December 29, 2025 • 33 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
It's that time. Time time, time, Luck and load. The
Michael Verie Show is.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
On the air.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
This Mark is our guest.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
We're going to talk about how to reach him, how
to learn more about his positions. And by the way, folks,
I've always said, in twenty years of doing this, I
have always said, I am never going.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
To tell you or try to tell you.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
I wouldn't be so immodestous to believe that I could
tell you anything that you'd do anyway. But I'm never
going to tell you what to think. I'm only going
to ask that you think and if you're getting your opinion.
Are the same people who told you to take the
COVID shot, the same people who told you that Joe
Biden was perfectly lucid, or the same people that told
(01:03):
you that Kamala Harris was sober, or the same people
who we could go on and on.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I play this game forever if.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
That's the case, at least at least seeks some alternate positions.
Because you said something when I said you said that
you're not a climate change denier, that you consider yourself lukewarm,
I'm going to make a statement I don't know you,
and it is intended to be a touch provocative, but
that doesn't mean I don't believe it. I think that
a lot of people I won't speak for you, even
(01:29):
who've studied the science. It's sort of like why people
are agnostic instead of atheistic. I think that a lot
of people don't want to say it's all bunk, it's
all a hoax, because then they will be marginalized even
if they believe that. Is that a fair thing to say?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yeah, I think it's an accurate characteristic of it.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
There's a well organized effort we're in the scientific community
to sensor people who cast out on their religion, their orthodoxy.
And while I firmly am not of the opinion that
it's all a hoax, I think a lot of the
policies and I wouldn't even say a hoax would be
an accurate description.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I would call it more so a scam.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
That's a more uh, that's more of an accurate additive
to describe this entire thing. Now, I wouldn't say that
the science is necessarily a scam, because there's a legitimate
basis to it, and I firmly in an agreement with
that point and off the record, but a lot of
the policies, these green energy policies could very well, I
would very much agree, be characterized as a scam because
(02:30):
they're not going to make our standard living better. But
as far as the scientific side of things go, when
you even questioned just a little bit of their narrative
with a lot of these sciences, it's these high priests
of climate science.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
It's the Church of climatology.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
As a Secretary Chris right Like Energy Secretary Chris Like
described it on CNN to Caitlin Collins last week. Again,
this goes back to what we were talking about before.
When we decided to put Congress in charge of allocating
and apportioning money.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
To scientists to study this issue.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
We put policy goals as the desire, policy goals as
really what's in charge of determining the scientific results. And
so we have a whole army of science that's at
universities and in the government who their careers depend on
getting that funding and if their research comes up empty
on there being a quote unquote climate crisis, well they're
(03:19):
livelihoods the right stake and people like me who have
no stakes in this game because I'm not in a
university and.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
I'm not lying, not any longer because i just.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Graduated with my Bachelor's of Science degree in atmospheric science,
but because I'm not a government employee, because I'm not
an academic, I have those stakes, financial stakes in this game.
And people like me, other mean always disliked me, that
are out there speaking truth about this and being honest
about it. We put their careers on the line, other
careers on the line, and it makes them angry because
(03:49):
we are spilling the beans and upsets them because that
could you know, they could lose their funding if if
a new administration, like the career administration, deems a lot
of this stuff to be focused.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
I think that's fair.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
I'm just always disturbed when there are subjects about which
we're not supposed to talk or question the narrative. I'm
always uncomfortable when there needs to be a universality of agreement.
I don't think there's universality of agreement or complete consensus
as to color the color of the sky, much less
(04:25):
the best birth control, whether the Pfizer shot worked, whether
global warming is a hope.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
And it's this idea that if you so much as ask.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
About it, it's a Salem witch trial. You know, you
need to be buried at the stake. And I find
that to be like an ad hominem attack. When someone
is debating you, it's a sign of great weakness and
unsteady ground that they're on.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
Absolutely, it's an I'm thinking, Sam, I mean, bias that
cannot be question is not science. It's propaganda. And that's
the words of Aaron Aaron Rodgers. And I think that
anybody should be able to question anything. And that's that's
the that's the value, the beauty of the First Amendment,
which guarantees the right to freedom of speech in this country.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And and that's an important aspect of science.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
Science is not science is never in the history of
human civilization. Science is never advanced by experts. And I
use that term lightly.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Of course.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
Science is never advanced by people throwing their hands up
in the air and agreeing with each other. Science always
advances when somebody comes forth with new information that challenges
the status quo, and people like uh, you know, Galileo
and people other people to hick the guy that proposed
I don't know his name, but the guy that proves
the idea of washing your hands to prevent material affections
(05:47):
and stuff like that. He was she was shunned by
the community for decades and he ended up being right.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
So science always and he reduced he reduced surgery about
like ninety nine percent.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
It was such a simple thing.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Yeah, literally, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:01):
And when you when you redd, when you cannot question that,
and that becomes that becomes a problem. And there's been
an organized effort, especially within the climate community, and then
obviously not my realm of knowledge, but the medical community.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
We saw this with COVID.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
There were very striking parallels between the censorship that went
on during the pandemic and the censorship that is going
that had been going off with climate for decades. And
there's a big political agenda behind a law of this.
It's about control and power and the scientists who are
perpetulating these ideologies, their careers, their their their money, their salaries,
their their research, all of it depends on government funding.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And if and they they're part of.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
This system, whether or not they want, Whether or not
do you actually want to be a part of it
or not for that purpose is definitely a debate to
be had. There's probably a lot of people in there
who really want to be honest about it. But if
they were to speak out, Uh, their careers are over.
And so we've created this conversation been having on this conversation.
We've created a dialogue that's toxic and it's been very
(07:04):
detrimental to the progress of science, and it pretty much
a violation of, you know, our fundamental freedoms we have
in this country that we cherish.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
I think the thing that bothers me most most, Chris
Marts is our guest. I think the thing that bothers
me most is is not just that journalists who should
be fact seekers truth tellers to the extent that they
can find it, which means after investigation. It's not just
that they try to marginalize and in some cases destroy
that the careers of people who simply raise questions. It's
(07:35):
that people do it in the name of science that
I find downright blasphemous, because while I'm not a scientist,
purely and simply, the scientific method and the means by
which we advance civilization means questioning everything. And you know
that there were there were great scientists who were burned
(07:56):
at the stake, or those who had to change their
opinion at the last.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Moment to avoid it. Galileo among them Newton among them.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Descartes and and and that's that level of courage, bravery
and willingness to challenge is how society advances to where
we are today. Our guest is Chris Marts. Hopefully he'll
stay with us for one more second.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
You e E Michael Berry, you are moy Randy Kings English.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Chris Marts is our guest m A r t Z.
