Sir Gene Speaks

0030 Sir Gene Speaks

April 07, 2021 Gene Naftulyev Season 1 Episode 30
Sir Gene Speaks
0030 Sir Gene Speaks
Chapters
0:14
Intro
2:27
Asia Update
5:30
Tech Elites Update
27:50
Trump
28:51
Age of Consent
36:30
Caitlyn Jenner
44:02
COVID Passport
49:17
Wrap-up
Sir Gene Speaks
0030 Sir Gene Speaks
Apr 07, 2021 Season 1 Episode 30
Gene Naftulyev

I recommend listening at 1.25X

Story Images and Links are only visible to Podcasting 2.0 Apps :
Get Podfriend
Get Sphynx
Get  Breez
See all the latest APPS for Podcasting 2.0

Note: If donating Sats from apps supporting per minute rates. Keep in mind rates less than 100sat/min take out a higher percentage of fees. So consider just hitting boost when you hear something you like.  

Produced by:  Brew City Mike and Anonymous Donors

Support the show (https://bit.ly/39tV7JY)


Move to the same Podcast Host I use!
Get some credit on Buzzsprout! $20 Amazon Gift Card

Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

I recommend listening at 1.25X

Story Images and Links are only visible to Podcasting 2.0 Apps :
Get Podfriend
Get Sphynx
Get  Breez
See all the latest APPS for Podcasting 2.0

Note: If donating Sats from apps supporting per minute rates. Keep in mind rates less than 100sat/min take out a higher percentage of fees. So consider just hitting boost when you hear something you like.  

Produced by:  Brew City Mike and Anonymous Donors

Support the show (https://bit.ly/39tV7JY)


Move to the same Podcast Host I use!
Get some credit on Buzzsprout! $20 Amazon Gift Card

Gene:

