General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Kerry Jacoby
comments

Youtube comments of Kerry Jacoby (@kerryjacoby9438).

When the Democrats regain the House, they need to make a rule that if you speak in a Committee hearing you have to stay for the whole hearing unless you have permission to leave to go for a floor vote.
70
Don't share it. It's wrong. It's a non-expert attempting to communicate a set of theories he doesn't understand. CRT is an area of theory that deals with the question of why de facto (in real life) racism persists even after the law and the civil rights movement took deliberate steps to end it. That's it. It's seminars and roundtables at annual professional meetings (like the American Political Science Association annual meeting). It's papers in professional journals. It's coffee talks and brown bag lunches. It's not a high-school class on slavery or an exercise in essay-writing in a Civil War history class. It's not telling third-graders about the genocide of Natives, or giving kindergarteners a coloring page about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks during Black History month. The fact that people (especially Republicans) won't even try to comprehend what CRT is and prefer to use its name to make people afraid of things it actually is not just betrays how ignorant this whole societal "debate" really is. If someone tells you something is "CRT" and you should fear it, you can bet it isn't and they have another agenda.
28
@andrewokr16 citing sources out of context is not the way to interpret complex jurisprudential theory. If you do not read all of it, you can't understand any of it.
18
Then you've never met a good professor. Good professors teach within their own fields. They don't cobble together a basic book report from another field and call it knowledge.
17
@andrewokr16 Except he's not. Those "tenets" are not the "foundation" of the "theory," because the theory is not UNIFIED. It does not have guidelines; it has questions. Every scholar has their own approach. No 2 CRT papers are the same. What is CRT? It is nothing more than an intellectual space in which to ask questions about the efficacy of laws and regulations. It doesn't tell you what questions to ask, or what answers you are looking for. There aren't any conversations in CRT that would be comprehensible to K-12 (students OR teachers.)
16
Jasmine Crockett is a national treasure. I would say run her for the Senate, but she's from Texas so a) she would lose and b) its very likely her congressional seat would be taken by a Republican. But she definitely should get a Chairmanship in the next Democratic House.
13
FYI: Jim Jordan graduated from law school but never practiced law and never passed a bar exam. The majority of GOP members of the Judiciary committee are not lawyers, while only 4 Democratic members of the committee are not lawyers. All of the Democrats who are not lawyers do have some kind of legal experience (law enforcement, a sheriff, etc.)
13
@joshuabela5374 Ph.D. academics and law professors over the last 60 years of jurisprudential discourse. Start with "Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement." Read all of it. Read everything they reference and footnote. Continue doing that until you have read as many of them as are still available. Then look for the next writings of all the major authors of the book and read those the same way. Keep doing this until you find the last book actually written by a knowledgeable academic on the subject. Then go back and watch this again. And you'll understand just how amateurish and incomplete it is.
10
@andrewokr16 No, that's not how academia works. "Critical Race Theory" is a handle to make it easy for academics to identify the question they are dealing with. The "book length treatment" is a compendium of multiple ways of asking the question. It's like an anthology dealing with the same theme. All the pieces are about one theme, but they do not represent a whole answer. Let me put it this way: a yearly science fiction anthology is a set of short stories written in the same year. Even if every story were to ask the same question, you would never claim that all of them taken together form a definitive framework for thinking about science fiction--or even a definitive framework for thinking about all science fiction on a specific topic. CRT is a catch-all term to help academics in jurisprudential studies get a sense of what the roundtable will be dealing with, or what issues the call for papers is looking for (or, frankly, what buzzwords to put in your proposal to secure a presentation spot at the annual meeting.) It's not a systematic method of analysis, like Marxist theory, or a specific supposedly predictive guide, like a Laffer Curve. It's just a phrase used by legal academics to discuss a question, which is why people outside that discussion have no way of understanding it.
9
You have chosen...poorly.
8
@andrewokr16 They aren't misrepresenting. They're being misrepresented by being proof-texted. The authors have not "improperly deduced tenets from the body of work that makes up CRT." There isn't a "body of work." There's just conversation from multiple perspectives around the question of why the civil rights movement didn't end racism. If you aren't asking the question, you're not invited to the conversation. Please close the door on your way out.
