The Young Turks - Ozempic Gets Berned

Episode Date: April 4, 2024

""How does Israel justify killing so many innocent people?"" Erin Burnett peppers Netanyahu spox on Gaza invasion and WCK strikes. New poll: Trump now leading over Biden in swing states with or without RFK Jr. U.C. Berkeley parents hired private security to patrol near campus. Bernie Sanders accuses an Ozempic manufacturer of massive price gouging: ""People are sick and tired of being ripped off!""" HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and the show is bananas today. Absolute bananas, get your protein powder, put it in a blender, make yourself a protein shake, okay?

It's gonna be a great show. We're gonna talk a little bit about the aftermath of that brutal, I shouldn't say that that brutal drone strike because it was a series of three drone strikes that ended up killing international aid workers in Gaza. I wanna talk a little bit about how the US government has responded to it and how Israeli officials have reacted to it. Later in the show, we're also going to talk about the parents of students at Berkeley hiring private security to keep their kids safe as they go to college.

There are some issues there and we'll unpack that story and more later in the first hour. And then in the second hour, our good friend Johnny Pie, John Iderola, will be joining us to talk about a whole host of other stories, including California, considering legislation that would outlaw an employer's ability to contact you after work hours. Good idea, bad idea, or they're loopholes. Well, we're going to get into the details of that and more. And Gen Z, an increasing percentage of them, are looking into going to school for trades rather than four-year, traditional institutions, universities, colleges, things like that. And I actually think it's a really, really good idea. So we'll talk about that in the second hour as well.

As always, you can help to support the show and get our members-only content by becoming a member. TYT.com slash join to become one. Although I will say an easier way to become a member is to just click that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right, without further ado, let's get into Gaza. Let me ask you about something that is a painful truth. And that is the fact that tens of thousands of Gazans have been killed since this began, and many of them are innocent people. The hospital's been obliterated. There are bodies everywhere. Obviously, it's no longer functional. You say this is necessary to eradicate Hamas. But I do wonder when you talk about inconvenient truths, how does Israel justify killing so many innocent people?

A tough question for Israeli spokeswoman Tal Heinrich following news that the Israeli Defense Force, carried out three back-to-back drone strikes that killed international humanitarian aid workers with the world central kitchen. Nearly 32,000 people have been killed in the Palestinian territory since the start of this insanely brutal war on October 7th. Two-thirds of those slaughtered consist of women and children. So to me, what stands out about how Heinrich responded to Burnett's question was just how lazy Israel has been in coming up with better talking about.

points to justify the mass slaughter of innocent people. They just keep resorting back to the same tired statements that trigger collective eye roles among the international community and increased rage from me. To take Hamas's numbers with a huge spoon of salt, not a grain of salt, because I can tell you the facts and the truth, according to our assessment and the facts that we have, and that is that we eliminated more than 13,000 Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists. We took out, you know, 19 of the Hamas battalions out there. Wrong. That's a lie, and she knows it. In fact, last weekend, Israeli publication,

Heretz spoke to members of the IDF who say that the number of Hamas militants killed is likely around 9,000, not 13,000. But even that lower number has been called. called into question because the IDF classifies every male they kill as a terrorist. They write that a host of reserve and standing army commanders who have talked to Heretz cast doubt on the claim that all of these were terrorists. They imply that the definition of terrorist is open to a wide range of interpretation. It's quite possible that Palestinians who never held a gun in their lives were elevated to the rank of terrorist posthumously, at least by the ICE.

IDF. In practice, a terrorist is anyone the IDF has killed in the areas in which its forces operates, says a reserve officer who has served in Gaza. One senior officer in Southern Command also told Heretz that, quote, it's astonishing to hear the reports after every operation regarding how many terrorists were killed. You don't need to be a genius to realize that you don't have hundreds or dozens of armed men running through the streets of Con Unis or Jabalya fighting the IDF. It's not that we invent bodies, but no one can determine with certainty who is a terrorist and who was hit after entering the combat zone of an IDF force. In addition to this reporting, veteran Israeli diplomatic correspondent and CNN political

analyst, Barack Ravid, basically shared some pretty fascinating details from his own reporting about IDF operations. Take a look. To call it a misidentification or a mistake, you know, that's the understatement of the century. Okay. And this is not an isolated incident. The reason that we talk about it here is because it's WCK, it's a very well-known and famous NGO, but those incidents happen every few days in Gaza. We've seen this throughout this entire experience. Exactly. This is not how a professional military conducts its operations. And for years, the IDF was considered not only here in the U.S., but in the West overall,

as a very professional military. Just a few weeks ago, three Israeli hostages that managed to escape their captors were killed by Israeli soldiers who fired at them, even though they were holding a white flag. Okay, and, you know, I spoke to an Israeli reserve officer who was in the same unit of those soldiers who shot those hostages. And I remember him telling me that the orders are basically from the commanders on the ground is just shoot every man in fighting age. Shoot every man in fighting age. Who cares whether they're terrorists or not? So please, tell me why I should take a lying propagandist like Heinrich seriously. while rejecting the likely underestimated death toll reported by the Palestinian Health Ministry.

