Saturday, July 4, 2026

#185 / Our Declaration On The Fourth



oooOOOooo

Our Declaration On The Fourth / Hold The Fireworks

I am not feeling, today, like this is really the best time to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution with pretty displays of fireworks. That is not what counts the most, for me. This is not what counts the most, today, 250 years since the signing of our Declaration of Independence.

What counts the most for me - what counts the most, today - are words. Just words! We could say that our Declaration is, itself, "just words" - and hear that language as a way to depreciate our history (and our future). But our Declaration is not "just words." Our Declaration provides us words to live by. Words to die for. Words for which people did die, words for which people gave their lives, words for which we are called, today, to give our own. Those words of our Declaration on the Fourth are what count the most, for me, today.

It did come to that, too, the idea that there are words to die for. One time it did. On July 4, 1776, American patriots wrote down words for which people were called to give their lives. You do remember that, I know. You do remember, and you do know why we have this holiday. And you know that such a time might come again. You know it could. 

I believe, and Americans still believe, what these words say - what these words that helped create this nation say. Remember with me, today, these words in our Declaration on the Fourth, words that declared a truth that Americans have committed to make real.

Today, let's forget about the fireworks - at least for some small time. Let's refresh our recollections, and remember, again, what those words written 250 years ago made plain, and let us remember all they mean for us today.  Let us call those words back into our memories today, and pledge ourselves anew to what we said, and did, so long ago. Please let us never forget that these words proclaim what is and shall always be our enduring commitment to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Our Declaration on the Fourth was the first time - if you think of it that way - that we officially said, "No Kings"!

Let us never forget that these words we celebrate today are a pledge, by all of us, of "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This is a pledge we make - and will evermore be a pledge we make while our nation still lives in the light of our Declaration on  the Fourth. 

oooOOOooo

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Emphasis added]


Image Credit:

Friday, July 3, 2026

#184 / Mini-Pigs And Big Pigs

 


Vladimir Putin was featured in a Wall Street Journal article published on Saturday, May 30, 2026. The article was titled, "Inside Putin’s $26 Billion Quest For Longevity." 

Like Silicon Valley billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman and Peter Thiel, Putin has long been fascinated with antiaging research. But in Russia, Putin’s quest to stave off decline is now a state priority relying on methods as wide-ranging as organ printing, harvesting mini-pigs and exposure to ultralow temperatures.

"Mini-pigs" are, apparently, playing a key role in Putin's efforts to achieve long life (or, even better, to escape death entirely). The article in The Journal provides some explanation how those "mini-pigs" are being utilized. The article also cites some evidence that indicates that Putin really does believe that escaping death (long considered to be just as certain as "taxes") is something that he might be able to achieve:

When Vladimir Putin was captured by a hot mic telling Xi Jinping that humans could achieve immortality by replacing their organs, some dismissed the exchange as eccentric small talk between aging autocrats. In fact, during the conversation at a Beijing military parade last September, Putin appeared to be describing a Kremlin-backed longevity initiative that has become one of Russia’s flagship scientific projects.

So, as noted, if you are interested in some of the specifics of Russia's long-life research, and about the role being played by mini-pigs, the article I have linked will provide you with helpful information. As for the "Big Pigs" mentioned in my blog posting title, you can figure out the people I am thinking of (a partial list) by reading the excerpt from the article that I have provided in this blog posting. Only one of them is a Russian head of state!


Image Credit:

Thursday, July 2, 2026

#183 / Hot News From The High Court!!!!




The image you see above appeared in the hardcopy version of a Wall Street Journal article published on July 1, 2026. Depicted is an intern, who is running to deliver a Supreme Court ruling to members of the media on Tuesday, June 31st. 

So, what was this all about? What was that "Hot News From The High Court"?

Well, if you click the next link, you'll find the online version of the article to which I am referring, which is titled as follows: "Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Curtail Birthright Citizenship." 

