Those Who Talk About a "Deep State" are Right. And I Have Some Suggestions.

The theory of a "Deep State" represents governing that is independent of those who govern.  The conspiracy theorists imagine some cabal of people (generations of them?) who somehow control everyone else and all governments.  Those conspiracy theorists get vague about who are the members of this cabal.  Occasionally, they talk about Jews.  Maybe they think it's someone else.  Maybe they're not sure.

But there is a "Deep State" that controls those who govern.  They are the major donors, who underwrite candidates, essentially pay for the candidates' victories, and expect to get what they paid for.  Which they do, because they pay candidates a lot more than the office they win compensates them.  The rich keep getting richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class is being lost, the stock market keeps going up (I remember in about 1980 when the big news was that the Dow hit 3000.  It's 30,000 now.).  Coincidence?

People on one "side of the aisle" think George Soros controls the "Deep State."  People on the other side think the Koch brothers, or Leonard Leo, or Harlan Crow controls it.

And that's just to name a few.  The fact is that there are many large donors, and not infrequently, they donate to multiple candidates in a campaign.  They don't care who wins.  They just need reassurance that whoever wins owes them something, and knows it, and will deliver.

This corruption of what was originally intended to be American democracy is very pervasive.  And there are some simple reasons for that: no one trusts the voters, seemingly with good reason; the assumption is that voters can easily be swayed, like by an avalanche of exposure; in recent years, some candidates have adopted the strategy of simply claiming that the competing argument, even if it is the product of trained and experienced professionals, which the candidates are not, or proven correct, is wrong, or a scam.  So, all that's needed is exposure.  And exposure of people who say things about which they don't know anything.  The finer points are whether or not these candidates have some kind of charisma or appeal, or whether they use a form of "reverse psychology," and assert that their special and compelling characteristic is that they are political outsiders, so that it's as if not knowing what you're talking about is a twisted sign of purity of insight.  The suggestion is that these outsider candidates are not. in effect, soiled by corrupt indoctrination.  (If I offered to perform surgery on someone, using an argument like that, I'd get laughed out of town, and lose my license, just as a point of comparison.)

So, the system we have now relies on money -- lots and lots of money -- to provide as much exposure as possible.  And the e-ads will tell you that: so-and-so is winning, because they have more donations.  It's also noteworthy that campaigns these days are very short on intelligent arguments.  Yard signs and TV ads?  Good.  Debates?  Literally (last week) not worth the time and trouble.  And even the debates that occur are structured in a way to provide as little useful content as possible.

So, here's my suggestion.  In BP, our campaign season is short.  It lasts about 6-8 weeks.  As far as I know, the vast majority of candidates fund their own campaigns.  And until recent years, they made it their business to walk the Park, and meet and talk to the people they wanted to represent.  No one spent a lot of money, because no one needed to spend a lot of money, and no one owed anything to anyone, except the voters and residents of the Park.  That's not doable on a national level, but there are some adjustments that could be made.  We can have a national campaign season that lasts maybe 3-6 months: you can't declare a candidacy or do any campaign activities until the starting gun fires.  Just like here.  And no private money in politics.

National candidates have a lot of people to reach, and if they wanted to do something as simple as handing out, or mailing, campaign flyers, probably none of them could afford to do it.  Nor, possibly, could they afford to take repeated campaign trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and most others of the states.  And according to current pricing, few or none of them could afford to buy TV time.  So, I would suggest that taxes be raised, and all of this be free, paid for by the government.  And everyone gets the same amount of publicity (flyers, TV time, etc).  The TV networks are already required to air certain content for free (emergency alerts, etc), and this can be added.

You start, then, with X number of candidates.  They can campaign on whatever they consider their advantages.  But every two weeks, their campaigns are required to submit a list of registered voters who still want to see them contending.  A given voter is not limited to one candidate.  And the number of registered voters who have to endorse a campaign increases every two weeks.  As soon as a given candidate can't get that level of increasing endorsement, s/he is out.  The final election can be between two candidates, or 15 of them.

There's no more "dark money," George Soros, Koch brothers, Leonard Leo, or any of the rest of them.  All they can do is what I can do: vote.

If that won't fix it, tell me why not.