And I say underestimated because the health ministry's numbers don't include Palestinians who remain trapped under the rubble of buildings, America's 2,000 pound bombs were dropped on. And honestly, even if it were true that Israel took out 12 to 13,000 Hamas militants out of the 32,000 people who have already been killed, that still means that Israel is confessing to slaughtering 20,000 innocent people in just six months. How the hell would that help Israel rehab its image? It's amazing. Perhaps the laziness in Israel's public relations campaign

stems from the sense of entitlement the United States government has encouraged for our Middle East ally. Israel can do no wrong. Even when they're committing war crimes, they're doing nothing wrong. And if Israel intentionally fires three back-to-back drone strikes that end up killing aid workers from several different countries, you can bet your ass the obvious war crime will be reclassified as Israel's right to defend itself as John Kirby did. Is firing a missile of people delivering food and killing, not a violation of international humanitarian law? Well, Israelis have already admitted that this was a mistake that they made. They're doing an investigation. They'll get to the bottom of this. Let's not get ahead of that. Your question presumes at this very early hour that it was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose. And there's no evidence of that.

I would also remind you, sir, that we continue to look at incidents. as they occur. The State Department has a process in place. And to date, as you and I are speaking, they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law. And lest you think we don't take it seriously, I can assure you that we do. We look at this in real time. They have never violated international humanitarian law ever in the past five to six months. I'm telling you, the State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law. That was disgusting.

So according to John Kirby, by the way, shooting at starving Palestinians who were surrounding humanitarian aid trucks, remember that happened not too long ago, didn't break international war crimes or international laws according to John Kirby, right? Not a problem at all. The collective punishment of starving Palestinians by refusing to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into the region, not a war crime, according to John Kirby. By the way, the strikes, the drone strikes in question, were intentional. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you, intentionally so.

The three trucks in the convoy were clearly marked, as you can see here, with the charity's logo. The World Central Kitchen plays by the IDF's rules and coordinates with Israel's military so Israelis know exactly where their convoy is as they attempt to deliver aid to starving Gazans. But the IDF thought maybe, maybe they saw one armed man in the convoy and that unfounded speculation was enough for them to strike the convoy, not once, but three times to ensure everyone was killed for good measure. In other words, the IDF felt it was totally fine to kill a group of innocent people on the slight possibility that one person was an armed terrorist.

Among those killed was a dual US Canadian citizen, an Australian one. An Australian woman, a Polish man, three British nationals and a Palestinian driver, all innocent people. The idea flaunts its war crimes with impunity. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, regularly boasts about ignoring weak demands from the Biden administration. And in turn, Biden rewards him with billions of dollars in weapons transfers, including one worth roughly $2.5 billion this week alone. The decision follows a visit by Israeli defense minister Yoav Galant to Washington this week. The new arms package is meant to include 1,800 of the most destructive bombs used in Gaza. The United States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since October 7.

That includes thousands of munitions, small diameter bombs, buster bunkers, small arms, and other types of lethal aid. You know, there was a time in America when our government at least had the ability to feel some degree of shame or embarrassment over war crimes. Now they defend Israel as its military carries out atrocities regularly. I remember back in 2007, U.S. troops slaughtered civilians and two Reuters journalists in Baghdad in what is now known as the Apache helicopter scandal. Americans were left in the dark about the extent of our military's brutality. towards civilians until years later, when in 2010, Chelsea Manning leaked video of the horrific incident to WikiLeaks. In the video, an Apache helicopter unleashes fire on a gathering of 10 men. Among them were two Reuters journalists, both of whom, by the way, were murdered

in this attack. The attack either maimed or killed the men, and a van of first responders arrived to assist the wounded. Much like the IDF's decision to carry out a second and third drone strike on the humanitarian aid convoy as workers tried to flee to safety, the army fired on the van with first responders. The driver was killed and his two children were wounded. The video leaked by Manning also included the soldiers flippant and cruel communications, which demonstrated a disregard for human lives, including one, in the American crew shouting or starting off with a laugh and then saying, I hit him. Another responds a little later. Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards. After ground forces arrive and the children are discovered, the American crew

blame the Iraqis. Sounds familiar. Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle, says one. That's right, says another. Manning, who worked in the army as an intelligence analyst leaked the video and hundreds of thousands of other pieces of classified information, which was then published by Julian Assange on WikiLeaks. The leak was so embarrassing for the United States military that the Obama administration decided to throw the book at Manning. Assange has also been targeted by the U.S. and is currently fighting attempts by the Justice Department to extradite him for criminal prosecution here in the states. Of course, Obama excused the war crimes committed by the Bush administration because he

He wanted to look forward and not backward. But Manning paid a hefty price for revealing what our government didn't want us to know, that our military had done something terrible and indefensible in Iraq. It was a huge scandal. Manning was arrested that same year and faced 22 charges including aiding the enemy, a capital offense. Manning was subjected to inhumane pretrial conditions for months. She was later sentenced to 35 years in prison.