7
@andrewokr16 The question is why are there still racially disparate outcomes under the law after the Civil Rights movement was supposed to have fixed them.
7
@yeahohright3097 It was "words," yes. But he didn't use those words in context.
6
@andrewokr16 just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's "mysticism." Doing surgery on a Komodo Dragon isn't "mystical," but it's also not something you can learn from a 1-hour video by someone who isn't a veterinarian or a biologist.
6
@andrewokr16 They can be gathered, but, no. They cannot be summarized because they are ongoing and fluid.
6
@rafaelw8115 I am intelligent enough to know what CRT isn't and what a political agenda is. It makes no sense because you don't know either of those things.
6
@andrewokr16 no, it's a typical academic debate within a specialized area of interest. Even legal scholars who aren't concerned with this particular discussion neither understand nor care about it. This video does not provide any tools to get anywhere near understanding the arcane and specialized arguments and language used by the participants. It would be funny that people are being scared into thinking their children are being "indoctrinated" by it, if it weren't so sad that so much genuinely valuable education is being destroyed by the ignorance of those with an anti-education agenda.
6
@justaguy3665 No, I have knowledge. You (and the guy that made the video) have an opinion.
5
@trevorv9218 Like QAnon. Or the Republican Party. But that's redundant.
4
@mathiasrennochaves3533 No, because CRT is not an "introductory" subject. To understand what it interrogates you first have to understand the history of the Civil Rights Movement and how it answers hundreds of years of deliberate structural and systemic discrimination by local, state, and federal governments and agencies. Then you have to understand legal theory and Constitutional jurisprudence, as well as banking regulation, tax and housing policy, educational policy, and partisan policies on race from the 30s to the 70s in particular. And then you have to have expert knowledge of specific continuing racial inequities in modern outcomes and be able to apply observations stemming from all that previous work to that new question to ask whether the failure to solve that problem is attributable to how Civil Rights Era legislation was written and/or interpreted, how the post-Civil Rights Era political system abandoned its goals similar to the way the Reconstruction Era was destroyed by political corruption, or something else. Once you can read that paper, you can maybe pass a CRT class. If you can write that paper, you can teach one. But you can't, in any case, make any sensible explanation of it in a K-12 classroom, a business seminar, or an undergraduate college class. Or--and this is the key point--in a Youtube video perpetrated by someone who admittedly does not know the subject.
4
@andrewokr16 No, they don't. They reject what they're told it is, which is simply what those defining it know to be what voters already hate--even when no such thing exists. And, no. Your impression of what the "progenitors" would say is simply false.
4
@andrewokr16 interesting rhetorical questions. What's the point?
4
@shantanukhandkar No, every discipline is constantly evolving. If you want to teach something you should know everything that is known about it at that moment*. Under no circumstances should you "teach" something you have NO expertise on--particularly not to an unknown number of total strangers who do not know enough to realize how little *you know.
4
@CherylGerrety Please do whatever you can in Ohio to get him out of office. Who is running against him?
4
Nice list. Where'd you paste it from? It's not "Hegal, btw--and it's not "it's historical roots," either. Nor is it "Post modernist." There's only one "l" in Carmichael, and "Bell Hooks" doesn't capitalize her name. Nice try. Not tricked.
3
Jordan graduated law school but never passed a bar exam and never practiced law.
3
@andrewokr16 "True believer" doesn't apply here. There's nothing in particular to believe, and, as with most academic conversations, ask the question twice you'll get 3 different answers.
3
@andrewokr16 It's not Kabbalah. Kabbalah is systematic and relatively complete within its own explanatory structure. CRT is neither.
3
@andrewokr16 strictly speaking, questions aren't valid; answers are or are not valid.
3
@trevorv9218 I'm not "advocating for" anything. I'm just trying to correct the false impression this uninformed Youtuber has given that he understands CRT and your false impression that he's giving you good information.
3
@conorpodonoghue I have a BA, 2 MAs, a Ph.D., and a published book. My point is not that you should take me at my word, but that if you take the presenter of this video at his word, you accept that he doesn't have an academic background in this; he decided to do some "research" and make a presentation. I say I do know what it is. I have known about it since long before Christopher Rufo made it a negative watchword for the conservative media. I know it is more complex than the video dude (who admits it is new to him) is leading you to believe and that his depiction is slanted and inaccurate. You don't have to believe me--but having been confronted by the possibility that he is misguided, you should take his own word for his ignorance and look much deeper, if you really want to understand it. I'm not going to make an argument because I'm not a Youtuber, and nobody is paying me to use my time (and it would take a LOT of time) to explain something most graduate students and law students don't even understand. It's esoteric. It's boutique. It's worth multiple books, hundreds of papers, thousands of academic seminars and conversations, all of which challenge and contradict and intertwine with each other. It's not fully-formed. It's not easily-digestible. It's not reducible to a listicle, or even a Youtube video. It is the varied and multiple answers to the question: "why is there still racism in societal outcomes after multiple laws and a social movement acted to address structural discrimination?" That's neither an easy question nor one that has been answered yet.
3
@conorpodonoghue CRT is a conversation between academics. You can't just look at Youtube videos and understand it. I'm not saying you can't think for yourself. I'm saying you can't think about this by yourself. Any more than you can teach yourself neurosurgery or astrophysics or dentistry just with Youtube videos and the 5 most popular books on the subject.
3
This is an absolute lie. Trump was under investigation before he declared his candidacy. If there is any connection, it is that he is running for president to stay out of jail.
2
Was she asleep when Barbie in the real world looked at the elderly woman on the bench and said "you're so beautiful," and the woman said "I know"?
2
@andrewokr16 Not a guy.
2
@MrWhiskeycricket I've been asking for his academic credentials for months. What are they?
2
@MrWhiskeycricket That's not how literally anything works. He's not a "scholar." He has no credentials. There's no reason to assume he knows what he's talking about, particularly about a subject no one knew or cared about outside jurisprudential scholarship until very very recently. And what he's doing is a superficial literature review, not "research." It's also not "work" in the academic sense of the word. He doesn't have "facts." He has a string of proof-texts from books he probably hasn't read and clearly didn't understand. A presentation like this on a subject this arcane would be ripped to shreds by experts in the field.
2
@@PsychicPhysics33 congratulations. You once read a logic textbook you didn't understand.
2
He's. A. Criminal. Read the indictments.
2
@karwashblark7499 not sure how you can discuss things you know nothing about. And, BTW, actual experts (as in the people who decide whether you get a PhD) also expect you to read everything on a subject before trying to teach it to others.
2
@shantanukhandkar Don't take any doctoral students.
2
@anonymousfu I assume you don't think any of that is the least bit racist?
2
@endurametrics7013 You're pretty good at spewing nonsense. You should work for Fox News. (see Dominion filings of texts and emails by Fox News execs and talent. Short version: they lie, and they know it. You could relax there.)
2
@MrWhiskeycricket what makes you think he's "accurate?" Where did you get your graduate or law degree?
2
@MrWhiskeycricket For a PhD, or for a law degree?
2
@MrWhiskeycricket And after that you know just enough to be dangerous. There's a reason people go to graduate school and a reason actual researchers consider all undergrad majors to be basically the same level of qualification.
2
@trevorv9218 I'm not in a cult. CRT is an academic theory which I happen to know about and I find it obnoxious when people who don't know what they're talking about try to explain academic intricacies. Like if I was telling people all over the world that I don't know anything about cars, but I do know that you use a key to start them--so keys are clearly what makes a car run. It's simplistic and wrong, and I would expect mechanics and engineers to correct me.
2
@frankdayton731 No. just the opposite. Religious dogma is used by those who don't want you to read anything.
2
@gups4963 Would you like to try that again? In the form of English sentences?
2
@Shooki321 Social science theories are not the same as physical science theories.
2
@Spinbassflipbassfly CRT is a theory. Academics study theories without believing in them. So do non-academics. Unless you want to accuse all the conservatives that spend all their time talking about CRT of being brainwashed into believing it. ;)
2
Speaking of attorneys, here's one of my favorite facts: of the 25 GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee, 11 are NOT lawyers, and Chair Jim Jordan has a law degree but never practiced OR passed the bar! Several are businessmen, and 2 have Agriculture degrees. On the Democratic side, only 4 of 18 are not lawyers, and of those one was a judge, 2 are civil rights activists, and one has a BA in Political Science.
2
That kind of blind acceptance is exactly why you need school. This is an explanation that people who don't know anything about CRT will think is "well done." It is not one that people who do know about CRT will consider helpful or correct.
2
@bryantaylor8504 you should believe me because he admits he isn't an expert. If he's not an expert you shouldn't listen to him at all. My telling you he's wrong should at least motivate you to question on what basis you are believing him.
1
@CriticalThinker-Lad Your name is a lie.
1
@mr6688 Okay, incel.
1
@mr6688 You triggered?
1
@ElectronFieldPulse That's exactly what racists say. Also, there's no such thing as a "5% correlation" because that's not how a correlation coefficient is expressed. As always, racism is based in scientific illiteracy.
1
@ElectronFieldPulse Saying you are a racist doesn't prove what you are saying. Your reply just proves you don't know what "prove" or "racist" mean. You also don't know how to read a correlation coefficient. There's no "5% correlation." Correlation goes between -1 and +1. No percentages are involved. If you mean ".5," that's a moderate relationship of variables moving together, not 5 "percent" of anything. If you are talking about a p value of .05, that means there is only a 5% chance that your correlation occurred by chance. A p value isn't a correlation--it's a measurement of the likelihood your results could have occurred by chance. If p is LESS than .05, your correlation results are considered valid. In other words, if the correlation of your variables result in a .7 correlation and your p value is .05 or less, you conclude that there is a statistically significant moderate positive relationship for which there is only a 5% likelihood that it could occur by chance. That's social science. And if you don't want to take that seriously, that's your loss. But actual STEM scientists (people with Ph.D.'s) do take it seriously. What they don't take seriously are people with bachelor's degrees who pretend to be research scientists.
1
Piers doesn't know what the patriarchy is because he's ignorant of scholarship of all kinds and has spent his life as a trashy tabloid writer and tv presenter. He would make a great Ken.
1
Russia doesn't have any gay people because like Iran they kill them all.
1
It's astonishing anyone thinks this crap is news. None of its sources are actual news; these are propaganda and almost always untrue.
1
She should run for Cornyn's Senate seat in 2026.
1
No, it hasn't.
1
Piers actually stole a bunch of these comments from Ben Shapiro. Also, like Ben, he completely missed the point of the entire movie.
1
Mattel heard them and introduced new aspects to Barbie in the 1990s and on. A Barbie president candidate first appeared in 1992. Feminists don't still hate Barbie.
1
@teonactalpizza No, there isn't. That's why Christopher Rufo chose to blow it up. He knew the conservative press would spread his interpretation to an audience with no immunity to his nonsense. CRT was to Rufo what Revelation was to David Koresh: a complex thing he could interpret and use to lead people to destruction. Koresh destroyed them mentally and physically. Rufo is destroying them educationally and politically. The difference is Koresh did it because he was deranged, and Rufo did it for money and political influence.
1
Roxanne Manning she has a late-night show coming on Netflix in May. And she also had a Netflix special you can watch now.
1
@rafaelw8115 to YOU. So you are welcome to ignore it. You are not entitled to just make up shit about it or believe shit somebody else made up about it until you have the image you want it to be. It has nothing to do with you, unless you are trying to find out why racism still exists after all the attempts of the civil rights movement to at least neutralize it, if not end it.
1
@Shooki321 nice pile of word-salad bullshit.
1
This isn't good information.
1
@conorpodonoghue why are you willing to believe a guy in a video who admits he doesn't know anything about the subject except for doing "research" to make a video and NOT people who say they actually HAVE studied it and believe the video to be wrong. This is like believing that 10-year old Johnny's book report on Moby Dick is the definitive word on the subject and all the Literary Criticism articles and thematic analyses written over the past 150 years should be ignored because Johnny didn't read them and you wouldn't understand them.
1
@conorpodonoghue but it doesn't help. It's just fed you a bunch of bad information that leads you to follow a destructive, anti-intellectual political agenda whether you realize it or not. Not teaching the history of slavery doesn't help anyone. Pretending pronoun usage is some subversive CRT trick to undermine the ego stability of straight white people is just a ridiculous manipulation of ignorant people to attack people that aren't like them. The agenda behind the anti-CRT hysteria is to pile everything Republican voters don't like about education (which isn't what CRT is even about) and call it "CRT," then tell them it all has something to do with teacher's unions so you should vote for Republicans to save Western civilization. It's all nonsense, which depends on the voters believing lies about a jurisprudential theory virtually no one had ever mentioned outside academic discussions until Rufo discovered it a few years ago and projected everything he fears and hates into it. It's a trick. A sleight of hand. It's a con job, a grift. Like the "think system" in the Music Man. It depends on people believing that there will be instruments eventually. It's not entirely a fiction, because instruments do exist. But the pretense of learning to play without them is a con that allows the grifter to take the money for nothing. CRT exists. But it's not what the right says it is, and the "think system" of Youtube isn't teaching it to you. You will never learn it because the point of the con isn't to teach it to you. The point of the con is to take your money and your votes and pretend to teach it to you. As long as you keep believing you're learning, you'll stay with the con, and you'll do what the maestro says. But you'll never actually learn anything because the con man can't play the instruments either.
1
@conorpodonoghue Just because you don't know who Christopher Rufo is doesn't mean everything you think you know about CRT doesn't come from him. It does.
1
@conorpodonoghue tell me when and where you first heard of CRT.
1
@bxp_bass if you wanted to repair a rocket, would you watch a video about it by someone who didn't know anything about science? That is what is happening here. Not only that, but in the analogy, you don't have a rocket and never will. You are "learning" something from someone who knows nothing about it, but read parts of a few books they've heard rocket scientists sometimes read. And based on that, you believe you have spotted a broken rocket in your kids' classroom, but it's not a rocket. It's just a picture book about space. Nevertheless, you want to remove the space book because it might lead to rocket science, which you don't want your child to study. The entire "debate" is ridiculous, because no one is teaching rocket science to your children. And no one is teaching them CRT, either.
1
@bxp_bass it doesn't say that. And you don't need to read any further (you didn't "read" anything to begin with) because none of this has any relevance to you whatsoever.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket you don't have to "agree with" things you study. I studied Nazi women of the Third Reich, Evangelicals, and Political Economy, among other things, in graduate school, and no one ever expected me to "agree with" anything. I don't think you understand how graduate education or professional conferences work. And there's a difference between being told you don't understand something because you don't agree with it (which would be nonsensical) and being told you don't understand something because you literally don't understand what you are learning (which I'm pretty sure is what has often happened to you.)
1
@UCAAPDgrBhxHoEGR4B1lQYkA ooh, five books. That qualifies him to write a 500 word essay, not tell a huge audience what he thinks about a subject he know nothing about. Youtube isn't cheap graduate school; it's a 4th grade book report. And it's barely worth a D.
1
You don't get to "make your own decisions" about factual information. What "decision" do you think you're making about CRT? CRT is jurisprudential theory. You can discuss it. You can ignore it. Unless you're a law student writing about it or a law professor grading that paper, it has nothing to do with you.
1
@Spinbassflipbassfly there's no such thing as a "CRT believer." It's not a belief. It's an analytical framework, a jurisprudential theory. And a boogeyman for people with no idea what it is. A closet for storing everything conservatives are afraid of; just stuff it in there, whether it belongs there or not.
1
@canilernproto3018 Exactly.
1
@faveology I think you've hit on part of the problem. "Anecdotal" evidence pertains to scientific analysis. "Eye witness testimony" is a legal concept. The two have nothing to do with each other. And, in fact, eye witness testimony as evidence is just as good as any other form of evidence, because there is no "scale" or "level" of evidence; the jury gets to weigh all the evidence however it wants. People taking sides for or against CRT misunderstand the conversation. You don't use CRT as evidence. It's a way of asking questions about evidence. And this video doesn't explain it at all, because it has no sense of what jurisprudence even is.
1
@Spinbassflipbassfly "marginally brainwashed by repetitive confirmation bias" is a nonsensical phrase. Brainwashing has no margins. It is or it isn't. "Repetitive" doesn't apply to "confirmation bias" because confirmation bias is an assessment of a specific event and is not applicable to multiple or simultaneous events in a collective sense.
1
@conorpodonoghue Are you willing to pay them for that? Youtubers have monetization. A person trying to correct your false impression that this Youtuber did a good job explaining something to you that neither you nor he know anything about has no such incentive. This Youtuber admits this is all he knows about this and it is new to him. If someone else says "no, I actually know what this is, and he's wrong," you should at least consider that maybe the person who admits he just now looked this up in order to make a video hasn't really understood the material.
1
@conorpodonoghue Youtube is not "research." A very big problem now is that people who have never learned how to do actual research keep saying "do your own research," by which they mean Google stuff. That's not research.
1
@Cheekibreeki02 CRT is not in K-12 schools. CRT is not in the military. CRT is nowhere you are likely to encounter it in real life, except in the mouths of conservative activists using those 3 letters to label everything they want to run out of public life. It's like "woke"--it has a meaning, but it is almost never used with that meaning, and the only people now using it are using it as a synonym for "something I don't like."
1
@jamilhneini1002 ChatGPT actually isn't objective; it takes on the biases of the claims it is fed. It also makes up things based on its programmed assumptions.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket No one asks you to personally believe theories in actual graduate school, only to apply the tenets of those theories to analyze the material. In fact, most classes involving theories will teach you multiple ways of looking at the same question. Leave the classroom and you can magically believe whatever you want. Give me an example of being punished for not "believing" a theory taught that does not involve being asked to analyze something a certain way, rather than "believing" something.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket jurisprudence isn't science. It's philosophy.
1
@zzz-nu2re Then it did its job. And you should ignore the video because it's not helping you understand the thing you fear; it is feeding the ignorance that feeds the fear.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket Pay. Me.
1
@zzz-nu2re And it's as useful a trusted source as any guy on the bus telling you his conspiracy theory about the government sending signals through his teeth to prevent him saving the world from the lizard people. "Public discourse" is not a good source of factual information, unless the facts you are looking for are opinion or attitude statistics.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket No, they aren't, and no, they don't. Most K-12 teachers are too busy learning how to do bulletin boards to learn an obscure jurisprudential theory.
1
@bradvandyke3301 No, they don't say that. People who have an agenda say they say that. Oh, and congratulations on finding a book about rhetoric.
1
@bradvandyke3301 And what exactly is it you think that means?
1
@MrWhiskeycricket i'm saying it doesn't mean what he or you think it means.
1
@MrWhiskeycricket I'm not here to educate people. No one's paying me to spend that time. I'm just making the objection. If people decide to ignore me and believe the guy who doesn't know anything about the subject, that's their choice to stay ignorant.
1
@bradvandyke3301 it's a "movement" within jurisprudence and how lawyers think about things. It's not a movement to march down the street or take over K-12. It's a movement like abstract art, or Bauhaus, or farm-to-table. It's not a totalistic or universalist notion. It's aimed at changing the way law is conceptualized with consideration of race. Law. Theories of law. If your 5th grader can understand it, put her in college now.
1
@zzz-nu2re No, it didn't.
1
@zzz-nu2re sorry, this isn't threading right. What's scientifically proven?
1
@darbodrake89 where did I ever say I was "opposed" to CRT? It's a jurisprudence--it's not a support/oppose thing. It's a use-in-analysis/don't use-in-analysis thing.
1
@darbodrake89 when it didn't apply.
1
@darbodrake89 Are you asking me to produce a research design for a paper I have no intention of writing? No, thanks.
1
@darbodrake89 It would not apply when I choose not to use it.
1
@darbodrake89 when I'm doing a project without using it.
1
Who is this ignoramus? How is this kind of hate speech on Youtube?
1
The woman in pink didn't understand the movie at all. The movie trailer included the line "do you ever think about death?" That was not marketed as a kids' movie. And it was PG-13.
1
@brokenrecord3523 No, it doesn't.
1
No, it's not. It's a guy making videos about things he does a slight amount of research about and presents as expertise to people who know even less. It's no better than a high-school book report.
1
@anecologistspeaks6422 No, it's not a useful service. It's a means of both confusing people about a thing and giving them the false impression that they know what it is when they're done watching the video. Which would only be a minor problem, if people with a deceitful political agenda hadn't already convinced a large segment of society that this obscure and undefined series of jurisprudential musings is somehow relevant to their lives (which it's not.)
1
These people are incredibly stupid and are mad because this isn't the movie THEY would have made. Too bad. Make your own movie. Oh, wait. Ben Shapiro tried that--he made $34k. Barbie made $1.4billion. Clearly, the vast majority of earthlings disagree with these whiny nitwits.
1