Well, That's Telling Them.

"Joe Biden said yesterday that 'white supremacy has no place in America' after three people were killed in a racist shooting in Florida and it emerged that the gunman had been turned away from a historically Black college or university (HBCU) campus moments before opening fire at a discount store.

"Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, yesterday called the gunman a 'hateful lunatic' and said 'we will not allow HBCUs to be targeted'.

"The FBI is investigating Saturday’s shooting as a hate crime after officials said the attack at a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida, was racially motivated, and community leaders also expressed horror.

"A white man, armed with a high-powered rifle and a handgun and wearing a tactical vest and mask, entered the store just before 2pm and shot and killed two men and one woman, before fatally shooting himself. All three victims were Black."

This was posted in an online publication called "The Guardian."  "The Guardian" is described as a British daily newspaper, but I receive it online.  The part I get is not long, so maybe it's just a sampling of what the full "newspaper" contains.  I just copied and pasted the first half or so of this story.

So, Joe Biden says "white supremacy has no place in America."  Clearly, he didn't study much American history in school.  This country is built on white supremacy (supremacy over the Native Americans, over the Africans, over the people we call "brown"), and it's very much alive and kicking today.  And shooting people who aren't Caucasian.

And Ronnie DeSantis thinks someone other than himself is a "hateful lunatic?"  I wouldn't even ask.  As for his -- what?, reassurance? -- that "we will not allow HBCUs to be targeted," he's very deeply in the groove of encouraging anyone who wants one to get a gun.  Or several of them.  And to shoot anyone who makes them uncomfortable.  Once all these Floridians are raging around out there packing heat, how is Ronnie going to stop them from targeting anyone they want?  He certainly didn't stop them from targeting African-Americans in a Dollar General store (I know, a Dollar General store is not an HBCU, and anyway, Ronnie's very busy right now trying to persuade Americans he'd make a better president than he is a governor).

And the FBI is treating this as a "hate crime?"  What were their choices?

"More"

I have a friend who has a remote substance abuse issue.  My friend has been abstinent for 41 years.  She says the watchword of addicts is "more."  Interestingly, and for 41 years, she has been a faithful attender of AA meetings.  The "more" changed from substance use to devotion to 12 step meetings.

Sunday on the radio, there was a story about beauty treatments.  Specifically, the story was not only about the things people (women) do to beautify themselves, but about the famous people -- "influencers" -- who come out with these lines of product.  One person who was mentioned was Jennifer Lopez, who has recently begun a line of beauty products.  The person being interviewed, who is a journalist who follows this stuff, noted that Lopez clearly does not herself rely on these new products.  She's been famously beautiful for decades, long before these new products were developed.  Her appearance is more about the kind of skin she has been lucky enough to have.  But the question was why she, or any of the other people who lend their famous names to products that have nothing to do with them, would do it.  One reason was money, and another was influence, and prominence.  It turns out you can't have enough of those, either.  People just want "more," for who knows what reasons.

A side dynamic was the conflicting messages 1) constantly to be trying to do things to improve (change) your appearance, and 2) the suggestion to accept, or possibly treasure, yourself for who you are.  Including how you look.  If you're at peace with yourself, and you accept yourself as you are, then you don't go to lengths to make yourself look different, or what you have decided is better.  I sometimes think of Renee Zellweger, who was very appealing-looking, until she decided to "improve" her appearance, or resist aging.  Now, she just looks weird.  Catherine Deneuve was a beautiful young woman, and now, she's a beautiful older woman.

The next story on the radio was about the fact that many children are what people commonly think of as fat, and how there's nothing wrong with this.  The people who understand that there's nothing wrong with this refer to "baby fat," out of which young people commonly grow.  And if they don't, then they're overweight adults.  In many respects, and unless someone is morbidly obese, this is not a problem.  The commenter also pointed out that the crusade to reduce weight commonly results in temporary weight reduction, followed by regaining all the lost weight, and not infrequently "more."  Interestingly, it's also true of people with substance abuse and addiction problems that having achieved abstinence, they not uncommonly relapse, and when they do, they quickly get to the same, or greater, use as the level they thought they escaped.