In other words (amazing though it may seem), the "Hot News" was that the Supreme Court of the United States has held, in an official decision, that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution means exactly what it says. Wow! That is exciting! How unexpected!! The High Court has now officially proclaimed that the following language means exactly what the words in the Constitution say: 

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

The current president of the United States has been claiming that what the Constitution says (see above) isn't actually what it means. The VP has been in agreement with him. 

Let's hope that the same principle (words mean what they say) might be found to apply to other provisions of the Constitution, too. Like, who gets to declare war - for just one example!

https://www.instagram.com/p/DaOULUmEufw/

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

#182 / Back To School At Pali High?




An article in the May 18, 2026, edition of The New York Times was titled as follows in the hardcopy version: "In Pacific Palisades, A Mother's Agonizing Dilemma." Click that link for the article online (but be aware that the online headline will differ from what I have given you here). 

In the hardcopy edition, there was a picture on the front page of the paper that immediately attracted my attention since it showed an old Sears store, repurposed with a new sign reading, "Pali High." I, personally, am a graduate of "Paly High" (class of '61), meaning Palo Alto High School, located in Palo Alto, California. I wasn't, actually, offended by the "Pali High" sign, but I can't help thinking that my own highschool is the original and authentic version. 

At any rate, Palo Alto High School has not (to date) suffered the kind of fate affecting the "Pali High" located in Pacific Palisades. The Pacific Palisades wildfire - one of the "most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles history" - badly damaged the high school, but it was "still standing" after the fire. However, the real problem about repopulating the school with students, like Pearl Villemaire, pictured above, was the accumulation of toxic chemicals. Pearl's home was "smoke-damaged," too.

If you read the entirety of the article, you will find that it may well be that students are being sent back to a highschool that is, in fact, a hotbed of toxic dangers (and Pearl's home is in the same condition). This brought a thought to mind. As we enter a time in which wildfires will, almost certainly, continue to erupt during warm weather - thanks to the global warming which our nation, and the world entire, is failing to address - we are going to have a lot more problems like the ones documented with reference to "Pali High." We are constructing our cities with plastics and other materials created not by nature, but by human artifice, that may well leave us with a toxic legacy, after such fires, that will then doom our children to a life of chemical pollution, dangerous to health. 

One way to begin addressing this problem (which is referenced in the article) is just to "pretend" that the toxic residues are "ok," and are not a mammoth health danger. This is, possibly, what is happening in Pacific Palisades, and this is what constitutes the "agonizing dilemma" that the article discusses. Pearl wants to go back to school; she is experiencing real panic attacks and depression because of the disruption to her life caused by the fire. Her mom wants to help with that, as do the other parents of students at "Pali High." It's agonizing for such parents to send their students back to school, however. While the parents  know that this will make their children happier, immediately, they also know, at some level, that this decision may condemn them to future disease and an early death. 

Pearl's going back to school, at Pali High. Let's cross our fingers! However, there could be another way - a lesson drawn from the situation documented by the article in The Times. Maybe we could start seriously confronting and dealing with global warming - on an immediate and urgent basis - and since global warming is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels (oil and gas) that would mean phasing them out, immediately (as quickly as is humanly possible).

That is a possibility, and there are some (I am raising my hand) who don't think a decision to do that should really be "agonizing." The decision to do that, I think, should be "obvious." 


Image Credit:

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

#181 / Jeff Bezos' Billions? He Earned Them!