I found him on Twitter. It's not It's not all bad.
Social media is not all bad. I follow people who
pop up in my threads saying something interesting. I go
figure out, who is this person? What else have they written?
Is it consistent? Who's paying their bills? Who are they,
you know, trying to cozy up to? And I was
(08:50):
very very interested in what this fellow had to say.
I want to get into who you are in just
a moment. But you had a tweet it was actually uh,
It says, then why does the co two level increase
year after year? I know why, But none of you
wants to address the elephant in the room because you're
too afraid to criticize the CCP. This is a discussion
that should be had more often, and isn't I would
(09:12):
love for you to speak to that.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, so that's the way.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
This is actually all I posted this morning on Twitter
or x or whatever you want to call it. And
when we talk about carbon dioxide, now let's just hypothetically.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And again it's not what I this is not what
I think. This is just simple. We're just going to
play Devil's advocate here for those for their listening.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
If carbon dioxide, you know, obviously and I agree, it's
the greenhouse gas.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
All this being equal calls is warming when you put
in an atmosphere. But if it's really this, if it
really is a detrimental.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
To the state of human welfare, if it's going to
cause the planet to overheat rapidly to the point it's
going to threaten human civilization. If if we are to
believe that the two is underpinning this alleged climate crisis,
then we need to look at where the largest source
of the emissions will coming from. And most western countries,
the United States included, have been reducing their carbon dioxide
(10:06):
emissions steadily over the last thirty years, but places of
countries like China and India have increased theirs, and it
goes up exponentially each year, and a lot of people
will claim, oh, well, China, you know, they're building more
solar power than the rest of the world, but they're
also building more coal fire power plants. That doesn't matter
how many, and they buy more than the rest of
(10:28):
the will combined on the on the cold power power
plant front, so it doesn't matter how much solar they
add to the grid. And they also built a lot
of fler that they then ship to their countries for
They've built a lot of solar panels over there, But
until the coal plants come offline, then there at the
CO two level, emissions there are not going to is
not going to are not going to fall, They're going
to keep going up. But a lot of climate activists
(10:49):
really really like to give China a free pass in India,
free pass because they are quote unquote the world's factory.
They manufacture a lot of our are good Now. The
United States has increased production. Actually, our GDP has increased
significantly since two thousand fox We're still a really big manufacturer,
but we still import a lot of goods from China
(11:10):
and a lot of countries. Many United States to an extent,
have actually exploited a lot of their manufacturing to China,
and it's helped make manufacturing elsewhere non competitive.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
It's part of their political.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
Agenda to see control over industry, and this is coming
primarily from obviously the left.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
They want to control.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
If you can control energy, you can control industry, you
can control people se if you drive it.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Out of the United States, it allows them to control
people here more and more willingly, more more forcially rather
and so there's a striking.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Parallel between people that support the climate crisis narratives and
people who have a more left wing political ideology, and
so they look at it for these political lenses, and
so they don't want to criticize the CCP or they
really maybe want to even cozy up to them, because
they don't want to they don't want to take they
don't want to talk about reducing emissions in China, which
(12:00):
is really driving up the atmosphere carbon dioxide concentration now
because other countries have decarbonized. And so the refusal to
actually criticize China just goes to so that their entire
movement really the bottom line here that it's political, it's
not based in scientific fact.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Well, and I would argue my wife's from India and
she grew up there, went to college there, and her
family were all in the Indian military, and I've spent
a lot of time talking and they were very high
up in the Indian military about relations with China and
how sophisticated China is and how they can be both
(12:39):
insidious in the things they will do and a long
term effect, and you know, the kind of dynastic control
they have allows them to take the long view because
they don't have an election coming up. But I see
a lot of external influence, particularly coming from China, on
American NGO and activists and universities and grants and politicians.
(13:04):
And the argument is always that America is burning the
earth up, America's polluting the earth. Statistically, that's not true.
But not only that, I think there is a motive
behind this, and I think it is terribly sinister, and
that to me, is far more disturbing than to lie
they're telling.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yes, I would agree with I would agree with that wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
It affects science and that should never be the case.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
You know, you mentioned medicine earlier, and I wouldn't want
it to be the case that if I'm having a
heart attack, they didn't give me the treatment that would
save my life if some external country was paying to
prevent that treatment because they wanted to dominate that treatment.
Energy is at the core of everything we do. You
can look at how the Germans bogged down in Russia
(13:47):
and because they ran out of gas in their tanks
and how that affected you know, the bullets and the
Luftwaffe and the soldiers and the training and the tanks.
I mean, energy is at the very core of our
national security. So this strikes need to be an issue
far bigger than perhaps we're giving it the attention that
it deserves.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Well, absolutely, I mean everything, as you said, everything we
do requires energy. And if you can control energy, if
you can have a monopoly on that, then you can
control people. You can control their behaviors, you can control
you know, everything that they can they can they can.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Control their consumption.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
And this is what this is largely what a lot
of the climate cult movement is about, and a lot
of the you know has been there's a lot of
influence from the Chinese government on on that around the world,
not just the United States, but everyone in Europe and
then elsewhere, and the people, the people in universities really
(14:40):
have this ideology don't and it just seems to originate
uh in academia that that the United States is to
blame for all the world's problems that we have. And
yet you know, in case of in the case of
the environment, you look at the actual data on that
most of the plastic pollution comes from Asia, and you
know most of it again, most of the emissions CO two. Now,
I don't think COOTO is a pollutant. It's obviously necessary
(15:02):
for life on Earth through the means of photosynth is.
But a lot of that you know, if you if
you want it, if you want to claim it's the pollutant,
then you know they commit further than China, and a
lot of there are and a lot of people this
is another interesting point when it comes to the CO
two emissions. A lot of people on the left will
add it well built, well they'll slay in the United
(15:22):
States and they say, well, yeah, China has higher emissions
in total, but the United States has more emissions per capita.
And I say it's amits more pro person And that's
true because a lot of China's are industrial based. But
the atmosphere, if we talk about climate, well, the Earth's
atmosphere or the temperature, which is a function of radiation balance.
That doesn't care about per capita, which you know, who
(15:42):
admits the most per person. That cared about which country
or who's emitting the most in total.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And that's going to be of.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
Course to China if per capita emissions actually matter. These
people were screaming up by Rain and paloal and Kuwait
because they emit by far more emissions per capita than
the United States. But they don't scream their heads off
at them because in reality those countries are very small,
but they have hired for capital, but the United States
doesn't admit. Again, you guys think really gets into the
top fifteen emissions per capital.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Actually Australia and Canada.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Which are highly industrialized economies, more for a capital of
the United States. So they just want to dunk on
the United States. They hate the West and they want
to bring down our civilization, and they want to control energy.
They want to make manufacturing and capitally when they want
to make manufacturing un I think non competitive so that
they can control people very finistors.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Is the unvarnished truth. Chris Marts, You're awesome. Thank you
for making time for us. I hope we.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Can have you back again and again and again. You're fantastic.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Absolutely thanks for having me. Only listen to the Michael
Berry Show podcast if you dare.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
Jennifer Say has been in the news the last couple
of weeks when she made the statement that she wanted
to not have an h R department. She is the
founder of a women's sportswear company called xxx Y, but
she came to our attention originally when she was a
senior executive. I think she was a chief marketing officer
(17:10):
of Levi Strauss and she didn't play by the corporate rules.
She has really made a name for herself the last
couple of years as somebody with truly independent thought that
represents what the vast majority of Americans believe and want
in our companies, but seems to be alien in corporate culture.
(17:34):
She's our guest, Jennifer, Welcome to the program.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I had the distinct honor and pleasure of meeting you
in Palm Beach and having a conversation about your clothing,
and I have since learned that my wife does in
fact own your clothing. I was not aware of that
at the time. So yes, you were right when you said,
I bet your wife does own our clothing, and she does.
You made the news this week xxxy I believe is
(18:03):
how you pronounce it xxxy athletics, which you can find
easily online. Talking about HR departments. Why did you say that,
you know, Michael.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
It's so funny. I said it at a conference. It
was a libertarian conference called Freedom Fest. It wasn't the
topic of the conversation. The topic of the conversation was
about how brands and businesses can influence cultural conversations, and
(18:33):
it was sort of a throwaway line. I've been saying
it for years that I don't want HR. That HR.
You know, while they used to represent you know, they
used to be a support function. They handled payroll and
benefits and all that operational sess you need. And they've
become these officious home monitors over the years. And it's
(18:55):
happened over the last I would say ten to twenty years,
and they enforced a certain clients. They don't make anything.
They I think diminish innovation and creativity because employees become
afraid to speak that they might be, you know, say
the wrong thing and quote unquote get in trouble with HR.
This is bad for business. And so as a startup,
(19:17):
I get to run my business the way I want
to run it, and I'm not going to have people
that do that that inhibit creativity. So that's why I
said I want no HR. It's a giant cost center
that adds nothing to the top line, have no new products,
no new marketing, nothing. So we'll do just fine without HR.
(19:37):
And I cannot believe there's thoughts that it got. It's insane.
Apparently a lot of people agree with me.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
You know, it's interesting. I look at what Mike Lindell
has done selling pillows. He could have sold anything else.
He became the face of a company and a person
that tamped into a certain mindset and.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
He sold a lot products because of it.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Steve Jobs really made us invest emotionally into this little
thing he held in his hand that technologically delivered, and
it had to or they wouldn't have made it. But
he caught our attention because he had a vision and
because he was saying things that appealed to us. And
I think what's happening is as the founder and CEO
(20:21):
of XXXY Athletics, people are saying Okay, here's a person.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Who came from a corporate background who really.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Understands the frustration we all have, and she's giving voice
to that for folks who don't know. Catch people up
to speed on how you first came to my attention
and your background with Levi Ostrauss and how that ended.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Yeah, I worked in corporate America, not just a Levi's,
but other places as well, but certainly Levi's for the longest,
for over thirty years. I would consider myself a brand
builder and I love that work, and I love making
products that people want to win, and marketing that they
find inspirational and building brands. I mean your reference to Apple,
(21:06):
it's such a great one, you know, one of the
greatest brands in the world, and you think about the
category it existed in, which was this sort of boring
you know, before Apple, it was just boring.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
It was all about.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Efficiency, and there was no style, there was no emotion
to it. And he built this brand that was based
on creativity, not efficiency, you know, and that has changed
the way we all live. Really. It's quite fascinating to me,
and I think one of the observations that I have
(21:38):
had over the last you know five to ten years
is the Left has really taken over corporations and brand building,
and they're sort of smuggling these ideas into the culture.
And unless we sort of take back some of the
cultural artifacts and influence people their hearts and minds, I
(21:59):
don't think we have any chance of returning sanity to
the masses to people because these terrible ideas get kind
of smuggled into the culture, not just through art, but
through brands as well. That was my inspiration for starting
XXXY Athletics that I spent thirty years in corporate America,
(22:19):
twenty three of them at Levi's. I climbed the corporate
ladder from assistant marketing manager all the way up to
brand president. I was very outspoken during COVID about lockdowns
and the harms to children from school closures in particularly.
I did that in San Francis. I was indeed right
about that, and I was also nice and very diplomatic,
(22:39):
because I'm not super like in your faith person. I
thought if I presented data and was sort of just direct,
but you know not Ragie, that's not my that's not
my style. But that didn't go great in San Francisco
for me. And you know, ironically, I'm the only probably
(23:02):
executive in all of San Francisco that actually was sending
her kids to two public schools, and so, you know,
Fleet in San Francisco was raging at me that I
can't say these things. Meanwhile, they're sending their children to
in person private schools because the private schools did in
fact open in the fall of twenty twenty. So they're
paying seventy thousand dollars a year to send their kids
(23:23):
to a private school and telling the rest of us
we're not allowed to have the same thing, concluding the
sixty percent low income students in San Francisco. So that
hypocrisy just enraged me, and it didn't go great for
me in San Francisco. I ended up moving.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
People were txing me.
Speaker 5 (23:39):
And publishing my address online and chasing me down the
street and all kinds of terrible things, and it was
certainly tough at work, and I ended up resigning after
moving in the spring of twenty twenty two. And as
I started, I took a little break, and I started
to interview for jobs again because I have to work
(24:00):
a breadwinner in my family, and I had some very
unpleasant interactions with HR, which cemented my views. I actually
went through an interview process with an eight billion dollar retailer,
very big retailer, went through ten rounds of interviews something
like that to be the CEO. The last person was
the HR lady, and in the summer of twenty twenty three,
(24:22):
she said to me, her first question is will you
apologize for what you've done?
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Wow?
Speaker 5 (24:30):
Wow, which was say public school should be open? Yeah,
I said no, I was right about everything. Why would
I apologize? So I didn't get the job, as you
might imagine.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
And of course that informs your opinion of HR. In
any of us who have ever had that person in
HR who stifles creativity, who stifles spree decorps. There can
be no jokes, there can be no pranks, there can
be no laughing, there can be no kidding. Everything must
(25:06):
be so serious and reviewed under a microscope and miserable.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
Jennifer Say is our guest. Her company is xx x
Y athletics work.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
But I'm reminded of someone proverb now quoted by Sheila
Jackson leans Michael Barry show, you're talking to, Jennifer says,
to who was a longtime corporate leader at LEVI Strauss.
She has created the company xx X y Athletics. She
(25:37):
is portrayed as this, you know, zany woman out there
who is so right wing, but in fact she's just
a tiny little thing. I met her a few weeks
ago in Palm Beach and she's a former US Gymnastics
National Championship competitor. She was a nineteen in the mid eighties.
(26:00):
It's an incredible background. I used to go to Sunday
School with Mary lou Retton, and so I would put
you about on the same frame as Mary lou rettin
those tiny little things and yet such a spark plug.
How much of who you are today goes back to
your gymnastics background.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
I so much. I mean, that's why I want to
protect the opportunity to compete, play and win in sports
for young girls on an even playing field. I would
say I was probably born a very determined and disciplined person.
I think my dad would agree with that. I think
I was a difficult child the parent because I was
(26:42):
so determined. I just want to do gymnastics all the time.
I always wanted to go to a better gym. But
those qualities were certainly shaped and honed in gymnastics because
it worked. The harder I work, the more disciplined, the
more personally parents, the better I did. You know, I
(27:02):
made my first national team at about ten years old.
I just wanted to keep moving up in the rankings. Now,
there's a lot of bad stuff in gymnastics. There's a
lot of abuse, and I've written my first book was
about that. That's stuff we could set aside. I mean,
certainly I wish that had not been my experience in
the sport, but there's so much good that happened, and
(27:24):
I think that it just makes me a person fit
and resilience. And I keep trying, I fall down, I fail,
I keep going. And isn't this what we want for
our children? This is what sports. I don't think we
care that much if they win gold medals. We want
them to have that training as young people so that
they can be successful adults. And when we no longer
(27:49):
protect women's sports as being for women only and they
don't have that even playing field, you know, I believe
over time girls will stop playing because why would you?
And then we've cut off not just their opportunity to
experience that joy in sports, but that sort of sport
to leadership pipeline that I think I benefited from, and
(28:11):
so that's why I care so much about about this
and really empowering female athletes. And I think the thing
that's most grotesque to me about the situation that we're
in right now where you have male feelings girls and
women's opportunities and meddled is if they dare stand up
for themselves, they are just smeared and vilified, and a
(28:32):
warning shot is sent to every other little girl that
she's better not stand up for herself. She's better let
that boy have what he wants because his feelings matter
more than her rights. And that is what's so distasteful
to me as someone that would bill call myself a feminist.
Haven't we been wanting our daughters to believe they can
(28:54):
do anything?
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yes, I want my daughter.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
She dates got tell you because of the world you
come out of, which was originally gymnastics.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
To see Simone.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Biles go after Riley Gaines in the way she did,
and she got a real SmackDown from I think that
was a real wake up call to Simone Biles. You're
on the wrong side of this issue. On the issue
of gymnastics. You were one of the producers of a
movie called Athlete, a which won an Emmy for twenty
(29:25):
twenty Outstanding Investigative Documentary. It was a documentary on Larry
Nasser and the sexual abuse scandal at USA Gymnastics.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
How did that happen? How was that allowed to happen?
Speaker 5 (29:41):
The sport viewed the athletes as mere cogs, not as
human beings, and treated them horribly. I mean, one of
the things I wanted to make clear in the movie
is Larry Nasser was not won that apple. The entire
sports tree. These young girls as cogs and a wheel
(30:03):
meant to make money for USA Gymnastics and the US
Olympic Committee. They are treated with zero humanity. They are
emotionally and physically abused, and that sets the stage for
the sexual abuse. And then these sports governing bodies, these
organizations like USA Gymnastics, the USOPC, they cover up any
(30:24):
abuse because they are trying to burnish an image in
gymnastics any way of happy, shiny little pixies. That's what
brings in the sponsorship dollars and pays the high salaries
of the leaders at these sport governing bodies. The sport
governing bodies will never do the right thing. They will
do the cowardly thing that they think presents the image
(30:47):
that the public wants, which is why they're not going
to stand up to protect women's sports and girls' sports
until the public makes their views known. Eighty percent of
the public, eighty percent of Americans agree with you and
with me, because it's like a normal thing to think
that girls sports to see for girls only, But the
vast majority of those are silent, and so these governing
(31:09):
bodies are catering to the very loud, woke minority.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Jennifer say, that's how it happened. No protecting.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Polo Texas. For evile to occur, as for good people
to do nothing. To quote Burke, the company is called
xx x Y Athletics, of which she is the founder
in CEO. A Stanford grad, a gymnastics standout, I wanted
to get.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
To writing because I always asked this question.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
You wrote a book called Chalked Up, your autobiography of
your time as an elite gymnast, and when you left
Levi's you published in late twenty twenty two Levi's Unbuttoned.
The woke mob took my job, but gave me my
voice about your time there and how the woke mob
came after you. Take about a minute and a half
if you would and talk about the writing process for you,
(32:02):
because I always encourage people to do this.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
When do you write, how do you write? How do
you structure? That's so that's such.
Speaker 5 (32:10):
A great question. Well, I would say with both of
the books I've written, it was almost like a fever dream.
I had an idea and I had to write it.
You know, when I wrote Chalked Up, my first book,
I'd never really written much of anything besides the college paper.
But I had an idea. I knew the tone of voice,
I knew the storyline, and I sat down and wrote
(32:30):
it early mornings, late at night because I was working
a full time job with Levi asun Button. That was
my full time job. But I wrote them both in
about three months. I write regularly on my own subject.
I write appas all the time. I don't know, I
just enjoy it. I have an idea and then it's
just like this compulsion that I have to get it out.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
It's cathartic. Yeah, what's the book you haven't you would
like to?
Speaker 5 (33:00):
That's a xxxy athletic.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
What is your number?
Speaker 3 (33:06):
Close with what is your number one selling item and
what kind of I.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Got about forty five seconds left. What would you? Who
is the prime customer?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Why does somebody want to buy xxxy athletics?
Speaker 5 (33:21):
The number one selling item is a logo key. It's
black with a green logo. We offer it for men
and for women. The number one selling customer is a
woman who did fourth in college and was a beneficiary
of Title nine and wants that same opportunity for her daughter.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Jennifer say, you're amazing, Keep doing what you're doing. Love
to have you back as nice left for me. Thank you,
and good night.
It's that time. Time time, time, Luck and load. The
Michael Verie Show is.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
On the air.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
This Mark is our guest.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
We're going to talk about how to reach him, how
to learn more about his positions. And by the way, folks,
I've always said, in twenty years of doing this, I
have always said, I am never going.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
To tell you or try to tell you.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
I wouldn't be so immodestous to believe that I could
tell you anything that you'd do anyway. But I'm never
going to tell you what to think. I'm only going
to ask that you think and if you're getting your opinion.
Are the same people who told you to take the
COVID shot, the same people who told you that Joe
Biden was perfectly lucid, or the same people that told
(01:03):
you that Kamala Harris was sober, or the same people
who we could go on and on.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I play this game forever if.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
That's the case, at least at least seeks some alternate positions.
Because you said something when I said you said that
you're not a climate change denier, that you consider yourself lukewarm,
I'm going to make a statement I don't know you,
and it is intended to be a touch provocative, but
that doesn't mean I don't believe it. I think that
a lot of people I won't speak for you, even
(01:29):
who've studied the science. It's sort of like why people
are agnostic instead of atheistic. I think that a lot
of people don't want to say it's all bunk, it's
all a hoax, because then they will be marginalized even
if they believe that. Is that a fair thing to say?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yeah, I think it's an accurate characteristic of it.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
There's a well organized effort we're in the scientific community
to sensor people who cast out on their religion, their orthodoxy.
And while I firmly am not of the opinion that
it's all a hoax, I think a lot of the
policies and I wouldn't even say a hoax would be
an accurate description.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I would call it more so a scam.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
That's a more uh, that's more of an accurate additive
to describe this entire thing. Now, I wouldn't say that
the science is necessarily a scam, because there's a legitimate
basis to it, and I firmly in an agreement with
that point and off the record, but a lot of
the policies, these green energy policies could very well, I
would very much agree, be characterized as a scam because
(02:30):
they're not going to make our standard living better. But
as far as the scientific side of things go, when
you even questioned just a little bit of their narrative
with a lot of these sciences, it's these high priests
of climate science.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
It's the Church of climatology.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
As a Secretary Chris right Like Energy Secretary Chris Like
described it on CNN to Caitlin Collins last week. Again,
this goes back to what we were talking about before.
When we decided to put Congress in charge of allocating
and apportioning money.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
To scientists to study this issue.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
We put policy goals as the desire, policy goals as
really what's in charge of determining the scientific results. And
so we have a whole army of science that's at
universities and in the government who their careers depend on
getting that funding and if their research comes up empty
on there being a quote unquote climate crisis, well they're
(03:19):
livelihoods the right stake and people like me who have
no stakes in this game because I'm not in a
university and.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
I'm not lying, not any longer because i just.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Graduated with my Bachelor's of Science degree in atmospheric science,
but because I'm not a government employee, because I'm not
an academic, I have those stakes, financial stakes in this game.
And people like me, other mean always disliked me, that
are out there speaking truth about this and being honest
about it. We put their careers on the line, other
careers on the line, and it makes them angry because
(03:49):
we are spilling the beans and upsets them because that
could you know, they could lose their funding if if
a new administration, like the career administration, deems a lot
of this stuff to be focused.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
I think that's fair.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
I'm just always disturbed when there are subjects about which
we're not supposed to talk or question the narrative. I'm
always uncomfortable when there needs to be a universality of agreement.
I don't think there's universality of agreement or complete consensus
as to color the color of the sky, much less
(04:25):
the best birth control, whether the Pfizer shot worked, whether
global warming is a hope.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
And it's this idea that if you so much as ask.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
About it, it's a Salem witch trial. You know, you
need to be buried at the stake. And I find
that to be like an ad hominem attack. When someone
is debating you, it's a sign of great weakness and
unsteady ground that they're on.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
Absolutely, it's an I'm thinking, Sam, I mean, bias that
cannot be question is not science. It's propaganda. And that's
the words of Aaron Aaron Rodgers. And I think that
anybody should be able to question anything. And that's that's
the that's the value, the beauty of the First Amendment,
which guarantees the right to freedom of speech in this country.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And and that's an important aspect of science.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
Science is not science is never in the history of
human civilization. Science is never advanced by experts. And I
use that term lightly.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Of course.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
Science is never advanced by people throwing their hands up
in the air and agreeing with each other. Science always
advances when somebody comes forth with new information that challenges
the status quo, and people like uh, you know, Galileo
and people other people to hick the guy that proposed
I don't know his name, but the guy that proves
the idea of washing your hands to prevent material affections
(05:47):
and stuff like that. He was she was shunned by
the community for decades and he ended up being right.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
So science always and he reduced he reduced surgery about
like ninety nine percent.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
It was such a simple thing.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Yeah, literally, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:01):
And when you when you redd, when you cannot question that,
and that becomes that becomes a problem. And there's been
an organized effort, especially within the climate community, and then
obviously not my realm of knowledge, but the medical community.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
We saw this with COVID.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
There were very striking parallels between the censorship that went
on during the pandemic and the censorship that is going
that had been going off with climate for decades. And
there's a big political agenda behind a law of this.
It's about control and power and the scientists who are
perpetulating these ideologies, their careers, their their their money, their salaries,
their their research, all of it depends on government funding.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And if and they they're part of.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
This system, whether or not they want, Whether or not
do you actually want to be a part of it
or not for that purpose is definitely a debate to
be had. There's probably a lot of people in there
who really want to be honest about it. But if
they were to speak out, Uh, their careers are over.
And so we've created this conversation been having on this conversation.
We've created a dialogue that's toxic and it's been very
(07:04):
detrimental to the progress of science, and it pretty much
a violation of, you know, our fundamental freedoms we have
in this country that we cherish.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
I think the thing that bothers me most most, Chris
Marts is our guest. I think the thing that bothers
me most is is not just that journalists who should
be fact seekers truth tellers to the extent that they
can find it, which means after investigation. It's not just
that they try to marginalize and in some cases destroy
that the careers of people who simply raise questions. It's
(07:35):
that people do it in the name of science that
I find downright blasphemous, because while I'm not a scientist,
purely and simply, the scientific method and the means by
which we advance civilization means questioning everything. And you know
that there were there were great scientists who were burned
(07:56):
at the stake, or those who had to change their
opinion at the last.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Moment to avoid it. Galileo among them Newton among them.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Descartes and and and that's that level of courage, bravery
and willingness to challenge is how society advances to where
we are today. Our guest is Chris Marts. Hopefully he'll
stay with us for one more second.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
You e E Michael Berry, you are moy Randy Kings English.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Chris Marts is our guest m A r t Z.
I found him on Twitter. It's not It's not all bad.
Social media is not all bad. I follow people who
pop up in my threads saying something interesting. I go
figure out, who is this person? What else have they written?
Is it consistent? Who's paying their bills? Who are they,
you know, trying to cozy up to? And I was
(08:50):
very very interested in what this fellow had to say.
I want to get into who you are in just
a moment. But you had a tweet it was actually uh,
It says, then why does the co two level increase
year after year? I know why, But none of you
wants to address the elephant in the room because you're
too afraid to criticize the CCP. This is a discussion
that should be had more often, and isn't I would
(09:12):
love for you to speak to that.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, so that's the way.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
This is actually all I posted this morning on Twitter
or x or whatever you want to call it. And
when we talk about carbon dioxide, now let's just hypothetically.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And again it's not what I this is not what
I think. This is just simple. We're just going to
play Devil's advocate here for those for their listening.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
If carbon dioxide, you know, obviously and I agree, it's
the greenhouse gas.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
All this being equal calls is warming when you put
in an atmosphere. But if it's really this, if it
really is a detrimental.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
To the state of human welfare, if it's going to
cause the planet to overheat rapidly to the point it's
going to threaten human civilization. If if we are to
believe that the two is underpinning this alleged climate crisis,
then we need to look at where the largest source
of the emissions will coming from. And most western countries,
the United States included, have been reducing their carbon dioxide
(10:06):
emissions steadily over the last thirty years, but places of
countries like China and India have increased theirs, and it
goes up exponentially each year, and a lot of people
will claim, oh, well, China, you know, they're building more
solar power than the rest of the world, but they're
also building more coal fire power plants. That doesn't matter
how many, and they buy more than the rest of
(10:28):
the will combined on the on the cold power power
plant front, so it doesn't matter how much solar they
add to the grid. And they also built a lot
of fler that they then ship to their countries for
They've built a lot of solar panels over there, But
until the coal plants come offline, then there at the
CO two level, emissions there are not going to is
not going to are not going to fall, They're going
to keep going up. But a lot of climate activists
(10:49):
really really like to give China a free pass in India,
free pass because they are quote unquote the world's factory.
They manufacture a lot of our are good Now. The
United States has increased production. Actually, our GDP has increased
significantly since two thousand fox We're still a really big manufacturer,
but we still import a lot of goods from China
(11:10):
and a lot of countries. Many United States to an extent,
have actually exploited a lot of their manufacturing to China,
and it's helped make manufacturing elsewhere non competitive.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
It's part of their political.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
Agenda to see control over industry, and this is coming
primarily from obviously the left.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
They want to control.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
If you can control energy, you can control industry, you
can control people se if you drive it.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Out of the United States, it allows them to control
people here more and more willingly, more more forcially rather
and so there's a striking.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Parallel between people that support the climate crisis narratives and
people who have a more left wing political ideology, and
so they look at it for these political lenses, and
so they don't want to criticize the CCP or they
really maybe want to even cozy up to them, because
they don't want to they don't want to take they
don't want to talk about reducing emissions in China, which
(12:00):
is really driving up the atmosphere carbon dioxide concentration now
because other countries have decarbonized. And so the refusal to
actually criticize China just goes to so that their entire
movement really the bottom line here that it's political, it's
not based in scientific fact.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Well, and I would argue my wife's from India and
she grew up there, went to college there, and her
family were all in the Indian military, and I've spent
a lot of time talking and they were very high
up in the Indian military about relations with China and
how sophisticated China is and how they can be both
(12:39):
insidious in the things they will do and a long
term effect, and you know, the kind of dynastic control
they have allows them to take the long view because
they don't have an election coming up. But I see
a lot of external influence, particularly coming from China, on
American NGO and activists and universities and grants and politicians.
(13:04):
And the argument is always that America is burning the
earth up, America's polluting the earth. Statistically, that's not true.
But not only that, I think there is a motive
behind this, and I think it is terribly sinister, and
that to me, is far more disturbing than to lie
they're telling.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yes, I would agree with I would agree with that wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
It affects science and that should never be the case.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
You know, you mentioned medicine earlier, and I wouldn't want
it to be the case that if I'm having a
heart attack, they didn't give me the treatment that would
save my life if some external country was paying to
prevent that treatment because they wanted to dominate that treatment.
Energy is at the core of everything we do. You
can look at how the Germans bogged down in Russia
(13:47):
and because they ran out of gas in their tanks
and how that affected you know, the bullets and the
Luftwaffe and the soldiers and the training and the tanks.
I mean, energy is at the very core of our
national security. So this strikes need to be an issue
far bigger than perhaps we're giving it the attention that
it deserves.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Well, absolutely, I mean everything, as you said, everything we
do requires energy. And if you can control energy, if
you can have a monopoly on that, then you can
control people. You can control their behaviors, you can control
you know, everything that they can they can they can.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Control their consumption.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
And this is what this is largely what a lot
of the climate cult movement is about, and a lot
of the you know has been there's a lot of
influence from the Chinese government on on that around the world,
not just the United States, but everyone in Europe and
then elsewhere, and the people, the people in universities really
(14:40):
have this ideology don't and it just seems to originate
uh in academia that that the United States is to
blame for all the world's problems that we have. And
yet you know, in case of in the case of
the environment, you look at the actual data on that
most of the plastic pollution comes from Asia, and you
know most of it again, most of the emissions CO two. Now,
I don't think COOTO is a pollutant. It's obviously necessary
(15:02):
for life on Earth through the means of photosynth is.
But a lot of that you know, if you if
you want it, if you want to claim it's the pollutant,
then you know they commit further than China, and a
lot of there are and a lot of people this
is another interesting point when it comes to the CO
two emissions. A lot of people on the left will
add it well built, well they'll slay in the United
(15:22):
States and they say, well, yeah, China has higher emissions
in total, but the United States has more emissions per capita.
And I say it's amits more pro person And that's
true because a lot of China's are industrial based. But
the atmosphere, if we talk about climate, well, the Earth's
atmosphere or the temperature, which is a function of radiation balance.
That doesn't care about per capita, which you know, who
(15:42):
admits the most per person. That cared about which country
or who's emitting the most in total.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And that's going to be of.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
Course to China if per capita emissions actually matter. These
people were screaming up by Rain and paloal and Kuwait
because they emit by far more emissions per capita than
the United States. But they don't scream their heads off
at them because in reality those countries are very small,
but they have hired for capital, but the United States
doesn't admit. Again, you guys think really gets into the
top fifteen emissions per capital.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Actually Australia and Canada.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Which are highly industrialized economies, more for a capital of
the United States. So they just want to dunk on
the United States. They hate the West and they want
to bring down our civilization, and they want to control energy.
They want to make manufacturing and capitally when they want
to make manufacturing un I think non competitive so that
they can control people very finistors.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Is the unvarnished truth. Chris Marts, You're awesome. Thank you
for making time for us. I hope we.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Can have you back again and again and again. You're fantastic.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Absolutely thanks for having me. Only listen to the Michael
Berry Show podcast if you dare.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
Jennifer Say has been in the news the last couple
of weeks when she made the statement that she wanted
to not have an h R department. She is the
founder of a women's sportswear company called xxx Y, but
she came to our attention originally when she was a
senior executive. I think she was a chief marketing officer
(17:10):
of Levi Strauss and she didn't play by the corporate rules.
She has really made a name for herself the last
couple of years as somebody with truly independent thought that
represents what the vast majority of Americans believe and want
in our companies, but seems to be alien in corporate culture.
(17:34):
She's our guest, Jennifer, Welcome to the program.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I had the distinct honor and pleasure of meeting you
in Palm Beach and having a conversation about your clothing,
and I have since learned that my wife does in
fact own your clothing. I was not aware of that
at the time. So yes, you were right when you said,
I bet your wife does own our clothing, and she does.
You made the news this week xxxy I believe is
(18:03):
how you pronounce it xxxy athletics, which you can find
easily online. Talking about HR departments. Why did you say that,
you know, Michael.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
It's so funny. I said it at a conference. It
was a libertarian conference called Freedom Fest. It wasn't the
topic of the conversation. The topic of the conversation was
about how brands and businesses can influence cultural conversations, and
(18:33):
it was sort of a throwaway line. I've been saying
it for years that I don't want HR. That HR.
You know, while they used to represent you know, they
used to be a support function. They handled payroll and
benefits and all that operational sess you need. And they've
become these officious home monitors over the years. And it's
(18:55):
happened over the last I would say ten to twenty years,
and they enforced a certain clients. They don't make anything.
They I think diminish innovation and creativity because employees become
afraid to speak that they might be, you know, say
the wrong thing and quote unquote get in trouble with HR.
This is bad for business. And so as a startup,
(19:17):
I get to run my business the way I want
to run it, and I'm not going to have people
that do that that inhibit creativity. So that's why I
said I want no HR. It's a giant cost center
that adds nothing to the top line, have no new products,
no new marketing, nothing. So we'll do just fine without HR.
(19:37):
And I cannot believe there's thoughts that it got. It's insane.
Apparently a lot of people agree with me.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
You know, it's interesting. I look at what Mike Lindell
has done selling pillows. He could have sold anything else.
He became the face of a company and a person
that tamped into a certain mindset and.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
He sold a lot products because of it.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Steve Jobs really made us invest emotionally into this little
thing he held in his hand that technologically delivered, and
it had to or they wouldn't have made it. But
he caught our attention because he had a vision and
because he was saying things that appealed to us. And
I think what's happening is as the founder and CEO
(20:21):
of XXXY Athletics, people are saying Okay, here's a person.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Who came from a corporate background who really.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Understands the frustration we all have, and she's giving voice
to that for folks who don't know. Catch people up
to speed on how you first came to my attention
and your background with Levi Ostrauss and how that ended.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Yeah, I worked in corporate America, not just a Levi's,
but other places as well, but certainly Levi's for the longest,
for over thirty years. I would consider myself a brand
builder and I love that work, and I love making
products that people want to win, and marketing that they
find inspirational and building brands. I mean your reference to Apple,
(21:06):
it's such a great one, you know, one of the
greatest brands in the world, and you think about the
category it existed in, which was this sort of boring
you know, before Apple, it was just boring.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
It was all about.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Efficiency, and there was no style, there was no emotion
to it. And he built this brand that was based
on creativity, not efficiency, you know, and that has changed
the way we all live. Really. It's quite fascinating to me,
and I think one of the observations that I have
(21:38):
had over the last you know five to ten years
is the Left has really taken over corporations and brand building,
and they're sort of smuggling these ideas into the culture.
And unless we sort of take back some of the
cultural artifacts and influence people their hearts and minds, I
(21:59):
don't think we have any chance of returning sanity to
the masses to people because these terrible ideas get kind
of smuggled into the culture, not just through art, but
through brands as well. That was my inspiration for starting
XXXY Athletics that I spent thirty years in corporate America,
(22:19):
twenty three of them at Levi's. I climbed the corporate
ladder from assistant marketing manager all the way up to
brand president. I was very outspoken during COVID about lockdowns
and the harms to children from school closures in particularly.
I did that in San Francis. I was indeed right
about that, and I was also nice and very diplomatic,
(22:39):
because I'm not super like in your faith person. I
thought if I presented data and was sort of just direct,
but you know not Ragie, that's not my that's not
my style. But that didn't go great in San Francisco
for me. And you know, ironically, I'm the only probably
(23:02):
executive in all of San Francisco that actually was sending
her kids to two public schools, and so, you know,
Fleet in San Francisco was raging at me that I
can't say these things. Meanwhile, they're sending their children to
in person private schools because the private schools did in
fact open in the fall of twenty twenty. So they're
paying seventy thousand dollars a year to send their kids
(23:23):
to a private school and telling the rest of us
we're not allowed to have the same thing, concluding the
sixty percent low income students in San Francisco. So that
hypocrisy just enraged me, and it didn't go great for
me in San Francisco. I ended up moving.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
People were txing me.
Speaker 5 (23:39):
And publishing my address online and chasing me down the
street and all kinds of terrible things, and it was
certainly tough at work, and I ended up resigning after
moving in the spring of twenty twenty two. And as
I started, I took a little break, and I started
to interview for jobs again because I have to work
(24:00):
a breadwinner in my family, and I had some very
unpleasant interactions with HR, which cemented my views. I actually
went through an interview process with an eight billion dollar retailer,
very big retailer, went through ten rounds of interviews something
like that to be the CEO. The last person was
the HR lady, and in the summer of twenty twenty three,
(24:22):
she said to me, her first question is will you
apologize for what you've done?
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Wow?
Speaker 5 (24:30):
Wow, which was say public school should be open? Yeah,
I said no, I was right about everything. Why would
I apologize? So I didn't get the job, as you
might imagine.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
And of course that informs your opinion of HR. In
any of us who have ever had that person in
HR who stifles creativity, who stifles spree decorps. There can
be no jokes, there can be no pranks, there can
be no laughing, there can be no kidding. Everything must
(25:06):
be so serious and reviewed under a microscope and miserable.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
Jennifer Say is our guest. Her company is xx x
Y athletics work.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
But I'm reminded of someone proverb now quoted by Sheila
Jackson leans Michael Barry show, you're talking to, Jennifer says,
to who was a longtime corporate leader at LEVI Strauss.
She has created the company xx X y Athletics. She
(25:37):
is portrayed as this, you know, zany woman out there
who is so right wing, but in fact she's just
a tiny little thing. I met her a few weeks
ago in Palm Beach and she's a former US Gymnastics
National Championship competitor. She was a nineteen in the mid eighties.
(26:00):
It's an incredible background. I used to go to Sunday
School with Mary lou Retton, and so I would put
you about on the same frame as Mary lou rettin
those tiny little things and yet such a spark plug.
How much of who you are today goes back to
your gymnastics background.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
I so much. I mean, that's why I want to
protect the opportunity to compete, play and win in sports
for young girls on an even playing field. I would
say I was probably born a very determined and disciplined person.
I think my dad would agree with that. I think
I was a difficult child the parent because I was
(26:42):
so determined. I just want to do gymnastics all the time.
I always wanted to go to a better gym. But
those qualities were certainly shaped and honed in gymnastics because
it worked. The harder I work, the more disciplined, the
more personally parents, the better I did. You know, I
(27:02):
made my first national team at about ten years old.
I just wanted to keep moving up in the rankings. Now,
there's a lot of bad stuff in gymnastics. There's a
lot of abuse, and I've written my first book was
about that. That's stuff we could set aside. I mean,
certainly I wish that had not been my experience in
the sport, but there's so much good that happened, and
(27:24):
I think that it just makes me a person fit
and resilience. And I keep trying, I fall down, I fail,
I keep going. And isn't this what we want for
our children? This is what sports. I don't think we
care that much if they win gold medals. We want
them to have that training as young people so that
they can be successful adults. And when we no longer
(27:49):
protect women's sports as being for women only and they
don't have that even playing field, you know, I believe
over time girls will stop playing because why would you?
And then we've cut off not just their opportunity to
experience that joy in sports, but that sort of sport
to leadership pipeline that I think I benefited from, and
(28:11):
so that's why I care so much about about this
and really empowering female athletes. And I think the thing
that's most grotesque to me about the situation that we're
in right now where you have male feelings girls and
women's opportunities and meddled is if they dare stand up
for themselves, they are just smeared and vilified, and a
(28:32):
warning shot is sent to every other little girl that
she's better not stand up for herself. She's better let
that boy have what he wants because his feelings matter
more than her rights. And that is what's so distasteful
to me as someone that would bill call myself a feminist.
Haven't we been wanting our daughters to believe they can
(28:54):
do anything?
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yes, I want my daughter.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
She dates got tell you because of the world you
come out of, which was originally gymnastics.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
To see Simone.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Biles go after Riley Gaines in the way she did,
and she got a real SmackDown from I think that
was a real wake up call to Simone Biles. You're
on the wrong side of this issue. On the issue
of gymnastics. You were one of the producers of a
movie called Athlete, a which won an Emmy for twenty
(29:25):
twenty Outstanding Investigative Documentary. It was a documentary on Larry
Nasser and the sexual abuse scandal at USA Gymnastics.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
How did that happen? How was that allowed to happen?
Speaker 5 (29:41):
The sport viewed the athletes as mere cogs, not as
human beings, and treated them horribly. I mean, one of
the things I wanted to make clear in the movie
is Larry Nasser was not won that apple. The entire
sports tree. These young girls as cogs and a wheel
(30:03):
meant to make money for USA Gymnastics and the US
Olympic Committee. They are treated with zero humanity. They are
emotionally and physically abused, and that sets the stage for
the sexual abuse. And then these sports governing bodies, these
organizations like USA Gymnastics, the USOPC, they cover up any
(30:24):
abuse because they are trying to burnish an image in
gymnastics any way of happy, shiny little pixies. That's what
brings in the sponsorship dollars and pays the high salaries
of the leaders at these sport governing bodies. The sport
governing bodies will never do the right thing. They will
do the cowardly thing that they think presents the image
(30:47):
that the public wants, which is why they're not going
to stand up to protect women's sports and girls' sports
until the public makes their views known. Eighty percent of
the public, eighty percent of Americans agree with you and
with me, because it's like a normal thing to think
that girls sports to see for girls only, But the
vast majority of those are silent, and so these governing
(31:09):
bodies are catering to the very loud, woke minority.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Jennifer say, that's how it happened. No protecting.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Polo Texas. For evile to occur, as for good people
to do nothing. To quote Burke, the company is called
xx x Y Athletics, of which she is the founder
in CEO. A Stanford grad, a gymnastics standout, I wanted
to get.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
To writing because I always asked this question.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
You wrote a book called Chalked Up, your autobiography of
your time as an elite gymnast, and when you left
Levi's you published in late twenty twenty two Levi's Unbuttoned.
The woke mob took my job, but gave me my
voice about your time there and how the woke mob
came after you. Take about a minute and a half
if you would and talk about the writing process for you,
(32:02):
because I always encourage people to do this.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
When do you write, how do you write? How do
you structure? That's so that's such.
Speaker 5 (32:10):
A great question. Well, I would say with both of
the books I've written, it was almost like a fever dream.
I had an idea and I had to write it.
You know, when I wrote Chalked Up, my first book,
I'd never really written much of anything besides the college paper.
But I had an idea. I knew the tone of voice,
I knew the storyline, and I sat down and wrote
(32:30):
it early mornings, late at night because I was working
a full time job with Levi asun Button. That was
my full time job. But I wrote them both in
about three months. I write regularly on my own subject.
I write appas all the time. I don't know, I
just enjoy it. I have an idea and then it's
just like this compulsion that I have to get it out.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
It's cathartic. Yeah, what's the book you haven't you would
like to?
Speaker 5 (33:00):
That's a xxxy athletic.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
What is your number?
Speaker 3 (33:06):
Close with what is your number one selling item and
what kind of I.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Got about forty five seconds left. What would you? Who
is the prime customer?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Why does somebody want to buy xxxy athletics?
Speaker 5 (33:21):
The number one selling item is a logo key. It's
black with a green logo. We offer it for men
and for women. The number one selling customer is a
woman who did fourth in college and was a beneficiary
of Title nine and wants that same opportunity for her daughter.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Jennifer say, you're amazing, Keep doing what you're doing. Love
to have you back as nice left for me. Thank you,
and good night.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.