And of course, there's the money addiction.  For some people, they can't get enough money, and they don't care at whose expense this is.  For many of them, it's way more money than they need, or can use, or even want.  Jennifer Lopez can't afford a relatively lavish lifestyle unless she starts a line of beauty products she either pretends has anything to do with the way she looks, or implicitly suggests will lead some other woman to look like her?  Or does she think her line of beauty products will cause people to know about her, because, you know, they don't already know about her?  Is she just addicted to the money, or is she also addicted to a need for attention?  She's had four husbands, one long term relationship to Alex Rodriguez, and she has two children.  And she still works at the areas where she's skilled.  What "more" does she want?

"Social" Media

I just read a long article about a social disaster that happened at a high school in the Bay Area of California.  The Instagram Account That Shattered a California High School - The New York Times (nytimes.com)  Someone posted something foolish, and there were only 11 followers of the post, but the results of this post, and the fact that many other people found out about it, were massively disruptive to the high school class, and the high school, involved.  It was about immature high school boys being immature high school boys, and making racist cracks.

The fact is that if you follow enough of the news, there are many stories about the damage and disruption caused by "social" media, especially regarding younger people.  I don't just mean the scams.  I mean the ill tempers and maladaptive influence, and intent, of the people who post there.  Adults very much get caught up in this, too.  The glaring examples of sociopathic posters are people like Donnie Trump and Andrew Tate, but there are lots of them.  I bet the Kardashians have "social" media listings, too.  If you give a shit about the Kardashians, you can contact me for an appointment.  You need a life.  And people follow this stuff for a reason: they're susceptible.  Weak minded, poorly grounded, and lacking perspective?  Sure.  This is what gets them caught up in it.  They don't have any other reliable center of gravity.

There was a time, years ago, that I had a facebook "page."  My late brother had started a band, and he told me that if I wanted information, or to see the band play, I would have to subscribe to facebook.  So I did.  I'm not sure I ever posted anything there, and I finally deactivated the "page" when I got sick of reading the posts of other people who just liked to hear themselves talk.  My daughter has a facebook "page."  I think she posts a lot of photographs and other stuff there, because from time to time, someone I know, who presumably knows her, will tell me they noticed something about my family, or about me, from my daughter's facebook "page."  She does not, by the way, ask my permission to post something about me.  Frankly, I think she should.  So, when I go to visit my daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren in Massachusetts, photographs of us, or of me and my grandchildren, will appear on my daughter's facebook "page."  And at some point, I'll hear about that, or about some other matter pertaining to my family.

There are lots of "social" media.  There's "X," that used to be Twitter, until the Big Twit acquired it, and "Threads," which is a product of "Meta," which used to be facebook, and Instagram (that's where the California problem was), and others.

And the point is that there's nothing remotely "social" about any of them.  They're antisocial, narcissistic, and predatory.  Instagram featured what amounted to ads for various things, among all the other things it featured.  Some of them were very intriguing.  I actually bought a few things from the Instagram posts.  I'm not sure even one of them worked well.  So, I deleted that "app," too.

I'm social, in that I like interacting with, you know, people.  But once you add the word media, it's not "social" any more.  It's mechanical and highly impersonal.

When It's Painful to Prove Yourself Right

Over the course of my career, I occasionally get a new patient who is a middle or older middle aged parent -- usually a mother -- and her problem is her adult offspring -- usually her son.  The problem is variable, and it can include an adult offspring with mental health problems, but who is not compliant with treatment, or substance abuse problems, or gambling problems, or threats to commit suicide, or some other attention-grabber.  The "child's" parent is seeing me because she has spent her son's life bailing him out of one imminent disaster or another, and she can't do it any more.  Her son has wound up dependent on her, and she either can't afford to keep paying his gambling or drug bills, so someone won't break his legs or kill him, or she's just running out of steam.  (Or she's having increasing trouble suppressing her anger and resentment.)

The first time I had this conversation was in the 1980s, and I thought the conversation would be straightforward.  I explained to the mother that her son is her child, but not a child, and he has never grown up.  She has enabled him to behave like a child, because she protects him from the consequences of his behavior.  (And if her concern is that if she doesn't bail him out, something terrible might happen, she's not wrong.  But that's true for all of us.)  The mother's having spent her son's adulthood enabling him handicaps him, and it makes him dependent on his mother, even though he's an adult.