The headline on an opinion column that was published in the May 27, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal reads this way: Jeff Bezos Earned His Fortune

Marian L. Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the person who is making this argument. In a typographical "pull out," Tupy sums up that argument by telling us that "The Amazon founder's innovations save customers 22 hours a year on average, giving them the gift of time." Here's a more extended explanation: 

Modern debates about wealth start in the wrong place. They begin with the fortune. They should begin with customers and their time. Mr. Bezos is worth roughly $275 billion. That number offends many people because they assume wealth must have been taken from someone else. But Amazon didn’t become valuable by force. It became valuable because hundreds of millions of people chose to use it. 
Consumers weren’t forced to buy books, batteries, diapers, cables, razors, tools, groceries or printer ink from Amazon. They did so because Amazon saved them time, money, effort or uncertainty. Sellers weren’t forced to use Amazon’s marketplace. They did so because it gave them access to demand. Firms weren’t forced to use Amazon Web Services. They did so because renting computing power was cheaper than building and maintaining their own information-technology infrastructure. That is capitalism: People get rich by creating something others value enough to buy.... 
Consider the arithmetic. Suppose an hour of labor is worth about $64, roughly the average gross domestic product per hour worked in the countries in which Amazon operates. If Mr. Bezos’ fortune corresponded to the total value that Amazon created, his $275 billion would represent about 4.3 billion hours of saved time. Divided among Amazon’s more than 300 million active customers, the saving comes to about 14 hours per customer over Amazon’s life. That’s nothing. Many customers save that in a month. 
At $64 an hour, that means Amazon has saved its customers about 214 billion hours. Across 300 million customers over roughly 32 years (Amazon was founded in 1994), the saving equals about 22 hours per person a year. That is 25 to 26 minutes a week, or a little less than four minutes a day. 
So the question isn’t whether Mr. Bezos has too much money. It is whether Amazon has saved the average customer four minutes a day. The answer is yes. A single avoided trip to a store can save 30 minutes. Finding a product online instead of driving to three retailers can save an hour. Reading reviews can reduce the chance of buying the wrong product. Automatic reordering can save repeated errands. Price comparison can save money and time. Fast delivery can substitute for inventory kept in closets, garages, offices and warehouses.

Tupy makes a pretty good argument, don't you think? I think he does, but I do want to note that there are some costs he doesn't tally. Amazon's successful business model has not only made it possible for the buyers of everyday commodities to save time, it has also helped destroy many small businesses - and even some large businesses - and has mightly contributed to what is sometimes called the "death of downtown."

Still, let's give credit where credit is due. Bezos' commercial innovations (and let's not forget the contributions of his former wife, MacKenzie Scott) have received an endorsement from the market. His new idea about how to use the "Internet" to sell things was, perhaps, an idea whose time had come. Granting all that, and affirming the arithmetic propounded by Tupy, I think there is something else we need to consider. 

Who made Amazon successful? Just as Tupy points out, its customers made Amazon successful. And who are those customers? You, me, and the entirety of the public. So, shouldn't the public also share in the economic benefits, along with the guy who had the good idea? Granted that those four minutes a day we've each gained are worth something, I am suggesting that our willingness to transform the American economy on the Bezos' model of commercial enterprise should also result in a direct sharing of the economic benefits by the public taken as a whole. 

In other words, since we, the customers, and we, the public, have made Amazon successful, it would be - and in fact is - totally appropriate to impose a tax on the profits we made possible, to fund such things as downtown urban revitalization, childcare, health care, and the armed forces that defend our American "way of life."

Anyone see anything wrong with that? We have had a progressive income tax for a long time, and as the success of Mr. Bezos' good idea reveals, when the willingness of the public to change its buying habits has made it possible for one person to amass amazing sums of money ($275 billion buys a lot of merchandise, like Bezos' super yacht, pictured below), a tax on some of the profits, to benefit the public, is absolutely in order. 


(1) - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jeff-bezos-earned-his-fortune-5e57dc45

Monday, June 29, 2026

#180 / Same Problem, Different Message

 


As The New York Times has reported, former Vice President Al Gore is still talking about global warming (usually called "climate change," which I think, personally, significantly understates what's really happening). We all do remember the story of the boiling frogs, right? 




Some say that this story about the boiling frogs is truly misleading, and that frogs actually will not sit around in a gradually warming pot of water until they're boiled to death. 

