the people who can't hear an internal voice in their head. I don't think that's the thing.

Now let me tell you about a story that's in the Wall Street Journal. Not a story, an opinion piece. It was written by Roland Fryer, who's a professor of economics at Harvard. So the two things you need to know about him: he's a professor of economics at Harvard. Then the second thing you need to know about him, because it's the context of the story, is he had a black grandmother. Now I don't know if his parents were black, but he seems to be identifying with the black experience at least somewhat.

And in his article he talks about studying for economics. Obviously he had a top-level education because he was at Harvard, and he was doing research to find out how much discrimination and bigotry was behind the differences in salaries. And what do you think he found out? When he kept looking for the reason that there's a difference in salaries, it was completely explained by the skill level. Apparently the free market did exactly what you expected, and there was no indication of any racism whatsoever. The people who had the same skills had the same pay, period.

And his article, to his credit, his article was about how he was blinded by confirmation bias and that he couldn't even see his own numbers. Like he was looking at his own data and he was not believing it because his grandmother had primed him that this racism is everywhere all the time. He gave the story of his grandmother once. It was some cashier who handed her money without wanting to touch her, and the grandmother interpreted that as the cashier was such a racist she didn't want to have accidental contact with a black person. That was how the grandmother interpreted it. And then the grandson wasn't so sure. He was like, I think maybe she had a cold and she didn't want to give you her germs.

So basically they had two completely different worlds based on what you were primed to believe. So even with that little bit of priming, Mr. Fryer got all the way to adulthood and he still thought that the data would agree with his interpretation of the world, and it didn't.

Now here's the important part of the story. Most of you knew that, right? Is there anybody who didn't know that the free market does make salaries basically equal? I knew it. I think every one of you do. Here's what's interesting. Somebody who identifies as black, I believe, I don't want to over-characterize it, but that seems how he presented himself, he's got a major opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. He's got an economics professorship at Harvard. I'm sorry, duh, I mischaracterized him. He was a professor of economics at Harvard. That's better than having an economics degree from Harvard. I don't know where he got his degree, but if he's a professor of economics at Harvard, that's even higher than being a student of economics, right? So this is somebody who seriously knows what he's talking about, and he got this opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, you know, one of the big papers of record. And it looks like just a good opinion. I don't think anybody's going to attack him. I don't think the newspaper will be forced to retract it. I feel like society has reached the point where this opinion is now acceptable. What do you think? Because it now agrees with observation. The data and the observation are now aligned for at least some of the people in the world.

To me this data exactly matches everything I've observed. To me I've never seen, I've never observed directly any salary difference for people who have similar skills, male, female, black, white. I've just never seen it. So maybe the world is getting past that.

I will say, however, that this doesn't help with the real source of racial inequality, which is the schools. Because by the time you're an adult, all the damage is done, isn't it? You know, if you've got a bad lower education, you don't have the choice of having equal skills and equal pay. It's just not an option because you didn't get the same boost when you were a kid. So we still have to fix that. I'll bet Mr. Fryer would agree with that.

Here's some good news. The federal FCC is going to ban new telecom and surveillance equipment made by Chinese companies. So they don't want to have Chinese surveillance cameras in American places because they're worried that the Chinese will maybe possibly use those cameras to spy on Americans or something. Is there anything missing in this story? Something maybe they overlooked a little bit? Maybe some related kind of story? Well, number one, you know, Trump tried to do this and got some resistance. But number two, TikTok is like a gazillion cameras that are literally in citizens' pockets. How do you say these other companies are the risk and not TikTok? TikTok literally has a camera in every phone. It's looking at you and listening to you and making decisions and influencing you. This is a new close. The fact that we can ban these companies I've never even heard of, it's a good idea. I mean, I'm solidly in favor of banning them, but TikTok's okay? It's just absurd. It's absurd. But good job, I would say, from all the way back to the Trump administration, and I'll give the Biden administration credit for finishing the job and blocking these companies. But it's time to do TikTok, people.

I'm seeing apparently somebody asked Musk if Twitter gets banned on the Apple and Google app stores, would he build his own phone? And he said yes. This is sort of a threat slash bluff that only E