ty Officer, Dr. Stephanie Burrage. Chief Equity Officer. If you're looking for a state to move to I would recommend one that does not have a chief equity officer. That should be a giant red flag to stay away from that state as far away as you can. Why? Because they're racists. Do you think a white male could have been hired as the first chief equity officer? Seriously? Do you think a white male could have been considered for the job? Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. It's purely racist. What's the definition of racist? You're hiring people based on their race. There's no way they would have hired a white man for the job. Why would you move to that state? That state has a big sign on it that says no white men allowed. Women I don't know, maybe women, but white men no. Nope. Can't get a job in Minnesota. It's pretty clear.

All right, speaking of Governor Newsom he tweeted two charts. One is a chart of the states that have lots of guns and or the states have the most strict gun control. And I found that when you have the strictest gun control it correlates really high with fewer murders. Now what do you think of that? So the data probably came from good sources. Well let's say the data is accurate. We don't know it's accurate of course. That would be ridiculous. But let's say it is. How many problems do you think there are with that comparison? A lot of them. A lot of them.

All right let me give you just the sampler set of problems which for some reason I didn't include in my notes. Here's the sampler set. If you're looking at states and comparing a state to a state do you think that's a good comparison? Because California shows up as a low murder state with high gun restrictions but you can't go near Oakland. You can't go anywhere near Oakland. I drive around Oakland. I don't even want to drive through it, it is so dangerous, right? So yeah Compton etc. So the use of states is meant to conceal what's true not to tell you what's true. Would you agree that almost all the murders are in cities? Well you know the vast majority are in cities. And if you don't break it out in city to city. So what I'd like to see is strictest gun laws by city. I think you'd find that Chicago has strict gun laws and a high murder rate. Washington DC strict gun laws high murder rate. Oakland strict gun laws high murder rate. Baltimore strict gun laws high murder rate, right?

So you can see how easily Newsom can lie with accurate numbers. Now you're saying the numbers might not be accurate and I agree. But even if the numbers are accurate he's found the only way to be misleading by grouping it by state instead of by city. It makes the whole thing ridiculous.

Then you'd also want to see a before and after. Show me the murder rate in let's say Chicago before and after the gun control strict regulations went into place. Did it immediately fall? That'd be a strong argument. Or did it go up? Which I think it did. Yeah. So those are just a few problems. If you looked at the comments on that tweet you'd see other people suggesting other problems. We've reached the point where data is absolutely useless. Data.

All right, and so I tweeted this. Here's where we're at. This is my summary of everything you need to know about data. Dumb people argue without data. Would you agree? If somebody's making their argument and they're ignoring the data or they don't know what it is or they're not using it that's pretty dumb. Pretty dumb. Smart people argue with data. Would you agree? If you see a smart person they're probably showing you their data. But the smarter people, the people who are smarter than the smart people, know that you can torture the data until it tells you anything you want to hear, right?

So summarizing so far, if you're dumb you don't use data. If you're smart you do use data. If you're smarter than that you know the data is useless because it's been put together by corrupt people. But there's one level above that. Smarter than the smarter people. These would be the smart-ass people know that the data is not real and neither are you. I'll just leave that there.

All right, Senator Mark Warner was defending his Restrict Act. That's the one that's supposed to be aimed at TikTok but is in fact a general statement about giving the government more power over social media basically even domestic. And he said this defending it. He said the Restrict Act isn't an infringement on free speech. It's a systemic rules-based approach to identifying and addressing foreign tech that could threaten national security.

Huh. Now when he explains it that way that doesn't sound so bad does it? Wouldn't you like to know that our government has a rules-based approach? You know something you can really, there's no gray area. It's a rules-based approach he says. And though you want them to identify and address foreign technology that can threaten national security. That's all good right? Isn't that terrific?

Here's what I tweeted back to him.