I have told many people many times that it is the job of children, from as soon as they're old enough to do their job, to become capable and independent, including independent of their parents.  It is the job of parents to permit, and even encourage, their children to become capable and independent, including independent of them.  (I add that if they have no other way to think about this, they should understand that if everyone gets his and her wish, the offspring will outlive their parents.  If offspring are not capable and independent, including independent of their parents, when their parents get old and die, and the offspring are then in their 40s, 50s, 60s, or maybe even 70s, the offspring are in deep trouble.)

(Parents don't get to let go of their offspring, and assume the offspring will do what the parents would do, and not make any mistakes, including mistakes the parents already made.)

Well, the first time I had this conversation, and the parent responded to me, I was shocked.  That was until I found out over the years and decades that the response I got is always the response.  It's the only response: "yeah, but I won't know.  I'll be dead then."

So, the parent isn't bailing out their offspring for the sake of the offspring.  They're doing it for themselves, so no one will be mad at them, or criticize them, or accuse them of being withholding, or unhelpful, or not a loving and caring enough parent, or not doing enough for their offspring.  And what this will cost the offspring?  Not the parents' problem.  They won't even know.  They'll be dead then. 

Today, one of my online sources of news/information talked about how the environment, specifically glaciers, are deteriorating.  "We need to start planning for when the glaciers are gone, according to a new study.  [As Glaciers Melt, a New Study Seeks Protection of Ecosystems That Emerge in Their Place (cheddar.com)].  It found that one fourth to one half or even more of them, not counting Antarctica or Greenland, will melt by 2100.  That means preparing for more floods and finding alternative water sources for farms that rely on them to irrigate crops."

Yeah, unless you're just worried about yourself, and right now, and in 2100, you won't know: you'll be dead then.  And if that creates a problem for your offspring, or theirs, and everyone else, what are they going to do?  Come to your grave and criticize you?

Umm...

One of the online news sources I get is called atAdvocacy, or @tAdvocacy, or @Advocacy.  It's a list of posts about various different things, and yes, of course it's rabidly left wing.  I pay no attention to anything right wing, but I really don't like things that are too extreme in the other direction, either.  When reports get sufficiently extreme, they're less reliable, but I do admit that left wing offerings make more sense to me and are better supported by actual facts.

Anyway, I got my atAdvocacy collection today.  One of the very short summaries was about Lucas Kunce running against Josh Hawley for Missouri Senator.  The actual and only purpose of the short post was to request campaign money for Kunce, but I don't believe in private money in politics, so that wasn't going to happen.  But there was also seemingly irrelevant mention, presumably to stimulate motivation to get Kunce elected, of Tommy Tuberville's (Ala) somehow single-handedly preventing confirmation of military brass, because he doesn't approve of abortion rights and "LGBTQ."

That, in itself, tells an important story.  I haven't seen any reports of surveys or polls as to how Americans feel about "LGBTQ," and I don't know if they tend to be welcoming, permissive, objecting, or couldn't care less because it's not their life, and it has nothing to do with them.  Frankly, I deeply hope it's the latter.  But many surveys and polls have shown that substantially most Americans favor abortion access.  (This past week, I read about a 13 year old girl from Alabama or Mississippi who had been raped by a stranger, got pregnant from the rape, couldn't find abortion access anywhere nearby, and would have had to spend $900 her family didn't have to travel to the upper midwest to get an abortion.  So she didn't get the abortion.  She got fucked, and it fucked up her life forever more.  Because people like Tommy Tuberville, who is an adult male and can't get pregnant, don't believe in abortion.  I wonder if Tuberville would feel differently if it had been his 13 year old daughter who had gotten raped and knocked up, like it was very different to Herschel Walker, when he was out knocking up women whose fetuses were not of interest to him.

And I've said before that there's an argument to be made for the anti-abortion sentiment: people opposed to abortion are "pro-life."  That position has legitimacy to it, except for two things.  One is why they're "pro-life."  If it's a reflection of personal religious devotion, they are working to violate the US Constitution's guarantee of separation of church and state.  The other is that the people who claim to be "pro-life" are rarely opposed to capital punishment (the one and only goal of which is to kill someone, with no benefit to anyone else), and they're rarely or never opposed to guns in society, the commonest results of which are 1) nothing, 2) someone who hasn't done anything wrong gets killed, and 3) someone who has done something wrong gets killed (and this is very rare).

Related is this story from atAdvocacy: As Abortion Rights Win Votes Across US, Nebraska Becomes Latest State to Launch Referendum (commondreams.org)  Again, the fact is that most Americans want abortion access.  If you care about Americans, then you care what they want.  If you don't care about Americans, then you like the SCOTUS' Dobbs decision, and it feels like a big "oops" when you start losing elections.

And then, there's this: Georgia Conservatives’ Warning To Republicans: Nominate Trump, And We Will Lose | HuffPost Latest News  Now, this is slightly misleading.  The message, or argument, is that supporting Donnie Trump will lead Republicans to lose the presidential election.  And there's a ton, or ten tons, wrong with Donnie Trump.  But he's also way ahead of the Republican pack.  So this is what Republicans want.  The fact, as illustrated by the other stories, and the outcome of Dobbs, is that a substantial majority of Americans don't want what Republicans want.  Americans want abortion access, and gun control.  Republicans don't.  Would it matter, and help Republicans, if they nominated Ronnie DeSantis, or Chris Christie, or Nikki Haley, or someone else?  Then, they'd have lost most Republicans, who want Donnie, and all the Democrats and Independents who don't want any of this.  Republicans have painted themselves into an unmanageable corner.

I'm not a big fan, or maybe not a fan at all, of Joe Biden.  I wish he understood that it's not a great idea to run for president when you're 81, and I wish that some creditable Democrat would run against him in the primaries (the DNC would no doubt undermine that).  But I'm going to hold my nose, and vote for him.  I'm not given a reasonable option.

The Death of James Buckley

James Buckley died yesterday.  He was 100 years old.  Although he had varied accomplishments, it is likely that he is not as well-known as his younger brother, William F (Bill) Buckley.  One of James' accomplishments was that he was a one term Senator from NY, until he was defeated by Dan Moynihan.  It was during that one term that James introduced a theory that haunts this country to this day.

James was arguing that private funding of political campaigns should not be limited, because limiting funding limited a candidate's opportunity to campaign, which limited, according to James' argument, free speech.  James' argument prevailed.  So now, we have abundant private money in politics, Citizens United, untrackable "dark money," bought off and owned SCOTUS Justices, and various other kinds of corruption.  It is of course worth noting that James, like Bill, was a conservative, and this fact has a lot to do with his argument in favor of private money in politics.

As two frames of reference, we here in BP have a date before which no one can declare a candidacy for Commissioner (our only Village elected office).  No one argues that hopefuls should be able to declare candidacies a day, or a week, or a month, or a year before that date.  Has our speech been in some way "limited?"  Sure.  But we're fair and honorable about it, and no one complains.  The other frame of reference is speculative, and it depends on whether or not James formally debated his opponents (there were three candidates, he got 39% of the vote, a plurality was good enough, and he won).  If he did have to debate them, the article I read did not say he protested that he, and everyone else, was given, let's say, three minutes to answer a question, or that he demanded four hours instead, so that his "free speech" would not be limited.

I have said many times, and I will continue to say, that no one can adhere to the Rep/con agenda without being a hypocrite, dishonest, or both.  It just can't be done.  Let's say you're a Rep/con, and it horribly offends you to pay taxes.  So one way or another, you stumble onto a government that lowers your taxes.  The result is a large federal deficit.  If you're honest and honorable, you take responsibility for the deficit.  And if you want to lower that deficit by reducing spending, then you just do it, and proudly.  You don't blame the deficit on Barack Obama, as of the day he takes office, or sit through Joe Biden's SOTU address smugly shaking your head "no," or shrieking and calling him a "liar," when he says Reps/cons want to reduce Social Security benefits (which have nothing to do with the deficit), all while you're scheming to do precisely what Biden just said you were doing.

And if you're so devoted to what the Constitution says, then you don't pretend the "Second Amendment" has anything to do with guns, and you honor, fiercely (as fiercely as you honor "free speech" and your wish not to pay taxes), the separation of church and state.  Unless you're a hypocrite, dishonest, or both, in which case you just make your own rules, that have nothing to do with anything, except you and what you want.

The fact is that the majority of Americans commonly don't favor Reps/cons or their impossible-to-reconcile agenda, which disadvantages most Americans.  That's why Reps/cons rely on so much money, tortured gerrymandering, lying, blaming other people for what they themselves do, and the rest.  On the larger map, they can't prevail with a good argument.  They most commonly don't have one.  Not one that's coherent, consistent, honest, and makes sense, anyway.

James Buckley did this country a huge disservice.  Maybe that's why Dan Moynihan defeated him in the next election.

"Hattie's House!"

"Hattie's House" used to be on 125th St, between NE 9th and 10th Avenues, on the north side of the street, next to Maggie and Tommy's shoe repair place.  I really liked "Hattie's House."  It was funky and quirky, and Hattie sold stuff like crystals and pop psych stuff, and things I wouldn't normally care about.  But Hattie also blended her own fragrances, and some of them were spectacular.  I still have some.  And I have some wall sculptures I got from Hattie.  They're very nice, but I'm not sure I wasn't being supportive more than I wanted more wall art.  If you've been inside my house, you know what I mean.

But the main thing about "Hattie's House" was Hattie.  She was a delightful woman who had a daughter and then got pregnant with another child.  Then, the coronavirus hit -- I think it was then -- and "Hattie's House" closed.  The shoe repair place didn't close, but "Hattie's House" did.  I wondered what became of Hattie, and what she wound up doing with herself.  I don't think she ever told me much about her husband, so I don't know if he could support the family without her shop.

The other day, I happened to be driving on 6th Avenue, and there was "Hattie's House!"  It's now at 12307 NE 6th Avenue.  Parking around there is very difficult, and I couldn't possibly fit one more thing into this house, so I haven't made an effort to go in and say hello.  Maybe one of these days, I will.  I think "Hattie's House" is in the same storefront as that popsicle place that was there for a year or so.

If you like funky and charming stuff, much of which is supposed to reflect things you probably don't believe in, and you want to meet a super nice person, (and you can be bothered to figure out where to park), you should go to "Hattie's House."  Hattie would never in a million years remember me, so you don't have to bother to say I suggested you swing by.

"Cancel Culture"

I don't actually know what "cancel culture" means.  It's a phrase used by right wingers, and the context is usually something about honoring, elevating, or even mentioning, either minorities or the frankly embarrassing aspects of American history.  The idea seems to be that to focus on anything but the preferred majority, or to call into question perfectly well-established past American bad behavior, somehow criticizes, or shames, or casts a negative light on Americans today.  So, we ban books, and tell teachers what facts they're not allowed to reveal.  That's not "cancel culture," is it?

Setting aside the fact that past American misbehavior is not reliably in the past, even if it was, what would be the problem with acknowledging it?  Because it might lead present day Americans who share traits with historical misbehaving Americans to feel bad, as if about themselves?  Those who do not study history... they say.

But there is certainly a movement, incoherent and inconsistent though it is, to want all that misbehavior, all those embarrassing mistakes, no longer to be mentioned.  About Americans.

But Americans do not adopt the same attitude about people who are not Americans.  The argument in opposition to, for example, removing commemorative sculptures of Confederate figures is that this was part of our history, it should be preserved, and even honored for its pluck, and some Americans frankly have not lost a sense of pride in the CSA.

It never made any sense for this country to declare war on Iraq, and the impetus to have done it was built on lies, but invade and defeat we did.  The leader of Iraq at the time was Saddam Hussein.  It's entirely possible that Hussein was more taken with himself than he should have been, but there were large commemorative statues of him, during his life.  As soon as Iraq was defeated by the United States, those statues were pulled down, in very public and unceremonious ways.  But not one American argued against removing and destroying that part of Iraq's history.  I don't know if there are statues of Lenin and Stalin, or Mao, but no Americans express the hope that if there are, they are left in all their glory, as symbols of the history of the Soviet Union or communist China.  If there were any statues of Hitler, no Americans suggest that such honorable and historic commemorations be preserved, as actual, or even proud, mementos of German history.

We have no problem canceling the "bad" culture of other countries, but some of us can't figure out why it's a bad idea to honor our own failings.

You Can't Have Any of That. It's MINE!

California Is Dying a Slow and Painful Death (msn.com)

So, people are leaving California, and some other states that have state income taxes, to go to Florida, and other states that don't have them.

The linked article talks about features that might, under different circumstances, draw people to California ("numerous attractions...booming tech industry and world class universities...beautiful landscapes and cultural richness"), but not if people have to give up any of their money to be there.

And the article also specifies how much of someone's income California wants: up to 13.3%, but only if your taxable income is over $1M.  So, if you have taxable income of $1M, California wants $133K, which leaves you with $867K.  If you have $5M of taxable income, California wants $665K, which leaves you with $4.335M.  Etc.

Do we wonder how anyone is supposed to live on $867K or $4.335M, or do we acknowledge that no one "earns" that kind of money?  They just have ways of getting it.  And since the vast, vast, vast majority of people who get money are not counterfeiters (they don't create their own money), then the money they get they take from someone else.

And taking money from other people, and not being concerned about the consequences for those other people, is what they want to do.  The more, the better.  And they don't want to share.  Or "give back."  They'd rather move to Florida, or Texas, or some state that won't take any of their money.

Does the title of this post sound like something a selfish child might say?  It did to me, too.  I suppose that's why I chose it.

It's the Same as Treating Warts

My favorite online news source is "The Lever."  Although they seem to be very left leaning (they complain less about Biden than about Trump, for example, but they most certainly complain about Biden, too, when he doesn't do what he said he would do, or what's good for the country), I consider them very strictly accurate in their research and reporting.

I got a post from them today, and it addresses a few issues.  One of them is "gas guzzlers:"  

Gas Cuts For Gas Guzzlers

It’s time for gas guzzlers to go on a diet. A new proposal from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a division of the Department of Transportation, calls for stricter limits on emissions for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. The proposal follows potential new EPA standards to regulate transport, which could halve the emissions and pollutants produced by U.S. automobile manufacturers, and experts say the two efforts combined would transform the industry.

Americans (notoriously) love their cars, and transportation accounts for nearly a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other sector. The NHTSA proposal will attempt to bring those numbers down by creating new fuel economy standards for automakers of passenger cars and light trucks, with standards increasing yearly. The NHTSA says the proposal would reduce gas consumption by 88 billion gallons by 2050 and could save drivers $50 billion over their vehicles’ lifetime.

Both proposals would require ramping up electric vehicle production, putting gas in the past where it belongs.

“The reality is that the biggest single step America can take to control global warming pollution is to reduce the emissions coming out of tailpipes,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign.

The fact is that cars have been on a diet for decades.  CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards were first enacted in 1975, after the 1973-1974 Arab Oil Embargo, and they have become progressively stricter and more stringent ever since.  "The Lever" is simply stating the obvious when it suggests we abandon burning gas to power vehicles, and rely on electricity instead.  Gas (oil) is a fossil fuel, and its availability is limited.  At some point, there won't be any more, and we'll all rely on something else anyway.  In the meantime, while the resisters among us continue to resist, we just do increasing damage to the planet, and everything that lives on it.

When I was in medical school, one of the things that was said, as much by analogy as reflecting a literal suggestion, was that the approach to the treatment of warts should be informed by the knowledge that warts go away on their own anyway.  So no one would amputate a limb, for example, to get rid of a wart that's going to go away on its own even if you do nothing.  But that's what we do regarding how we power our cars, homes, etc.  What we insist on continuing to burn is going away on its own anyway, but we keep burning it, at the cost of lots and lots of limbs.

PS: The reason I'm giving my Tesla to my son is that I have contracted to buy an Aptera, which is a different electric car, and is more my style, and gets many more miles per charge.  When I'm gone, my offspring can decide what to do with the Aptera, too.  And if I decide to take the Sacramento, California, job for which I'm having an interview next week, I'll get the car sooner, since they're starting with distributing closer to their headquarters/factory in San Diego.  It'll take them a long time to distribute in south Florida.