But in 2017, then President Obama commuted all but four months of Manning's remaining sentence. Turns out killing two Reuters journalists used to be considered a huge scandal, worthy of weeks and weeks of coverage and condemnation. Israel's war on Gaza has already resulted in the deaths of around 100 journalists. Intentionally targeting civilians used to be an atrocity worthy of, worthy of, you know, condemnation, worthy of a lengthy news cycle in which the condemnation plays out. Now the murder of civilians is justified by our government. As long as they falsely blame the slaughter on Hamas using them as human shields, right? That's the other talking point.

John Kirby lies to our faces to defend some of the cruelest crap I've ever seen and he does it regularly. It makes me sick. While I don't condone withholding information from Americans about how our military behaves at war, I just want you to think about why they did it. I can't help but feel rage over the fact that our government went from understanding how bad intentionally killing civilians was to openly making excuses for atrocities on behalf of Israel. I guess I take some solace in knowing I'm not alone in feeling that way. Palestinian American doctor Dr. Thayer Ahmed, for instance, walked out of a meeting with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

And honestly, who can blame him? We are not satisfied with what has taken place. There has been no concrete steps. But keep in mind, we're very concerned about the people that are over in the Gaza Strip that are in Palestine right now, who are not just starving, but are facing the threat of a looming Raff invasion. And so I was able to share that with the president and let him know that out of respect for my community, out of respect for all of the people who have suffered and who have been

killed in the process. I need to walk out of the meeting. And I want to walk out with decision makers and let them know what it feels like for somebody to say something and then walk away from them and not hear them out and not hear their response. CNN shed more light on the meeting reporting that what was supposed to be an Iftar dinner to break the Ramadan fast was changed to a meeting because participants didn't feel comfortable having a celebratory meal while hundreds of thousands in Gaza are on the brink of famine. Honestly, I think many of them are already experiencing it. It's another example of the administration's fraying relationship with the Muslim American community. Other attempts at holding meetings in key states have been hampered

by declined invitations and relationships with important community groups have frayed since the war began. Look, Biden needs the support of Muslim and Arab Americans to win critical swing states like Michigan. But he's literally willing to hurt his own chances at getting reelected, which he claims would lead to the end of American democracy as we know it, just to defend Israel and supply them with more bombs. It's depraved, and he cannot set himself apart from Trump as the decent one when he's

funding and green lighting the annihilation of innocent lives in Gaza, period. We got to take a break. When we come back, we'll get into some of the latest polling on the general election. And unsurprisingly, doesn't look good for Biden. We'll be right back. Bart came correct today. Okay, DJ Bart came correct with the fun dance music. It gets me hyped up, it gets me excited for the show. And that's why I'm a little bit hyper today. So thank you, Bart, I really appreciate it.

You're welcome. We've got a lot more news to get to, including an update on some of the polling related to the general election. So let's get into it. Donald Trump leads Biden in six of the seven swing states in a head-to-head matchup, and that's according to a fresh new poll coming from the Wall Street Journal. Biden's campaign rallying cry of, at least I'm not the other guy, apparently not working. Not so persuasive. So here's the data. According to the poll and according to the journal survey, Trump leads one-on-one in Arizona, 47 to 42 percent. Georgia, 44 to 43 percent. Michigan, 48 to 45 percent.

North Carolina, 49 to 43%, Nevada, 48 to 44%, and Pennsylvania, 47 to 44%. He and Biden draw even though, when it comes to Wisconsin, both coming in at 46%. Now, clearly, voters are not so happy with Joe Biden, but establishment Democrats are absolutely convinced that they can, you know, shame voters, chide them, if you will, into voting for Biden. And in a recent appearance on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, Hillary Clinton basically did just that. It's like she has this obligatory role in every election cycle to wag her finger at Democratic voters or independent voters and demand that they vote for her preferred candidate. During that conversation, she told Fallon, laughably, you know, it's kind of like

one, meaning one of the candidates, is old and effective and compassionate. has a heart and really cares about people. She's referring to Biden there. And one is old and has been charged with 91 felonies. I don't understand why this is even a hard choice. Really, I don't understand it. Real hard to argue that President Joe Biden is the guy with this big heart as he continues sending 2,000 pound bombs to Israel.

And as Israel continues dropping said bombs on humanitarian aid workers, refugee camps, hospitals, innocent civilians, do they think that we don't see what's happening? You can't keep arguing that Biden is the good guy, the decent guy, the kind, compassionate guy, as this war rages on in Gaza. But let's get back to the polling and some of the data. In fact, I want to give you a little bit of Stephen A. Smith, I never thought in a million years I would say that, because he had a response to Hillary Clinton that I think is worthy of some airtime. So let's watch.

I don't think it was a very wise statement on her part. How did that work out for her in 2016? I think that's something that we have to recognize here. She won the popular vote, but at the end of the day, she wasn't the president of the United States. It was him. The voters, a lot of them out there, tens of millions of them out there, by the way, don't care what he's going through right now. They don't care about his guilt or innocence, his perceived guilt or innocence.

They don't care about the 91 counts. They're thinking about their lives. And a lot of times we see politicians taking the positions that they're taking and while we can respect their candor and their honesty, they do seem a bit detached that time from what the voters are actually feeling and what the voters are actually thinking. Nobody wants to hear that from Hillary Rodham Clinton at this particular moment of time, because especially if you're Joe Biden, what are you really, really worried about right now? You're worried about folks coming to the polls. You're worried about them showing up to the polls to vote for you. You're not worried even about them voting for Trump. You're worried about them not showing up to vote for you.

That's exactly right. I don't think that people who previously voted for Biden, for the most part, are going to switch their vote to Trump. I think that most people feel the way I feel to be quite frank. I can't stand Biden and I don't like Trump. So I'm probably going to write in a candidate or do some sort of, you know, protest vote, it doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter, honestly, because you look at the Biden administration, and Sonny Hosten, to her credit, address this on the view today. He does not take

the concerns of his own base seriously. The reason why in primary election after primary election, you have this giant percentage of Democratic voters casting their ballot as uncommitted is because they want to ceasefire. They want Biden to use his leverage by withholding weapons to Israel to get some strings attached, to ensure that Israel reigns in their slaughter of innocent civilians. But Biden's unwilling to do that. He gives us a lot of tough talk. There's a lot of rhetoric coming from Biden. But when push comes to shove, behind the scenes, Homeboy is transferring weapons to their military. Okay, there's been 100 plus weapons transfers already. Now, How is the Biden camp reacting to the Wall Street Journal poll that I gave you the results of earlier?

Well, on today's CBS morning, Jill Biden actually denied reality, which doesn't surprise me. Let's watch. So- It's not a part of you that's a little worried because it seemed to me off-kilter a little bit. No, I feel that Joe will be re-elected. But when these polls, like the Wall Street Journal, one, land in the White House and he's losing in all the battleground states. No, he's not losing in all the battlegrounds since. He's coming up. And he's even or doing better.

So you know what? Once people start to focus in and they see their two choices, it's obvious that Joe will win this election. So that's the big bet they're making, right? As long as we keep fearmongering about Donald Trump, comparably speaking, voters are going to cast their ballot for Biden because he's the better option, right? But why would they find him to be the better option? Because he's the decent one, because he's the kind one, because he's the compassionate one. Now let's go back to the Wall Street Journal poll because it's important to discuss why voters have basically turned to Trump. And when I say that, I'm referring to the independent like swing voters.

One reason is that an increasing percentage of voters think that Trump's first term was actually better than Biden's first term. That's what they're saying. In every state in the survey, negative views of Biden's job performance outweigh positive views by 16 percentage points or more, with the gap topping 20 points in four states. By contrast, Trump earns an unfavorable job review for his time in the White House in only a single state, Arizona, where negative marks outweigh positive ones by one percentage point. The economy, of course, has a lot to do with the numbers as well, although the result here are kind of mixed because it seems as though Americans feel better about their personal

financial situation, but think overall the economy in America isn't doing so well. Some 35% of voters in the swing states cite the economy and inflation as the issues most important to their vote compared with 19% in the journal's national survey in February. Only 25% say the economy has gotten better in the past two years compared with 31% in the in the national poll. But interestingly, those same voters feel like their own financial situation is better than other Americans. In North Carolina, for example, voters describe the national economy in negative rather than

positive terms by 66% to 33%. Yet those numbers are reversed when asked to rate the state's economy. Some 68% of those in the survey said that it was becoming harder for the average person to get ahead compared with 26% who said it was getting easier, a 42 point gap. But 46% said their own finances were moving in the right direction, just three points lower than those who said their finances were going in the wrong direction. So that framing was fascinating because still at the end of the day, more Americans feel crappy about their personal financial situation than feel good about their financial

situation. But nonetheless, voters also stated that they think that Trump is more mentally and physically fit. And while they're both old, I think it's undeniable that if you watch both of them during public appearances, during speeches, there's a clear difference. Listen, that's not to say that I'm a fan of Trump. That is to say, though, that energy-wise, there is a difference between the two candidates and that concerns some of the voters who don't know what to do because they might not like Trump, but they're not happy with Biden and they feel that he's just not mentally fit to serve another four years in office. This isn't a joke. I mean, this is the president of the United States. That is the role that they're both buying for. And we have two elderly

men, one of whom still has difficulty accepting the results of the 2020 election. The other, Honestly, constantly looks lost when he's out in public. It's just a disaster. And so we'll see how this all plays out. Remember, the Democratic establishment insisted on allowing for Biden to run for reelection. And they totally squash the possibility of an actual robust primary. And the other question is, is there going to be a general election debate? Will we ever see a debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in this election cycle?

It seems like it's not gonna happen, I could be wrong. But how shameful is that, especially during an election cycle where one side is constantly talking about the importance of maintaining our democracy. What kind of democracy do we have when the two presidential candidates don't even have a single debate? But that's where we are right now. It is just so disgraceful. And you see a growing percentage of self-described independence in the country, and that

That is for a reason, an increasing percentage of Americans do not identify as either Democrat or Republican. And it's because both parties have been deeply, deeply disappointing. I want to move on and talk about an interesting story out of Berkeley, because it turns out out that some of the safety issues there have led to parents making some tough decisions. Let's watch. You think it's politics at all? You think it plays into it? Berkeley's, of course, known as being a very liberal institution over the years for many, many reasons.

Is it politics or something else? You know, it's a tough question to answer, Connell, because a lot of this stuff happened before many of us had students enrolled there. But from what we've learned, the single biggest factor contributing to this situation is the lack of campus police officers, allowing that force to dwindle from almost 80 down to 40 is simply unacceptable. That is the single biggest reason why these crimes keep happening. Parents of UC Berkeley students are so concerned about their children's safety that they've resorted to fundraising tens of thousands of dollars in order to hire private security.

Their decision to do so came after high profile crimes in the area, including some murders and carjackings made headlines. The group, called Safe Bears, represents 1,300 parents with Sagar Jathani, who you just heard from, serving as its leader. He's the parent of two twin boys who attend the university, and during an interview with News Nation, he explained what motivated him and other parents to take action. We regularly hear about violent attacks against students, including sexual assaults, armed robberies, carjackings, intruders actually access the housing units where our students live.

And it seems like there's a shooting right around campus at least once per year. The last one happened just a month ago. Berkeley is just north of Oakland, California, which has been riddled with crime. Despite that, Jonathan Simon, who's a criminal justice law professor at Cal, argues there's no evidence that the risk at the university was exceptional. Except there is evidence and I'm not surprised that an academic in the criminal justice field would lie to everyone about it, but nonetheless, according to an analysis using data from the Department of Education and the analysis was done by an organization known as degree choices, Berkeley ranked rather high when it came to violent crimes reported on its campus

between 2019 and 2021. By the way, keyword reported. A lot of it goes unreported, but nonetheless, Berkeley came in third with 242 violent crimes reported in that time period. Obviously the situation was much worse at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, with more than 1,400 violent crimes reported. But a murder was reported on campus in 2019. In addition to that, the school also reported 114 aggravated assaults, 73 rapes, and 54 robberies between 2019 and 2021. It's not just what's happening on the campus either.

Opinion writer Robin Abkharean notes in the Los Angeles Times that parents are alarmed by the fatal October 22 shooting of a youth minister on fabled Telegraph Avenue near campus and the return of crime above normal levels in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a shooting in February on Cal's main thoroughfare, Sproll Plaza. So much of the chagrin of the university, the parents raised $40,000 and hired private security from a decades old company called Street Plus. They dispatched six unarmed guards, or ambassadors as they like to call themselves, to patrol on foot or on bicycle between 6 p.m. and 3 a.m. The effort was a pilot program for two and a half weeks in March, so I'm not really sure how much of a difference they made in enhancing safety overall, but they did intervene as a man was in the middle of assaulting a woman. The man carrying out the assault basically fled in the car with his friends. The woman did not

press any charges, but look, they did intervene when an assault was taking place, so I give them credit for that. However, the university is not happy about the parents' efforts. The university, which has about 45,000 students said in a statement that the hiring raised concerns about training and experience and that university funds are better spent hiring more campus police officers. Fascinating. The leader of Safe Bears responded to the suggestion to spend that funding, spend that money on campus police officers during his interview on News Nation. Let's watch. You know, it's an interesting response we've heard about we should just give the money to the school.

We would love nothing more than for the school to put the measures in place that are required to keep students free from violent attacks. Here's what the school does not say. Ten years ago, they had almost 80 campus police officers. Last year, they had 42. This year, They've built it up to 45. So we applaud that's movement in the right direction. But how many years is it going to take for them to build up their campus police force after allowing it to be so badly decimated? And what is their plan in the meantime?

Jathani's assessment is absolutely correct. As Abkharian reports, and by the way, she's not someone who's in favor of hiring more police and all of that. But her piece was interesting because it seems like she's starting to change her mind. She wrote that UC Regents responded to the call to defund the police by producing a UC community safety plan, which he described as a new vision for how to protect members of the UC community without simply relying on officers because cops bad. Cal only got halfway there. The campus police department has barely half the officers it did a few years ago, 47 versus 80.

But the police department has not yet been supplemented with non-sworn staff as the plan calls for. So many have been left feeling that the campus and its environs are under-patrolled and vulnerable. Yeah, that sounds about right. I mean, I feel like that's been the game plan of every major city, right? Just defund the police, realize that it leads to a spike in crime, desperately attempt to, rehire the police, although that is a difficult thing to do in an environment where being a cop is a very unpopular thing. And we run into these issues, right? Now, as of 2022, Berkeley has an endowment of nearly $7 billion. So I don't understand why they didn't go through

with the entirety of their plan. It's not like they're lacking funds. And while the university collects an insane amount of money for tuition on top of that, the suggestion that the the parents should donate even more to the school to fill the police positions that they themselves eliminated is understandably infuriating. It just shows a complete inability to take responsibility for their mistakes. But that's the tactic when it comes to so-called law and order or reforms. Pretend the crime doesn't exist following crappy half-assed reforms. And when the data proves otherwise, just gaslight more. Just tell people that, no, no. No, no, you're totally misunderstanding this.

I mean, you know what, you're looking at a little bit of a crime spike on the UC Berkeley campus or in Oakland, but did you know crime was higher in 1990s? You know? Oh, let me provide some incomplete FBI national data to totally hide what's happening in cities. That's exactly what's happening right now with the ridiculous narratives that play out in the press. Keeping it real. Finally, it's really important to think about what policing is supposed to be, a public service meant to maintain public safety. So if we abolish or minimize their role in society, rather than reform policing, we are caving into a neoliberal dream of doing away with a taxpayer-funded public service that will be replaced with private security for those who can afford it.

The potential outcome reminds me of what the United States did in phasing out asylums. Those state asylums were never replaced with better community-based options as promised. Yes, those asylums were awful and in desperate need of reform. But the country threw the baby out with the bathwater. Now there are mentally ill Americans living and dying on our streets. And it looks like we've learned absolutely nothing from that. And we're going to use that same failed model on policing. Yeah, it's infuriating and I'm sick of the gas lighting.

We gotta take a break, we'll come back with one more first hour story. And then John Ida Rolla will be joining us for the second hour, don't miss it. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Look, I got to say, obviously, this show so far has had a lot of negative commentary toward our politicians. But despite all of the negativity that goes on in Congress, there's usually one guy who continues to fight for us and ignore all the other noise. And that individual is Bernie Sanders. Bottom line is, they should no one order should not be charging us over $1,000 for this product a month. when they're charging people in Germany, $59, charging people in Canada, $155.

The American people, in my view, no matter what your political view may be, are sick and tired of being ripped off by drug companies and paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, including Ozepic. There you have, Senator Bernie Sanders, doing what he does best, speak out about the insane pharmaceutical drug prices that Americans have been price gouged on. Now he's speaking out after a new study revealed that Americans are getting price gouged for popular drugs like OZempic, which happened to be incredibly cheap to make. The study from researchers at Yale, King's College Hospital in London and Doctors Without Borders

found that the blockbuster diabetes drug OZempic could be manufactured for less than $5 a month. However, Novo Nordisk charges close to $1,000 per month for the injection, specifically here of the United States, not the case in other countries, which we'll get to in just a moment. So let's get to the details of this study. Researchers found that a month's supply of the treatment could be manufactured for an estimated 89 cents to $4.73. cents. They evaluated manufacturing costs for the weekly injection along with a profit margin with an allowance for tax to produce those estimates, which they call cost-based prices. In other words, even if they sold the drug or these types of drugs known as GLP-1s for three bucks a month rather than a thousand bucks a month, they would still be making a sweet profit. But apparently that's not enough because they're untethered to any law or regulation

