[00:00:05] Speaker A: You're listening to casual talk radio, where common sense is still the norm, whether you're a new or longtime listener. We appreciate you joining us today. Visit
[email protected] and now here's your host, Leister.
[00:00:21] Speaker B: Although the current is relevant to cryptocurrency, I think investments overall and the larger market are in everybody's crosshairs as we are on clearly a bull run pretty much across the board, and hopefully you're benefiting from it. Welcome or welcome back to Casual Talk radio.
[email protected] I am going to be talking about and digging a little bit deeper into more topics around the attack on women. Although I'm going to deviate from what you might think I'm going to be covering because it's a fascinating topic. I really wish I could get to the point, and I'm actually close, by the way. I wish I could be at the point where money would just flow in and I don't actually have to engage or do anything to make it work beyond maybe 2 hours a day. I'd love to get to that point. I'm not quite there yet. I really need to put in full because I'm trying to get to a status. I had some bad news from my current living place and I was not happy with what I was told. We have a workaround, but it wasn't going to work. And so I'm actively working to get the hell out of here, just to be clear. But I figured, let me step back and do at least some enrichment, mental enrichment, and get away from the because I don't do social media. I don't do any of this garbage. I don't have a smartphone. I do none of this. As a technologist, I'm kind of hoping someday, perhaps naively, someday, people will recognize that they're trapped by their smartphone. It's disheartening seeing older people that are just locked to their smartphones. I see people that just, they can't live without text messages. It's just disgusting.
Anyway, topic it occurred to me that some people don't recognize how bad laws get passed. And when I say bad laws, I also am referring to this idea that a law can have the best of intentions, but it's used to solve one problem and then it's misrepresented. It's then modified in slight ways and then becomes some other law and then that then changes society.
And I'll get to the specifics. Bear with me. I think it's important. One thing that's always been kind of a point of contention is around rights of individual groups, whether that's asian american, black american, lesbians, gays, just rights of groups. And Dr. Umar Johnson, he's on YouTube, if you'd like, but he gave a statement that basically said that the government, the federal government, has not done anything to cater to black Americans to an excessive degree. And he was getting flak for that statement because people kept talking about equal opportunity, civil rights, et cetera. And the preface for this is that equal opportunity and civil rights and all the other laws that were passed, affirmative action, they were based on a different understanding, and as a result, they became diluted over time.
This dilution is common in what we create, all this precedent that we create, that is an allusion to progress. Affirmative action is a great example. What, at the basic core is affirmative action? Affirmative action is essentially forcing a business.
[00:03:51] Speaker C: To hire people based on their skin tone to meet a quota. At the bottom line, basic. That's what it is.
[00:03:58] Speaker B: What is Dei then?
[00:04:00] Speaker C: Dei is a social narrative that is designed to say that you're hiring too many white people. At the basic. That's what it is. Well, we're moving away, which scares me. Just a caveat. We're moving away from focusing on competency and focusing on hiring the right person for the job. I had this conversation with my endeavor. You can't just throw any person in there to meet a quota. And that's what a lot of management from the old school likes to do.
[00:04:31] Speaker B: Is they'll just throw people at the job. But if you don't mentor those people, they're going to fail. And if they fail, your business is going to suffer. So the concept of DEi is flawed on its face. This fanny da business, which I'm not going to go into here, is a great example of why that falls short.
I'm frankly terrified of our medical system and this idea that these businesses, hospitals and medical providers or flights, pilots. I'm terrified of this idea that people are being coerced effectively to hire somebody because of their skin or some other fluffy, non relevant thing. Well, those people might have gone through college. They're not getting a fair share. The truth is, they're being hired to meet a quota. I would not want somebody one year out of flight school. Now, I don't fly planes, but if I did, I wouldn't want somebody one year out of flight school. I don't care what their race is.
[00:05:31] Speaker C: At the front of the plane simply because of some quote that, yes, we got to have this. We got to have this from people.
[00:05:38] Speaker B: Who don't know what they're talking about. And those people would never get on said plane. I don't want to be subject in.
[00:05:45] Speaker C: A medical facility to some sort of.
[00:05:47] Speaker B: A quota that all these doctors are fresh out of school.
[00:05:52] Speaker C: I don't care.
[00:05:53] Speaker B: I don't care if it's a dentist.
[00:05:54] Speaker C: There were dentists that have caused people to die on the table, right? To me, that's a problem.
[00:06:01] Speaker B: But the origins, then, of the DEI and the affirmative action and everything else started with all the best of intentions. They started at a time where it was difficult to open up the door for people.
But I feel we went the wrong way in trying to force that narrative, because by trying to force it, it has degraded the quality of everything around us. I think I gave the story in a past episode, and if you knew, by the way, welcome, you wouldn't have heard this. So I'm repeating it. I told the story, and if I didn't, fine. I went to McDonald's the other day. This is a while ago. And I pay with cash everywhere because screw credit cards, screw debit cards, screw phone, whatever. It's cash. Cash is king. So it's a $20 bill.
This guy could not. The millennial kid could not figure out how to count the change. Now, mind you, I know how cash registers work. Even in their digital form, they tell you what the change denomination is. He couldn't figure out the coins. He couldn't figure out how to count it. He had to pull out his phone just to count basic change. This told me that we're struggling with competency across the board, and we're just hiring to fill a quota.
Now, I prefaced all that because of.
[00:07:14] Speaker C: The topic in question. That really.
It stunned me, but it didn't surprise me.
[00:07:19] Speaker B: I guess it's weird that so many people don't understand why the Roe v. Wade as implemented was bad, and it's because nobody really thought about the origins of it. They only thought about the aftermath, as Dr. Dre would say. They thought about the outcome and how it benefited them individually. Same flaw as affirmative action. If you're a black american, in your mind, you have to have affirmative action. Where's that narrative coming from? It's coming from a belief that there's racism and that you won't get a free opportunity without it. So the system, quote, unquote, has already set a narrative in your mind that you suck so bad that you can't prove yourself. That's what it is. Because we're not talking an opportunity to prove yourself. We're talking that these businesses literally have to give you a chance. They're forced to meet a quota and have a certain amount on the books if they're a certain size or greater.
Are you saying that you just want that gimme because you are so defeated in your mind that you can't live without it? That's the question to ask, right? This Roe v. Wade, then, has a similar context behind it. The vast majority of people who were pissed off about the dissolution of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court are.
[00:08:36] Speaker C: The ones who are only focusing on how it benefited them, which is around the abortion rights.
[00:08:42] Speaker B: Whether you sit on this side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle with respect to abortion rights is not relevant for this conversation. That may surprise you. I say that, but trust me, follow along with this magic carpet ride, because it goes deeper. It's a shady business, and I don't have a stake. I don't care because I'm not female in this regard. But I'm going to tell you the background of how it got to this point, and some stuff may surprise you. And I challenge you to go and do your own research. Don't just listen to me. See, I had the benefit of reading encyclopedias when I was a kid, so I have context beyond an emotional response. In order for this to make sense, you've got to set aside your emotions on this business.
Roe v. Wade came about because of privacy.
Initially, it had nothing to do with abortion itself. Abortion was a byproduct, but it was all around privacy.
Everybody believes that they have a fundamental right to privacy. That fundamental right to privacy, that word, privacy, but also fundamental. The key word there is fundamental. You don't actually have a fundamental right to privacy. Why do I say this? You're like, no, the fifth amendments and this amendments, no, you don't have a fundamental right to privacy.
The government can put cameras wherever they feel like it against you within your home space. They're unlikely to do it, but they could do it. There's nothing saying that they can't. There's nothing stopping them from doing it. I don't care where you look in the law, you're not going to find any law that prohibits. The keyword is prohibits, prohibits any government entity from spying on you. They absolutely can. Now, there are ethical concerns around doing so. Wiretaps and all these other types of laws that question the ethics of them doing so. But we already knew that phone calls were being screened. Access to your cell phone, the unlocking your cell phone. If you commit a crime. So you say, well, that's a crime. No, the fact that they were able to do it had nothing to do with the crime. The fact that they were able to do it is because there's no prohibition around them doing it. In privacy in general, you don't have a fundamental right to privacy. It's a myth. What's happened is they have never executed.
[00:11:01] Speaker C: Any sort of violation of privacy beyond.
[00:11:03] Speaker B: Things like phone scans. And they already have your phone calls. They already know how to reach you, location, they know how to find you. They know all this stuff about you. So there's a profile and data about you. You don't have a fundamental right to privacy. This has been documented over years.
So then think back. Now we're talking the would happen. The state of Connecticut actually had and prior, but the state of Connecticut actually, it was against the law to use birth control. So you as a family, husband, wife cannot decide that you're going to use birth control. It was against the law. It's prohibited now. They didn't really enforce it per se. But what happened is it was in the books that it is illegal to use birth control.
The reason that they did it at a state level is because they knew there was nothing at the federal level that stopped a person from using birth control. But the states being the states, and you see this now, the state can enforce whatever they want as long as it's only a state specific situation.
I'll come back to that. When I say state specific, follow me.
So this all goes to all sorts of legal proceedings, comes up as Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please do look at that, because that's a case against the state saying they're violating our right to privacy. Effectively, Connecticut lost that case. Connecticut lost the case not because there was an assumption of privacy, but simply because the feds said state, you can't make that. You can't make it illegal. You can't do that. You're just a state. This is a federal situation. We have to make the call around whether there is this privacy or whatever. That federal site eventually spawned Roe v. Wade through a different court case. Now, Roe v. Wade was talking about abortion, not necessarily birth control.
Birth control had always been perceived largely at federal level, has always been perceived as a personal decision between husband, wife or man or female or whatever. And there was never any sort of intrusion into that right, similar to using a condom, because essentially a condom is.
[00:13:27] Speaker C: A form of birth control.
[00:13:29] Speaker B: So nobody would ever question you going to the store, buying a pack of condoms, it's unheard of.
[00:13:34] Speaker C: There were certain types of birth control.
[00:13:37] Speaker B: Supplements that they would not allow you.
[00:13:39] Speaker C: To purchase, but that was at the point of sale.
[00:13:41] Speaker B: It's not necessarily use, it's just at.
[00:13:43] Speaker C: The point of sale, just like prohibition with alcohol.
[00:13:47] Speaker B: So it was unthinkable to ban somebody's right to control birth with these forms that we now take for granted because there never was.
But that's different than the abortion conversation where people, I think, got it wrong is the assumption that you have the right to have an abortion because it's a form of birth control just after the fact.
[00:14:09] Speaker C: Birth control is a different thing because.
[00:14:11] Speaker B: It'S prior to birth. And so preconception, it's a different thought process.
All of this boiled down, really, when you think about it, to medical.
Medical has always been visible to the government because they've always had a hand in the kinds of care that's put out, the oversight of medications, the oversight of care, the oversight of facilities data, which is why I say you never had a fundamental right to privacy. There are obviously anonymous type clinics and those types of things, but they still.
[00:14:45] Speaker C: Have to do some basic level of.
[00:14:47] Speaker B: Reporting from numerics as well as different medications that they give. If you're prescribing a medication, if you're giving an OTC medication around it, if you're doing any sort of care to.
[00:14:57] Speaker C: A patient, there are levels of data.
[00:14:58] Speaker B: They still have to produce and submit to the government because healthcare is under the auspice of the government, same as education.
So my point only when Roe v. Wade was said, yep, that's good. The focus, largely by the media was.
[00:15:14] Speaker C: Around abortion rights, period. You have the right to an abortion. And during that time, mind you, this was at a time where people were a little bit fast and a little bit sexually promiscuous. And so it was celebrated as a way for them to continue that promiscuity. Well, that promiscuity era of free love, as it was referred to, is long since gone. You now are in an era where we believe, which I don't agree with, but we believe that there's overpopulation. We believe that we're grossly overpopulated, we.
[00:15:45] Speaker B: Should stop having kids. And so perhaps we need to rethink some of the faulty decisions, quote unquote, of the past. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand what they're trying to say. They're trying to say when what we look at here happens, ABC, what do we do about it. I think the answer was, let's go ahead and pass this and just celebrate it, and it becomes a fundamental right.
It wasn't a fundamental right. The Supreme Court looks at it and they say, this was faulty on its face, because what you effectively did is you took a state ruling where they lost the case and you turned it into something else so that you could pass it and go all the way in there. This is actually the same thing as what happened with same sex marriage, which I will not talk about here. The point is, I'm telling you that this is the way laws happen. They start with something completely unrelated and turn into a different cause and then get presented to a certain set of justices who may lean a certain way and it may originate at a state level. And nobody questions really the justification or the background with certain laws going forward.
[00:16:54] Speaker C: They just say of their beliefs, this is in alignment.
[00:16:58] Speaker B: So let's assume that, yes, it's good to go when the Supreme Court changes its makeup, and of course, the judges, they last forever. But when it changes its makeup, it's going to change its makeup at some point, I guarantee you, somebody's going to look back at it again and say, no, Roe v. Wade should be reinplemented, or it's a new case and it becomes something else and it'll come back to be a thing instead of being left to the states. So again, that's why I don't take a stance a or b, because I simply understand this is the political gamesmanship that happens. The people that are looking at it at a given point in time decide to take it up as a case, and they look at it and there's no answer. There's no real answer, other than you don't have a fundamental right to privacy and you never did. If you don't have a fundamental right to privacy, how can you give a fundamental right to have an abortion? I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I'm saying that's the thought process behind it. Well, then, as a woman, now I'm back to square one. As a woman, you look at that, you say that the government's intruding on your right to make that choice. You never had the right to make the choice in the vacuum.
It was extended, but it really shouldn't have been in the way that they're perceiving the laws. So then how does that affect you now? They left it to the states. Leaving it to the states was actually to your benefit to some degree. But what it means is that you have to be brave enough to uproot and get the hell out of the state that's holding you back from what you feel. However you feel, if you feel that it's wrong, you should leave and go.
[00:18:28] Speaker C: To a state where they feel that.
[00:18:29] Speaker B: It'S wrong because you're going to find.
[00:18:31] Speaker C: More compatibility and more peace of mind.
[00:18:34] Speaker B: You might say you shouldn't have to be driven out. You're not driven out. You can choose to just go along.
[00:18:39] Speaker C: With it and say, okay, it is what it is, the Supreme Court spoken.
[00:18:42] Speaker B: Or you can fight.
[00:18:43] Speaker C: Fighting means that you don't take it.
[00:18:46] Speaker B: If it's not in alignment, what you.
[00:18:47] Speaker C: Believe, where you live right now, you up and leave. That's a fight. You're sending a message. And when I say that women are too silent, that's what I'm referring to. They're not willing to fight anymore. And it's not just tell the supreme court feds to change their mind again. It is. It's left to the states now.
[00:19:05] Speaker B: Okay, let's create that battleground. Let's get on the line and figure out who's going to give first. In the meanwhile, I guarantee you states are going to change their mind if they start losing a lot of that tax money that they used to have because everybody's uprooting and leaving because of a decision they made. That's how you initiate change. That's how you get them to do what you want them to do. If it turns out that the vast majority are supporting what it is and you are a singular voice, go where there's more voices like yours because you're going to be happier. I'm not giving you a call to action. I'm saying if you're not happy with what it is, understand at some point in a future state with a different makeup of Supreme Court, it's going to be reevaluated again. For right now, it's left to the states. It's left to the states. If you're in a state that doesn't align with your beliefs and principles, you should leave if that's the way you feel or roll with it, because it is what it is. But the fight starts with having the bravery to say I'm not going to stay in a place that doesn't align with my values and principles.
[00:20:07] Speaker C: And then let's look at it again.
[00:20:09] Speaker B: When everybody has finally gotten up and.
[00:20:11] Speaker C: Shifted, let's look at it again. I guarantee you you'll start seeing like.
[00:20:16] Speaker B: The Californias and the Oregon's and the Washingtons of the world start to struggle and they're going to change those laws.
[00:20:22] Speaker C: And the leadership is going to get kicked out because they're not going to have anybody left there because of their radical changes that they're doing. There are going to be people there that love the radical changes. There's people that love the crime that's happening.
[00:20:32] Speaker B: There's people that love all the stuff happening with something like this.
[00:20:36] Speaker C: If they're willing to hold to the fence and say no, the Supreme Court spoke, so we're going to go with it. And you don't agree and the vast majority of you leave, that state's going to crumble. And that's what you should welcome, because it's the only way to affect change on a large scale is to send a message. Don't sit there and just be frustrated and tweet about it on social media. Do something, which is get up and leave.
[00:20:59] Speaker B: Don't stay.
[00:21:00] Speaker C: Now, I'll close with an example, and again, I'm not a woman, so I can't resonate to this specific situation, but I'll give you an example that's very similar.
[00:21:08] Speaker B: I was all too happy to get the hell out of Nevada. Nevada is probably the worst state I've ever lived in. I've lived in quite a few at this point, and it's probably the worst state I've lived in on all fronts. Now, I did benefit on a couple of fronts, but vast majority was negative. The vast majority of the experience was negative because Nevada has turned into a form of East California. That's essentially what it is. They're trying to be California, but then they put stupid rules and laws in place, like hoa cops, as in real cops acting like an HOA, putting tickets on the freaking know, like you can't have a lawn and they'll sanction you for having lawns. Like just stupid things that are not in line with what I believe, which is as long as I pay my taxes, you leave me alone.
If I'm hurting, as in financially, if I'm hurting, I expect you to support and provide that support and make it easy to get it. And they didn't do that either. I expect my DMV to serve me, not the other way around. They didn't do that either. Nothing that they did aligned with what I believe it should be like. So I left. And I was happy to leave. I came to where I came.
[00:22:13] Speaker C: I can say the DMV is certainly better.
[00:22:15] Speaker B: I can say there's no hoa cops. I can say that. You can have lawns.
[00:22:19] Speaker C: Everything's better at that regard. There are things that are steps back, a lack of commercial, et cetera. That simply may be the specific city I'm in. My point as I close is I.
[00:22:30] Speaker B: Made a hard choice to get up.
[00:22:32] Speaker C: And leave Washington state. I wasn't happy with what it was doing. Now that was business related, but I.
[00:22:37] Speaker B: Wasn'T happy with what it was doing.
[00:22:38] Speaker C: I got up and left Colorado. I was decently okay. It wasn't great, but I was decently happy. And then I got up and left. And that was business related. Oregon was a terrible, terrible place. It was better than Nevada, but it was terrible. Generally speaking. Can't even pump your own freaking gas. And then Nevada was horrible. Like, I've never been afraid to just up and leave. That's me, though. I can't tell you what to do. I'm just telling you. I think the best way to combat whatever it is, however you believe and get things to be in more alignment as a nation is when things like this happen that affect you. Be brave enough to fight it. And fighting may mean you uproot and get the heck out of there and go to a place that's more in.
[00:23:18] Speaker B: Alignment with your values.
[00:23:19] Speaker C: Because those source states, when they lose enough people, they'll learn and they'll shift back. Until then, you're just banging your head against the wall because the Supreme Court that we have is going to be here for a long time.