Humans? Well, there is some evidence going the other way!

The main point made in The Times' article is that Gore now argues his case on "economic," not "moral" grounds: 

Onstage in Nashville, Mr. Gore made a central argument that would have been inconceivable two decades ago. Rather than directly invoking morality, he led with economics. 
The cost of renewable energy had plunged. He talked about “market forces” and about the “spectacular, unprecedented” technology revolution — including low-cost solar panels and wind turbines — that now make aiding the planet an affordable choice. 
“We’re in a different world now,” Mr. Gore said in Nashville. “The options are terrific.” 
The moral aspect of climate advocacy has had a long legacy, burnished not only by Mr. Gore but also by Pope Francis, who portrayed a link between environmental degradation and societal rot. In the late 2010s, a wave of youth protesters argued that political leaders and corporations had a duty to safeguard the planet for future generations. 
But as that movement waned, some felt the moralizing had at times brought a political backlash. After the documentary’s release ["An Inconvenient Truth"], Mr. Gore was criticized in some right-wing circles for hypocrisy given that he traveled widely and lived a lifestyle reliant on fossil fuels for energy. Later, to attend climate events, the activist Greta Thunberg twice crossed the Atlantic by sailboat in a conspicuous effort to avoid polluting air travel, a move that some critics called a publicity stunt out of reach for noncelebrities. 
Environmentalists, meantime, made a new case: that wind and solar energy were becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Bill McKibben, a founder of the campaign group 350.org, said climate advocates no longer had to “fight against the force of economic gravity.”

Lawyers, who make arguments to juries as part of their normal business, quite often seek to persuade a jury by making multiple, and different, arguments. They always do keep urging the jury, though, to take the specific action for which they are arguing. 

One way to look at Gore's recent shift in emphasis is that this is probably a good thing, since the "problem" is to get us to change what we're doing, instead of lounging around in the pot debating whether the temperature is really going up, or not. 

I am "ok" with that, but my advice would be to do what the lawyers do. Present all the arguments! Candidly, I am getting quite tired of hearing public policy matters discussed, for the most part, as if "economic" issues were the only issues of importance. Public policy choices do, of course, quite often have very significant "economic" impacts, but there are also moral imperatives that I think are more important than the economic probabilities. 

We live in a world into which we have all been born, most mysteriously, a "Natural World" that is not our own creation, and I continue to think that we need to respect that fact, while certainly understanding our own powers and prerogatives and all those very real "economic" impacts that flow from our human choices. 

I would like to think that Al Gore (and all of us) would not forget that!

(1) - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/25/climate/al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth.html
(2) - https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=403

Sunday, June 28, 2026

#179 / A Few Words From Pope Leo XIV

 



Pope Leo XIV (pictured above) begs to disagree with Mr. Jobs. Pope Leo has recently issued an "encyclical letter," an official statement by the Pope on religious matters, and the Pope is warning the world that "artificial intelligence threatens to normalize an anti-human vision.” 

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the Pope's statement should be understood as both a "criticism" and a "rebuke," coming from the first American Pope, "challenging a technological revolution incubated in the U.S. and supported by our current president, who has lashed out at the pontiff for criticizing the war in Iran." The Journal goes on to say that "Leo’s emphasis on threats to individuals’ human dignity and opposition to autonomous weapons casts him in contrast to techno-optimists who argue that AI will usher in a productivity revolution and that the U.S. must deploy its advances militarily before rivals such as China do."


Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, published with great ceremony on Monday his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, or “Magnificent Humanity.” The 42,300-word policy statement is respectful and named no names, but is at heart a sharp rebuke to Silicon Valley’s assertions that it alone can be trusted to develop the future.

Whether we denominate the Pope's encyclical as a "religious" or as a "spiritual" statement, the essence of what the Pope is saying is clear. The reality upon which we ultimately depend (for everything) is not a "human creation," and our periodic and presumptuous assertions to the contrary are not only misguided but (if I may be excused for using this word), "demonic." 

