come up with a number that represents the discrimination part right?

So then you do the same calculation with white men who were prevented from employment or didn't get the raise over a 30-year period. But here's the problem. The white guy who didn't get the 20% raise with a promotion, 20% of a modern salary is a lot of money even if you account for inflation. Whereas when nobody had much of anything in the early days of the country if you doubled your income it really wasn't much money right? So how do you account for that? Even if you adjust for the value of money changing the 20% that somebody got in modern times is still going to overwhelm the $100 you wish you got in the 1800s. Yeah because white guys are losing like a million dollars over the course of their career whereas the grandfather who might have had a slightly better farm might not be losing that much money even after you've adjusted for the value of money changing over time. Yeah even with the time value of money I think you'd find that the modern people are taking a bigger hit just as a percentage of their potential. So how do you calculate that?

The answer is there's no way to calculate any of this in a way that people will agree. It is uncalculable in any even approximation of a reasonable agreeable consensus way and it can't. There's just no way to do it. It's purely political. It's purely power and that's the way it should be seen. If you think you're correcting an injustice nothing like that's happening. Nothing like that is happening. It's a purely political power grab and a money grab and that's all it is. Reparations isn't going to happen. I'll die before I'll pay reparations. All right well or I'd move to another country or something. Move to Japan.

So what else is going on? Claudine Gay the embattled president of Harvard who didn't say enough of the right things about the Gaza situation. Turns out that people have been looking at her papers even before then to see problems and apparently one of her papers she had a thesis that in 2001 that having black representatives made white people vote less but apparently the numbers in her study do not match the conclusion. Surprise. The numbers that she includes in her own analysis do not support the conclusion.

Now I don't know that that's true. I just know that somebody who has a lot of credentials according to their profile, PhD in statistics, looked at the statistics and said oh you just did it wrong and the conclusion is backwards. Now given that science in general only passes muster maybe half the time, about half of all the peer-reviewed scientific papers turn out to be BS or misinterpreted, so you should expect about the same for any PhD doctoral thesis wouldn't you? I would think that about half of all the PhD papers probably have the same problem. About half of them don't work.

So I find myself in yet another weird situation where I'm going to defend Claudine Gay. My guess is that if you did some kind of a baseline of PhD papers about half of them would be. Are you going to take away all their PhDs and fire them? I don't know. I feel like this story is lacking a baseline for comparison. Somebody says yes no. Well here's my point. The people who did the papers, they're not being blamed for intentionally falsifying. That's not part of the story. Nobody's saying she's doing it intentionally. It looks like a misinterpretation according to one person who may also be wrong. Don't even know if the critic is right.

I'm going to say that having some obvious, well not obvious maybe only obvious to an expert, but having errors in your papers probably is more normal than anybody wants to admit. Probably kind of normal. Now I think she should lose her job because there are other reasons that are better but getting some statistics wrong in a PhD paper maybe that's closer to baseline activity. I don't know. But I guess I would take some fact checks on that. If somebody says no PhD papers are almost always right if you can tell me that PhD written academic papers are almost always right then I'll have a different opinion about this. If you tell me it's just like the rest of science where half of them are you're ridiculous then I'm going to say all right well it's just baseline.

California decided they would not try to kick Trump off the primary ballot. So let's see we had Michigan tried it and failed or they rejected the idea to keep him off. Maine is trying it but not really. Colorado is trying it but not really because both Maine and Colorado had both had built into it that it doesn't go into effect unless the Supreme Court or unless he challenges. So they basically had self-cancelling language in it. It was just to embarrass Trump it looks like.

But why would California looking at exactly the same set of facts come to a different conclusion? Because remember the Colorado and Maine opinions were based on the fact that it's obvious an insurrection was being implemented by Trump. Doesn't California think it's obvious? Why doesn't California think it's obvious? Well I assume it's because Newsom is a smarter politician right? Newsom is definitely a smarter politician than most of them you know which is why he's in the conversation. He's a smarter politician. So I'm sure that whether Newsom put his thumb on this decision or not the people who made it knew what he would want. He didn't have to make a phone call. And what he doesn't need is to run for president and have to explain why California took Trump off the primary. That's just hard to explain because it would look anti-democratic.

So I think Newsom has the better instinct here that as long as other places are picking Trump to death he doesn't want to have that one more thing to criticize. He can say hey California is in favor of democracy. I can't speak for the other states. That's a good message and that would be a very capable and competent message. So with some trepidation I have to compliment California for getting this right although I think they got it right for the wrong reason. I think they got it right for politics not because it is right.

Mike Cernovich points out that the process is the punishment. All of this legal stuff against Trump is not exactly necessarily that they're going to put him in jail. They're just going to exhaust him financially emotionally mentally personally professionally until he just doesn't have any fight left in him and he can't campaign. So I think they might. Well I don't know. I think they don't want him to go to jail. What do you think? Do you think the Democrats are fully aware that if Trump spends a day in jail 81 million people are going to go ape and start cleaning their guns? They have to know that right?

Let me say it out loud just in case there are any questions about it. I don't promote or endorse or incentivize or incite any kind of violence. I'm opposed to violence but I'm also an observer of the obvious. Let me observe the obvious. You put Trump in jail for one day, just one day over any of this and 81 million people are going to clean their guns. That's all I'm going to say. They're going to have very clean guns that day. Now what happens after that I don't know but 81 million people are going to clean their guns and you're going to see every one of those pictures on social media. You're going to turn on X and it's going to be a blizzard of Republicans just cleaning their guns. Yeah.

So you don't think the Democrats are aware of that? Because they know what too far looks like. They know what too far looks like. This legal is not too far because we do believe that Trump will be able to crawl his way through it to the end but if you didn't believe he could crawl his way through it you'd feel differently. One day in jail that's the standard. The standard is one day. So it has to be clear because the way you stay out of trouble is making sure that your potential person on the other side of the trouble fully understands. The reason that any threat works is that it's credible. The reason the United States is not attacked is that we have a credible threat that we will nuke the out of you if you try anything because we mean it. It's not a joke. We will nuke you if you try t