's your persuasion lesson. If somebody has an idea that just doesn't hang together and couldn't possibly work, and I think reparations is one of those, no matter what you think about the morality of it, as a practical matter we're way beyond the point where you could insert that into current society and get that and not cause a revolution or something. I mean, it can't work. So you also can't price it. You can't figure out who should get it. Can't figure out who should not get it.

So here's what I would do if I were in charge of this and I wanted to persuade it out of existence. I would respect my audience. I'd say, all right, you have a moral argument and it's not unlike reparations that have been paid for other things in the past. So that would be respecting the audience right there. There are people who care about it. You've got a moral argument. It's not unlike things we've talked about before. Let's talk about it.

But then I would go further and say you need to come up with a number. But because this is so racially charged, you need to break it down by race. Not just in terms of who would receive it but how the tax burden would be distributed. So I'd like to know, for example, if you're recommending, I think they went from recommending $220,000 per Black Californian. They've upped that to $360,000 per Black Californian. And keep in mind there was no slavery in California, by the way. But that doesn't mean that people didn't come from places where there was.

Here's how I would ask them to do it. I'd say I want you to come up with the number. And so let's say that's $360,000. Figure out how much that is per year or what that does to the budget. And then figure out what each ethnic group will be contributing to it. So you would say, okay, white people, you make a lot of money so you'd be paying, I don't know, 40 percent of it, 60 percent. And it'd be like, Hispanic Americans, now this would be your share. And then Asian Americans, here's how much you're going to pay for Black reparations. And then you publish it and you say here's the recommendation from our reparations group. And then you let the public do the rest.

All you have to do is ask somebody to write it down. Just write it out. And if they don't write down, of course they would leave out anything embarrassing to their case. You just say, all right, you've got to do both the pros and the cons. I don't want to put the cons on top of your idea. You're the experts. So give us both the pros and the cons. Tell us who benefits, what it costs, who's paying, and just really map out some details here.

So if it comes out that the average Hispanic immigrant who came across the border on Tuesday would maybe be on the hook for some of those reparations too. And then you'd have to deal specifically with what about people who live here but are not residents? What about that? What if somebody's not a resident of California but they do live here? You know, they might not have changed the residency yet. Do they get paid? Because if they do, then what about people who move here just temporarily to get some reparations? Do they get some reparations? How about that?

So you simply ask the people to describe their plan in a little more detail. Make sure that they've got the pros and the cons. So there's an argument both ways. But here's the argument you would be sure to ask them to include. And I saw this today. Equal opportunity activist Ward Connerly as he was asked in some California board and he got up and he spoke and he said that there's only one way to stop all the crime. And that's, he said there's only one thing that would stop our children from busting into these liquor stores. There's only one thing that would stop our kids from busting into these jewelry stores stealing watches and jewelry. And that's reparations.

So I would say make sure you include that argument right up in the summary. You want to put that right up top. And not only that, but I would highlight this. And have you ever heard me say embrace and amplify? I would embrace this and I would amplify it. Because there might be a lot of other places we could use this concept of paying large amounts of money to criminals so that they will be disincented from crime. What's that? There's a word for that. So there's a word for when you pay somebody money not to do something bad to you. What's the word? Oh, extortion. Extortion, right?

So the plan here is to sort of morph from the crimes, which none of us want. I mean, none of us want anybody breaking into jewelry stores and liquor stores and stuff. We'd like that to end. But if we could just convert that into more of an extortion kind of a model, that might be something that we could use in other ways. For example, we keep talking about using the military in Mexico, but that was before I heard this idea. We probably could just pay the cartels not to do crimes. That would be more expensive, but so is war. So is war. So why don't we use Ward Connerly's idea of paying reparations to Black Californians as a way to stop the attacks on stores? Because once they had some money they would have no reason to do it.

So sort of one plus one equals two basic logic. But you could just extend that to all crime really. Why would we stop it there? One of the things I like is if you try something small and it works, hey, let's pay criminals extortion so they don't rob us. And we should just get rid of prisons. There is some amount of money. If we save all that prison money we'll just give all of our money to the criminals and then they're going to let us go. And I think that would be one way to defund police is just pay the criminals directly until they have no reason to rob a liquor store.

Now they still might rob a liquor store because it's easier than taking out your wallet. And apparently there's no penalty for it. So it might, you know, the convenience factor still has to be factored in. Because it might be just more convenient to pick up the liquor and just walk directly out the door, especially if there's like one or two people in line. Don't you hate that? Like you want to pay for something, you plan to pay for it, but there's two people in line and you're like, what time is it? I want to get and drink my liquor. So just cut the line, walk out the door. We don't have law in California. So that would be a good idea.

But anyway, the point is that all of that should be in the reparations recommendation because you don't want people to think you didn't think it through. You know, people need to think you thought it through. So that's your persuasion tip for today.

Also there's a big unreported thing. I'm a little bit disgusted with all of the videos that we see that are sort of lopsided race-wise. You know, especially in Fox News and on the right side of social media. You see a lot of videos of, it seems like they're focusing only on the few videos of Black people hitting non-Black people. All right, white or Asian American or stuff like that. And if you think about all the videos that they're suppressing, it really makes you wonder about these algorithms. For example, I've never seen a video of an Orthodox Jew beating up a Black person. You know they exist, but it's probably an algorithm thing.

So the other thing is when you watch, when I watch those videos I always have the same feeling. Do you? And I know we get so biased because it's only one type. We're seeing just one type, one type. And there's no way that doesn't affect your brain and make you more biased. And when I watch them I just think the same thing every time. Whoever talks about all the hand injuries to the attackers? Every time I see one of them I see people using their bare hands and punching people into these hard skulls. And they're usually hitting like the hardest part of the body. They're not even hitting soft parts. Like the soft parts are usually using their boots. But with their hands they're hitting bare-handed. There's a reason the boxers wear those big gloves. Did you know that? That's to protect their hands. And they're professionals. Professional boxers are protecting their hands with these big things. So if you're an amateur and you just spontaneously get into one of these fights, there have to be a lot of hand injuries. And nobody's talking about that. Nobody's talking about that. So I thought we should talk about that.

All right. Vivek. Here's some Vivek Ramaswamy persuasion about January 6. So he's using an analogy here. He says if you're prosecuted for an alleged bank robbery you get to see all the video footage of what happened, not just the time your face is caught on camera at the site. That's basic constitutional law and criminal procedure. No one should ever be convicted of a crime without seeing all potential exculpatory evidence. This is not a right-wing or a left-wing issue. Justice demands it. High ground. High ground maneuver. That's the high ground maneuver.

Yeah, so I love the fact that he changes the frame to really a constitutional thing that every person would agree with basically. Literally nobody would disagree, right? The thing that makes it a high ground maneuver is that there is no argument against it. Did you notice that? See, there are tons of professional politicians who