According to the Lord's Prayer, "Evil" is an actual reality, and is not just a word that we employ to categorize something that we don't particularly like. Those who recite the words of the Lord's Prayer, which acknowledge also the reality of God, ask the Creator of the World to "deliver us" from evil. 

The Pope does not, for a minute, think we are "as gods," and he knows evil when he hears it - and hears of it. Let us all, like the Pope, refuse to succumb to the temptation to elevate our own creations to be equal to, or even greater than, The World That God Created.

Saturday, June 27, 2026

#178 / As We Thinketh




I have already recommended the book I have pictured above. The book was written in 1903. Click right here for my earlier review and comment, which mentions my father, who gave me the book on Christmas in 1961, just as I was about to turn 18 years old. At the time of my earlier mention of the book, I had not yet posted anything showing how the lesson of Allen's book motivated my father's incredibly successful life. Later, I did exactly that, and I invite anyone reading this to find out a bit about my Dad! Just click the link.

As you will note, the title of my blog posting today is not quite the same as the title of the book itself. This is to let you know that the book is most emphatically not delivering a message that is gender specific to males. Let us forgive our forefathers predecessors for their failure to understand that the language that we use, when we talk about the world, needs to be inclusive!

I have returned to James Allen's book in my blog posting today because The New York Times Magazine recently ran an opinion article by Sam Anderson, "Mind Reader," which made fun of the book, and suggested that it wasn't worth reading. Anderson is a staff writer for the magazine, and if he is correct, there has been a recent surge of interest in As A Man Thinketh, which Anderson describes as "a musty old book from 1903." The new "fans," Anderson says, are mainly male. Let me reiterate, this book is a book for everyone!

Anderson more or less ridicules Allen's book because he presents its basic argument as a claim that "you are your thoughts," which he reads to mean that "thinking" is "self-executing." I think this is a fundamental misreading. Thinking does not "make it so." Acting does!

What Allen's book claims is that we can do "anything." I happen to believe that is true, and invite you, again, to read about my father's experience in his life. My own experience has not been so different - thanks to my Dad. 

The message of Allen's book isn't that "thinking" is all we need to do. It is, rather, an encouragement to "think" about what we want to do, and who we want to be, and what we really "have to do." Do not think yourself into a life limited by your own failure to appreciate "possibility." 

Possibility is "my category" - and that is because (thanks to my Dad) that I read and believed what Allen says (and what my Dad said, and proved to me was true). We will not ever be able to go beyond what we think is our limit. 

So, don't be someone who is self-limiting (particularly now, as we must face down various ways in which our world might be brought summarily to an end, should we not change our destination). If we don't think beyond the "realities" that seem so absolute, we will never know what is really possible.

Please do not think that you're going to change the world by "thinking" alone. "Think." Then "Act." That's what James Allen is talking about! As we thinketh, so we can "make it so."


Image Credit:

Friday, June 26, 2026

#177 / Tax The Rich




I have written about today's topic before, more three years ago. My blog posting back then was titled, "Taxing The Rich." I was reacting, at that time, to a newspaper column by Dan Walters, whose opinions frequently appear in Cal Matters

Today, under a slightly different but obviously related title, I am expressing pretty much the same opinion I did last time around. The grammtical formulation I am using for my title today, however, pretty much gives away my own thoughts on the matter right upfront. A blog posting titled, "Taxing The Rich" could announce an even-handed exploration of the pros and cons, with no actual opinion ever being voiced. My title today, "Tax The Rich," is in the "imperative mood," which is grammatically utilized to convey a "command or request." 

Grammar is important, you know!

