true that statistically slightly more white people are killed, not even slightly but more white people are killed by police than Black people. But what if Black people encounter the police ten times more? What if there's just more police presence in Black communities because they tend, at least in the urban areas, they're going to be lower income. More crime comes with lower income so there's going to be more police. So how do you factor that in? So is it the whole story that it's the percentage of people arrested for violent crimes? It's not really the whole story because you have to look at who's getting stopped and why. Is there a racial component to that? And most Americans apparently think there is a racial component to that and it would be hard to debate. I mean it's hard to argue that there's, who could really argue that? I would think that race has a big impact on who gets stopped. Now but which doesn't mean that the people doing the stopping are racist because apparently there's not much difference between how Black police officers and white police officers treat anybody. If Black and white police officers are basically the same in how they treat people it's kind of hard to find the racial component when you take that into consideration.

But what Leonidas argued in response to other people questioning the totality of the stuff is that Leonidas makes a really good rational point and it goes like this. That people being stopped for violent crimes is not the whole story. He'd be in complete agreement that he's taking a slice of the whole story. But he says quite reasonably that if this racial bias was what people say it is, this is exactly where it would show up the strongest. I don't know that that's true. I also don't know that statistics are accurate because where does statistics come from? The police, right? So is it possible that the police aren't good at accurately documenting who got killed for what? Maybe. I mean that wouldn't be surprising. But it's an interesting point. Leonidas says that it would show up there and it doesn't. Is that persuasive to you? I wouldn't say it's completely persuasive but I would say it's exactly the right question, isn't it? It's exactly the right question because we should understand that no matter what the answer is, even if the answer is the data was bad, I'd like to understand that for sure.

All right. Van Jones tweeted today that women leaders globally kicked coronavirus in the ass. Male leaders across the board blew it. Facts. Hashtag pandemic, etc. And then he linked to the story on that. Now was that helpful to say that women leaders did a good job and male leaders did not? Because I don't feel like what we needed was more sexism because I'm pretty sure that you can't document that their gender is what made them more successful. One of the successful female leaders was New Zealand. I don't want to be unkind to New Zealand and I don't want to be unkind to the leader who's a woman who apparently is leading a country that claims to have actually eliminated coronavirus. That's pretty good. But it needs to be said it's an island. It's an island. And it could be that once again humans are bad at calculating percentages. And do you think it's fair or accurate or helpful to say that women beat the coronavirus but male leaders blew it? To me that feels like just sexism because I don't think you can make that claim based on the data.

Now here's what's ironic about this. Literally the day before I was thinking to myself who's the only person who would have enough credibility to fix the race relations in this country and maybe come up with something practical that we could work on. You know, come up with some specific proposals we could toss around and see what we can do. And I thought, well Van Jones. Van Jones is probably one of the few people in the world who can, well he's bilingual meaning that he can talk to Black people, he can talk to white people and he knows what they mean. I don't know how many people there are in the whole world who have credibility, ability to communicate, have the interest, have the aptitude, the history, the history of success especially with prison reform. I mean really, come up with one other person on the planet who would be more perfect for being in the middle of this and getting it fixed.

Now in the comments somebody's saying Kanye. Kanye is a force of nature and one of the most productive ones you'll ever see in lots of ways, socially as well as economically productive. But I don't know that Kanye is the right one to dig in and get into some details about how to fix policing. I see Kanye as more of an almost spiritual kind of a leader, not a nuts and bolts here's my policy kind of a leader. And if you want to get down into some real practical stuff I'm thinking Van Jones. I'm thinking Van Jones would be the best choice I can think of. Can you think of a better one? I'm looking at your comments to see if anybody suggests anybody. Larry Elder would be too associated with the right. You really need somebody who's more associated with the left but knows how to work with the right. And it really just sort of comes down to Van Jones. So I hope he gets in the game. But my fr