Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 10-29-25_WEDNESDAY_6AM

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

10-29-25_WEDNESDAY_6AM

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Klauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausordrilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. It is so great having you here this morning. Wheels up Wednesday, which means we talk with Eric Peters about the various issues going on. I guess another electric vehicle burned down a big building. I don't know if it burned down a house.

I think it actually burned down part of a factory. I think it was part of a GM factory. That's okay. No wonder your car insurance is soaring, right? They're thinking, oh, these electric vehicles on the road, rather. But anyway, we'll see. We'll be talking about that and get the latest reviews and a bunch more. And also, if you have a question about a vehicle you're looking at or anything else involving vehicles and politics and things, we'll kick that all around in about 20 minutes or so. Big politics and judicial stuff going on today. I'm going to be talking with an attorney, Leslie Corbly, and she's going to. and join me about 7.30. President Trump is filing now to appeal that Stormy Daniels conviction. That's the one that ended up by getting him branded the felon, you know, that kind of thing. This is the one in which the prosecutors essentially were performing limboes under the law stick or something like that, you know, trying to say that, you know, that, well, essentially taking very, very old law in. and then things that should have just gone away completely. But anyway, Leslie, we'll talk all about it.

It was just, it was a big deal. It was a big deal. And frankly, a big judicial fraud. But we'll see what Leslie, the attorney, seems to think about that, too. Also, we have the state of Oregon suing the Trump administration. About half of the states in the country are suing the Trump administration because they're claiming that they're unlawfully, that the United States is unlawfully denying them the food stamp money.

the Oregon Trail card money. And I'm trying to figure out what is the legal justification because this, in essence, is a gift from the United States taxpayer going into the states and then the states end up administering the food stamp or the Oregon Trail is how we know it here. The Oregon Trail program. So instead of pressuring the Democrats just to get the continuing resolution, rather the clean CR in getting the 15% or so of the government that is technically closed right now, getting that open again and getting the money flowing into the food stamp grease cards.

Instead, they're going to sue the Trump administration. I don't know how they make that stick, but this is Oregon and this is insurance Scheister, Dan Rayfield, who is now the AG, so we'll see where this is going. Leslie and I will talk about that and more coming up here. Meanwhile, we have this push to get National Guards troops. That whole thing is going to be going to court today. Now, the Ninth Circuit, now actually there's a couple of separate cases, a couple of separate cases going on here.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will be reviewing whether to uphold Karen Emmergritz case, you know, the Portland judge area that Barr's president, Donald Trump from sending National Guard troops to Portland. So they are going to review this. So it's going to be an 11 judge panel that will end up all of them. A majority of the 29 active judges will be taking a look at that. Oregon Live reporting this morning, though, that there's a three-day trial that Emergut is going to be conducting in Portland starting today on the underlying merits

of having the Oregon National Guard and California National Guard, City of Portland's challenge to Trump's mobilization. of National Guard troops. So they're going to be trying that case over the next three days right now. And essentially, Portland is saying that the Trump administration caused the trouble by trying to bring the troops here. That's essentially what they're saying. That in other words, quit hitting me, quit hitting me because I'm having to hit you back. But I'm just holding your hand back. It's just an amazing, an amazing story. And that's where we're going. And there is yet another, I mean, there's just so many lawsuits flying back and forth in the air here over the Trump administration.

And there's a group that I've actually been in favor of. I've actually received their briefs for a long, long time, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, EFF. And they popped me in email this morning. And what it is is, let's sue the government. Okay, so they're going to be suing the Trump. administration. I was trying, okay, what is EFF suing the Trump administration for? Well, this is interesting. This is a lawsuit that they're filing to stop the U.S. government. What they're saying is the U.S. government's viewpoint-based surveillance of online speech. This is what they're claiming.

I'm just taking this from their release. I'm going to have to see if I can get some of them on the air to talk about this further. But they're claiming if free speech only applies, to opinions the government approves of, it's not really that free, is it? The basic concept seems to be lost on the Trump administration, which is using the threat of immigration enforcement to suppress dissent online. This year, they're claiming the government launched a sprawling surveillance program to spy on the social media activity of millions of non-citizens and punish those who express views it doesn't like.

This unconstitutional surveillance program is wrong and we're suing to stop it. They're claiming since taking power the Trump administration has created the mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by non-citizens who are lawfully present

in the United States. What they do is that they use AI and automated tech and it's surveyed and what they do they spy on the social media accounts and other online speech of visa holders with a goal of identifying and punishing those who express viewpoints the government doesn't like. This has been paired with a public intimidation campaign silencing not just non-citizens with immigration status,

but also the families, co-workers, and friends with whom their lives are integrated. Let's think about this. Hmm. So EFF, Electronic Freedom Foundation is upset because the Trump administration is watching the speech of people who are granted the privilege of being here. And if their behavior, if their speech is not satisfactory to the Trump administration, then apparently they work on maybe kicking them out. or if they are illegal aliens, I would imagine, then ICE knows, well, hey, here's a happy hunting ground to go visit. Is this a hill to die on?

The way I understand it, if you are granted a visa and you're allowed to stay here, you're supposed to behave really well. That's the way I have always understood it. Is that not the case? You're supposed to be behaving. You're supposed to be behaving. And it is a privilege to be here. It is not a right to be here.

And the other thing they're complaining about is that the federal government is surveilling the speech of essentially illegal aliens. Illegal aliens who are, in essence, outing themselves by going on Instagram or Facebook or whatever it is. and blathering against the administration. I don't know, folks. I'm thinking you're almost asking for it if you're doing this. And if you are an illegal immigrant, if you are an illegal alien, maybe you should shut your mouth. I'm not convinced that opening your mouth and talking about,

hey, you know, I'm going to say against this, Trump's a big meeting, and this and that and the other, and I should be able to stay here no matter what. And, yeah, everybody else should be paying for my kids' school. Yeah, I'm on welfare. It doesn't matter. but, you know, hey, I have a right to be here. I mean, isn't that really what we're talking about?

I don't know if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is barking up the right tree this particular time. I don't know if you have an opinion on it. Now, I know what they may come back and say is that, well, Bill, you know, first they came for the illegal aliens. Do you think that's a good argument? I don't know. But that's the latest lawsuit, the latest lawfare. Going in there. Boy, there's just a lot of stuff. Attorneys must be loving the Trump administration.

There must be a lot of money in some of this sort of stuff. Speaking of attorneys and other things going on, Oregonian reporting this morning that Grant's past provider, River Grand, has settled a health care fraud charge with the state. I guess they're going to get probation here. Now, Reaver Gran is a provider for intellectually and developmentally disabled Oregonians. They've settled this fraud case here. They pleaded no contest the other day to account of making a false claim for health care payment, and they're going to go on probation for up to four years after which the state will seek to close the case with no guilty finding.

And so they'll get an outside monitor to confirm its prior owners who are still facing criminal charges for Medicaid fraud, that they have no role in the business. So it's the former owners, apparently, of Reaver Grant of that care group. And another care group is under attack here. Road Valley Times reporting the $10 million wrongful death suit in that case of Medford caregiver Barba, who was also known who was known, rather, as Bobby Colotta. That will be moving forward. And remember she was beaten up in the care home? It's one of those halfway houses.

But anyway, what happened is that Jackson County Circuit Court Judge David or denied a motion by grants pass-based partnerships and community, living to dismiss the civil suit on behalf of her estate. This is a $10 million wrongful death case, and Orhup upheld the request for dismissal by the state ODDS. So Judge David Orr, it ruled on this on Monday afternoon. It's a $10 million wrongful death civil lawsuit. And RV Times ended up profiling that case there a couple of years ago. And essentially, you had Kalata, who was a...

a pretty small woman. She was working alone at a night shift at a group home in Medford. This was back February of 2023. She got beaten up by one of the big guys, one of the big, you know, inmates, if you want to call it that, or clients. That's the way they always talk about that in the, in the non-profit world. And then she was in the ICU for a number of weeks and ended up dying from that. And the claim is that she never should have been alone and there should have been more people and I don't know the the Bobby Collada death to me seems to more than indicate that it's the de-institutionalizing of our culture I think that has really caused problems because you know this halfway house or this resident home this care home kind of model or something

like that. The way it was with this intellectually disabled person, they really belonged in an institution. I mean, a real institution. And our society, in my opinion, has yet to come to grips with this, along with, you know, the crazy and the unhinged and the drug addicted and all the rest. We've decided that it's much better to have a little house, halfway houses, and resident care homes and neighborhoods, et cetera, et cetera. In my opinion, I think what's needed is a re-institutionalizing of the country. And when people are big and potentially violent, they're at a place which is able to handle big and potentially violent people.

We don't have five-foot, four-inch-tall grandmothers in charge of watching potentially violent people. That's the way I see that. But that's just a symptom of a greater challenge in society, wouldn't you think? This is the Bill Meyer show, and you're on KMED, KBXG. Appreciate you waking up here. For over 100 years, Gately has built mowers that stand the test of time, rugged, dependable, always ready. Backed by an industry-leading warranty, a gravely zero-turned as an investment in years of reliable performance.

If you've got a large property to maintain or you're ready to upgrade your fleet before year-end, Step into the power of Gravely today at Zol's Lana Gardet equipment, serving the rope valley for over 50 years. Trust Zolz, where dependable equipment and honest service always come first. It's fall, you know what that means. It's time for pumpkin spice and everything nice. Coming to Kelly's Automotive Service in Grants Pass and Medford for your pumpkin spice oil change. You thought.

Slash free. Never miss out on great candidates with Zippery. Hi, I'm Dwayne Barclay with American Rinscher Garage, and I'm on KMED. 628 and change at KMED, 993 KBXG. Some emails of the day, and those are sponsored by Dr. Steve Nelson in Central Point Family Dentistry, Central Point Family Dentistry.com. While you wait, crowns available. Randy writes me, we might have to talk more about this on Conspiracy Theory Thursday, says Bill, if Lucretia is nothing else but entertaining, however, I've been following Hurricane Melissa. That storm started as a cat two, literally parked in one.

one place for days as it revved up to a cat five before moving north. This is demonstrably unnatural. Weather modification has been on the agenda for a long, long time. Congress passed a law permitting such activity while Russia, China, and others have pursued weather modification techniques to augment their global ambitions. Lucretia talks about chemtrails and harp as weather modifiers. She may be closer to the truth than one might think. Camtrails would have little to do with manipulating hurricanes. However, harp has been superseded by newer technology that remains top secret. Being able to control weather during combat would be a huge advantage and therefore natural for the military to research such technology. Okay, if it is unnatural, who's

deciding that we're going to destroy Jamaica then? Randy, that's all I would ask. And if we could get some better weather here, let's put the order in. Let's find out who is controlling harp or whatever the top secret activity is right now and do something about it. All right? We're going to get Eric Peters on the phone here in just a couple of minutes, and Wheels Up Wednesday. We'll continue my email, Bill at Billmyershow.com. Keep him coming. Two dogs fabricating has the resources to transform your rig into the most efficient. A hospital-based intervention grant. The Bill Myers Show on 1063, KMED.

Again. Eric Peter is automotive journalist and genius at E.P.O.O.com. He's back for Wheels up Wednesday. Boy, that was a story the other day, Eric. What happened in Pasadena? It was a General Motors design studio, right? Where they were doing some work on a prototype? You know, it's actually, I look upon it sort of as a Hindenburg moment.

People may recall the Hindenburg, which put an end to the era of the airship when it burst into flames at Lakehurst, New Jersey. And I think that this may just do that for this whole EV thing. They had a concept car there, battery powered car, the battery caught fire, the whole place caught fire. It was one of the biggest fires that they've had in that area in some time. And, of course, it was a chemical fire, a very hot burning fire, a very difficult fire to put out. A catastrophic fire did devastating damage to this multi-million dollar building. And, you know, people are starting to notice that these EVs potentially have costs that are greater than just having to sit at a sheets for a half hour to get a partial charge. All right. Now, I wanted to let you know, by the way, that I heard almost nothing about that story. It was almost like there was a media blackout on this chemical fire in Pasadena. Was it something that was just maybe reported locally? And it just once again did not fit the narrative that is to be accepted these days.

That pretty much seems to be the pattern. Whenever something like this occurs, whatever the topic happens to be, if it's something that contradicts the narrative, then it doesn't particularly. really get covered. But nonetheless, the facts are what they are. And one of the relevant facts, I think, is that the insurance industry is taking note of this and recognizing that every single EV that's on the road represents a potentially catastrophic liability cost to a degree that conventional cars with engines simply do not. It's almost unheard of for a car with an engine that's just sitting and parked to spontaneously catch fire. It's theoretically possible, but it almost never happens. On the other hand, with EVs, it can happen. due to the nature of lithium ion batteries.

And when it happens, it's not just the car that goes up and smoke, it's anything nearby. So if you park one of these things in your garage or even outside of your garage just sitting there in the driveway, the fire is hot enough that potentially can burn down the whole structure. That happened in Maryland about two years ago when a couple got an EV loaner because their Mercedes was in the shop. So the Mercedes dealer gave them an EQE, I think it was, electric car. They drug it home and they parked it in the driveway. It wasn't plugged in for charging. It was just sitting there, and it spontaneously caught fire.

So not only did the $100,000 EV burn to a cinder, so did their million-dollar house. And you can imagine what that's going to end up costing all the rest of us in terms of both car and home insurance premiums. You know, it's funny that once you get the insurance industry involved in anything, if there's a problem, they do tend to, and like I said, I have my, I'm not a huge fan of the insurance industry, especially when you're forced to do it. but they do tend to smack something down if there truly is a danger. And this is looking like it is a growing deal. Are there any ideas? Does anybody keep track of the spontaneously combusting, rather, electric vehicles out there? Is there like a, I don't know, like a burn list of some sort?

I don't know. Last time I looked into it over the course of roughly about, I guess, the last five years, I want to say, I'd have to go back to check this for sure. I think there have been 82 fires. Now, that may not sound like a lot, but proportionately it's more than the number of pintoes that caught fire after they were rear-ended. Oh, and they did a huge recall on that, and it tarnished the Ford Motor Company for quite some time over that. Yeah, and it's really important to point that out, to emphasize that. The pinto didn't blow up unless it was hit hard from behind, not a tap.

You had to hit that thing really hard to sever the fuel filler, which caused the gas to leak and a spark, and hence the fire. And even though it was a minuscule number, relative to the number of pincers, that was a massive selling car. Ford made a bunch of those things. A minuscule number of them actually caught fire as a result of being rear-ended part. Nonetheless, the federal government stepped in, and there was a massive recall, massive lawsuit against Ford, but somehow we turn a blind eye to the liability and the potential danger of EVs spontaneously combustion. Now, is it possible to be fair that newer battery? formulations. Let's say like, what is it, like the lithium ferric iron oxide battery.

There's something new that they've started using, which is a little bit larger. It's not quite as compact as the lithium ion formulation, but it apparently is much, much safer. Are you aware of that? Well, yeah, but it's not in mass production. Almost all of them, I think all, if not almost all of the EVs that are in circulation. They're actually out there. Use these lithium ion batteries, because the lithium ion battery has a high energy density. It's just amenable to the purpose of trying to get these EVs out there. The other ones have all sorts of other issues that haven't been sorted out yet, and that's why they're not being used.

Are we talking about fire potential with these larger EV vehicles? I'm talking about, you know, the Teslas with the longer range, because I don't know that I've ever really heard of much of a problem of, let's say, you know, the kind of short-range commuter car type things like the Nissan. Leaf and the Chevy EV Spark when they had that out at that time with relatively small batteries. And I don't really hear about, you know, battery fires with the Toyota hybrids. You know, the Toyota hybrids like the Prius and things like that, which also have lithium ion batteries in them, but they're considerably smaller. That seems to be the case.

The bigger the battery, you know, the more energy it's storing the greater the number of cells. And also, some of the latest EV batteries are based on what they call. 800-volt architecture. So you're talking about extremely high-voltage stuff. And that sort of thing has that inherent risk built into it. And it's just, it's a problem that's not being acknowledged and dealt with, which I find interesting because we live in this culture where ostensibly safety first, you know, and if anything's even remotely risky, there has to be this overwhelming response to it, to stamp it out no matter what it costs. But somehow when it comes to EVs, let's not worry about that too much. Okay. I have to

ask you, speaking of safety, the cult of safety, what is California and Governor Greaseball up to at this point? What is the latest? You had a story up there the other day, and forget the name of it. I'll see if I can find it on my list here. But I had to do with car seats for kids? Well, booster seats. Booster seats. I'm not making this up. This isn't something that I lifted from the onion. This is actually a thing. They're going to vote on it, apparently, I think, next week in California, and what it would do is require that teenagers up to 16 years old be required to sit in back, not in the front seat, and young teens up to 15 years old be made to sit into a booster seat. So if you can imagine the degree of insanity and that implies.

So you have a 15-year-old kid, and they're not allowed to sit in the front is what you're telling me, right? Exactly. You, the 15-year-old would have to sit in the back seat and or be in a booster seat in California, seriously? That's correct, sir. Yes, indeed. And this is just the natural evolution of this obsession with safety and the safety cult. Because after all, you know, if it's safer for, you know, a 10-year-old to sit and back, well, and clearly it's safer for a 16-year-old. And inevitably, maybe we should all sit in back. And maybe adults should sit in booster seats, too. There ain't no end to doing right, as the calorie officer said, and the outlaw Joe's I know. I remember that. It's one of my favorite movies, by the way, too. Yep. One too.

All right. So what, are they going to, in California, install one of those amusement park ride things like, you know, you must be as tall as my arm in order to get into the front seat? Who's going to decide this? Who's the decided? No, it's even worse than that because at least what you just described is sort of an objective standard, i.e. there's sort of a mark on the wall and, you know, you stand, your kid stands next to the mark. And if he's not at least as tall as the mark, then he can't ride. At least that's objective. What this does is to give discretionary power to traffic cops to say whether they think the 15-year-old, let's say, is too small or too short statured to be permitted to sit up front. Oh.

Or the 13-year-old, really, you know, that's a small 13-year-old. That 13-year-old should be sitting in a booster seat. And, you know, the fines for this are extortionate. They're almost $500. $500 for not having the 15-year-old in the back seat or on a booster. Now, would that also, now, would the booster be required, too, or just that the kid has to sit in the back seat? It all depends, I guess, at the discretion of the cop. It's really vague.

In the article that I've got up on the site, you can read for yourself. There are five criteria that are left to the discretion of the cop to evaluate on a piece-by-piece basis. One of the aspects of this that I find most interesting is not only the infantilized teenagers, it also infantilizes the adults, doesn't it? Yeah. It's the premise being that parents are simply too dumb, too incompetent to decide whether their teenage kid can be allowed to sit up front or not have to sit in a booster seat. So, you know, the wise government is going to supersede, step in and make that decision for you. And if you don't like it, cough up 500 bucks. Man, I don't know if I want to talk about this too much because I could see Governor Kotech in Oregon saying, oh, if Governor Greaseball in California is going to do it, you know, maybe we should try that next.

You can see this, it'd be growing things. You know, we've become, we live in this culture now where safety is, like, it's a neurotic obsession. Everything must be done to eliminate any risk, however remote, however hypothetical, irrespective of how much it costs. Just say that word, safety, and anything goes. Now, what I'm wondering, though, is if the state of California is about to say that a 15 or 16-year-old who is too short would have to be in a safety seat in the backseat, too, and would not be allowed to be up front. What about short drivers with regular vehicles? Well, there you go. Correct.

Exactly. You could just see where this would end, and i.e., it never end. Yeah, could you see a woman or, you know, a small man, you know, 4-11, you know, five feet tall or something like that, having to buckle themselves into the safety seat and the booster seat in the front? I mean, yeah, my girlfriend's only a little bit over five feet tall. You know, I mean, I'm 6'3.

She's about 5.5.3. Oh, boy, that must be a fun family picture. Okay. All right. Is this going to pass? Do we know? Are there any feelings about this? Is it looking like it? I don't know. You know, as Archie Bunker used to say, California is the end of the fruits and the nuts. Anything goes in that place. Oh, man, that is just wild. Anyway, the name of the article is safety seats for teenagers. And no, it's not from the onion. It's not, he's not kidding. It's E.P.O.O.com. K.M.E.D. with Eric Peters, E.P.O.com. And, yeah, we already started with the EV prototype that burned down the General Motors Design Studio in Pasadena. And you may not have heard about that. But other than that, nothing to see. Move along here. And also in California, Eric, you were talking about child safety seats for 16-year-olds. If they tend to be small and they would have to be buckled into the back seat, then they wouldn't be allowed to be in the front seat. And what happens if drivers are this way? There's something else you want to add to that. And then we'll... Yeah, yeah, there's an aspect of this that's interesting that people generally don't recognize, which is that the safety seat laws have effectively forced people to move up a size to a more expensive vehicle.

You know, if you have, let's say, two or three kids, there simply isn't room in a two-row vehicle. No. That many kids in safety seats because you don't have a place to, you know, to harness them in. So that compels you to spend significantly more money to buy a larger vehicle and that potentially has three rows of seats to accommodate your family. And, you know, this is brutal on people because there's a big price jump, typically, to go from something that has two rows, three. So, you know, it's one of these hidden costs imposed on people by the government that almost nobody is aware of. I remember when Sarah was a young baby, we had a Subaru Loyal at that time. And, you know, those car seats were really big.

I could only put maybe one in the back the way that car was designed at that time. Just one. Two would be, boy, pretty tough from what I remember. Now, the thing is, I was going to say back in the 80s, you know, something like an Ares K, which was a small car, you know, relative to what we have today, you could put three kids in the back of that because it was allowed. You didn't have to have the safety seat. So you could buy a car like that for your family. Now you can't legally because you can't legally carry three kids in the back seat because you have to put them all in the safety. And then you have to get yourself some GM or Chevy behemoth, right?

You know, one of the big SUVs. What about the carbon and the climate? Well, that too. The hypocrisy of it and the stupidity of it and the tyranny of it makes my teeth fake. By the way, Bill Gates did come out the other day. He says that the planet is not going to explode in flames. So he has turned tail and changed away from the climate cult thing. He's going away from that.

Well, that's just great. That means we can expect another shoe to drop. And what's the next crisis is you were going to be? AI. You know, that's what it's going to be. It's going to be AI instead. And really what it is obvious is that the climate cult was never about the climate because, yeah, we know we're going to muddle through and the climate will be whatever the climate is. But it was always about the control grid.

That's what this has always been about. It's always been about control of people. That's all. Yeah, and it's evident. You know, anybody who is aware of what's going on should take note and should have seen and noticed that the great bulk of the people who are advocating for this and pushing for it weren't living by the rules. that they intended to impose on us, meaning that they, you know, they would live in a 10,000 square foot house. They would drive a Cadillac escalate. They have private jets and all of these things. But we, the little people, you know, are supposed to eat and be bugs and live in a

400-square-foot apartment and keep the thermostat down to 55 degrees. Yeah, in order to preserve the climate, which is changing, but it's not going to kill us. Okay. Let me get to the phones, and everybody's lined up. We'll get right to your calls. Deplorable Patrick is here. You wanted to talk about those seats. arrangements that they're discussing in California. It's total nonsense, but this is California, after all. Welcome. Well, I'm going to get my birth certificate and scratch off California is my birthplace. California, I guess, though, they're going to save the whole world, so maybe what they're going

to do, I think, is part of this, is raised revenues by sitting out there at the border and arresting people who come in, unawary, into the state with a 14-year-old in the front seat, your hands against the wall. Hmm. I think that could be... What do we get through with out-of-state visitors? You know, that's an interesting... That's an interesting point, Eric.

I haven't thought about that. Out-of-state visitors or out-of-country visitors, as the case might be. You know, coming over the border in, you know, Tijuana, places like that. Well, it's the law, right? You know, there are some states that don't require motorcyclists to wear helmets, but if you ride your motorcycle without a helmet across the state line into a state that does have helmet law, sure enough, they're going to pull you over and give you. you a ticket for that, so I can imagine California

would do the same to out-of-state people for the same reason. Amazing stuff. Appreciate the call there. Let me go to the next one. Hi, you're on with Eric. It's E.P. Auto's Wheels Up Wednesday. Who's this? Hey, guys. Good morning. Keith out of Cave Junction. I'm going to keep this. D.P. just gave me another story. If anybody remembers the

Blitz-Winehart beer signs that the Border Guard was investigating whether you were carrying out-of-state beer into the state of Oregon. But the reason that I'm calling, I met a commercial driver who is as big as Peter Dinkage, and he had to retrofit his semi-truck with blocks on his pedals so that he could utilize the equipment. And nobody groused at him. I was up in the Eugene area. I haven't only met him a few times, and it's been a while.

Well, you know, that's different, though, but they didn't require him. He modified the vehicle for his own purposes, correct? But he's smaller than a child. Yeah. He's a Peter Dinkage-sized human being who used what he was given. Yeah, but you know, Eric, that does kind of go to the point or speak to the point that, you know, if they're saying that little people can't be up front, then little people can't be driving vehicles either. Isn't that kind of...

It seems to be implied by that. It's such a mess. You know, we didn't use to treat 16-year-olds as if they were five-year-olds, but that's where it's getting. You and I, when we turned 16, we literally became kind of near adults because we got our driver's license, a full adult unrestricted driver's license, and we were able to drive just like our parents, just like any other adult. And it really was this great leap forward toward being an autonomous, independent

adults. You were not treated as if you were some kind of idiotic. five-year-old who couldn't be left alone for a second. But you see, this is the whole thing, the infantilization of the culture, and kids never grow up, and adults never adult, and all the rest. So, man, I hope this gets trounced. It deserves to be trounced heartily. And good morning.

Hi, who's this? You're on with Eric Peters. Welcome. Gentlemen, Jeff and Selma. Hello, Jeff. Hey, in 1977, I was four foot ten. Wow. My mother worked in the license bureau, so she put.

at 411 on the license just to make it look good. I had a 57 Chevy, which has the gigantic steering wheel. And I used to look between the steering wheel and the dash while I was driving that car. Gosh, that reminds me of what, Clara Peller on the old Wendy's commercials? Where's the bee? Where's the meat? And I even had the fro permanent in my hair, right? Oh, I could see that so the fro would be over the steering wheel, right?

Yeah. And mom had a Kalosaki 90th Street bike, and the day I got my license, I rode the motorcycle to go get it. And on the way home, a cop started following me, so I start weaving through town, and he's following me. Oh, yeah, pulls me over. And he runs my license, and he comes back and he says, well, the reason I pulled you over is because I didn't think you were old enough to ride. Happy birthday, Mr. Bradshaw. Oh, that is. Great story.

Great story, Jeff. Thanks for that. And, you know, I'm reminded of something, too, that I deal with regularly when I drive new cars, which is that the weight sensors that are embedded in the seats of new vehicles have become so hypersensitive that I'm not making this up. If you put a foot-long subway hoagie down on the seat, the seatbelt chime will start to go off because the thing thinks that there's a little person or a baby or whatever sitting on the seat and not a subway sandwich. And the only way to make it shut up is to belt the sandwich. Oh, the absurdity of it all here. You know, before I take the next call, Eric, I wanted to ask you about the kids in the front seat. I used to have my daughter, Sarah, when I had the Vanigan.

I first bought the Vanigan when she was a year or two old. And I had her in a car seat in the front, in the front. And I guess I didn't realize that I was endangering my precious little daughter at that time. Nobody's thought anything of it. She was in the front seat. Oh, shoot. When I was a kid, you probably had the same experience, too. Little kids, toddlers would often sit.

in their mom or dad's lap while they were driving the car, and the parent would kind of let them get the sense of, you know, holding the steering wheel and driving the car. Oh, yeah. Today, they call Child Protective Services and lock you up and take the kid away. Yeah. When I was a kid, Dad had 57 Studebaker. I'd sit, you know, on his lap,

and we would play the game of me blowing out the red light on the dashboard when he would do the, you know, the headlight change, that sort of thing. I loved it. Great memory. I didn't realize my father hated me so much that he was trying to kill me. Oh, it's crazy. I know. Let me grab another one.

Hi. You're on K&E with Eric Peters. Who's this? Bill, it's your friend, Brad. Good morning. And good morning to Eric. I love your segments with him. Glad you do.

Thank you. This is what we did. So we've got, and Eric, you love this. So we had four kids. So four kids, mom and dad, what do you think our family car was? Our family car was a Chevy Suburban. Our first suburban was a nine-passenger suburban. Our next suburban was an eight-passenger because the front seats were buckets.

But that gave us the ability to have, you know, at least a couple extra people with us if we were going to go anywhere. And the thing was great about it, and I had some friends that were cops, they have what they call the lug nut rule. And if there's any type of a collision situation, they always say, well, you just count the lug nuts on the two cars and the car with the most lugnuts is going to win. So if we're really going to talk about safety and security for families, shouldn't we require families that have at least two or more children to drive a suburban? What do you think about that idea? Well, I think it's great if you can afford it. The suburban's a wonderful vehicle, but the dilemma is, you know, you're talking about,

I don't know offhand with the current MSRP is, but I believe it's probably somewhere in the mid-50,000 to $60,000 range for a suburban. That's beyond the means of a lot of people to buy a vehicle like that, and not to mention what it costs to put a tank full of gas these days in one of those things. So, you know, they really put people between a rock and a hard place. It's almost a, it's almost a depopulationist thing in that it's another incentive to discourage people from having more than one or two kids. Huh, unless you're Elon Musk, and then you have children with every woman you've ever been with. It's amazing stuff.

Well, you know, he's got $60 billion, right? So he has no trouble for affording as many suburban as he likes. Yeah, you're right. Thanks, Brad. I appreciate that. Hey, Eric, you are going to or you have been doing. a survey online because you've been raising an issue of economy cars we were talking about the the absolute you know expense of a new vehicle right now and it is even inflation

adjusted car and truck prices have sailed have just sailed upward and it's also an issue in which you can't get a a true economy car or a true economy truck any longer in other words things with very few options on it's something which is just a for and, well, you brought up the example of the Chevy Chevette, and I had one of those back in the early 1980s. It was relatively inexpensive and easy to repair. It wasn't the best quality vehicle I ever had, but it worked for me for the time I had it, right? Yep, yep, and you could afford it. And I often get criticized for bringing this topic up. People will say nobody would buy vehicles without all of the things that new cars come with,

such as power windows locks, a big touchscreen, climate control, a great stereo, 18-inch, alloy wheels, all the stuff that has now effectively become standard, and even the so-called entry-level there aren't any economy. They're just entry-level cars. So I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought. And so I put out this thing on the site and also on YouTube and Rumble asking people, hey, if it were possible to buy a basic low-cost car, one that didn't have all of those things, but which costs, say, $15,000 or less, would you be interested in buying a vehicle like that? With my intention being to gather some data and possibly to bring that data to the attention to the vehicle manufacturers. I have yet to have one person say, no, I don't want a,

I don't want a crude primitive vehicle like those things they made back in the bad old days of the 90s and the 80s and before then. In fact, every single person has said, I would love it if I could go out and buy something like, you know, the Toyota Hylux that you and I have talked about on the year before, which is a $13,000 basic truck that Toyota sells in other markets. They wouldn't love to buy a vehicle like that. So I'm going to continue to gather all of this information and I'm going afford it to the vehicle manufacturers and we'll see what comes of it. I would be really curious to see what they say about this because the push has been to have fewer vehicles sold that were much, much more expensive. The problem is that they're almost diminishing their customer-based

long-term, right? Absolutely. You know, that's exactly right. Fewer and fewer people are able to afford these vehicles. So inevitably, you're going to sell fewer vehicles and that probably means fewer vehicle manufacturers. And do we really want to live in a country where owning a car is something for the proverbial 1%, you know, and the rest of us have to figure out how to get around either by foot, bicycle, or some form of public transportation. Or else devolving to what Cuba was for the longest time, you know, trying to keep 50-year-old vehicles for daily drivers, right? I remember them doing that. Exactly. All right. Let me grab another call here with Eric Peters and loving the calls today on Wheels Up Wednesday. Hi,

who's this? Good morning. Morning, Bill. This is Steve in Sunny Valley. Hi, Steve. I just have to disagree with him about the suburban being a great vehicle. When I worked for the railroad, we'd get deadheaded in the back seats of those things. And they made their seatbelts out of anaconda skins. Every time you exhaled, it tightened up. And they could not get it to loosen. Now, what models were those? I'm not familiar with that seatbelt problem.

Are you, Eric? No. Yeah, I am. I think what he's talking about, a number of late model vehicles. Probably all of them. I'd have to look into this to be sure, have what are called these pre-tensioning systems that cinch the seat belts, particularly if there's a so-called hard braking event, they'll literally, they have little electric motors and they pull them tight.

It's all part of the safety system. And you have to undo them and stretch them out again and click them in again, or they just won't loosen up. All right. Duly noted, at least that one criticism of it, okay? Hey, thanks for the call, Steve. Hey, before we take off, latest vehicle, what are you reviewing, right now, and what do you got for next week?

Well, we still have the Q3, but what's coming is kind of interesting in that it's probably the oldest new vehicle that you can still buy. I was surprised when I dug into it a little bit and found out about it. It's the very utilitarian Chevy Express van. You know, they're big van that people use, you know, they put seats in it to make it into a big family haul or a jitney bus or your contractor. You can rig it up to be a vehicle that will hold all your plumbing or electrical supplies. The vehicle is largely the same today in 2025 as it was back in New York.

1996. They've done very little to change it. Still comes standard with a 3.4-liter V6, you know, which is related to the V6, the GM has made forever. That's just known to be one of the really reliable engines out there. It doesn't need a turbo, doesn't have a hybrid assist. And you can get a 6.6 liter V8 optionally, but you can't get a touchscreen, and you can't get a lot of the elaborate over-the-top tech that you find in the new cars. And so I find the van extremely appealing. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly so you can get a new vehicle without all the GIGOs, but it has to be a van. It has to be almost like the, well, like a business van is what you're really talking about.

Yes, you know, it's in that class of vehicle. It's in technically the 2,500, 3,500 class of vehicle. And so the regs haven't yet fully caught up to vehicles in that category. So it's still feasible for a manufacturer like General Motors to build and sell a vehicle like that, which would be completely. non-compliant, you know, if it were in the 1,500 half-ton class or the just regular passenger, light-duty passenger car class. What do they run? About $41,000 to start, which is one of the differences now versus back in 96.

I looked that up, and you could pick up an express fan back then for $24,000. All right. Interesting stuff. I look forward to hearing more about it on the road, too, all right? We'll see you next week. Absolutely. Eric Peters, E.P.otos.com. E.P.O.O.com. Always fun talk there.

KMED and KMED HD-H-D-H-D-H-T-1, Eagle Point Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass.