the first U.S. president to nominate a mother of Black children to the Supreme Court. He's the first one to nominate a mother of Black children to the Supreme Court. Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking in terms of diversity on the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be better for an actual Black woman with Black children to be nominated? Yeah, yeah, okay I see that point. You know it would be a little bit more on the nose. You know you'd say to yourself all right that's exactly, you know, that's the segment we want to fill in there. But I'd have to say, you know, if you don't have that, you know the more ideal solution that everybody would recognize is like oh okay that would be good to get that kind of diversity. I would think that a strong second place is a woman who has Black children because I don't think the mom reflex gets turned off. I mean I've got a feeling that quite legitimately Amy Coney Barrett feels that all of her children are awesome. So having somebody on here who has that sensibility.

Let me put this into a visual persuasion. When Amy Coney Barrett watched the George Floyd, you know, a shocking video of the moment of his death, do you think that she looked at it the same as people who do not have Black children? I'll bet not. I'll bet the fact that she has Black children changes her filter on seeing the George Floyd situation to make it not exactly what a Black citizen of this country felt. I mean you can't really feel what other people feel but if you wanted to get close to it, you know, if you wanted to get into the general zip code of that, she's a strong choice. It's interesting to have somebody who has one leg in each world. I mean she has one leg sort of in the parent of Black kids and one leg in sort of a generic white person world. It's kind of a good perspective.

You've probably heard of Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. He's a Boston University Mellon professor, professor, National Book Award winner, best-selling author. And he wrote "How to Be an Antiracist." And recently, so he's a sort of a public anti-racist advocate. He recently made some news because I guess Jack Dorsey gave him, gave his group I guess 10 million dollars unrestricted money to help them work on, let's see how is it described, unqualified support of his vision of putting academic researchers at the forefront of the movement to dismantle policies supporting racial inequality and injustice.

Now what do you think of the general idea of having academic researchers at the forefront of how to dismantle racism? That's not bad. I would say you sort of have to see how it works out, right? Everything's an implementation. There's no such thing as just a good idea. You need a good idea that is implemented well. But on the surface, on the surface don't you think that an academic approach to really understand as best we can things such as are Black people really being targeted by the police? I think we need the researchers and the scientists and stuff to sort of take the lead and tell us what's true. What is true? You know where can we identify this stuff and where we can't.

Now of course you have the risk that because they're academics it'll just all be and then you make policies that are based on complete, so the execution matters, right? It could be executed completely wrong. But in general if you have a real academic who's got real credentials and working with other academics and they want to dig in to really understand what's going on here with the systemic racism, not a bad way to go.

So he said something that was so delightfully provocative in a tweet that it made me like him. So I didn't know anything about him until this tweet and then I started looking into it and connecting the dots and I'm going to say I have a positive opinion of him. This may be different than some of your opinions all right but I'll tell you why. The same thing that makes me like Trump is his provocative way of just going in and shaking the box because there are a lot of cases where just going in and shaking things up is exactly what you need. It's you know you don't write it out that way on paper, right? You know you don't make a plan I'm gonna just shake everything up. But sometimes you need that.

So somebody made a tweet that's been deleted now about it would be hard to make fun of Amy Coney Barrett because she has two Black adopted children from Haiti. And you think to yourself okay that's unassailable. Who could possibly complain about her in terms of racism when she's gone so far as to adopt two kids from Haiti? So she's beyond criticism, right? Well not according to Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. And here's the part that made me like him all right. And I know you're not going to have the same impression but just understand where I'm coming from that I like provocative people who shake the box. They don't have to agree with me all right so that's the part that you're missing. I'm not agreeing with his positions necessarily. I might agree with some of them. I don't know. I'm just saying that I like how provocative he is.

Here's what he tweeted about Amy Coney Barrett. He goes some white colonizers quote adopted Black children. They quote civilized these quote savage children in the quote superior ways of white people while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture is a feminine of humanity. Now come on you have to appreciate how wonderfully provocative that is. You can agree, you disagree with it, you find it offensive. I get that. But just agree with me on this point. The way you feel when you hear this has got to be very similar to the way Democrats feel when they look at a Trump tweet, right? It's going to look kind of similar. You're going to hate it but you can't look away.

What if I told you about persuasion? Fifty percent of persuasion is getting your attention. One way to do it and nobody's come up with a better way to do it is to be just so crazy provocative that people can't look away. He has that. He has that. So if you're tempted to dismiss him because you say I don't believe, I don't want, you know I don't agree with any of the things he's saying, I would give it another look because there's a whole lot of X factor that comes out of this. It just sprays out of this. The same kind of X factor that an AOC has. Same kind of X factor that a President Trump has. It just, it's just coming out of his pores.

Now once he gets all this attention what's he do with it? So here's the second part. Right now that he's got all this attention being provocative, what's he do with it? Here's what he does with it. He follows it up with this. He says and whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is belief too many white people have if they have or adopt a child of color then they can't be a racist. So basically he's making the point by analogy that if you say you have a Black friend that doesn't mean you're not a racist. It just means you have a Black friend. And he's extending that to say just because you adopted a Black child that alone doesn't make you not a racist. It just means you did this one good thing. So he's challenging that idea.

Now is that fair? Is it fair for him to say that that's not far enough? Like you know you need to go to the extra level. Just having a Black friend or a Black adoptee not enough. I think that's completely fair. Yeah that's a completely fair statement. It is also a complete loser statement. Here's why. The difference between winning and losing strategies is that winning strategies encourage good things to happen more and losing strategies discourage good things from happening more. That's it. That's the whole tweet if I can use that statement.

And when you see somebody adopting a baby or babies from Haiti, you know a white person adopting Black babies, what is the winner way to look at that? The winner way to look at that is she's awesome. That's it. As soon as