I hope everybody enjoyed the Curry special. Was it too delicious to believe? I hope so. Well. Having looked at the donations that came in, we had an even split. Between, even the nod. If you remember, in an episode, just prior to the Cree special, I asked you guys to vote with your donation dollars to see whether or not I would be just putting out about a week's worth of episodes about a crypto and podcasting 2.0. And I've recorded a bunch of those interviews. I've got about seven of them already. Ready for you guys. And I've got another three or four. To record. So there's going to be probably more like a week and a half, or if not, two weeks worth of content dealing with podcasting 2.0. But since the split results, I was kind of deciding does that mean that I should, or I shouldn't separate those episodes by more of a regular content this episode. And since we didn't have a definitive winner, I thought, okay, I'm going to record one episode. This one, which is more of the traditional type of politics and opinion that I usually provide. And then put it out there and then just keep monitoring to see what's coming in. As far as donations, if you guys are cool with me just playing the prerecorded episodes that I did that are interviews, that's fine by me. I'm going to take that opportunity of not having to record new episodes, to focus on some other projects. I've actually got some software stuff I've been planning on working on. But if donations come in voting for the. The idea of separating those episodes. I'm certainly happy to record them. I, it still means that even if I'm recording episode, it's going to be every other one, which means I only have to do an episode every four days. As far as the The traditional style episodes, because I already have a bunch of the other style episodes. It also means that it's going to take longer. So instead of two weeks, it may be a whole month of podcasting, 2.0 interviews, if they're separated by the news and commentary Sal episodes, but either way I'll do whatever you guys suggest because frankly I can see benefits in doing it both ways. So we'll go from there. meanwhile or let's just say for now let's just jump into some news stories that I've seen popping up. One story that I don't think is making too many headlines because there's not a huge amount of controversy about it, but it's nonetheless, a news story is it looks like the quote COVID free unquote, North Korea. Is pulling out of the Tokyo Olympics due to fear of their athletes getting COVID and then bringing it to North Korea. Now, this is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is of course that North Korea is saying that they are COVID free, which. If it's hard enough to trust what China says, it is even more difficult to trust what North Korea says and being a smaller country than China and having closed borders. It is actually technically possible that North Korea does not have any COVID that COVID is not going to fly on the wind across the border from China. However, it certainly could come across as an infection that has the common cold does, for example. Come across the border through trade routes and drivers of trucks or people on trains, whoever is crossing the border could certainly carry it. But we'd never know because there's no way that North Korea would ever admit to having COVID if they did. So the fact that they're pulling out of the Olympics, which is somewhat unusual because the Olympics are an opportunity for North Korea to demonstrate the fact that they are. They have their own sports programs. They are an independent country, it's a national pride thing for them as much as it is for anybody. And certainly what we do know about the current leader of North Korea is that he is a sports fan or at the very least a basketball fan. So pulling out of the Olympics, I don't think is something they would do for no reason at all. And I suspect that. There might be ulterior motives. Now whether those models have something through COVID or not, I dunno that'd be a really hard thing to to really truly find out, but it does appear that's the excuse that North Korea is using to not participate in the Tokyo Olympic games. And I wonder if there'll be other countries, To be fair. There are plenty of countries that have fairly small contingencies of players coming to the Olympics. And it may make sense for other countries to drop out of this one as well. So it, this could be literally just the beginning of the tide for countries that are skipping this particular Olympic games, which is pretty sad given that really athletes tend to be in their early twenties or even teenagers. And the odds of athletes actually getting COVID to the degree where it affects them is close to zero. They could certainly get it and maybe even transmitted, but much like young people of every country. There's not going to be very much chance of them developing major symptoms out of it. So I guess we'll have to watch and see what ends up happening as other countries. Make their decisions on the mothers are going to Tokyo. It looked like the tech elite about 200 of them, including Apple and Microsoft have signed a joint statement, opposing voter ID. So the same people that were yelling very loudly and complaining about the fact that. That packs could come together and collect money from individuals and then provide those money to politicians. Those exact same people are now just blatantly putting political opinions in the mouth of their companies. That absolutely did not represent. All the employees of those companies. I'm sure they represent some of the employees of the companies but effectively they're allowing their CEOs to make a decision that places company on a particular political topic. Now it's been fairly traditional in the United States that companies should stay out of politics. And if they engage in politics, it's done through financial means. Simply by supporting candidates who they would support the decisions of those candidates. So if, if a company wants to make sure that there is a good climate for building a new. Expansion somewhere let's say, on a local level, politically, a new expansion to its buildings maybe a new factory, even there's something like that. Then they're going to donate money to politicians that would back a reduction in taxes for that type of project. Make sense. It's been extremely rare in my experience. I'm not going to say it's never happened in the past, but it's been extremely rare. For