Today's posting is written with reference to two different newspaper articles, each of the articles having been published on Wednesday, May 6, 2026. One of those articles is from The New York Times. The title of that article, in the hardcopy version of the paper, was, "Developer Blasts Mayor For Pushing Taxes On Rich." Online, the title is a bit more strident. When you click that link I have just provided, the online headline reads, "In Attack On Mamdani, Vornado Chief Likens ‘Tax The Rich’ To Hate Speech." Vornado Realty Trust owns and operates a lot of real estate, including nearly 20 million square feet of prime office properties," to cite its website. The person with the somewhat dyspeptic expression shown above is Steven Roth, the chief executive of Vornado. 

The link to Roth's name will take you to Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article about Roth says that Vornado Realty Trust is "the largest commercial landlord in New York City." The Times' article, by Dana Rubinstein, discusses a proposal by New York State Governor, Kathy Hochul to increase property taxes on second home properties, and lets readers know that New York City's Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, thinks that's a pretty good idea. In case you don't have a visual image of the Mayor, he is pictured below. His cheery smile provides a mighty contrast to Roth's grim and dissatisfied countenance. 


On the same day The Times' article appeared, Nicholas G. Miller wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal. That article was headlined, "Taxes On Second Homes Divide Owners, Advocates." Among those whose taxes would go up, if the so-called "Pied-a-Terre" tax is ultimately enacted, is Taylor Swift.

I am not voicing any explicit opinion on the specific tax proposal that is the subject of these two articles, since I haven't reviewed the text. However, I do think that it is completely appropriate to ask those with extreme wealth to step up to the plate to provide support for the government that represents all of us. It is is not unfair, in my opinion, to ask those who have more to pay more. Certainly, those who advocate for this proposition are not engaging in "hate speech." They're just asking those who have the ability to do so to help, according to their ability, to support the society that is home to us all. 


Image Credits:
(2) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohran_Mamdani 

Thursday, June 25, 2026

#176 / A Paradigm Shift




Jeremy Lent, pictured above, describes himself as an "Author and Integrator." Among other things, Lent produces periodic postings on a Substack blog that he titles, "Ecocivilization." On May 8, 2026, Lent's blog posting posed this question: "Is  A New Copernican Revolution Already Underway?" Let's hope so, says Lent! Our human survival may well depend on such a (yet unrealized) "paradigm shift."

The "Copernican Revolution" was a very significant change in perspective. As Copernicus proved, the Earth is not the center of the universe, as had been assumed, with the sun, the planets, and everyting else rotating about it. Quite the contrary! What an irony, says Lent:

The same scientific worldview that displaced Earth from the center of the universe placed “Man” at the center of the living world—as nature’s supreme conqueror and its rightful master. The very methods that revealed our planet’s cosmic insignificance were used to establish something else: the principle that nature exists primarily as a resource for human use, a complicated machine whose mechanisms can be deciphered and controlled by human endeavor. One decentering gave birth to another, far more consequential, centering—and we are still living inside it.

To put this in slightly different words (my words), we live, ultimately, in the "World of Nature," or in the "World That God Created." Any claim to "human supremacy" in that world is fundamentally wrong, and our acceptance  of the proposition that human beings are able to do whatever they want to do, as "masters of the world," will lead, inevitably, to human demise - if we are talking about the "World of Nature." Global Warming, often called "Climate Change," is one example. Many are starting to realize how high the stakes really are. 

Having said that about the "World of Nature," I do continue to insist on my "Two Worlds" hypothesis, which holds that while we are ultimately subject to the laws and requirements of the "World of Nature," we live most immediately in a human world that we create ourselves. The problem is, we underrate our ability to create any kind of world we choose, within that "Political World" which we most immediately inhabit, at the same time that we fail to understand the limits imposed on us in the "World of Nature." 

If you read my blog postings with any regularity, you will already know that I am in agreement with the warning that Lent has authored in his own blog posting. I am just saying it one more time - and am providing you a link to what Lent has to say about our human misconceptions, and where they are taking us!


Image Credit:

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

#175 / Your Chance To Learn A New Word




I get a daily email from a website devoted to "Words Trivia," challenging my knowledge of vocabulary. If you click that link, maybe you can sign up yourself. Here's the challenge that hit my email inbox last month, on Friday, May 22nd: 


Do you already know what "kakistocracy" means - or is this blog posting going to be an opportunity for you to learn a new word? If you don't already know the right definition, here's the answer to the quiz: 


"Kakistocracy" means "government by the worst." The quiz is quite timely, don't you think? 

The book cover at the top of this blog posting pictures a book I have just recently read. It's a book I picked up at one of the "Little Free Libraries" that abound in my community. The book's objective, essentially, is to document, historically, the ups and downs of what might be called "good government" in the United States of America. 

Jon Meacham, the author of the book, suggests that our history represents, really, a "battle for our better angels." When those "better angels" predominate, we get "good government." When they don't, we get "bad" government, including, in some extreme cases, genuine kakistocracy.

What word do you think applies to how we're doing right now?

 
(2) and (3) - https://www.wordstrivia.com/trivia/definitions/what-does-kakistocracy-mean/results/63a2844094143b224dcc03cd
(4) - https://www.gapatton.net/2026/06/164-we-want-to-get-along-well.html

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

#174 / The Seduction Of Despair: Just Say, "No"

 


Jürgen Habermas, pictured above, died on March 14, 2026. He was ninety-six years old. 

Wikipedia identifies Habermas as "a German philosopher and social theorist in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism." For those who would like to understand what that description might actually mean, let me refer you to an excellent article in the June 22, 2026, edition of The New Yorker. The article, by Alex Ross, is titled, "The Dream of Reason." 

Unfortunately, I can't give you a guarantee that the link I have just provided will let non-subscribers read the Ross article. Here, however, is the concluding paragraph of that article, which outlines why Habermas is said to have "offered a philosophy of hope in a darkening age."

Philosophy is a discipline of abstractions, yet it raises achingly elemental questions. The august Kant asks, “What can I know? What should I do? What can I hope for?” The answers are seldom simple or bright. The seduction of despair can be intense, whether on the personal or the political level. But the fact that most of our hopes remain unrealized should not revoke the reality of our fitful, painful progress. This was Habermas’s core conviction; he was an incrementalist, though a radical one. On the other hand, in his almost manic drive toward consensus, he blunted the edge of his critical inheritance. If we are to say no to the monstrosities that we have unleashed, we need the uncompromising fury that the Frankfurt School writers invested in their work. We need Adorno to tell us that the confusion of truth and lies “makes it a Sisyphean labor to hold on to the simplest piece of knowledge.” In the end, we need both voices: the critical and the reconstructive, the savage and the sage. The dialectic moves between crashing despair and hovering hope (emphasis added). 

My brief commentary would be to remind anyone reading this blog posting that "possibility" is what I call "my category." As noted in that paragraph from the Ross article, the deadly enemy to "possibility," and thus to any hope for the future, is the "seduction of despair." 

Despair is seductive. Oddly enough, despair comes to us as a tantalizingly attractive explanation and invitation. If (by any chance) any such invitation comes to you: 

Just Say, "NO" To Despair

It's not that easy to do, you know! But that's what we have to do, and what we're supposed to do, and let's not forget it!


Image Credit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas

Monday, June 22, 2026

#173 / Old Goats




Wikipedia tells us that Jonathan Alter is an American author, political analyst, columnist, documentary filmmaker, and television producer. Alter served as a columnist and senior editor for Newsweek magazine from 1983 to 2011, and he has written extensively on American politics and history, including several books about U.S. presidents. The picture above does not depict Alter. 

The picture above shows us Leon Panetta, who represented a Congressional District that included a large part of Santa Cruz County. He served as our elected Member of the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993. Alter is currently writing a Substack blog with this title: "Old Goats." Panetta was featured in that blog on May 15, 2026. As far as I know, Panetta has not contested this characterization of him as an "Old Goat," demonstrating that he continues to be a person of rare good humor. 

Leon did have a couple of things to say in the "Old Goats" column that I want to highlight. First, Leon said that our current president "operates by the seat of his pants. He looks for simple solutions and quick exercises of power. There is no diplomacy. There’s no real effort to sit down, work through these issues, and truly negotiate. He’s reached the point where he thinks that if he says something loudly enough, it will happen. And if it doesn’t, he resorts to threats and bullying tactics to get there."

Second, speaking directly about the war with Iran, Leon said this: "Look, you’re not going to bomb your way to regime change.... It has to happen from the bottom up."

Real change always occurs from the "bottom up." That is my personal experience, too. That's not only true when speaking of international relations. 

Leon is five years older than I am, but I could probably be classified as an "Old Goat," too.

So, here's a thought: Take some advice from the "Old Goats." They often know what they're talking about. From the smallest county (geographically) in the State of California to the Executive Office of the most powerful country in the world, take some advice from a couple of "Old Goats" who actually do know how government works.

Fundamental change comes from the "bottom up." Let's not forget that!


Image Credit:
https://oldgoats.substack.com/p/panetta-iran-war-a-terrible-mistake

Sunday, June 21, 2026

#172 / A Cartoon From A Naked Pastor

 


I don't consider myself to be deeply immersed in "social media," but maybe I am more immersed than I have actually realized.

Wikipedia lists a lot of "social media" platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, WeChat, ShareChat, Instagram, Pinterest, QZone, Weibo, VK, Tumblr, Baidu Tieba, Threads, and LinkedInWikipedia also lists other popular platforms that are sometimes referred to as "social media." That list includes: YouTube, Letterboxd, QQ, Quora, Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, LINE, Snapchat, Viber, Reddit, Discord, and TikTok. Wikis and Roblox. Not mentioned by Wikipedia, I note, is TruthSocial, the social media platform maintained by our current president. He often posts there during the middle of the night, as I understand it. I am not affiliated, and I am happy to be left out!

Anyway, with respect to my own social media affiliations, I have few to list. I do have a LinkedIn account (which I scarcely ever utilize), and I maintain a Facebook Profile, too. I always upload these blog postings of mine onto my Facebook page, and I send out greetings to Facebook Friends, when I am alerted that one of my Facebook Friends is having a birthday. When someone asks to be one of my "Facebook Friends" I check out who asked, and then will sometimes say, "yes" to a new Facebook Friendship. While there is an overlap, of course, between "Facebook Friends" and "real" friends - people whom I know and have actually met - I am generally happy to establish connections with people who, for one reason or another, have decided that they'd like to see what I am posting, even though I have never actully met them in "real life."

And what is it that I post on Facebook? Mainly, besides my daily blog posts, I try to alert my Facebook Friends to political, economic, environmental, legal, and social issues I think are important, and I frequently spotlight local news, affecting Santa Cruz County and the Monterey Bay Area, including advice on upcoming local meetings of various kinds.

Probably because I have taken, on Sundays, to posting blog items that I think might have some "religious" or "spiritual" message, it seems that I have attracted a new "Facebook Friend." Back in late May, I got a "Friend Request" from "UniLu Elcm," a name I definitely did not recognize, and that I first postulated might indicate that someone from one of the Baltic States was seeking a Facebook Friendship with me. 

Not at all, as it turned out. "UniLu Elcm" turned out to be the Episcopal Lutheran Campus Ministry at Stanford, which also identifies itself as "Progressive Christians at Stanford." I am delighted to be connected, and I very promptly found, through this new Facebook "friendship," that there is a "Naked Pastor" cartoonist, who is providing religious messages by way of cartoons like the one I have placed at the top of this blog entry. 

The cartoon Jesus, whom you can see, above, does have a good "Sunday Sermon" message, a message that does ring true to me. Thanks to my Facebook Friend UniLu Elcm for passing it along!


Image Credit: