't an island. But I am president of bad analogy club.

(06:34):
All right, moving on? In any case, I just want
to share that story with you. There's more, but I'm
gonna I'm gonna leave it there. Uh, I just I
dig that story. In these countries that were formerly part
of the Soviet Union are are leaving it. Let me
do this other thing quickly. A friend of mine messaged
me yesterday to say that his wife and daughter were
going to a protest at the Colorado State Capital in

(06:57):
Denvery yesterday, protesting against the Trumpet administration. My friend is
pretty pro Trump, but I guess his wife and daughter
went to this protest and they seem to be protesting Trump,
and like they're still talking about Project twenty twenty five,

(07:17):
and they're protesting on a day when the federal government
is finally removing these violent Venezuelan gang members and other
criminal illegal aliens from Aurora and Denver. And these people
are going to show up at the capitol as a protest. Now,
this is also it's part of a nationwide protest. There
were protests in Colorado Springs as well, and plenty of

(07:38):
other places. But let me just do twenty three seconds
on this. I don't understand why they think that protesting
as a generic kind of thing like orange man bad.
Why do they think that is going to help anything
they care about? They just lost an election with that mindset,

(08:02):
and since that election, I realized that Trump has done
or said a few things that are, you know, a
little bit outrageous and trumpy. But the bottom line is
he's also his people have demonstrated how much taxpayer money
is being just wasted on utter nonsense. And I think
even most Democrats would say, you know what, I just

(08:23):
don't need my money going to fund an LGBT comic
book in Peru or a transgender parade in Bosnia. The
right like, you could be as woke as you want
to be, but do you really want your government spending
that money? And and they're cleaning out right the trende
Aragua gang members, and I just I find it odd

(08:47):
that these people think that they are going to have
any positive effect on anything by going out now and
protesting against Trump and against Project twenty twenty five. They
are not going to wind over win over a single
heart or a single mind. So I said that, you know,

(09:08):
people went to the capitol in Denver to protest against
Donald Trump and Project twenty twenty five, which I'm sure
they don't even know what it is. And there are
other people around the country, including in Colorado Springs, protesting yesterday,
And I just said, I don't I don't know what
they expect to get out of that. I assume they
feel better about themselves. But a listener sent an interesting text.

(09:29):
It just got me thinking ross watching my lefty friends
on Facebook. They're protesting because they feel like they need
to do something, even if they know it's not going
to amount to anything. I equate it to to changing
a social media profile picture to the Ukrainian flag, and

(09:53):
I I was thinking about it, and yeah, I promise you,
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I think changing
a profile picture to the Ukrainian flag, and I'm not
going to get into a debate with you about Ukraine
policy right now, but I think that changing the profile
picture to the Ukrainian flag is more interesting and maybe

(10:13):
more useful and and and psychologically better than going to
protest at the at the Denver capitally Australia. Here's why.
And again, you can disagree about Ukraine policy, that's not
what this is about. When somebody, especially early in this war,
change their profile picture of the Ukraine flag, you knew

(10:36):
what they were for. You also knew what they were against.
You you know that they're against the Russian invasion of Ukraine,
but that symbol that that flag is, I'm I'm for this,
I'm for these people. I'm for protecting them, helping them,
saving them, whatever, whatever, it might be in terms of policy,

(10:58):
but you're you're for something, You're for something. I would
like to know this is this serious. The people who
are showing up to protest in Denver and in Colorado Springs,
it doesn't seem to me like they're for very much.
They're against everything, or at least they're against the things
that they were talking about yesterday. They're against Trump, They're

(11:20):
against what they perceive as some range of conservative policy.
And I don't know, I just find being against things
with no real positive alternative to be kind of a
waste of time and also not really effective in the
public conversation. The average person, who maybe doesn't think about

(11:45):
politics as much as talk radio listeners might when they
see someone protesting wherever it might be. Yesterday, although the
story came up about the Denver the state Capitol intent
and they're holding up some sign about how much do
you know impeats Trump or whatever, a normal person, a

(12:07):
normal person is gonna say, or even if it's subconscious
and they don't say it out loud, they're gonna say,
what's the alternative? What are you offering me? You can't
tell me you hate Trump and hate what he's doing. When,

(12:28):
at least so far, most of what he's doing is
trying to save taxpayer money, protect women's sports, sort of
dewoke the government, and things that actually most people agree with.
That the changes Trump is making so far trade are
changes that most people agree with. Get protecting protecting women's
sports from competition by biological men is something like an

(12:51):
eighty twenty issue in America. At least seventy five twenty
five people don't think it's fair. So are you gonna
offer me Kamala Harris instead, Joe Bible? What are you
gonna offer me as an alternative? And last thing I'll
say on this, I wasn't planning on talking about it,

(13:11):
but that text really got me thinking because I actually
think that changing your profile picture to the Ukraine flag
or let's say a couple of years ago at the beginning,
near the beginning of the war, I should think that's
a more important message than just go saying orange man bad.
You're not because you're not really saying anything, and it
shows that you're not thinking very deeply and you don't
understand very much. And what it reminds me of, and

(13:36):
this is probably not a terrible analogy, is the conversation
that we had yesterday with Ruthy Bloom about Palestinians. Palestinians
and the radicals who maybe show up on college campuses
claiming to care about the Palestinians, they don't actually care.

(13:56):
They're not for anything. Palestinians time and time again have
the opportunity, had the opportunity for a Palestinian state, a
country of their own, and they turned it down. They're
not for anything. They're only against the only thing they
care about is killing Jews and destroying Israel. And what

(14:17):
is it that these protesters at this moment care about.
I don't think they're for anything. I think they're only against,
and I think that's why they lost, and I think
that's why they're likely to keep losing unless they come
up with a better strategy. I do read pretty much
all the listener texts that come in, and I do

(14:40):
reply when I have time, right, so that's five six
six nine zero. Keep in touch. If I don't reply,
don't think it means I didn't read it. I really go.
Here's how I think about it. And I mean this
in all sincerity. If you took the time to write
to me, the least I can do is take the
time to read it, and I do, and sometimes I reply,

(15:02):
but I read them five six six nine zero. I
only read them, though, if you're sending them during my show,
don't send me a text during Mandy's show. I won't
see it. Don't send Mandy a text during my show,
she won't see it. Well, if you send it Mandy
texts at the very end of my show, she'll probably
see it. But you get the point, because I'm only
looking at the interface during my show. All right, lots

(15:25):
of things still to do on the show today, a
lot of things I still want to talk about. I
want to correct myself a little bit. So yesterday I
was talking about Donald Trump's remarkable pronouncement that the US
would take over and rebuild and own the Gaza strip,

(15:48):
and I said, at the time yesterday, I said it first,
it's never going to happen. But I like the idea
of just moving the Overton window, changing the conversation, getting
people to think about maybe some different approach, so we

(16:10):
don't just keep ending up proving Einstein's definition of insanity.
And one of the things I said was there's little
or no downside to Trump saying what he said, I
know there were some people who said it could make
it harder to get the rest of the hostages out.

(16:30):
I maybe I'm a little bit skeptical of that claim.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hamas try
to do something with that where they kill some hostages
and then blame Trump. But in any case, there was
one area where I do think we've learned there was
significant downside in terms of what Trump said. And it

(16:54):
wasn't just that he said that the US might take
this and we might push the Palestinians out and have
him go live somewhere else, but it to put a
very fine point on it. He said that he was
confident that Saudi Arabia would make a peace deal with
Israel in the absence of there being a Palestinian state

(17:17):
or even a clear path to a Palestinian state. And
the problem with saying that out loud, even if it
might have been true if it were never said out loud,
right because it seemed like Saudi Arabia and Israel are
actually pretty close to a peace deal near the end
of the Trump presidency, and net Yahoo said in the

(17:37):
joint press conference two days ago. Net Yahoo said to
Trump in public in front of all these reporters. If
you had been in office six more months, there's a
pretty good chance we could have had a peace deal
with Saudi Arabia, and that could be true. The problem is,

(17:58):
even though the Saudi government and other governments in that
area are dictatorships and they don't have elections, they still
don't want unrest among the people. This is part of
the reason that Saudi Arabia caused so so very much
harm around the planet for so many years by pacifying

(18:23):
their own people, by allowing these Wahabbyists and Wahabist and
Sallaphist radical Sunni clerics to exist in their country. These
are the people who created Osama bin Laden and al
Qaeda and people who support that kind of thing, and

(18:45):
the Saudi government allowed it as this sort of bribe
where they told these radical clerics, look, you direct the
anger of these lunatics who are coming to your mosque,
or the lunatics that you're creating at your mosque, but
you must direct their anger away from us the House

(19:06):
of Saud, And they did for a while, but then
the Kobar Tower things happened, and there were some other stuff,
but Saudi Arabia. I mean, don't forget. I think all
or almost all of the nine elect eleven hijackers were Saudi.
So in any case, my point is these governments want

(19:29):
to keep their rebellious types kind of pacified, or at
least their anger directed outwards. Once Trump said Saudi Arabia
will make peace with Israel, regardless of whether there's a
Palestinian state, now all of a sudden, you've got what
you call the Arab Street, the ordinary people in all

(19:52):
these Arab countries right saying wait what Because remember the
people in in Saudi Arabia, they might not hate Israel,
maybe not all of them, but they don't love Israel.
And they have for a long time cared or at
least claim to care. But I think some of them,
in their own way kind of sort of care about

(20:14):
the Palestinians. And so when Trump says Saudi Arabia will
make peace with Israel without there being a Palestinian state,
what that did was it put the leaders of Saudi
Arabia in a position of having to say publicly not
just no, but hell no, no peace with Israel until

(20:36):
there's a Palestinian state. So remember, one of Trump's top
goals is and has been creating more peace treaties in
the Middle East between Israel and various other countries in
the Middle East, and he was quite successful on that.
But the big one is Saudi Arabia. That's the big one,

(21:00):
that's the one he really wants, that's the one he
really needs. That's the that's the treasure, that's the gold medal.
All these other ones are you know, silver medals or
bronze medals. The gold medal is Saudi Arabia. And by
saying that he was confident that Saudi Arabia would make
peace without with Israel, without the existence of a Palestinian state,

(21:24):
he just made it much harder, much harder for the
Saudi government to agree to a peace deal with Israel.
And that that is a big that's a big problem. Meanwhile,
the Trump administration, you know, people who work for him,
you know, all these new news headlines are they're walking
back what Trump said. They're not walking it back, they're

(21:46):
running it back. They're they're making sure that we understand, well,
if Trump made it sound like we would have Americans
actually there or boots on the ground in Gaza, no,
we're not doing that. And if Trump make it made
it sound like a Americans would spend tax dollars in Gaza,
which is sure what it sounds like when you say
that we're going to take it over and we're gonna

(22:07):
own it and we're going to redevelop it. It sure
does sound like American tax dollars. They're saying, no, he
didn't mean that either. He didn't mean that either. And
when and when he said that, you know, we've moved
the Palestinians out where they can go live in other
places where they're not living amidst all this death and
destruction in this ongoing cycle, and they need to go
somewhere else. And by the way, I think he's right.

(22:32):
I don't think it'll happen, but I think he's right.
But now they're saying, well, we just meant they'd be
temporarily relocated out of Gaza for the for the rebuilding effort.
And and this is just an unfortunate example of Donald
Trump saying either just what's going on in his mind
without running it by any of that you know, his

(22:53):
key advisors has taught people who really understand this stuff,
or perhaps listening to whoever was the last person he
talked to which could have been Jared Kushner in this situation.
But it was just as I said yesterday. I liked
the idea, and I share Trump's assessment of I shared

(23:14):
Trump's assessment of the problem. We keep doing the same
thing in the Palestinian territories, and you keep doing it
with people who are this generation's version of brown Shirts
and the Hitler youth, and you put them right next
to the only Jewish nation in the world. And what
do you expect is going to happen? And we need
to change something. And Trump is absolutely right about that.

(23:35):
But as I've said so many times on this show,
and I think Trump doesn't quite get it, foreign policy
is infinitely more complicated than domestic politics. And Trump can
say almost anything, even if it's kind of nuts, even
if it'll never happen, even if it's just a troll.

(23:58):
He can say, O post anything about domestic American politics
and kind of work your way out of it. Because
he's president right and right now he has Republicans in
charge in Congress too, he could he could do a lot,
or at least if he says something dumb, he can
kind of back away. And it's more or less no harm,

(24:22):
no foul, But it's not like that in foreign policy.
And so I was I was too optimistic and maybe
a little bit glib when I said yesterday that Trump's
comments didn't have any downside. I was wrong about that.
They did have downside, which doesn't mean that he misidentified

(24:45):
the problem, but the way he described a potential solution
was not good. Not good. All right, I'm gonna move
on from there. This next story I'm gonna share with
you is it's somewhere between infuriating and deeply saddening. The

(25:09):
Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday I just the
headline is how buched alerts turned this La neighborhood into
a fiery death trap. And as we go through this,
I have sort of a general point I want to
make in a specific point I want to make. The

(25:30):
general point I want to make is you need to
be very careful about relying on government. They don't have
very good set of incentives. Government gets paid whether they
do a good job or not. And a lot of
times when government does a bad job, they use that
as an excuse to ask for more of your money.
So that's a general kind of thing. A specific kind

(25:52):
of thing is that California is the most overtaxed part
of America and Los Angeles is the most overtaxed part
of California. And these are now the poster children for
why you should not just assume that paying a lot
in taxes get to you what you think you're getting.

(26:14):
And unfortunately, sometimes these lessons don't get learned until there's
death and destruction. So let me just share some of
this with you with the Wall Street Journal. It is
mind boggling. And you wonder whose heads need to roll
in California and in LA and how much longer the

(26:38):
mayor of Los Angeles can survive Karen Bass politically. By
the way, before I share this with you, one quick thing.
I read a really interesting piece. It was over at
the Free Press THEFP dot com. A guy named I
think his first name is Peter, his last name is
definitely Sabadnik s a v O. D n Ik interviewed
the very very wealthy doctor who owns the Los Angeles

(27:01):
Times and the guy has been massively red pilled, and
that's what the article is about. And one of the
things the doctor said in the article was, we made
a big mistake endorsing Karen Bass. And basically that newspaper
endorsed Karen Bass because she was a black woman and

(27:22):
for no other reason. The white Republican guy, who actually
is competent at some things and successful in the private sector,
should have won. Came surprisingly close to winning in LA
I think if the election were held today, he would win.
But it was interesting to see this doctor who owns

(27:42):
the Los Angeles Times apologize for their newspaper's endorsement of
Karen Bass. He figured it out a little while ago,
well before these fires, when he refused to let his
newspaper's editorial board endorse Kamala Harris. Now they did not
endorse Trump. They endorsed nobody, and they had some of

(28:03):
their leftist editorial board people resign over that. And he
doesn't care. He's happy about that. He wants to make
the Los Angeles Times a decent journalistic outlet again. So
that's a tangent. Now listen to this. The Eaton Fire
EATN burned fourteen twenty one acres, upending lives, destroying property,

(28:25):
and forcing thousands to evacuate the Altadena suburb of Los Angeles.
The fast moving blaze was unprecedented and the result of
parched terrain and hurricane force wins officials set again. This
is from the Wall Street Journal. The county sent evacuation
alerts to some areas too late and failed to use

(28:48):
all of the public warning channels at its disposal, lapses
that had grave consequences seen in the cluster of deaths
west of Lake Avenue. Equipment issues meant firefighters didn't have
the full breadth of county resources to throw at the crisis.
Half listen carefully now, Half of the Los Angeles County

(29:09):
Fire departments water dousing helicopters were out of service, all right,
So who needs to lose their job over that? A
Wall Street Journal review of mobile phone emergency alerts, social
media posts, dispatch archives, and fire department documents found that
a response system that was supposed to protect lives and
property when danger approached failed. So let me just describe

(29:33):
this to you as a as a visual thing. I'm
trying to think of a I'm trying to think of
a town that has a street running through the middle
of it that we would all recognize. This is a
street that runs north south, so it divides Altadena east

(29:55):
to west. But okay, here, how about this, think about
callfax in Denver, Okay. Now, Collfax is an east west
running street and it separates the city north to south.
But imagine, imagine there's a significant fire going on in Denver,

(30:16):
poses lots of risk to lots of people throughout Denver,
and somehow the city alert systems only alert people on
one side of Callfax but not the other side of Collfax.
It's not like there's something magic about Collfax that's going
to prevent a fire from crossing it. So imagine that

(30:38):
the government's alert system only alerts people on one side
of Callfax. There's plenty of property damage on that side
of Callfax, but because the alerts were there, people get
out and nobody died. But the fire, as fires do,

(31:01):
crosses Callfax, gets into the neighborhoods on the other side
of Callfax where they did not get alerts, and seventeen
people die, and other people who don't die have to
leave in such a hurry that they can't take things
with them that they would have been able to take

(31:22):
with them that were incredibly important to them, whether you're
talking about family pictures or passports, or you know, valuable
stuff or pets. So even the people who do get
out are significantly worse off than they would be if
the system had worked well. This is what happened in
La with a street called Lake Avenue. As the night

(31:47):
passed with no alerts. In the west side of Altadena,
some residents, unaware of how dire their situation was, went
to bed or waited too long to make plans for
someone to come help them if they were unable to
leave on their own. Power outages contributed to spotty cell
phone coverage in some areas. Listen to this one, Listen
to this one. An emergency alert system that can broadcast

(32:11):
evacuation alerts and warnings to local radio and TV stations
was never activated by the county for the fire, according
to executives at those stations. The county's Ready LA County
That's all one word Ready LA County X account used
by the county Office of Emergency Management quote for disaster Response,

(32:34):
Recovery and Preparedness did not post about the Eton fire
as it spread that night. The Los Angeles County Coordinated
Joint Information Center said in a statement it could not
comment quote on all factors leading to the tragic loss
of life end quote. The County Board of Supervisors recently
approved a third party review of emergency notification systems. Wow,

(33:01):
they say that a comprehensive and accurate review will take months.
As this fire raged in the eastern part of the
town of Altadena, which is not really different from the
western part of of Altadena. It's just this sort of
arbitrary name given to the east and west half of

(33:23):
the town, with an arbitrary selection of Lake Avenue as
the dividing line between the east half of the town
and the west half of the town. Right, you know,
you might have I don't know, pick a street that
divides east and west littletown, right whatever, It's all one town.
And yet the alerts only went to one part of
the town because of massive government failures. How about this?

(33:45):
According to calls obtained by the Wall Street Journal, firefighters
were made aware of at least ten houses on the
west side of Lake Avenue that were already on fire
before any alert was sent out to people in that
part of the town. Are you kidding me? Are you

(34:07):
kidding me? This is one of the most spectacular in
a bad way failures of government that I recall seeing
in a very very long time. And I do believe
the number is seventeen in terms of the number of
people who died on the west side of Lake Avenue

(34:29):
in Altadena because government did not warn them even as
they were warning people on the east side of that
same street. At some point we will figure out what happened.
In the meantime, I would say, even before we know
exactly what happened, it's going to be pretty clear that

(34:50):
some people need to lose their jobs. And one is
the mayor of Los Angeles, who just popped into my
head yesterday, and I forgot to ask you yesterday, so
I want to ask you today. Yesterday, Dragon, I don't
even remember what the context was. I think you played
some bumper music based on something that you saw on
the show sheet you put together. Then I put yeah,

(35:12):
and but it was blues Clues I think right. And
then we were talking about Dora the Explorer and a
listener texted in like same kind of time frame of
raising kids, Little Einstein. Do you remember Little Einstein's Yes? Anyway,
My question for listeners and for you, producer, Dragon, what

(35:34):
was your favorite TV show when you were a child? Ducktails?
I didn't take long, didn't even even think about it. Ducktails,
not sure, I even I think you've mentioned that to
me before, and it's like all the relatives of Donald
Duck kind of yeah, pretty much, yeah, ducktails. All right,

(35:55):
So let me ask listeners text me and Dragon at
five six six nine zero and uh, and tell me
what your favorite what your favorite TV show was when
when you were a kid. And I'm not going to
tell you mine. I will tell you mine, but I
don't want to say it right away because I don't
want to, you know, prime this thing and then have
people say what I said because it happens to be
in their heads. So but I'll tell you mine in

(36:17):
a bit. But wow, did you know did you wait
when you were a kid? Huh? Ducktails? Yeah? So was
there an old version and a new version? Right?

Speaker 3 (36:29):
There was one that recently came out a few years ago.
I think it ran for two or three seasons. Yeah, yeah,
i'd canceled. Yeah, okay, so I'm just looking up. Okay,
So the one you're talking.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
About late eighties, early nineties, Yeah, exactly, premiered September eighteenth,
nineteen eighty seven, ran for four seasons, final episode November
twenty eighth, nineteen ninety and it had one hundred episodes.
All right, there you go. And ductails is one word, yeah,
with a capitol tea in the middle, but ducktails one word. Okay,

(37:02):
text me at five six six nine zero.

Speaker 3 (37:04):
We do have a very important text message that came
in just now. Yeah, Ross, Yeah, did you remember to
take your recycling out today?

Speaker 1 (37:14):
I I hate to disappoint you. I did remember. The
recycling is out at the curb. That is a disappointment
and it breaks my heart. But we got a lot
of Amazon boxes, and you know, I got these boxes
from buying like stereoparts and stuff, and uh, they got

(37:34):
to go in something. So they're gonna go in the
the regular trash can with the trash or the other
one that's next to it that has an orange top.
It's like, it's got to go somewhere, so I might
might as well. And in our neighborhood, and this is
probably true in a lot of places. I don't know
the recycling is every two weeks or is the trash
is the same for you? Yes, same for you? So yeah,

(37:55):
all right, hold on, I got a lot of texts
coming in already, so I need to expand the number
of texts on my on myen. I want you to
text us at five six six nine zero and and
and tell me and dragging your favorite TV show when
you were a kid, and I'll come back to it
in a couple of minutes. And doesn't have to share
some of your answer. You're right, it does not have
to be a cartoon. And I mean, I mean when
you were you know, six or eight, I don't mean

(38:18):
when you're seventeen. I think I know yours. So was
that on the air? Was that just in my ear? So?
That was my my favorite TV show when I was young,
But not when I was like a little kid, right,
that would have been more like high school, college years,

(38:41):
because it's not a cartoon, right, But when I was
a real kid, it was a different it was a
different show that was a cartoon. And I'll and I'll
tell you the answer. I will say, I just you know,
at a quick scan here, at least one person has
already said mine. Might be only one person, but we'll

(39:02):
come back to that in a second. So what else
are we going to talk about? Oh? This this next
story is from the there's got to be a better way. Files.
I have lots of files and stories just go in
a file. And then when you need a story that's
like about the lesson of there has to be a
better way, you just go there. And this is in

(39:24):
that file. Air's a headline from Axios for Axios Denver,
Colorado taxpayers bill for prison inmate phone calls stores to
five million dollars. Wow, let me share a little of

(39:47):
this from their prison cells. Colorado inmates can make from
their prison cells the cell Colorado inmates can make unlimited
phone calls on state issued tablet with taxpayers increasingly footing
the bill. The cost of cell phones for inmates is

(40:07):
five hundred and seventy nine thousand dollars over budget in
the current fiscal year and estimated to run the state
five point four million dollars by July of twenty twenty six.
And here's my favorite part that shouldn't surprise anybody. Five
times the original projections. How do you make a mistake

(40:30):
that big fi? Even when Jared Polus and the Democrats
were lying to us about free pre K and misunderestimating
the number of parents who would want free babysitting for
their three and four year olds, they did not misunderestimate

(40:51):
it by a factor of five. How do you do that?
Axeo says the OLDUS represent a microcosm of the problem
that Democratic led the Democratic led legislature faces this session.
The policies and programs created in good times now cost
too much in a year with tight spending limits. By

(41:13):
the way, it's not like we're going to have a
budget that's down. The budget is still going to be up.
And all this stuff about tight spending limits, all that
means is All that means is you went on a
spending spree last year, and you got a good bonus
at the end of the year in your paycheck, and
it turned out that you could afford the spending spree.

(41:35):
That was really it was really inappropriate. It was it
was risky, it was not fiscally responsible. You shouldn't have
spent all that money, but you got away with it
because you got a big bonus in your paycheck. And
now you say, look, I realize it was reckless, but
I'm going to do it again. I want to do
it even bigger. And then someone says to you, well,
i'll tell you what, you can have just as much

(41:59):
reckless spending as you did last year, and in fact,
you could even do a couple percent more reckless spending
than you did last year. But you just can't do
thirty percent more. You can still be stupid with your money,
and that's what our state government is, except they're being
stupid with with my money and your money, not with
their own money. Anyway. Before twenty twenty three, inmates covered

(42:19):
the cost of phone calls from prison. That year, the
cost matrix shifted gradually to taxpayers under a new law
authored by Democrats, you don't say, to lessen the burden
on inmates and encourage family connections. Starting that July, the
state planned to pay the full cost of the calls.
The state's phone contract covered the tablets, but now the
state can't afford it because the number of calls and

(42:41):
number of inmates both exceed initial projections. Anyway, next year,
the state is planning to play pay half of the
bill for inmate calls. Free phone calls won't start until
July of twenty twenty six. Anyway, from the there must
be a better way, files, I will tell you in
all seriousness, because I don't necessarily be grudge an inmate

(43:03):
being able to have contact with someone on the outside.
That probably increases the chance of them being able to
get out and get a normal life and still have
a family and get a job and all that. So
I don't hate the idea necessarily of inmates being able
to have a phone call, But why are they paying
so much?

Speaker 4 (43:21):
You?

Speaker 1 (43:21):
I'm sure you can get cheap tablets and you can
use voipe, you can use voice over Internet rather than
I don't know it's cell phone service. I have no
idea what they're doing, but it must be that there's
a better way. I think my dad watched Howdy Duty?
Maybe you can dragon? Can you look up what years
the how do You Duty? Show was on? Or you

(43:42):
haven't already? Season one was nineteen forty seven? Yeah, okay,
so my dad would have seen that. I remember my
dad talking about that a little bit. For those just joining.
The reason that that came up is I've asked what
was your favorite TV show when you were a kid?
And think you for to everybody who's texted in so far,
but keeping comming at five six, six nine zero, we

(44:04):
got over one hundred already, and mine when I was
a kid. Now I've got a I can think of
probably three three shows that I really liked a lot
as a kid. But the first thing that immediately comes
to mind is speed Racer. I just speed Racer, I
immediately just first singing into my mind, and I saw

(44:26):
at least at least how many people won two only
two other people said speed Racer, But that was that
was my favorite. And now I'm talking about like when
I was six or something like that. You know, when
I was between the ages of six and nine, we
lived on Guam and there were not a lot of

(44:49):
television options on Guam in the nineteen seventies. I don't
remember if there's one station or two, but there weren't
a lot of choices. So but but I did see
speed Racer and I always loved it. My other I
would say my other my other two favorites. Always loved
the Looney Tune stuff, right, the Bugs, Bunny, Roadrunner, Wiley Coyote,

(45:11):
that stuff. And then I think I've mentioned this on
the air before. The other one that really sticks in
my memory, but it's more because it has a bigger
sort of emotional tie in for me is Underdog, And
I have no need to hear Underdog. That's right, that's right.

(45:33):
And the thing for me with Underdog, I mean a
fun show and I really liked it a lot. The
only times I ever got to see Underdog was when
I went to visit my grandparents, my dad's parents at
their apartment in Brooklyn, New York. Because wherever I lived,

(45:54):
if Underdog was on the air, I didn't know it, right,
So I only ever got to see underd on these
very special occasions when I would when I would go
visit my grandparents and they'd take me out to get,
you know, a slice in New York pizza by the
subway station, and then the Italian ices, which if you're

(46:15):
not from around there and you don't really know as well,
but just fabulous stuff. Gosh, we're over one hundred and
fifty now. I think in terms of people chiming in,
let's let me let me read a few Scooby Doo
Gilligan's Island. See. I wonder if like a seven year
old would like Gilligan's Island. Maybe Bobby's World. I never
heard of that, Leave It to Beaver, Teenage Mutant, Ninja Ninja,

(46:39):
Turtles and the Magic School Bus, thunder Cats. You ever
hear of that one thunder thunder thunder Go? I think,
I think, all right, so you've heard of it? Lost
in Space. I like that the original Lost in Space
is just fabulous. Another Scooby Doo another Lost in Space, Riflemen,

(46:59):
that's a good one, road Runner, Batman, Johnny Quest, Hogan's Heroes,
Hogan's Heroo is a pretty advanced show for a kid.
I know nothing. I see nothing, six Million Dollar Man,
Emergency and Adam twelve. I remember all of those shows. Contact,
I remember what three Contact? No One on television? What

(47:24):
I don't know? No, I don't know that one. Okay,
I remember a show called The Electric Company. I was
never a huge sesame Street Guy Captain Kangaroo. That was
on when I was a kid, but I wasn't a fan.
The Muppet Show. I loved that, but I was a
little older when that was on. Johnny Quest, Tom and Jerry.

(47:45):
Land of the Loss the original, That was a weird,
weird show. There's a Denver one Blinky's Fun Club. What
is that?

Speaker 3 (47:53):
It's like a bozo ish Blinky's Blinky's Fun Club.

Speaker 1 (47:58):
Some of these things sound downright, what's the word I'm
thinking of with creepy? Like magic, mushroom like psychedelic? Right,
Like the Land of the Loss was so weird. Oh,
you know what I love talk about psychedelic, like you're
on an acid trip while you're watching the show. Hr
Puffin stuff. Oh my gosh, Sid and Marty Croft hr

(48:21):
puffin stuff. That was like an acid trip for seven
year olds, and I absolutely loved it. We'll be right
back on ko check this one out, Dragon. I'm sure
you saw the listener text already. Ross I worked for
Channel two on Blinky Fun Club. But behind the set
he was like Krusty the clown on The Simpsons. Mister

(48:41):
Otis or o Titus or something. Otis Otis and Miss
Zelda were great people.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
He owned like a thrift shop or something on Broadway,
and I met him a couple of times there and
he seemed to be kind of crotchety, but he was
you know, he lost the job too, and he's in
his older days.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
So all right, Ross, hr Puffin stuff was the stuff
of nightmares. I don't know what they were thinking on that.
You know, that's kind of true that I love that show.
One quick sort of news update here, you know. I
spent a little time earlier in the show talking about

(49:22):
some of the problems regarding Donald Trump's proposal to move
the Palestinians out of Gaza and for the US to
redevelop it and own it and all this stuff. And again,
as I've said many times now in the past couple
of days, President Trump has certainly identified the problem correctly.
I don't know if there's a good solution. This is

(49:43):
the thing. As Ruthy Bloom said yesterday in our interview
when she joined us from Tel Aviv, she said, Look,
everybody's plan is unreasonable or unlikely to succeed. So why
should we do your unreasonable plan instead of mine? In
any case? In any case, Donald Trump being Donald Trump,
he doesn't ever back down from anything. He doesn't ever

(50:03):
admit a mistake, he doesn't ever do anything. It's always
just straight ahead. The guy is, to use an analogy
that I've used in other context, he is a ratchet,
not a pendulum. Right, So he can go, he can
go in one direction. He will never go back the
other way. He might stop continuing to go forward for
a while. But the only the only way he will

(50:25):
ever move, almost without exception, is just continuing in the
same direction once he's started in a direction. And uh,
here is just an example. This is from the UK
Guardian headline Trump doubles down on Gaza takeover proposal, despite
bi partisan opposition, President says territory in Gaza would be

(50:48):
turned over to the US by Israel. As it emerges
the idea was not discussed with AIDS. So what I
what I think he's saying, because as I'm as I
I think I mentioned yesterday, I had a lot of
talks about this yesterday on the air and then off
the air. And I might be I might mix him up,
like did I say this thing on the air only
in private? But I think I said on the air

(51:11):
that the I think the American public would not tolerate
a single American being injured or killed on the ground
in Gaza. Right, they just were over war, Right, we
did Iraq, and we did Afghanistan, and and and you know,
we're not in Ukraine. And maybe there's a few special forces,

(51:33):
but basically we're not in Ukraine and we don't want
to be. And and and also Trump is the is
the most anti war president we've had in this country
for a long time. And he's campaigned on getting US
out of wars, which is good. So I don't I

(51:56):
don't know what he expected. The vision was, if the
US is gonna to own the Gaza strip. I guess
maybe he thinks that all the Palestinians will be gone
and therefore it won't be a very dangerous place, right
And I conceptually I can follow that logic. But in
any case, what he seems to be saying is that
the Israelis will get the Palestinians out and move them somewhere.

(52:20):
The problem is, there's no place that will take them.
And why would you. There are a bunch of there
are a bunch of ignorant, radical Nazi troublemakers. I wouldn't
take them either. No country over there wants the Palestinians.
But conceptually Israel would move the Palestinians somewhere, and then
when the fighting's done and the place is pacified and

(52:42):
all that's really left is rubble, then the US would
come in and rebuild. I guess that's what Trump is
talking about. Here's the other thing, and I don't think
Trump has thought about it this far, and I don't
really think anybody else has either. But there is a
zero percent probability of the American Congress appropriating money to

(53:07):
rebuild something in Gaza as like an American project. I mean,
we're we're getting out now. Of UH of supporting UNROAH.
And and that's good because they're a terrible organization. The
it's the United Nations organization that's supposed to support the Palestinians,
but uh, some of their employees participated in the October
seventh UH massacres. And and UNRUH teachers are some of

(53:29):
the teachers who are teaching the Palestinian kids. You know
that the Jews should be killed and that Israel shouldn't exist.
So as a terrible organization in any case, I just
think it was it's an out of the box idea,
even even for Trump. It's even it's even more out
of the box than the average Trump idea. And and

(53:50):
I admire that. But it wasn't quite ready for prime
time and it's still not, so we'll see how that all,
how that all plays out? Uh what else? Okay? I
heard this story yesterday on KOA News, and I didn't
know about it, and I didn't want to react to
the news story until I read a little bit more

(54:12):
about it. But it's actually quite interesting. So there's a
dude named Jeremy Smith. He was arrested in December of
twenty twenty three and charged with second degree murder. And
I'm going to give you this short version of the

(54:33):
story based on how I read it. There is some
kind of situation that seemed a bit like road rage
and another guy last named Fresquez fresqu Eaz, that's the
last name, who apparently was on drugs and carrying drugs
and carrying a gun. There's some kind of road rage thing.

(54:58):
They were tailgating each other and getting in front of
the other guy and hitting the brakes, and then I
think maybe one guy flipped off another guy. Anyway, then
Smith like pulled off somewhere to charge his tesla, I guess,
and the other guy, Fresquez, followed him, came at him

(55:21):
with a gun. Smith pepper sprayed him. The guy backed
off kind of sorta And this part is all a
little bit murky. But then Smith shot the guy Fresquez
twice in the back and Fresquez died and Smith was

(55:42):
charged with second degree murder. And what's interesting to me
about this story, even though the guy who died was
shot in the back, a jury acquitted Jeremy Smith, so
it was not it was not a hung jury was.
They deliberated for a while and they unanimously decided not guilty.

(56:06):
They unanimously decided that it was a legitimate a legitimate
example of self defense. Now, the assistant district attorney and
I think this is the denver. I think this is
a denver DA. I think said from the beginning, we

(56:27):
believed in this case and were compelled to present the
evidence that contradicted the defendants self defense claim, said Assistant
District Attorney Jennifer Rhodes. The complexities surrounding self defense claims
are often best addressed by a jury, as it allows
the community to uphold justice while evaluating individual actions against

(56:47):
shared societal expectations. We thank the jury for their service
throughout this important case. It's an interesting way to look
at it, isn't it. So it's an interesting line from
prosecutor as well. Allows the community to uphold justice while
evaluating individual actions against shared societal expectations. I actually don't

(57:13):
love that framing, but it's not entirely wrong in the
sense that prosecutors want to prosecute, and especially if you're
talking about a left leaning kind of district, they're gonna
want to go after most gun crimes unless it's committed

(57:34):
by a gang member or someone stealing a car and
then they don't care very much. That's only slightly sarcastic.
But in any case, they hate guns. They hate people
who use guns, except for real criminals. So they bring
these cases. And I will say, just to be fair
to the DA here, with the dead guy having been

(57:56):
shot in the back, and apparently at the moment that
he was shot, he wasn't holding his gun. He had
his gun in his waistband, you could see how someone
could say, all right, that's not self defense, and this
is why we have a jury. But the jury understood

(58:20):
that the guy had already come at Smith once, that
he seemed unbalanced, that he was, that he was he
was the aggressor, and on and on and on. So
I just think this isn't an interesting example of of
why we have juries. And I don't mean I don't
mean jury's always get it right, and I don't even

(58:42):
mean they got it right in this case. I don't
have an opinion. I don't know anything more about the
case than what I just shared with you, but I
do find it very interesting. I find it very interesting
that a guy who shot someone else in the back,
that other person wasn't holding a gun, although he knew

(59:02):
he had a gun, was acquitted by a jury, and
again I think it's Denver First Judicial District, and and
I guess i'll all say there then is thanks to
the jury as well for your service. All right, let's
do something different. The past couple of days, we've had
producer A Rod on Anthony Rodriguez is covering Super Bowl

(59:26):
week for us. He's down there in New Orleans. And
by the way, thank you very much to Chevron Colorado
for supporting this effort and A Rod's reporting.

Speaker 2 (59:35):
And all that.

Speaker 1 (59:36):
So, A Rod, when we talked yesterday, you said there
was potentially some big things that might be going on
after we talked yesterday. So I'm just wondering how the
rest of your day was.

Speaker 5 (59:46):
Hi Ross, Well, first off, just now, speaking of impeccable timing,
I quite literally just walked out of the immaculate Apple
Music halftime show press conference with Kendrick Lamar.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
Just now, what did you ask him? Uh? So, here's
the thing.

Speaker 5 (01:00:03):
I got a little tip from a birdie that I
think was probably high up the food chain with Apple
Music or something or other yesterday when I was asking
about details.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
Of this thing. Unfortunately, that detail was not good news.

Speaker 5 (01:00:15):
I learned that it was really more of a moderated
press conference aka all on the stage, so all of
us just to just to watch this same thing. So
that's the super Bowl nubie in me getting getting that news.
But it was still an awesome, an awesome time. They
obviously had all of the pregame performers and the national
anthem and everything of that sort, and then they brought

(01:00:35):
up Kendrick for a really cool Q and A. This
this guy's a humble man. He's he's he's he's he's
a he's a good dude.

Speaker 2 (01:00:41):
To listen to.

Speaker 5 (01:00:42):
They chat with him about what this what this haf
time show is going to be like, Uh, he said,
it's gonna be you know, it's gonna be about storytelling.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
It's gonna be him being him in the present.

Speaker 5 (01:00:51):
And uh, I mean, like I said, I I really
haven't listened to Kendrick thought. They even said he doesn't
really like to do interviews that much, but maybe he
should do more of him because that was an intriguing conversation. Granted,
even for his sake, a little a little expletive laden
he keeked, I mean, he tried to temper it down
a bit, but uh it was still a good one.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
Uh. So you posted an interesting video on on k
House social media channels. I saw it on x formerly
known as Twitter, asking people what they thought about the
I don't know if it's more than a rumor now
that Donald Trump would be at the at the Super Bowl.
Tell us about asking talking to people about that.

Speaker 5 (01:01:31):
Yeah, so, so I believe if I read correctly, I
think the White House.

Speaker 2 (01:01:35):
I could be wrong.

Speaker 5 (01:01:36):
I believe the White House confirmed that Donald Trump will
indeed be the first sitting US president to attend a
Super Bowl. A lot of people, including myself, well, haven't
presence gone to the Super Bowl, and never a sitting one.
There have been presidents that have gone, but never while
actively in office. So for those either visiting New Orleans
or those from New Orleans, I wanted to get kind
of the word on the street from those that are

(01:01:57):
going to be directly affected by the security increase or
just the vibe or maybe an increase in a different
crowd for Trump being here in New Orleans for the
big Game on Sunday.

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
It was it was a pretty mixed bag.

Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
I you know, I definitely ran into people both in
New Orleans and not that that that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
Are a big fan of Trump and love that he's there.

Speaker 5 (01:02:16):
I had one guy tell me, you know, honestly, I
think it's important for the for the sitting president to
attend an event like this. I mean, this is the biggest,
the biggest stage here in the United States. I'd other
people kind of tell me, yeah, maybe not so much,
kind of prefer that he not be here. One guy
told me, you know, uh, increased risk, but not really
because of Trump, more so just you know, increased security,
just because of what happened obviously on Bourbon Street.

Speaker 2 (01:02:39):
So it was a bit of a mixed bag.

Speaker 5 (01:02:40):
But but overall, I think it's you know, he's coming,
it sounds like he's coming. Regardless of that, it doesn't
it doesn't really matter what people think.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
Yeah, right, No. I I was surprised to learn that
no sitting president had been to a super Bowl before.
I was a little surprised by that. And I do
think the massive amount of extra security is to be
annoying and inconvenient for a lot of people. But you know,
I think it's I think it's worth it to have

(01:03:08):
the president there. And and I also think, as you
just mentioned, given what happened in New Orleans just a
few weeks ago. I think it's all the more important
for the president to show up at which reminds me, uh,
tell us a little bit about as another post. I
saw of yours of what you saw on the street
that really you said, like took your breath away.

Speaker 5 (01:03:31):
Yeah, yeah, it doesn't. It doesn't happen too often. But
I wanted to go to Bourbon Street you kind of
get a feel of things.

Speaker 2 (01:03:36):
I hadn't yet gone.

Speaker 5 (01:03:37):
It just goes out and so slammed over here and
in a convention center and over at the stadium. I
want to go to Bourbon Street and kind of get
a feel for what it's like down there. After after
a couple months, uh you know, since that attack, and
and honestly I was not prepared for for what I
turned the corner and saw that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Mind you, I was just here in November.

Speaker 5 (01:03:53):
So I was at a hotel that was rolms near
the intersection of I believe it's can Aalen Bourbon could
have the intersection drawing, but right near Bourbon and where
this driver initially turned on the Bourbon and began in
the rampage right as I turned immediately breath took away.

Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
I saw the best.

Speaker 5 (01:04:11):
Equivalent I can say, and again al due respect to
the common use of this when it comes to nine
to eleven, but it had a ground zero feel because
there isn't official memorial yet, there isn't any statues yet.
What's there is a big cross for every live loss
in that attack, and just littered with flowers and beads

(01:04:31):
and all kinds of written messages on the walls on
the crosses. I'm gonna be honest with Rossay, I'm getting
a little choked up now mentioning it. I stood there
for like ten fifteen minutes just taking it in and
being near tears because it was such an emotional, just
somber scene with so many individuals on Bourbon stopping and
seeing this.

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
And again it was nothing official.

Speaker 5 (01:04:55):
It's just the people that come together and put place
this for there right at the start of Bourbon's mind.
You now with a much increased police presence, looks like
what to be military personnel, mine particular what branch they
were at, but big blockades, whether it be the cars
or like you know, utility vehicles blocking so many intersections.

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
Such an increased security, so I.

Speaker 5 (01:05:18):
Personally I walked on the sidewalk, you know, as I
walked down Bourbon Street, just for my own kind of
safety and to make myself feel a bit more safe
and better about the situation.

Speaker 2 (01:05:26):
But yeah, the memorial was just super moving.

Speaker 1 (01:05:30):
Wow. All right, I want to switch gears for you
with you for a second and ask you what I've
been asking listeners this morning. What was your favorite television
show when you were a little kid?

Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
My favorite television show when I was a kid?

Speaker 5 (01:05:45):
On the spot? Man, I had so many? Can I
just cop out and just say the guys interviewed SpongeBob
and Patrick with Nickelodeon. Know, seriously, I am totally drawing
the blink right now, so I'm probably gonna just stick.
I literally did watch SpongeBob probably all freaking time in
terms of an animated show. But you know, I'm gonna
probably watch one of the old you know, DC shows

(01:06:06):
of Justice League or something else, Marvel, something nerdy that
man answers beyond Batman beyond Yes, all of this?

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
Is that all the nerdy?

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
Is that a cartoon? Correct?

Speaker 4 (01:06:19):
It is?

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
Yes? I like the Batman. That wasn't the cartoon back
in that West Adam West? Yeah? Oh, yeah, gold legend. Yeah,
it is legend. You're you're a little young, a little
young for that. It's it's kind of funny. I mean,
so a Rod is much older than my kids, but
but much younger than me. And so it's funny because
I hear you say, you know SpongeBob, and to me,

(01:06:43):
it's like, like, that's what a kid would watch today.

Speaker 3 (01:06:46):
SpongeBob is still the nineties show, is it?

Speaker 5 (01:06:50):
The kids need to watch sponge because the trashy, the
trashy cartoons today are not worth watching.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
So they need to still be watching SpongeBob.

Speaker 1 (01:07:00):
That very clear. And now you've interviewed your hero. All right,
give me best I've done. Give me seventeen seconds on
what you're doing for the rest of the day.

Speaker 5 (01:07:10):
I am currently staring at a sign that says Fox
Sports Media Day check in, which means I'm about to
go up this escalaire and hopefully get signed up to
have a chat with Kevin Burkhar. But more importantly, Tom Brady,
who's going to be on the call of Super Bowl
fifty nine on Sunday. The rest of the Fox Sports
crew is going to be here as well for a
little Q and a so I'm not really sure what's
going to tell yet, but I'd love to get Tom's

(01:07:30):
thoughts on on the Broncos, on bo Nix, on what
he believes about you know a lot of people mentioned
in the go conversation for Pat Mahome, especially if he
wins his fourth Super Bowl, how's he feel about potentially
being replaced in that in that vein, I'm sure he's
got a stock answer Ray to go for him, but
we see he has to say, and then I'll pop
down him for Rady Row for a little bit before
I head on back to Denver on a plane later

(01:07:52):
this evening.

Speaker 1 (01:07:54):
That's a Rod Anthony Rodriguez reporting from New Orleans. Thanks
to Chevron Colorado for making a Rod's trip and reporting possible.
A Rod, have fun, safe travels, see you soon, thanks Ernie.

Speaker 2 (01:08:06):
I am ready to come home.

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
All right. Oh one quick correction, And I knew I
had it wrong when I was saying it, but a
bunch of listeners pointed out the first judicial district that
shooting that I was talking about before we were talking
to a Rod. That's Jefferson County, Denver is this second
judicial district. So that story I was telling you about
that's Jeff conat Denver. In any case, the rest of
its stands will take a quick break, will be right

(01:08:31):
back on Kowa. The reason Dragon is playing that is
I've been asking you, and I would love to hear
from you if you haven't texted in already. At five
six six nine zero, what was your favorite TV show
when you were a kid? I got a text from
my friend Tom, who and I can relate to this Dragon.
Check this out, so he said, He said, I loved

(01:08:51):
the Flintstones. Second would be The Bugs, Bunny and Roadrunner Hour.
And then he says, he says, Ross, how is it
I can remember the theme songs from all these old
cartoons and sitcoms, but I can't remember what I ate
for dinner last night.

Speaker 3 (01:09:10):
I have no idea what my wife's phone number is.
But yeah, sure enough, I can take the whole ducktails.

Speaker 1 (01:09:14):
Dam uh huh. Isn't that weird? There is a real
answer between long term memory and short term memory. There
is a real answer. But I said to Tom, I
have the same problem. I have exactly the same problem.
There is still a ton of stuff to do on
today's show. Let me do this one now. It's not
really a serious story. But I dig it. And you
may have seen this on the news already, dragon, did

(01:09:37):
you hear about this painting that was bought at a
garage sale for fifty bucks? So somebody bought a painting
at a garage sale in Minnesota for fifty dollars, and
I think that person later sold the painting to some
sort of group of art experts. And now after years

(01:09:59):
of analysis, they think they think that it may be
a van go Or if you were in Holland or Belgium,
you would say van Hoch and say you would pronounce
his name, but don't try that if you've never had
Hebrew lessons, or don't speak to your German right exactly
van Hoch.

Speaker 3 (01:10:18):
Imagine being at the garage still going, hey, it's no
Van Goh, trying to get the price lower end, yeah, and.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
Then it is, and then it is. So they think
it might be of vun Koch and they think it
could be worth maybe fifteen million dollars from a television
station WCAX. They say a critical clue is in the piece.
A single hair was discovered embedded in the painting surface,
which researchers used to analyze DNA and find a descendant. Now,

(01:10:50):
I bet you think the next thing I'm gonna say
is this hair was traced to a distant cousin of
you know, THEO van Go fun Hall of Vincent's brother.
But in fact the result was inconclusive because of time
and environmental exposure. However, they were able to detect male DNA,

(01:11:13):
so they know a man's hair was stuck in the painting.
So I don't know that that eliminates about what fifty
percent of the population, and it still could be the
other fifty percent anyway, That's one of the reasons they
think it might be a van Go. They also found
a finishing on the surface of the canvas that van

(01:11:34):
Go used to protect his other canvases. Anyway, right now
they think kind of maybe more likely than not that
it's that it's a van Go. It's a it's an
interesting look in painting too. It's a fisherman. Uh So
there you go. Oh can you know what? Can I
just bore you with something for Wait? Can I waste
your time for a second? I mean, I suppose it

(01:11:54):
is the Ross Kaminski show. Okay, So you know I
said fun Hoch and then you made fun of that.
Which which you should. I was trying to say, Oh,
it just doesn't work. So this is kind of a
fun thing. And I learned this when I lived in
Amsterdam and I was taking Dutch lessons because I wanted
to get a Dutch girlfriend, which I did successfully dose
and they all speak English, so I didn't need to

(01:12:15):
speak Dutch, but I wanted to anyway, especially because you know,
if you go out and have a few beers with people,
mostly they revert to their own language. This is a thing. Gosh,
I'm way off on a tangent. Plus you hit on
a girl in her own language, I know, noice? Yeah, nice,
So this is did you say noise? Noisee noice? So
this is the thing though, the Dutch, especially you know,
people our age and younger, they all speak English and

(01:12:39):
they like speaking English. So even when i'd go, you know,
go out to beers with friends, when you would think
they'd get a little bit drunk and revert to Dutch,
they actually didn't all that much. They could keep going
in English. But I wanted to speak Dutch, so and
partly for the reason Dragon just said, And so I did.
And I didn't become fluent in Dutch, but I it

(01:13:00):
was good enough to like make my way around town
and ask what I needed to ask and even have
a little bit of a conversation, and I was that
was fine, And it did help that I had Hebrew
lessons as a kid because of that guttural you know,
fun sound which which exists in Hebrew. Like for example,
we talk about if you're gonna have a drink with
a jew and you toast and you say lochaiam, that's

(01:13:22):
that same sound lachaiam, which means to life. By the way,
in case you're wondering, my favorite is tukas tokas. Yeah,
tukas is a good one. I'll let we'll let people
look that up. So the story, So, first of all,
I think that I have done an amazing job already

(01:13:42):
dragon wasting your time by just warming up to the
actual time wasting story. We're not even at the story.
Were not even at the story yet, and I've probably
taken close to three minutes. Isn't that like it might
be semi professional radio, it's a tear to the eye.
It might be semi professional radio, but it's absolutely professional

(01:14:04):
time wasting. Don't you think we have skills? All right?
So here's the thing in World War Two Germans who
look like the Dutch and speak a language that's very
similar to Dutch. In fact, German in German is Deutsche.

(01:14:24):
They speak a language very similar to Dutch, and I
can understand some German because of learning some Dutch. They
would try to infiltrate Holland and pretend to be Dutch
so that they could, you know, learn whatever they wanted
to learn, learn where the resistance was, and so on,
and so what the one of the things that the

(01:14:47):
Dutch did in order to try to tell if somebody
was really German is they would start getting into a
conversation about some Dutch beach towns because it's on the Atlantic,
in the North Sea and so on, and they would
they would get into a conversation about beach towns and
and then a particular beach town and they would get

(01:15:09):
the person to say the name of the town because
Germans can't say it properly. And so if you get
the German to, you know, say the name, and they
you know, they can't quite do it, you know you're
dealing with a German spy. The name of the town
is Safening aing, Okay, rolls right, off the tongue safening

(01:15:30):
and uh, I'm pronouncing it Okay. I don't think anyone
would think I was Dutch. They wouldn't think I was
German either, But it's that's an interesting that's an interesting
little historical tidbit. One one way that the Dutch tried
to figure out who was a German spy was getting
him to say the name of that beach town Ken
Carl Ken, Carroll thing. If you say it the wrong way,

(01:15:53):
you're a German spy, all right, text us at five
six six nine zero, and tell us what was your
favorite your favorite tell show when you were a kid,
Fat Albert and Jackson five. Yeah, that was that was
a good one. That that was definitely a good one.
F Troop, McHale's Navy, three Stooges, Hogan's hero Is, Looney Tunes.
That's all from one person, Johnny Quest not a bad show,

(01:16:17):
not a bad show. Favorite cartoonist speed Racer mind too.
My imaginary friends as a child were Chim, Chim and Sprittle.
I was also a huge fan of Underdog and Tennessee Tuxedo.
Oh so what Dragon was saying before? By the way,
and then I'm gonna move on from the TV thing
for a minute. But my favorite TV show of all

(01:16:38):
time not so much when I was seven, But my
favorite TV show of all time is Get Smart. And
I'm not asking you to tell me right now what
is your favorite TV show of all time because that's
too many TV questions in one day. But Dragon had asked,
is it? Is it Get Smart? And that is my
favorite show ever? But that's right, But but it's I
wouldn't say that was my show when I was when

(01:17:00):
I was a little kid. Let's see what else? What
else I want to share with you here? Oh if
folks who listen to shows like this might also be
online and you know, in social media and getting news
stories that way, and I wanted to just let you
know about a story that, on the one hand, isn't great,
but on the other hand, isn't also what it seemed
like yesterday. So you've probably heard of this website called Politico,

(01:17:23):
and it's quite a big website that a few years
ago was bought by a German media conglomerate called Axel Springer,
and they're quite prominent, quite well sourced here in the US,
and they have a regular product that anybody can go
on their website and read the news stories, and then

(01:17:44):
they have some higher ends subscription products where they put
kind of the best sourced information that other people just
wouldn't have, wouldn't know, and they put that behind a paywall,
and you got to buy a subscription for Politico Pro
and other things like that. Yesterday, there was a story
making its way around the interwebs with some conservative I

(01:18:09):
don't know, social media influencer types calling for protests the
Politico office is. Basically was reported that USAID had had
given Politico eight million dollars. So that was how it
was being reported at first, And of course that would
look like the federal government buying influence with a major

(01:18:33):
news outlet, and it's a very bad look. And so
I wanted to just share a couple of things with you.
So Politico did not get eight million dollars from USAID.
They did get some number of thousands of dollars from USAID,
and I don't know why, and it's probably improper, okay

(01:18:57):
for that, unless it's just a subscription for some but
even then, I'm not sure why USAID needs that subscription.
The eight million dollar number that Politico has received was
for the high end subscriptions to some of their other
services from different departments of government over ten or eleven years. Now,

(01:19:20):
I want to make something really clear. I'm not saying
it's okay for the federal government to spend let's say,
three quarters of a million dollars a year on subscriptions
for this website. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It
seems like a lot to me, so there is something

(01:19:41):
legit there. But I also don't like it when stories
that are not true, like USAID gave them eight million dollars,
take on lives of their own. There's some other stuff,
and again you got to be really careful online and
not necessarily trust everything. But one pretty well known right

(01:20:01):
of center guy on Twitter or x says the here,
let me just find this. The US government gave the
New York Times tens of millions of dollars over just
the past five years, despite paying relatively little money to
The New York Times in the years before twenty twenty one.
For instance, in August of twenty twenty four, the US
government awarded four point one million dollars two of the

(01:20:22):
New York Times. The bulk of funds came from the
US Department of Health and Human Services at almost twenty
seven million, followed by the National Science Foundation in nineteen million.
And you know, we'll have to We'll have to see
this will be investigated, All of this stuff will be investigated.
Money to the Associated press as well, And it's I

(01:20:47):
think it's really important that we need to know, because
it's easy to wonder and it's a legitimate question. For example,
with the New York Times, did the Bide administration start
funneling a bunch of money to this newspaper in order
to get them to do whatever they wanted the administration

(01:21:08):
to say about COVID, for example, or as a reward,
as a reward for promulgating the administration's lies and efforts
at censorship and all the other terrible stuff the Bide
administration did around COVID. So I really want to know
about US government spending, whether it's on subscriptions or donations

(01:21:31):
or whatever to media outlets. I really want to know
the political the Politico story is probably not quite what
it seemed, but there are serious questions to be at.
When we come back, nerd out with me with football data.

Speaker 4 (01:21:44):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
Wow, I had completely forgotten about Captain cave Man. Popped
up quite a bit of text. Captain Caveman was pretty cool.
All right. You all know that I love the NFL,
the Broncos, who apparently are not playing this weekend, and
I'm a data nerd. I love numbers and statistics and

(01:22:09):
probabilities and all this stuff. So I'm super excited to
have joining me for the first time on KOA Rick Weiner,
who does who does statistics for Broncos road games, but
for the second year in a row, he's going to
be keeping stats for the Kansas City Chiefs Spanish language broadcast.

(01:22:30):
And you've seen or heard Rick or his work on
basically all the major sports broadcasting networks. So let's nerd
out together. Hi, Rick, Welcome to KOA again.

Speaker 4 (01:22:42):
Thanks much, It's good to be with you.

Speaker 1 (01:22:44):
Yeah. Are you sitting in New Orleans right now?

Speaker 4 (01:22:47):
I am. Indeed, I am in the Convention Center as
we speak, and I fortunately found a quiet place, which
isn't always an easy thing to do in New Orleans,
but I found a good spot for us to talk today.

Speaker 1 (01:23:00):
So before we get into specific stuff about the Super
Bowl and score, Agami's and all, but you're you're a
medical doctor.

Speaker 4 (01:23:08):
Right, That is correct? A psychiatrist in real life.

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
And you're still practicing, you have patients I do.

Speaker 4 (01:23:16):
I have been in private practice forty years, believe it
or not, and it's been an interesting, you know, combination
of doing the psychiatry my day job, you might say,
and they're doing stats. I often say that I bring
new meaning to the term analyst in the booth when
I am working at a game, and it's been great fun.

(01:23:40):
I always tell people it's my therapy to work at games.
And I've been working at games since I was fifteen
years old, so it's been a long, long ride, but
a great one.

Speaker 1 (01:23:49):
Wow. So in addition to the you know, the medical
science side of your brain, are are you like a
numbers nerd?

Speaker 4 (01:24:00):
You could say that when it comes to sports, and
certainly with football, it's gotten that way because I work
so many football games. Yeah, I really enjoy it. I
always like to look for things that help explain with
the numbers why a game is going the way it's going.
I always have that feeling. No two games are alike.
You never see the same one twice. And I kind

(01:24:22):
of asked myself, you know, well, why is this game
different from all these others? And why is it going
the way that it's going. So that's a question that
I sort of asked myself throughout the course of the
game when I'm looking for trends of the game, possible records,
and just kind of quirky stats that might come up
along the way too.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
All Right, we'll get to that in one second. So
just one other thing I want to ask you. So
you're doing the Spanish language broadcast for the Super Bowl
for the Chiefs. How do you need to know Spanish
to do that? How did you get connected with the
Spanish language broadcast to begin with?

Speaker 4 (01:24:57):
Well, I'm from Kansas City originally, and I had met
these Spanish network announcers last year and we had talked
about the idea of me possibly working postseason games with them,
and I ended up doing the AFC Championship Game in
Baltimore with them and then the Super Bowl in Vegas.
So I guess I was a good luck charm in

(01:25:17):
a sense for them, so they figured, Oh, if they're
going back, let's do it again. So I've done their
broadcast for the postseason games against both Houston and then
against Buffalo, so I guess they're hoping I can make
it five in a row with them in postseason by
working the game this weekend.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
So when you're doing this for that broadcast in particular,
do you go on the air or do you know?

Speaker 4 (01:25:41):
No, No, I have a headset much like I do
when I'm working with the Dave and Rick during the
Broncos broadcasts, and I give them information as we go along.
Of course, I'll write down notes and sticky note cards
and index cards, coming very handy during the course of broadcasts. Fortunately,
they are bilingual, the chiefs announcers. I'm pretty good on

(01:26:02):
numbers in Spanish, but my six years of French that
much help when it comes to working with it. I'm
glad I don't have to explain things in Spanish, but
the numbers I'm usually pretty okay with.

Speaker 1 (01:26:14):
That's funny. Yeah, six or seven years of French for
me too. And by the way, folks, if you want
to ask the Broncos stats guy a question about football stats,
Broncos stats, super Bowl stats, any of it, text me
your questions at five six, six nine zero, And as
always I do not guarantee to ask every question, but

(01:26:34):
I will do my best to ask the good ones.
So as you head into as we head into this
Super Bowl. First, let me start with my own stats question,
and then I want to ask you what you're looking
at it. So, as a Broncos fan, I don't want
the Chiefs to win, but I also think that the

(01:26:54):
Philadelphia Eagles have the worst fans in the United States
of America, and so I want them to lose two.
And I just I haven't gone through to look at
the data, but I'm curious if you can tell me
in what percent of the previous fifty eight Super Bowls
that we have had, in what percent of those have

(01:27:15):
both teams lost, because I don't think it's happened too
many times.

Speaker 4 (01:27:18):
I don't think it has either. I mean, we've had
two games now that went through four quarters of play
and neither team had lost at that point. We've had
two overtime Super Bowls, but other than that, no, I
think there's usually a winner and a team that doesn't win.
But we had we didn't have an overtime game in
the Super Bowl until Super Bowl fifty one when the

(01:27:39):
Bronco Broncos. But when the Patriots came back from a
twenty five points episode against the chief against I'm saying
the Chiefs, I'm getting the two teams mixed up against
the Falcons and then ended up winning an overtime and
then last year's game when the forty nine ers got
the ball to open overtime, but the Chiefs came back
and got a touchdown instead of a field goal to
win that game.

Speaker 2 (01:27:59):
So we've had.

Speaker 4 (01:28:00):
Overtime games, but those are the only two, and teams
were at least tied at the end of sixty minutes
of play.

Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
Yeah, if you can find a way to cause them
both to lose, please let me know, and I'd be
very grateful for that. So let's jump in a little
more now. As you're doing your prep for this game
and thinking about key statistics that you think will really
play a role in this game, or that you're keeping
an eye on, or that are just fascinating, what are

(01:28:27):
some of the top things on your mind right now.

Speaker 4 (01:28:30):
Well, a couple of things jump out. For one thing,
it's important to look at how the two teams have
been playing. But I also like to look at trends
that have occurred in the Super Bowl itself. I've really
compiled my own record book, you might say, about the
Super Bowl, and there are certain things that kind of
jump out at you that are more predictive, you might say,
of who's going to win the game in the Super Bowl,

(01:28:51):
probably the most predictive stat is winning the turnover battle
and winning points off of turnovers. That has only been
the reverse in seven of the fifty eight games so far,
so that's a real good predictor. Some other things aren't
terribly predictive. For example, a time of possession. You know,

(01:29:13):
we've seen it where for example, when the Rams won
a Super Bowl thirty four against Tennessee, they had the
ball in twenty two minutes and thirty four seconds and
yet they won the game because they ended up with
a really big play to win the game with they're
winning touchdown Pitt Warner to Isaac Grooce for example. Meanwhile,
Tennessee ran in a ton of plays, but they didn't

(01:29:35):
end up getting the win. So time of possession is
probably less predictive. But one of the things I also
look for are one of the trends in the postseason
this year, and one of the things that really jumps
out is indeed turnovers. That the games that have been
played thus far, and we've had twelve games in the postseason,
the winning teams are plus twenty one in turnovers, the

(01:29:59):
winning teams i have only turned the ball over four times,
while the losing teams have turned it over twenty five times.
So that's a huge discrepancy. And in fact, when the
Chiefs defeated Buffalo a week and a half ago, that
was the only time so far in the postseason that
a team was on the minus side on the turnover
ratio and ended up winning the game. Chiefs had one turnover,

(01:30:22):
Buffalo did not. So I know that's something that I
think really jumps out. The points off turnovers so far,
it's staggering. There only been ten points squared off turnovers
by the losing teams, while the winning teams have scored
sixty one I think it is now so it's i'm sorry,

(01:30:43):
sixty one to three, not sixty one to ten. So
I mean, that's just a major, major item. One thing
that also jumps out with respect to the two teams.
You can't help but notice with Philadelphia if they're running
game obviously, say from Barkley, a huge difference over what
they had a couple of years ago, when you know,
Hurts was arguably the best player on the field when

(01:31:06):
the two teams played in the Super Bowl two years ago.
But to think that so far in this season, Philadelphia
has had twenty three twenty yard rushes and I don't
know of another team in the league has had much
more than ten. I mean, the Chiefs have only had

(01:31:26):
in the regular season, they had I think it was nine.
So the capability of the big rushing plays certainly stands out.
Be interesting to see if the Chiefs can hold that
down with Barkley as well as with Herts. So you know,
that to me is really staggering that the Eagles have

(01:31:46):
had seventy five explosive plays of twenty yards or more
counting pass plays as well as rushing plays, and that's
just a tremendous number. And you compare that to two
Chiefs have had fifty and the Sheeps, you know, we
kind of think of them when they first started really

(01:32:06):
getting good with Mahomes that they had all these explosive plays,
they had Tyreek Hill as a receiver, but they really
have not gone the explosive player route all that much
so far this season. So you know, those are just
a couple of things that really sort of jump out
at me. And one of the things we've seen so
far in the postseason, which I think is sort of interesting.

(01:32:29):
Scoring first hasn't necessarily been a blessing to the teams.
In the twelve games that have been played in the postseason,
the team scoring first is only six and six. The
second quarter has really turned it around because the team
leading at half is eleven and oh with one game
being tied at halftime. Well, you know, it all kind

(01:32:49):
of goes along with what we've seen just historically with
the Super Bowl that the first quarter is the lowest
scoring quarter of the four in the Super Bowl, and
the second quarter has typically even the highest scoring. So
that's something that you can kind of watch for. I mean,
teams generally get off to a pretty slow start when
the Super Bowl's played. Only twelve teams out of the

(01:33:12):
fifty nine games, so one hundred and eighteen opportunities have
scored on the opening drive of a game, so it's
it's not real common. Although it's interesting when these two
teams played two years ago, both teams scored touchdowns on
their opening drives and that is very unusual in the
Super Bowl.

Speaker 1 (01:33:30):
A bunch of my listeners are wondering whether you bet
on sports.

Speaker 4 (01:33:37):
No, The answer is no, and I don't play fantasy
football either. I think I see enough of it in
reality that I really don't go in for the fantasy part.
But no, I do not bet on sports. I never have.
It's kind of fun to try to predict to you
think might win, but I'm probably not any better doing
that than somebody throwing a dart at a forward and

(01:34:00):
trying to figure it out.

Speaker 1 (01:34:02):
So one of the things that I asked you by
email when we were setting up this conversation is what
are the odds of a score agami? And I'm wondering
if you've had time to do a little homework or
maybe you knew the answer already when I asked you
the question.

Speaker 4 (01:34:19):
Well I did both. I knew part of that answer,
and I also did some additional homework to address that question.
And for those who might not be familiar with the
score agami idea, it's basically having a game that ends
in a score that has never happened before, and there
are I think it's just under fourteen hundred score possibilities

(01:34:43):
that haven't happened yet with a team scoring up to
I think it was like fifty six points if I'm
not mistaken, So there were seven scoragami's during the season
so far going up till this They six during the
regular season and won in the postseason the Houston LA

(01:35:05):
Chargers game. It ended thirty two to twelve. That was
the first time that a game had ever ended with
that score. But one of the odds of that happening,
It's happened three times in the Super Bowl, and amazingly enough,
the Broncos were involved in all three of those. Not
necessarily a good thing, mind.

Speaker 1 (01:35:22):
You, we lost all of them.

Speaker 4 (01:35:24):
Yeah, those were all losses. The most recent one that
was a score of gami was a Super Bowl forty
eight when Seattle defeated the Broncos forty three to eight.
That was the first time that had ever happened. And
then in prior Super Bowls when the Giants defeated the
Broncos thirty nine to twenty, that was a score of goami.

(01:35:45):
And then going back a little bit further, when the
forty nine Ers defeated the Broncos fifty five to ten,
that two was a score of goami. And interestingly enough,
since those games were played, there haven't been any other
games that have ended with the those scores. So the
scorigamis have held up. Yeah, I'd say so. We're talking

(01:36:06):
about three out of fifty eight games so far, so
it's just a And of course I would note I.

Speaker 1 (01:36:12):
Would note that the the as the game progresses over
the years, score Agami's get rarer because more and more
games have been played and there are fewer available available scores.
I mean, obviously some scores remain very very rare, like
what you just said. None of those scores have ever
been repeated. And we just have about two minutes, about

(01:36:33):
two minutes left. And for those just joining, by the way,
we're talking with Rick Winer, who does the road game
statistics for the Broncos, and he's covering statistics for the
Kansas City Chief Spanish language broadcast on Sunday. So and
the reason this came up a listener texted me a
betting line on Scoreagami and if you want to bet
yes that there will be one. I think it paid

(01:36:55):
twenty eight to one. And I think if you wanted
to bet no, you had to give one hundred to one.
So the right odds are probably fifty or sixty or
seventy to one. But what have you found?

Speaker 4 (01:37:07):
Well, I mean it could happen, and I think it's
been more likely to happen for two main reasons in
recent years. One is the two point conversion, so games
ending with eight, for example, or something that's divisible by eight.
We're seeing a little bit more of that. Plus we've
seen some higher scoring games. I mean, when you look

(01:37:29):
at the six regular season games that were scoring gamis
of this past season, the fewest points scored by a
winning team was thirty two, and we had three games
when the winning team scored in the forties and then
the Lions scored fifty two in a fifty two to
six win over Jacksonville. So the fact that the offenses

(01:37:51):
have gotten so good in many instances and there are
a lot of high scoring games, it's more likely you're
going to see it on the high end of the
scoring as opposed to the really low end. You know,
we haven't seen a four nothing game yet, let's put
it that way.

Speaker 1 (01:38:04):
But what do you think the odds are? You know, however,
many to one, like just one number, what's the probability
of this happens?

Speaker 4 (01:38:11):
If it's been just over five percent so far in
the Super Bowl, then you know, if you want to
go based on that. What do you think twenty to one,
twenty five to one. I'm not sure. It's not very likely.
It tends, and like I say, it tends to happen
when one team really scores a lot of points. I
mean the three that have happened in the Super Bowl,

(01:38:32):
the winning teams have scored thirty nine, forty three, and
fifty five points. So do I think a A G
A game's going to end up with that highest score?
I had added, I mean as high power as the
offenses were. When the two teams played two years ago,
it was a thirty eight to thirty five game, which
certainly was not a score it got me. So I
have my doubts, but it's certainly fun to kind of

(01:38:53):
keep an eye on that.

Speaker 1 (01:38:54):
It sure is, it absolutely is. Rick Winer does statistics
for the Denver Broncos row games. He's covering Spanish language
broadcast for the Kansas City Chiefs in this Super Bowl
for the second year in a row. Have fun, Wreck,
Thanks for your time. I know you'll be back on
KWA with Mandy tomorrow, so she'll have lots of more
interesting nerdy questions for you.

Speaker 4 (01:39:15):
I'll look forward to it. Thanks very much, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:39:17):
We'll see you all right, good stuff. Gosh, I love that.
By the way, I think I maybe I need to
ask somebody else, but I think the odds of a
score of Gami are a lot longer than twenty five
to one, because you know, yes, it's happened in maybe
five percent of Super Bowls.

Speaker 6 (01:39:32):
Score a gami.

Speaker 1 (01:39:34):
Yeah, what is that? You don't know what a score
a Gomiami is? A score of goami is an NFL
game that ends in a score that has never happened
in the history of the NFL before. Yeah, and so yeah,
he said it's happened in five percent of Super Bowls,
but the last one was in twenty fourteen, So when
the you know, in the ten years since then, we've
had a whole bunch of score of gami, so there
are fewer of them available. So I I think it's

(01:39:56):
more like forty to one or something.

Speaker 6 (01:39:57):
Are you the prop that guy on Super Bowl Sunday?

Speaker 5 (01:39:59):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:40:00):
I don't want to hang out with you on Sunday.

Speaker 4 (01:40:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:02):
Now, you know what's really fun, especially when you want
both teams to lose, yeh, is you can bet on
this thing happening and that thing happening and not bet
on the score of the game and still be having
fun because I want both teams to lose. But Rick
said that has doesn't happen very often where both teams Lise.

Speaker 6 (01:40:16):
I mean you remember that SNL skit Dick call find
a way.

Speaker 1 (01:40:19):
Yeah, so make them both lose.

Speaker 6 (01:40:20):
I want the score to be forty seven to negative seventeen.

Speaker 1 (01:40:24):
Dick find a way. Rika, Yeah, I lived in Chicago
when he was the coach.

Speaker 6 (01:40:28):
I lived in Fort Myers when he lived in Fort Myers.
He was part the man about town. Really, yes, he was.
Everybody knew Mike Dick kas you got coming up a
whole bunch of stuff today. We are going to talk
a lot about some of the USA stuff coming out.
Did you read the Michael Schellenberger Do you follow you?

Speaker 1 (01:40:45):
You subscribe to public? No?

Speaker 6 (01:40:46):
Okay, just subscribe today. I've kind of been on the fence,
you know, because I'm like, really, another ten bucks a
month here we go. But he has a really long
story about how news organizations that were funded by SAID
and other governmental organizations did the exact same thing here
that the CIA does to destabilize governments overseas, like to

(01:41:09):
the T. So, I mean there's so much stuff floating
around right now. But isn't it fascinating to watch everybody
get mad at Elon Musk for showing us how we're
all being ripped off.

Speaker 1 (01:41:17):
All the time.

Speaker 6 (01:41:18):
I think, I mean talking about shoot the Messenger.

Speaker 1 (01:41:21):
Yeah. I also think the people who are mad about it,
I don't think they represent very many people.

Speaker 6 (01:41:27):
Don't you think the Democrats have painted themselves into a
do do you think all of this garbage spending?

Speaker 1 (01:41:32):
Yeah? I think I think the average like democrat. I
don't mean elected Democrats to human the human democrat man
on the street does not want his or her taxpayer
money going to an LGBT parade in Perule. Even if
you're pro LGBT, that's not what your taxpayer dollars should
be doing. All right, Everybody stick around for Mandy's fabulous show.

(01:41:54):
Talk to you tomorrow.