companies and certainly as many companies as we're seeing today to just blatantly walk out there in support of one political party over the other, or one political idea over another, like that just hasn't happened in the United States or if it has, it's been. Extremely rare and for a good reason. And the reason is because companies tend to not only create products and sell products for a particular political affiliation, most companies would go bankrupt if they did that. So companies need to have people of all kinds of political opinions buying their products and including companies that seem to be fairly woke these days. Like Nike. Nike would go broke if the only people that bought Nike's are people that listen to hip hop. That's just not enough. There has to be a lot of other people buying shoes made by Nike to go running, to go jogging, to play tennis, to do whatever that are not concerned about. The Nike affiliations with rappers and hip hop artists. Or for that matter with athletes, they're more concerned about just having a good quality product now. And so happens. These products are built by slaves in China, but that really doesn't matter to most American companies. Certainly not to the the companies out there, which seemed to find every, a problem behind every Kravis in the United States, but are perfectly happy to ignore much bigger problems. Happening in China because they have relationships with China, either from a manufacturing standpoint or from a sales standpoint, I think right now, Apple sold more phones to China than they have to the United States. So you gotta to think about that. China is a bigger market for Apple than the United States. Apple is less concerned about showing any kind of. Anti or I should say they're more concerned. Sorry about that. I would say they're more concerned about showing any kind of anti-China bias by bringing attention to the fact that China literally has slavery and persecution of a weaker Muslims, but they're going to put us take a stand against the state of Georgia passing duly voted in laws. You gotta be shitting me. This is like absolutely black mirror type stuff. This is where companies are pushing back against government, that the majority of the population elected and th this is not even a Georgia company. This is like a California company telling Georgia. What to do and what not to do. And look, I get it. Delta Delta is in Georgia. I think it's still stupid. I think Delta shot themselves in the foot. They're going to lose a lot of business from people that will just choose to fly other airlines because Delta has put their foot in their mouth. So Delta will most likely end up declaring bankruptcy. If not this year, probably next year, but at least Delta has. Some connection with the state of Georgia, like the Delta's opinion, given that that's where their headquarters in it has a closer tie to what's happening in Georgia. Then a company like Microsoft or a company like Apple. Come on really? We're a point now where the the tech elites out there. They're going to use the power of their corporations, which were created to create products and sell and market those products. They're going to use that power instead to create enemies out of half the population of the United States, because that's effectively what they're doing. I don't care if I don't drink another Coke again for the rest of my life. I've never been a Pepsi fan. I've even when I was working in Pepsi, actually, it was a funny story. I made a mistake when I was a, I worked at Pepsi several times and each time it was, I was coming in as a, as an auditor doing some audit work out there. And I remember the first time ever, I showed up to Pepsi, I happened to be drinking a Coke as I walked in the building and. I got the dirtiest look when I asked where the trash was, because it was pretty obvious that I had a competing product in my hand, even though it was an empty can and I was gonna toss it away before the meeting started. But the receptionists seeing that was not a happy camper, obviously. So, eh, okay. So I'm a real life troll. I've done. I've done little things like that in real life, just to mess with people, but. But that little story aside, Coke to me has always just tasted better than Pepsi. It's just, it just so happens that formula tasted more like, I dunno something that I enjoyed. And then when I stopped drinking regular Coke and I switched to drinking a Coke zero, cause that Coke sucks. Like Coke, zero was also better tasting than the non sugared versions of Pepsi products. The one exception I will say is mountain Dew, diet mountain Dew probably is the closest non sugar drink soda drink that tastes similar to their sugar version. Just about everything else. There's a huge difference if you mean the one with sugar or corn syrup and the version with aspartame or some other sweetener. That mountain Dew. I don't know what the hell they did, but they managed to get the flavor so close that you really like, you can tell, but it is extremely close. So anyway, my whole tirade on this, or my whole description of Coke versus Pepsi here started by saying, I don't care if I never drink another CA Coke product for the rest of my life. I'll just drink mountain Dew. If I need to, I don't drink that much soda. I mostly drink tea, either hot tea or iced tea living in South, you get used to drinking tea all the time. Anyway, so, yeah I'm done buying Coke because they're acting like idiots and I don't need the, this, the, this is the line I was say to other people and I think to myself, I don't need to provide money to companies that hate me. And they do hate me because they are voicing their hatred by speaking out against things that I agree with. And I V I think it should be pretty obvious to people that are listeners to this podcast that I obviously agree that we need to make sure that only United States citizens are voting in elections. That's the way it was designed from the get go. It's insane to think. Otherwise, I don't care what color people are. I don't care what social class they are. It used to be only landowners got to vote and there was certainly some arguments for that, but I'm not even going to go into that. I'm just saying where I draw the line is you have to be a us citizen. And even if you're like a w or a H1B. You're like you're legally a worker in the United States, that's on a visa. And you're working for some high-tech companies that's who gets 99% of H one BS. You should not be voting. And in California they will absolutely have those people voting because those are just extra free votes to toss in and assume that those people are going to vote for Democrats, which is what obviously California is. Stretto. Trying to maximize that vote, not just California other States like that as well, but in Georgia, along with many other States in the country there are a majority of people who've just had enough of. Illegal votes and by illegal votes, there's a plethora of things that could qualify as illegal votes. One of those categories are votes by people who are not United States citizens, and those votes absolutely have to be filtered out. They should not be happening. And if it so happens that checking a driver's license or other ID. And I think, there's a variety of documents. People can use prior to letting somebody vote is a great way to do it. Because if you let's say you live in as San Francisco or New York or someplace where you just don't need a car, it's not required. So you may not have a driver's license, even though you're in your thirties. That's fine too. You can still get a state ID. In fact, you probably already have a state ID because without a state ID, since you don't have a driver's license, It's hard to do things like buy liquor or buy cigarettes or going to bars where there is alcohol. Like you are already showing an ID to be able to live a normal life. It's virtually impossible to live without having either a driver's license or some other type of identification. It's not impossible, but it is virtually impossible. It's certainly going to be a difficult process for you to do that. Because you're going to have to turn away from and not utilize businesses and services that require an ID in order to be able to not have one, like you really have to want to not have an ID to not have an ID. And the thing that really is troubling is that by joining the anti GA push these 200 companies, including Apple and Microsoft, Are effectively on the side of the racists who are using the following argument as to why IDs should not be necessary. They say that mandating ID for voting purposes, disenfranchises, blacks, and other minorities. What does that mean? Let's deconstruct that thought if you're saying that. Having IDs, disenfranchises, blacks, what you're implying by that or what you it's beyond implying. It's really a requirement to that argument to then say why is that? If it's diff, so the franchising to blacks, that must mean that blacks don't have IDs and therefore either they don't get to vote. Or they would have to get an ID that they never had to get in the past in order to vote. And to think that way, I think is extremely racist. And it's been proven by documentaries that I've watched and certainly in anecdotal evidence when I've spoken to by I've plenty of people I know that are minorities. I'm not going to use the typical, Oh yeah. I talked to my black friend. Yeah, I don't have a black friend. I have people that I know through work and through LinkedIn and through past relationships, some of them whom are black, Selma move are Asian. Some of whom are white. Some of them whom are probably racist too. But I've a variety of people. And specifically the people that in this situation, the liberals would say this is a racist against these people because they are incapable of getting an ID. That statement in of itself, that assertion is the racist part of it, because I don't think it is a problem for anybody to get an ID. I really don't. It literally costs you between 12. And I think the highest I've seen is about 25 bucks to walk into a DMV and fill out some paperwork and get an ID. Now you may need to bring a birth certificate or get a copy of a birth certificate or. Have the hospital that you were born in, look it up, pay a few bucks to get that potentially. You're going to need some paper trail essentially in order to get an ID. I know that when I moved to Texas, I needed to get a Texas driver's license. There were two things that were required for that. And I thought they were kind of strange, frankly. Or at least I wasn't used to it. One was they wanted to see my social security card. Not just getting the number for social security, but actually see the card. And like a lot of people, I couldn't find the damn thing. So, I never really needed it. Most places once you memorize the number, nobody actually asked to see your card. They just they take your word for whatever the number is. They can check that number, make sure it's valid and everything. In Texas here, they actually wanted to see it. So what did I have to do? Okay. One extra step. And I just jumped through this hoop. I went to the social security office locally here in Texas, and I said, yeah, I'm trying to get licensed tonight. Can't find my card. Do you know your number? Yes, I do. Here's my number. Fill out the form. They looked it up, they found the information. They asked me a few questions that I guess only I would've known, I don't know birthday, the town I was born in things like that. My, my parent's name, his mother's maiden name. Which presumably they all have, tracked in their social security system. And then think you just gave me a new card. And I can't remember what it costs. Maybe. I don't know, maybe 15, 20 bucks. It wasn't a huge amount. It was something, but it wasn't a huge amount of money. So I got that. And then the other document that in Texas, I was surprised why is they required that I register my car in Texas, get a Texas license plate. Prior to getting a Texas driver's license. Now they didn't make a whole lot of sense to me because my thought is like okay, if I'm moving well, the way that I moved to Texas, it took about two months of back and forth driving and stuff. So to me, it was sort of like, why would I register my car in Texas? If I'm going to be going back and forth to my old state. And I just, paid for a renewal of my license plate there that I don't want to just pay double right away and throw it away. But for whatever reason in Texas, that was one, their rules I had is that if you're applying for Texas driver's license, you need to have registered a car in Texas. I actually kept my old driver's license longer than I planned on to after moving Texas. And then somewhere within the first six months. Certainly by the time I was done going back and forth, I just said, okay, screw it. I'm going to get a, go get a Texas plate, got the Texas plate, got my social security card. And then took those to the DMV. And along with the paperwork, the 20 bucks and FY $18, whatever it was. And then I dunno, a couple of weeks later, I got my driver's license in the mail. So saying that having a driver's license, having an ID. And the process for ID would have been identical except they wouldn't allow me to drive, but it's literally the same card. It just doesn't have the driving portion on it. But saying that requiring you to have some kind of truth like that driver's license or like a state ID card is disenfranchising a particular group of people. Is literally saying those people are incapable of going through the process that I just described. Like they're too stupid to do this. And I don't know a better word to describe that than the racist thinking that people somehow are too dumb to perform a particular task. Not because you've tested their intelligence, but simply because you looked at the color of their skin is racist. That is racist by the most pure definition, it's racist by definition from a dictionary 50 years ago. And it's racist by dictionary. That's done today and a lot of definitions have been updated. But that type of description of looking at somebody's skin to make a determination on whether or not they have capabilities of doing something or not is just blatant racism. And that is the behavior that these 200 companies, including Apple and Microsoft are engaging in. These companies think that if you're black, if you're Latino, if you're a minority and I don't know where the hell Asians fit at this point, I don't know. I, one minute agents are like whites. Another minute Asians are oppressed, but maybe they think Asians are too stupid to get driver's licenses too. Now, most Asians, I know drive BMWs are Teslas. I don't know. Maybe I just know a certain type of Asian, but a disproportionately large number of Asians. I know drive much more expensive cars than white people or black people or Latin people. Anybody else? And are they suggesting that these Asians are too stupid to have an ID to go vote in Georgia? Sure. It sounds like it. Or maybe today they're excluding Asians from the group generally known as minorities. It is asinine. It was stupid. It is offensive and it should not be condoned. And for that reason, I'm not going to baseball games, probably ever. I'm not drinking Coke because they've gotten the woke and they need to go they're not going to go bankrupt, obviously, but they need to pay for this. And I sure as hell am not flying Delta. And I had 800,000 miles on Delta. I didn't hit a million miles on Delta, but I had plenty of miles on Delta. No more flights on Delta, not going to happen. Go woke, go broke friends. That's the way it works these days. And I encourage everybody to think about it in that context because when a group of companies, even just a single company comes out for a particular political stance, that company has essentially declared war on your beliefs. They've brought down the power of a corporation. And none of these companies were chartered as political entities. Mind you, Apple, isn't registered under the class of what this company does as a political as either a PAC or any other kind of political organization. It's registered as a seller of telephones and technology and computers and entertainment. I'm sure these days, they're, I'm sure they've got tons of registrations given that. Multitude of things that they do. Nope. No more Apple Tys. No, not no more. I don't have Apple T but you're still not going to get Apple TV. You don't need to don't need any of that stuff. Now. I'm also, I'm not seeing it in the article I was reading, but I suspect Google's on that list as well. It's not like going with Android is going to be any better in this regard. But. Giving more money to companies that come out to oppose the things that you believe in. The things that you agree with is a stupid thing to do. And the smart thing to do is to not give those companies any money. Whether it's Netflix and I canceled mindful Netflix months and months ago, whether it's Facebook, I haven't had Facebook for years now, whether it's Twitter or any of these companies. When you have a membership there, when you have a live account, even if you're not doing much with it, you are generating money for these companies. Because remember, as a user, you are the product that they're selling. They're being like Twitter can charge the amount of money they can for ads, because they can say we have 1 billion people registered on Twitter. That communicated on a regular basis, or at least like some percent of that communicated on a regular basis. So by shutting down your account and deleting the data and not just not using it, but actually closing your account, that's the only way that you are preventing them from making money off you. So there again, to anybody that says I don't use Facebook. I don't really use Twitter. Well, do you have an account? Well, yeah, sure. I get an account on there. Shut it down while that account is active. That company is making money off of your account, which you're not using. They're still able to include that in a, an overall list of their assets. You are part of the assets of that company. Now, obviously when it comes to product companies like Nike or Coke or something, you're not like registered there and they're making money off. You. In that sense? It's actually much easier. It just means why I don't buy Nike shoes. I buy Adidas. I don't drink Coke anymore. If I'm going to drink a soda, it won't be Coke. Maybe it'll be an HEB soda or maybe it'll be a Pepsi. Probably not a Pepsi, probably a mountain through if I go there. Yeah. But the point is don't impact power people that hate you by giving them money. So that's my central thesis for this this little rant. And that's the only way they're going to learn their lesson. Companies did not historically or traditionally have political views. They were not participating as though they were citizens in the political process. It seems to be all the rage these days, but that's a horrible thing for them to be doing. And the only way they're going to get taught that it's horrible is that the value of their stock goes down. And the only way that's going to happen is if they make less money, And that is something that we're all in control of. So think about that guys. That's my recommendation. Now, if you like what they're doing, that's great. Then I'd say flip it don't give money to the companies that are disagreeing with you from the other side. I don't care if your political views are completely opposite mind. Guess what? My advice still works. If, if you don't like. Conservative principles, then don't buy the MyPillow. Don't buy products from companies that you dislike. The advice stays the same, regardless of the side you run. I just happen to think my side is the correct side, obviously. All right, what are we at? What else we got that's happening, I guess Trump was on the phone call now. I listened to only a few minutes of the phone call with with Newsmax. I was going to say Fox, but I knew it wasn't Fox because it had a different person talking to Trump on there. So I think he managed to mention the fact that it looks like the border wall construction was not a bad thing, given that Biden's now looking at restarting it so a little bit of vindication for him there. He actually I think criticized Georgia for not going far enough to reform the voting laws, which he may have a point there. At least they're making strides in the right direction, too little, too late, maybe, but at least doing something. And certainly he reiterated the same points that I just did, although he did it, I think with fewer words, essentially saying that he was going to break out baseball and he would Encourage that people make the companies pay for being woke, which is pretty much my point on this as well. All right. Let's jump onto some sort of interesting news, or news that makes you go. Hmm. I have two items in that category. One is. The, now this is coming from the UK. So this is our UK update. I need a jingle for that. No, I don't need a jingle. What am I saying? I don't use jingles. But in the UK update, it looks like the the left on the UK. So that would be the what do they call the liberal parties? Oh, I can't remember. Now. I think the Tories or the conservatives I can't remember what the liberal party is actually called. Maybe they're just called the liberals, but anyway, they are trying to push for lowering the age of consent now. In California, we saw this happening as well, sort of California has been pushing to lower the age of voting down to 16. And also they've now passed a law that lowers the age of consent. I think also down to either 16 or 15, but with an upper limit. So if you have a 20 year old and they're dating a 16 year old, That is no longer a felony where previously, and I think the way it works in most States in the United States the magic number is 18, sometimes 17, usually 18. And whatever side of that number you're on, you can only date people that are on the same side of it. So you can have a 17 year old dating, a 13 year old. That's perfectly legal there's or, and by dating, obviously having sex with that's perfectly fine. No legal issues involved. Parents might have some issues, but legally speaking that's okay. You have a 20 year old dating, a 16 year old, and that could actually be statutory rape. Even if both of the people were madly in love and were consensually in that relationship in the majority of the States in the United States, that type of sexual relationship would actually constitute state statutory rape and the person on the upper side of that magic line of 17 or 18, depending on state. They would then be labeled a sexual offender for the rest of their lives. Not a great thing. So I'm not sure that I would agree with a hundred percent of the California language for that law, but I think it is absolutely a reasonable to have a sliding scale that says, if you're dating a teenager, you shouldn't really be more than four or five years older than that teenager. Much more than that. And it's just getting into pedophilia territory. I, if you got a, an 18 year old dating, a 13 year old, it's a little creepy. It's a little weird, but they're really still kids. 18 year olds are still idiots there, so I can certainly see both of those being. Kids, maybe even 1913, 19, 14 and 19. That's certainly happened plenty times in history of the human race. But 30 five-year old and a 13 year old or 14 year old, or like a 50 year old and a 16 year old, I think that's beyond creepy. That is getting like into serious. Pedophilia range. Now I have also said that we have a problem here in that 18 seems like as the age of adulthood and anybody under that would be considered a child is also kind of weird. I don't think it's accurate, I think 16 or 17, the way that it is in a lot of countries in Europe, not all of them, but a lot of them is a lot better. It's more accurate as to when When people start developing romantic feelings and start making decisions about themselves, not strictly relying on their parents to do that. While I think it would be, and certainly at this point, it would be illegal and creepy, both for a 45 year old guy to be sleeping with a 16 year old. I do think that. That same thing could happen in France right now. And it would be perfectly legal. It would still be creepy, but it would be perfectly legal. And I think that there, the California approach of having that sliding scale, so, 13 year old, maybe 19 or 20 would be the top 1340. I don't know what the California law says where their bottom end of that spectrum is. But certainly when you're talking about a 17 year old. Having a relationship with a 30 year old again might be creepy, but should that really be illegal? Should that be considered rape? Okay. I don't think so. I think it greatly depends on the maturity level of the 17 year old. Literally somebody who's less than a year away from being able to not just vote, but serve in the military. They do all these other things. I'm certainly considered an adult for purposes of law. When you're less than a year away from that to still be perceived as a child, when it comes to your relationships, know it's a topic that I think requires more finesse and less hard line rules. So a California like sliding scale, they're more makes some sense to me. However, having no sliding scale and just simply lowering the age of consent. By several years is my understanding. Like I think that's going a little too much. That's going too much into the other direction. It would probably make it more palatable to people in their twenties today, teenagers. But if you don't have the sliding scale factor in there, it would also. Not discouraged people that are in their forties, fifties, and older from also trying to date and sleep with teenagers. And I don't know, I guess it's I think universally, we can all agree. It's creepy, but at some point I'm willing to just take a stand or draw a line and say, yeah, that's just too much age difference. For a relationship to be considered, purely love. That is to some extent and adult taking advantage of the immaturity of the child. And ultimately I think that is the main goal of any of these sort of laws that have age restrictions on the age of consent for sex is that you don't want to, if you had no laws, you would have a situation where. Adults with much more experience, much better understanding and ability to manipulate and influence other people using those manipulation skills to manipulate their way into having sex with children. Now, again, applying the word child to a 17 and a half year old and applying it to a 13 year old. Exactly the same way I think is also wrong. There's a huge maturity change that happens between 13 and 17. But nonetheless, you have to admit that like a 25 year old is like closer to a maturity level of a 17 year old, like a 25 year old is just barely starting to figure out what the hell their purpose in life is. At least here in the United States. Some countries they're mature a little faster, but a 45 year old has figured all that stuff out long time ago. And if they're. In a relationship with a 17 year old, there's a huge imbalance of life experience and ability to influence others. And to some extent that manipulate auditors others. So I guess my main point is I think that this is an issue that is a powder keg or dynamite, and is very dangerous too. Make drastic changes in. But certainly there should be a conversation about what is reasonable and practical. And to me that essentially means some type of a sliding scale. okay. Second topic that makes you go. And that would be that Caitlyn Jenner, who is Bruce Jenner transgender, super athlete. Bruce Jenner had won a whole bunch of metals, very well known as a great athlete. And apparently saw himself as a woman had been wearing women's clothes for many years, according to past spouses and girlfriends. No judgment call on that, whatever it's your boat, but when you do have AC exchange operation it does it kinda. Shifts the expectation from just doing what you enjoy to doing something that expects others, to see you as something that you're not now, what he is transgender. And I could say what she is, is transgender to what that person is, is transgender. What that person is not is a woman. What that person is mostly not these days is a man. I think if we want to be just very unemotional and fair about it, let's just say that transgender is just like a third sex and it's not really a man. It's not really a woman. It's somebody that started off as a man and is trying their darndest to be a woman. But they're never going to hit the Mark. That's just biologically true. The DNA in Caitlyn Jenner's body is male DNA with a Y chromosome that will never change no matter how many surgeries you have. But it also doesn't mean you have to be an asshole and tease and make fun of Bruce Jenner either. But if you're a South park, of course, that's exactly what you do. And and so, so what's interesting here is that Bruce slash Caitlin I should probably just use Kaitlin and not not call Caitlyn Bruce. I, I don't mind doing that preference, but as long as I'm not forced to. To call Caitlin a woman then I don't mind calling Caitlin, Caitlin. So Caitlin Jenner is looking at running for the governor of California and why not? California has had a slew of really wacky, crazy governors over the years. Some good, some bad, some horrible, some mediocre it's been one of the States that's. Had several actor governors over the years. So no reason that Caitlin couldn't be governor of California, but maybe there is one Caitlin is talking about running as a Republican Caitlyn voted for Trump Kaitlin, even though Kaitlin is transgender. Did not go walk. And this is, I think a fuck for a lot of people in California and maybe not even just California and other places as well, because you have somebody that is so historically outside of what would be considered conservative thought or conservative party affiliation. And yet has the audacity to not be a liberal. And I think that is really hilarious. It is. It's funny. It's good. I like gadflies. I like people that stir the pot and for that, I like Caitlyn Jenner because I'm not changing your politics, even though you're changing your body, honestly, that should be the way that most people approach it. I think some of the people, certainly if you are on nudge on the social and you've seen my posts, that I'm also a fan of Blair white, who is also a conservative, transgender actually a very attractive, very feminine, like completely passable transgender person for lack of a better term. And I, again, the distinction I'm making is just simply that. I kind of have to agree with the feminist here, that it's not really fair to say that a man that has gone through a surgical transition and become transgender is a woman. That man is not a woman. Now I'm willing to say that it's not a man either. I don't need to insult somebody who's trans by calling him a man. If that is somebody who started off as a man just like, I don't need to call somebody that transitioned from a woman to a man don't need to call them a woman, but I'm probably also not going to call him a man either. It certainly helps in both directions if they're passable, right? You, you really have to spend some time hanging out or looking at Blair. To realize that, Oh, hold on here. Maybe Blair, isn't really a biological woman. And what's the name? I've met a female to male transgender. And this is somebody that did it years ago, probably one of the more. Famous ones and I can't remember their name, but there again removed breasts, very worked out a lot, built up huge muscles very masculine looking body beard tattoos. The whole works basically just totally passable as a man. Biologically, if you look at the DNA, it's all XX DNA, right? So there's no Y chromosome there. So technically not a man. But a very passable looking transgender female to male. So, bottom line with this is I think this is going to, I really hope that Caitlin runs because this is going to make for a very interesting and exciting race in California to see. How a liberal state that has been championing LBGT Q Q a plus, plus, whatever other letters I missed like for years they've been on that raw bandwagon when Kaitlin announced the the conversion that was going to take place California was all Rob roaring that decision. And I think Caitlin was a superstar there in California until media sources started asking questions about politics and realizing that Caitlin was not towing the woke line, even though Bruce had made the determination to change his sex or gender, if you prefer That also didn't automatically mean that Bruce AKA Kaitlin was going to change his their now political opinion. So interesting stuff. And boy, it's going to be it's going to be what, the fun of watching the liberal media squirming, trying to on the one hand, not insult people that they're transgender. And on the other hand, trying to dump a bunch of shit against Kaitlin to make sure she doesn't win the election. So hopefully I've thoroughly confused everybody by just completely using all three pronouns for Kaitlin of he she, and they that's the messy nature of this whole thing is really, if we want to be unemotionally fair about it. We just need to have an acknowledgement that this person is now neither male, nor female. It's just. Somebody of a separate type of a transgender type, if you will. And not pretend I don't like playing pretend. But I also don't, like whatever floats your boat, I don't care if people want to do this. I would never try and prevent somebody from going down the path of doing transgender. I have met plenty of transgender people, and frankly, if you just. Take them for who they are and not focus all your attention on what they've done to their bodies. They're literally like every other person and probably very similar to the way they were before they made this move. But it does make for some complicated language that's for sure. All right, guys, let's move on to another story. I think everybody's probably in the loop about. The governor of Texas joining the governor of California in having an executive order out there that essentially says Texas will will not support or abide or allow any kind of government mandated vaccine passports. So I think it is, ah, I'm not a huge fan of governor Abbott's I think he's made a lot of mistakes and he is a typical politician who just sticks his finger up into the wind to measure which direction the wind's blowing from and then adjust his rhetoric. But lately he has been making some positive strides or at least he's been paying attention to the right, correct. Wind for. For a while now. And so this is another good thing that's happening here. Is the the fact that Texas along with Florida are standing up for the rights of citizens and saying that there are no government rights there. There's no right. That the government has. To either inquire about nor make determinations about your fitness for something based on whether or not you have had a vaccine, which is something manufactured by private companies and administered. Bye. Voluntarily, everybody is voluntarily taking the vaccine. Nobody is mandated to have a vaccine. And so having a vaccine passport type document would be absolutely illegal in the state of Texas as well. I'm very happy about that, but I'm not quite sure how his executive order addresses the obvious elephant in the room, if you will, which is it's really the same. 200 companies that are signing the anti Georgia bill. It is the tech elite that are promoting the hell out of creating these vaccine passports, because they're going to benefit financially from creating these things and encouraging businesses voluntarily, again, to implement discriminatory policies based on a person's. Possession of such a vaccine passport. So it's a, it's very interesting. It's playing around with definitions is what it is. It's saying this is not a government document that has nothing to do with government. This is just purely voluntarily done by businesses, but it is effectively creating a cartel. It is creating an agreement between businesses in multiple sectors. That agree to selectively discriminate against people S based on the position, the possession, not position based on the possession of a documents or in this case, obviously digital record, not a paper document, but based upon a digital record, that again is administered by private companies because they can't have the government involved. I'm pretty sure this is illegal in most States and maybe even federally. And I'm pretty sure we'll see lawsuits emerge as this type of technology is rolled out. Because the last time that we had discrimination of private businesses against people and discriminations of multiple businesses, colluding to discriminate against businesses this was happening in the South and it was happening. In very Democrat States and it was happening to a particular group of people who the Democrats did not consider to be equal to themselves simply because they had a different skin color. And so on that note, the same note that I began with, which is the fact that much like 50 years ago, today's Democrats are mostly interested at the color of somebody's skin. To be able to determine the, whether or not they're capable or incapable of doing something. These passports for vaccine are exactly mirroring the actions that the Democrats conducted 50, 60 years ago. And it, I guess it just tells you that some things never change. The KU Klux Klan started in the Democrat party. And it's still very strong of Democrat party. The only thing they've done is they've learned some lessons along the way to use the words that best describe themselves to describe their enemies. And so Antifa calls everybody a fascist. If you watch videos of Germany in the 1930s and videos of Antifa, you will see the same actions done by people dressed in the same way. And the same thing. In this case, you have people that have always discriminated based on the color of somebody's skin. Now calling everybody else around them, racist while still promoting ideas based on discrimination of people based on the color of their skin. So I hope you enjoyed this political episode. We're going to wrap this up for the next few. It's going to be interviews dealing with Bitcoin with podcasting 2.0 with some tech subjects. And hopefully you guys will enjoy that as well. And depending on the votes coming in via donations, that will determine when the next politics and opinion episode will pop up in the stream. Thanks to all the anonymous donors below the $50 line. Also, thanks to Bruce city, Mike, I appreciate all your donations, whether you're doing them to vote or just to support the podcast, keep listening.