that would prevent them from price gouging Americans. And remember, we're talking about medications here, right? We're talking about pharmaceutical drugs, something that people in a lot of cases have no choice to just not take. They need it to survive or to live a healthy life. Yes, I get that Ozempic is also used for weight loss and in some cases is abused by people like celebrities looking to slim down, but there are people who legitimately have diabetes and rely on this drug to live a decent, healthy life. Now, in other words, if they, again,

sold the drug at just $3 a month, they would still make a profit. Novo Norddisk's, God, they gotta come up with a better name, like Novo Nordisc's list price for a monthly package of Ozempic is $935.77 before insurance and other rebates. The finding suggests that GLP-1s can likely be manufactured for prices far below current prices, enabling wider access the researchers concluded. We know they can be, as Bernie said, OZempic is available for $155 a month in Canada, much cheaper than what we're experiencing here in the United States, and just $59 in German. Now, demand for these medicines has soared over the last year in the United States,

especially for its off-label use of weight loss. But at the same time, more insurers are now dropping OZempic from their plans due to the high cost associated with the drug, leaving some patients to experience difficulty in affording the medication they need. In a statement, Novo Nordisk, declined to provide production costs for OZempic and its weight loss drug counterpart Wagovi. But the Danish drug maker noted that it spent almost $5 billion on research and development last year and will spend more than $6 billion on a recent deal to boost manufacturing to meet demand for GLP-1s. Oh, do you have to spend more money on manufacturing the drug because so many people want it, which means you're going to sell more of it? Oh my God, cry me a freaking river. But also keep in mind that they're not exactly spending their last dollar on improving their drugs.

They pocketed a ridiculous amount of cash. Full year operating profit jumped by 37% in Kroner and 44% at constant exchange rates to 102.6 billion kroner, equivalent to about $15 billion. That marks the company's largest annual net profit going back to 1989. I mean, it's unsurprising when you consider how popular the drug is and how much they're price gouging Americans for it. OZempic alone accounted for 41% of Novo's total sales in 2023, equivalent to nearly $14 billion, with two-thirds of the drug sales coming from the United

States. We go V brought in sales of about 4.5 billion. Listen, I want to be clear about something. I believe that they deserve to make a profit. I'm not one of these people who frowns upon any and all profit. They have developed a drug that is improving people's lives, and they deserve to make money off of that. However, the idea that they should charge Americans around a thousand bucks a month for a drug that Germans pay 56 bucks for really, really highlights the corrupt rot we have in Congress that fails to protect American consumers and patients from this type of treatment. The only one who has been consistent in trying to fight against this has been Senator Bernie Sanders, which is why he'll always have my respect, even if I disagree

with him here and there on other issues. He was a little late to the game when it came to Israel's war on Gaza, but I forgive him. He's now on the right side. But let's get back to this story. So Bernie Sanders is speaking out. During this interview on MSNBC, he was asked to weigh in on why it is that Novo Nordis can basically get away with price gouging Americans. Let's hear what he has to say. So why, why does Nova Nordis, in your opinion, charge so much more for Americans to get this drug? I know exactly why. So does everybody else. else. Throughout the entire world, there are national health programs, which, by the way, in most cases, guarantee health care to all of their people. And they sit down and they negotiate

with the drug companies. And they say, you know what, you can't charge us any price you want. Let's sit down and talk about a reasonable price. Here in the United States, until last year, you had the insane situation where the drug companies can charge any price they want. for any reason. Second of all, let's not kid ourselves. The pharmaceutical industry is enormously powerful. They have over 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Right now, former leaders of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, they're very nonpartisan.

They will give money to anybody. That graphic that they used on MSNBC showing what patients in other countries are patients in other countries pay for the exact same drug really highlights the point that Senator Sanders is trying to make. Again, Canada pays $147. You know, you have Germany paying even less than that. Let's see, yeah, take a look at that. United Kingdom, they pay $93, okay? France, $83. We're just completely getting screwed over here as Americans, and our government is allowing it to happen. And Novo Nordisk, like most drug companies, basically touted the fact that Most patients don't ever really pay the full price here in America, right?

They might get rebates, they might get discounts, things like that. But Bernie Sanders explains in this next video why that's a pretty crappy argument. People who have good insurance may end up not paying a whole lot for their product. The truth is that insurance costs in the United States are enormously high. And the reason is insurance companies have to pay top dollar for these products. Thirdly, there are a lot of people in America who are underinsured or have no insurance at all. And they are forced to pay list prices. I just, I really appreciate the focus from Senator Sanders, the focus on things that matter.

I mean, like the world can be burning down with manufactured culture war nonsense. And Homeboy is like super focused on getting your drug prices down. God, I'm just thinking about what the country would have been if he won the Democratic nomination in 2016. Anyway, too bad, so sad, I guess. He also commented on the fact that if we do not substantially reduce the price of this drug, it could potentially bankrupt the Medicare system. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found Medicare Part D spent a total of $5.7 billion in 2022 on Ozempic and other similar weight loss drugs combined, up from $57 million in 2018.

So for all of the conservative lawmakers who keep whining and crying about the possibility of Medicare going bankrupt, I would ask them why they're so against allowing the Medicare system to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare recipients. We're not talking about price controls. I'm not in favor of price controls. We're talking about simply allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They are barred from doing that with the exception of 10 drugs, many of which will have the generic version available soon. It's just so incredibly infuriating.

Now, let's talk a little bit about what Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden did together today. Now, Joe Biden is looking to capitalize politically on Bernie's ongoing fight against high prescription drug costs. He knows that this is an issue that a lot of Americans care about, and it could potentially help him win the general election if he panders to those Americans, just keeping it real. He asked him to give remarks today at a joint conference about drug makers capping the costs of inhalers.

Back in March, three of the four largest inhaler manufacturers announced that they would cap the prices of inhalers for many patients at $35 per month, thanks to pressure from Bernie Sanders. The announcements came from Sanders earlier this year, and they led, I'm sorry, the announcements came after Sanders earlier this year led a letter from a group of Senate Democrats to the CEOs of the four biggest manufacturers of inhalers sold in the U.S., demanding information and documents on the costs involved in manufacturing the inhalers, among other issues.

At the time of the letter, one of AstraZeneca's inhalers cost $645 in the U.S., but just $49 in the United Kingdom, as an example. And during the press conference, Bernie also gave Biden credit for his action on prescription drug costs, although, anyway, let's just watch. The Biden administration and Democrats in Congress are beginning to make some progress. What have we accomplished over the last several years? As a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, that not one single Republican voted for, seniors with diabetes are paying no more than $35 a month for the insulin that they need. Beginning next year, and this is a very big deal, seniors will be paying no more than $2,000 a year out of the income. of pocket for prescription drugs. And maybe most importantly, for the first time in American

history, Medicare is negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower some of the most expensive prescription drugs in America. Remember when the Democratic establishment told us that that guy is just too old to be president? Anyway, there's a good reason Biden is trotting out Sanders to talk about lowering drug prices. More than half of Democrats and Republicans said they were worried about prescription drug costs, and that's according to a February poll by Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization. But Biden's drug pricing changes have not resonated with many Americans. About three quarters of adults were unaware of the Inflation Reduction Act's provisions to cap insulin costs and seniors out-of-pocket

spending according to a November KFF poll. And look, the reason why this is happening, the reason why most Americans haven't noticed the drug pricing provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act is because it only impacts a small percentage of drugs, small number of drugs, not even percentage. Ten drugs can be negotiated by the Medicare system. Yes, there are now price caps on inhalers, which is fantastic. That is a good thing. But as you can see with OZEZE, and similar drugs, there are a lot of pharmaceutical drugs that are not impacted by legislation at all. So most Americans are not feeling the benefits of those provisions. It's really not rocket science. But again, I do want to give Bernie Sanders some credit. Because any good policy that's

come out of the Biden administration, any good appointments that have come out of the Biden administration, whether it be Lena Khan as the head of the FTC or the more robust labor relations board. I have no doubt that that influence came from Senator Sanders. And I wish he had more influence over Biden. I wish that there was more accomplished in regard to lowering drug prices for Americans. But there have been, there has been some movement. And I'm not going to give Biden credit for that? I'm going to give Bernie credit for that. I get that Bernie wants to help Biden to get reelected. Bernie is terrified of Trump getting elected for a second term, and I totally get that. But I just think it's wrong to give Biden all the credit when he

didn't even really fight for his own agenda and allowed for conservative Democrats like Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin to torpedo his agenda. It really made me question whether he believed. in his agenda in the first place. But nonetheless, Biden claims that he's a champion for patients and that he drastically lowered drug prices. We should take it with a grain assault. He brags that he allowed Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, but it does come with a lot of caveats.

Most importantly, right now, Medicare is only allowed to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs. Under the excessively long process, prices on the initial 10 drugs will not see any reductions until 2026. Another 15 drugs will be negotiated in 2027 and in 28, and 20 each year after that. Moreover, several of the most exorbitantly priced drugs aren't even eligible for negotiation, at least not yet. Now, you really nailed it, Biden. You really nailed it. Right? The whole point of passing popular legislation is so those provisions go into effect And Americans feel the benefits of it before you run for re-election, before you run for re-election. I mean, it's just incompetence on a level that I haven't seen in a long time.

It's amazing. It is amazing. But here we are. Got to give Bernie credit. And I guess if you want to give Biden credit, sure. I think he was absolutely weak when it came to those negotiations. But at least something got accomplished. We got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will join me for the second hour. Don't miss it.