#297 / While Money Doesn't Talk, It Swears

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

Those reading this blog posting may, or may not, recognize the "Money doesn't talk, it swears" reference. It comes from Bob Dylan's 1965 song, "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)." If you click that link you'll be taken to the official lyrics, on the Bob Dylan website. Clicking here, on the other hand, will take you to a YouTube rendition, played by Bob Dylan himself. 

As another alternative, you can try this third link. That link should get you to an article published in the Saturday-Sunday, August 1-2, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal. Online, the article has the following title: "'The Boss Wants This Money’: Inside Trump’s Unprecedented Fundraising Operation." That link will get you to the article, too, and even non-subscribers should be able to read the entire story. 

The Wall Street Journal article outlines the work undertaken by Meredith O'Rourke, who is described as our current president's "fundraiser." She is, in other words, the Natalie Harp for money. On virtually every evening, it appears, our current president calls up Ms. O'Rourke to go over a list of people to call on his behalf, along with the sums that Ms. O'Rourke is supposed to demand that they pay into our current president's campaign coffers:

Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much. He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls. 

“This is very important to the president. He’s asked me to call you and ask you for this donation,” O’Rourke has relayed on phone calls with companies, persistently following up with them. In some calls, she has referred to Trump as the boss, saying “the boss wants this money.” In turn, Trump has called her the “princess of darkness” because she is such a “killer” with donors, according to people who have heard his comments.... 

Trump stands out for taking personal control of the fundraising, and no sitting American president has ever raised these amounts for his pet projects. At the same time, companies have paid new attention to the White House as Trump has gotten involved in regulatory decisions that once were made by independent agencies, dramatically shifting the balance of power across Washington. 

No laws prohibit presidents from raising unlimited sums of money for nonprofits, like the ones used for the ballroom and his presidential library, his super PAC or political issue committees. For most of these types of transactions, public disclosure of donors isn’t required and reporting on spending is infrequent. 

All told, the second-term president has raised more than $800 million since returning to office, according to an updated Wall Street Journal analysis.

The story continues. I encourage you to read the whole thing. If you do, I am betting that you will be as offended as I was at what our current president is doing, essentially selling governmental decisions for money paid to him, to use as he wants. 

Bob Dylan's lyrics are right on target, and I believe that we all understand that the problem doesn't disappear when our current president does. 

That would help, of course, but I hope it's pretty clear that "we, the people," are going to have to insist that fundamental changes be made. Won't be easy. But I am here to tell you that it can be done. 

Has to be done, if we ever want to regain a working system of self-government in these United States of America - and if we ever want to have a government that isn't "phony."

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://josephhollander.com/news-blog/illegal-large-amounts-cash/

#296 / Not "Red," Not "Blue," But Something New

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The most current edition of Mother Jones is focused on the following question: "Is MAHA Breaking Up?" A worried-looking RFK is pictured on the cover of the November-December issue of the magazine, with that question prominently featured along with the picture of RFK.

Frankly, I was most interested in a stand alone article by Tim Murphy, reporting on the Governor's race in Iowa. That guy standing up in the middle of the picture above is Rob Sand. He is running for Governor in Iowa, and he is running as a Democrat. The last time a Democrat was elected Governor of Iowa was in 2006 - twenty years ago.

I am not positive that non-subscribers to Mother Jones will be able to read the article, but I hope they can. The title is, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" Sand does seem to project the same kind of vibe as "Mister Rogers," who made that phrase famous!

Here's the part of the article in Mother Jones that captured my attention: 

Temperamentally evenhanded, [Sand] is a zealot about polarization. Sand does not want to turn a red state blue.... He wants to be the candidate who gets you to stop thinking like that altogether. 

This sounds very much like what I have been urging in a number of my blog postings. Polarization, I'm convinced, is not the friend of those who are longing for an effective politics. Does Sand have a chance? Well, I'm going to be tuning in for the results in Iowa, when I wake up in the morning on November 4th!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/09/rob-sand-says-he-isnt-trying-to-turn-iowa-blue-it-just-might-happen-anyway/

#295 / Trifecta Of Evil

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The July/August 2026, edition of The Nation Magazine explores "250 Years In Search Of A More Perfect Union." I recommend this edition of the magazine to you, and I hope that clicking the link above will let even non-subscribers review all of the various perspectives that the magazine has provided, as it considers the 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution. 

Let me, here, draw special attention to a commentary by Elie Mystal. "Re-Righting The Constitution" is the "hardcopy" version of the headline to his commentary. Online, Mystal's commentary is titled, "Will America Ever Give White-Man Rights To Everyone Else?" Here's a portion of Mystal's commentary that I particularly want to highlight (emphasis added): 

You don’t need to be a Puritan to recognize that this country was born in sin. The early generations of Americans stole land, murdered the people living on that land, and then forced enslaved people to work the land they’d stolen. That’s a trifecta of evil so twisted that nobody would believe it if you wrote it as the backstory for a dystopian empire that rebels had to take down with laser swords. 

For all the founding documents’ grandiose talk about self-evident truths and inalienable rights, neither the white man’s Declaration of Independence nor his Constitution conferred any rights or liberties on Indigenous peoples, enslaved Africans, women, children, or poor people. These documents—and the political philosophy around which they were organized—were written by rich white men for the benefit of rich white men, and this country has never for a day recovered from their failure. 

We’ve tried to fix this thing. At every point in US history, people have worked desperately to perfect our Constitution and make it applicable to all of the people living under its principles. But we’ve never addressed the structural failures of our Constitution, and so we’ve really only ever addressed the symptoms of our dysfunction, not root causes. 

The core failure of our Constitution is that it is based on individual political and civil rights, with no mention of economic or social rights. It’s based on what we call “negative rights”: things that the government cannot do to its citizens. What’s missing is a robust conception of “positive rights”: the things that the government must do for its citizens. Indeed, there have been efforts, led by the Supreme Court, to “calcify” the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties” and nothing more. It’s a mistake that we keep making.

I can't really deny Mystal's argument that the "trifecta of evil" that he describes is, in fact, a fair way to characterize much of our nation's "origin story." I do think, though, that Mystal's "trifecta" is only a "part," not the entirety, of the foundation upon which our national history has been built. I also do endorse Mystal's suggestion that our basic laws and the structure of our government should recognize what might be called "affirmative" rights - our right to have the government act, positively, on our behalf. 

Let us not forget, though, that "we, the people," are the government, and that our Constitution not only "permits," but in fact "requires" us to act, positively, on our own behalf. There are still efforts to deny or diminish the ability of those who are not "rich white men" to wield effective political power, but the remedy for the failures of our government to provide positive assistance to us (as we are seen both individually and collectively) is a failure that we can, in fact, remedy by our personal engagement in the task of self-government. 

It is always a temptation, all too easy to accept, to believe that what now exists (or the history of what has existed) is an actual and fair description of "reality," and can thus accurately define what is "possible." That is a mistake. 

In the "political world," a world that we make for ourselves, anything is "possible," things both "good" and "evil." There are possibilities, for instance, of things that make Mystal's "trifecta of evil" look like minor inconveniences. I am thinking, as one example, of our current president's possible decision to initiate a nuclear war, somewhere, for something that "he, alone" decides would justify that.

And on the good side? Well, how about healthcare for all? How about a collective decision that "we, the people," will provide healthy, safe housing for every person? The list of both good and bad possibilities are limitless because it really is true that the realities that ultimately define our "political world" will come from the choices we make, and the actions we take, together. 

I, personally, will always and continually resist any effort to "define" this nation by the evil it has done, and by the evil that has been done in its name. I will always, and ever, seek to define the reality of our national life by what we most deeply hope for and desire - and by what we seek to accomplish. 

Self-government - a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - plus action to realize the possibilities that are ours to define - can relegate to history the "trifecta of evil" that we know characterized the early days of our republic. To escape the "gravity" of that "trifecta" outlined by Mystal, we must focus on our ability to create a new and contemporary "history" that can stimulate and accomplish the kind of future to which Martin Luther King, Jr. has called us. 

It is in action, always, that our dreams are made true. And (like Dr. King)....

I have a dream!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.thenation.com/issue/july-august-2026-issue/

#294 / Wanna Bet?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The Wall Street Journal, in an August 19, 2026 story by Krystal Hur, has alerted its readers that "Cantor Lets Hedge Funds Place Big Bets on Kalshi’s Prediction Markets."

You can be forgiven, I believe (I have forgiven myself), if you didn't know that "Cantor" is an investment company that offers "a full suite of global capabilities—including investment banking, capital markets, prime services, research, and asset management—backed by a team that provides tailored support to meet clients’ unique financial needs." 

If you don't know about "Kalshi," however, I think you may not have been paying enough attention to what is going on in modern America. Kalshi is a so-called, "prediction market." "Polymarket" is another one. Here's what a "prediction market" is all about, according to Wikipedia: 

Prediction markets, also known as betting markets, information markets, decision markets, idea futures, or event derivatives, are open markets that enable the prediction of specific outcomes using financial incentives. They are exchange-traded markets established for trading bets in the outcome of various events. The most common form of a prediction market is a binary option market, which will expire at the price of 0 or 100%. 

Prediction markets can be thought of as belonging to the more general concept of crowdsourcing which is specially designed to aggregate beliefs on particular topics of interest, where the market price can indicate what the crowd thinks the probability of the event is. Traders with different beliefs trade on contracts whose payoffs are related to the unknown future outcome and the market prices of the contracts are considered as the aggregated belief. 

Prediction markets are considered gambling by many governments, and are banned in some locations. Some users and researchers have reported that prediction markets are similar to gambling and can cause addiction.

If you want to invest your money, lots of companies (and individuals) are willing to advise you about your investment options, and what might be a good way to deal with future uncertainties. Will inflation continue, for instance? Maybe, or maybe not. Those who pay close attention (as investment advisors are supposed to do) are likely to have informed opinions on whether and to what extent inflation may increase, or decrease, in the future. Depending on whether future inflation is likely, or not, it might be prudent and smart to make one kind of investment - or not prudent and smart to make that investment. Cantor, for instance (even though I had never heard of it before) has traditionally based its business on providing good advice to those who have money, and who want to know what to do with that money that isn't immediately needed for food, clothing, shelter and entertainment (and, perhaps, college tuition for children or grandchildren).

It is not unusual to say that investment decisions are "bets" on the future. However, when investments are made, or not, they have traditionally been informed by an evaluation of something beyond one's personal ideas about what might happen. For instance, the fact that conditions in the Strait of Hormuz area now a significant constraint on energy availability, worldwide, is a significant factor in deciding whether or not a factory located in Germany, for instance, will likely continue to be profitable, or whether it won't. Someone deciding that the Strait of Hormuz will likely be reopened as it was prior to the war with Iran can be said to be "betting" on that outcome, as they make investment decisions, or as they provide investment advice. 

So what about "prediction markets"? Aren't the "bets" made on those "prediction markets" just the same kind of "bets"?

Actually, no. Market and investment advisors are advising their clients to "bet" on one possibility, rather than another, on the basis of the advisor's judgment related to objective realities. 

"Prediction markets" (except when distorted and "played" by those with "insider knowledge," which is another topic and a real problem) represent "bets" not on a prediction based on objective "facts," but on a prediction about what other people will think and do. "Prediction markets," in other words, are largely responsive not to "objective" facts, but to "subjective" judgments by other people making their "bets" on the same basis.

Hopefully, we can all see the difference, and thus understand that "prediction markets" are, in fact, a type of "gambling" in a way that typical  investment decisions are not. 

As you can undoubtedly see, I am advising against any "investments" in "prediction markets" when the "investor" doesn't understand that what is really going on is just gambling on a guess. I have proffered similar advice, in the past, with respect to cryptocurrency, and I continue to recommend this wonderful book: Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds.

The folks at Cantor, to the extent that they are telling Cantor's customers and potential customers that "prediction market" bets are the same as the kind of investment "bets" they have traditionally advised about, should be ashamed of themselves!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://t2conline.com/are-stock-trading-and-betting-just-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/

#293 / Letter To A (Potential) Law Student

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Every once in a while, a young person, just getting ready to head off to law school, or maybe somebody studying to take the so-called LSAT, the "Law School Admission Test," asks me some questions about the law. Do you like being a lawyer? Do you have any tips on the LSAT? What do you think about this or that law school? Things like that. 

Recently, a young person who had just graduated from college, and was thinking of being a lawyer, and so was studying for the LSAT, asked me a question that was quite a bit more "philosophical" (or more "profound") than the kind of questions that I most typically get asked. Here was the question that this prospective law student posed to me:

Do you think that the worldly law creates freedom, or does it primarily create boundaries within which we are free?

As I say, this was not, really, the kind of question that I am normally asked, but I was happy to have been presented with that question. It's a pretty important one! Here was my reply: 

I think that the statement that “worldly law creates freedom” is pretty close to what I think. It might be more accurate to say that my view is that “worldly law” expresses our freedom, since our “freedom” is primary, in my view. 

I don’t know whether or not your idea of “worldly” law is the same as mine, but you seem clearly to think there are at least two kinds of law - the “worldly” kind and some other variety. I agree with the idea of TWO different kinds of law. The idea that there are two kinds of law came to me as a kind of revelation (it’s pretty hard, now, for me to remember exactly when that happened). I do think that there are two different kinds of law. 

My idea of “law,” prior to this “revelation,” as I have just called it, was that “law” was more or less the opposite of “freedom.” In other words, the “law” tells you what you have to do. While I don’t think I made this distinction at that time, our physical laws (which I am guessing are not the “worldly” laws you are thinking of) is what I was thinking of as the basic “law” by which we are governed. You, know, like the “law” of gravity. You can’t disobey the law of gravity (or other physical laws). 

That idea was my basic idea about “law.” The law says what must and will happen (and this is definitely true in the case of the laws that govern our physical world). While It is obviously true that we can disobey human laws, I thought that physical laws were really the only kind of law that is really “law,” so that when we came up with statements that said what should happen in our social and human-created world, we used the word “law” to indicate that you “had” to do something, or had not to do something. “Law," in other words, was always associated with “necessity,” not “freedom." 

Naturally, since human laws are obviously not like the law of gravity, I assumed that if someone “broke” the law, they should be punished. While we can violate our human laws, we aren’t supposed to, and if we do, we are, or should be, punished - and/or made to do what “the law” prescribes. I think this idea of “law” may be along the lines of “law” being a set of "boundaries within which we are free,” as you put it. This way of understanding human laws suggests that our human laws are intended to constrain what we do in a larger, overall view. 

At some point, I changed my idea about human law, and I ended up with what I decided to call my “Two Worlds Hypothesis.” My daily blog is really just a set of daily reflections on the implications of that “Two Worlds Hypothesis,” and the “Two Worlds” mentioned are (1) the "World of Nature" (in which the laws absolutely say what must and will happen - “gravity” being the go-to example) and (2) what I call the “Political World,” the world that we create by our own choices and our own actions. 

The actual title of my blog is, “We Live In A Political World.” I hope you'll read it! I have a new comment every day - and have made those daily comments for sixteen years. As for the title, we most certainly do, most “immediately,” "Live In A Political World." “Ultimately,” though, we live in the "World of Nature," where the laws are absolute and tell us what must and will happen. When we get these two “Worlds” mixed up, the problems can be severe. 

Global Warming, for instance, governed by the laws that prevail in the "World of Nature," may well kill us all off, and eliminate the “Human World” entirely. Our "Human World" depends on the "World of Nature," but since the “freedom” that we are provided in our "Political World" allows us to make choices that can conflict with the "World of Nature," we can choose to do something that might end up destroying the "Natural World," on which we ultimately depend. Global Warming could do it. So could Nuclear War.

My experience as a “politician” is what led me to the “Two Worlds” idea, and my claim is that in our “Political World,” anything is possible. The human world is created by our own choices and actions, and is a world in which our “freedom” determines what exists - and what doesn’t. The "Natural World" follows the laws of “necessity,” but our (political) world is governed by the reality of our “freedom,” and in “our” world, our “Political World," the “law” is the expression of our freedom. In our world, in other words, we, essentially, write down what we have chosen to make real, and then, by following the laws we have enacted, we bring that “world” into reality. 

I have ended up with a great enthusiasm for “the law,” because I do see the law as the realm in which we most clearly - and with great consequence - create the world in which we most immediately live. 

“Politics,” as you will see, is the realm in which we most directly express our freedom (at least our “collective” freedom). We are each free to act, individually, but we can (and do) act in concert, together, and we have the freedom (collectively) to create any world we want (at least if that world is consistent with the World of Nature, which is primary). I often call that primary world, the “World of Nature,” “The World that God created.” 

Much of what lawyers do, of course, is to work within the human world that we have collectively created, that “Political World,” in which the laws provide rules, and prohibitions, and outline opportunities for action, etc. Many lawyers, I believe, end up being more or less frustrated and/or resentful about the “law,” and of the rules that establish what is “legal,” and what is not, and which laws can end up seeming to constrain freedom, or to perpetuate injustice, and that may well impose constraints that are unreasonable, unfair, or even just plain “wrong.” 

Since I have never lost my “political” perspective, I have never become as jaundiced, and perhaps even as resentful, as some lawyers end up being. So, I do recommend not losing that larger perspective. The “laws” with which we most immediately deal are the laws that we establish ourselves (by "politics," by the way). What we “legislate,” in other words, will determine the realities which most directly affect us. "Law," in other words, is a realm of freedom, not a realm of penalty and constraint. 

That's my view at least. Keep me posted - and really good luck on the LSAT!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://mikesavad.com/featured/lawyer-books-law-books-mike-savad.html

#292 / Power Drill

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Despite the headline, I am not writing, today, about a useful tool for your home improvement projects. But maybe I am talking about improving our politics. 

The picture above adorns the online version of a column in the September 2026, edition of The Nation magazine. Written by Yotam Marom, the column is titled as follows in its online version: "How Occupy Wall Street Still Explains Politics Today." It's worth reading! Best I can tell, from reviewing the personal webpage linked above, Marom is a consultant you can hire if you and your group want to be more politically impactful than you'd likely be without some experienced advisor helping you along. 

For REALLY "old timer" Santa Cruz folks, you may remember "Operation Wilder." Operation Wilder was the very effective local political group that helped save Wilder Ranch. It was comprised of a bunch of dedicated but largely inexperienced local folks concerned about saving the North Coast, and stopping a proposed development that all by itself would have doubled the population of the City at that time, had that proposed development been approved. What did those in Operation Wilder know about politics when they got together? Well, I don't know, but they did make use of a paid political consultant to help them achieve their objectives. Shirley Zimmerman was her name - and thank you, Shirley! She did a pretty good job! I have no idea whatever happened to her, and an online search for her name turned up a lot of obituaries that don't seem to relate to the Shirley Zimmerman who had such a big impact on our local community. 

Back to the article in The Nation. As I say, I recommend reading the entire article, which I hope even non-subscribers will be able to do. Here, though, are some excerpts from that article that contain the statements that have prompted this blog posting (emphasis added): 

Fifteen years ago, Occupy Wall Street shook the world. Sparked by people’s anger at the banks that caused the Great Recession and their disappointment with President Obama’s response, and inspired by a wave of pro-democracy movements from Greece to Spain to Tahrir Square in Cairo, the occupation soon became a whole little world of its own, with hundreds of people camping out and many more spending their days there... 

The movement reintroduced class struggle into the mainstream narrative as the “99 percent versus the 1 percent," politicized and trained an entire generation of activists, and led to dozens of new organizations and campaigns... 

But Occupy itself was short-lived. Two months after it began, police in cities all over the country raided the occupations and arrested their inhabitants. This was, perhaps, the way it was always going to end: The power of the militarized state far outweighed the power of a burgeoning social movement. But ... Occupy’s collapse was also the product of avoidable mistakes, internal weaknesses, and unhealthy tendencies in the movement. Those stemmed in large part from what I have called the “politics of powerlessness,” a set of ideas and behaviors that fetishize being the righteous underdog, turning movements away from their public and the broader task and inward toward each other... 

Movements must actually want power. At Occupy, the politics of powerlessness took the form of tearing down leaders, refusing to articulate real-world demands or craft a strategy, and engaging in paranoia about being co-opted by liberals and unions. Many other movements and organizations suffer from similar dysfunctions: an insistence on being right over being effective; an obsession with maintaining the boundaries of the movement as though it were a club rather than a vehicle for mass change; an unwillingness to make hard choices that lead to good strategy. Movements must be willing to make sacrifices to get power and build the kinds of structures and processes needed to seize it and wield it. 

Movements must combat despair. It is understandable to feel that the world we deserve is out of reach. But despair keeps us home, closes doors, kills movements—and what’s more, it doesn’t reflect the truth: We actually don’t know what’s possible. Occupy itself is proof of this. Mere moments before Occupy began, many of us didn’t really expect it to work. And then it did, at least in some ways, and here we are, 15 years later, tracing the impacts that are still unfolding around us.

One way to think about the Occupy movement is to classify it as a "Power Drill," an effort to test out possible avenues for economic, social, and political change. 

One lesson should be clear from the Occupy effort, as outlined in Marom's telling in The Nation. "Movements must actually want power." That means, to recite what the patriots who brought our nation into being said, that we must be willing to devote to the effort "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

You can check the veracity of that quotation, yourself, by clicking this link to the Declaration of Independence. It's still relevant after 250 years!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/occupy-wall-street-anniversary-social-movements/

#291/ Trading Songs

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A friend of mine sent me off to watch a YouTube video of Pete Seeger, accompanied by children and older people as they sailed down the Hudson River, singing this song: "God's Counting On Me, God's Counting On You." Part of the crew was Lorre Wyatt, co-author of the song. I had never heard the song before - or, at least, I didn't remember it. I thought it was pretty good, so I'm sharing it, here, with anyone reading this blog posting. 

Wanting to give right back, I immediately sent my friend a copy of one of my own favorite Pete Seeger songs, "Sailing Down My Golden River." That, too, is a pretty wonderful song. Definitely a fair trade, I think. Here's that one: 

A couple of nice songs for a Sunday. I hope you agree!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pete-seeger-in-beacon

#290 / I'm Voting "Yes" On Proposition 40

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Joseph C. Sternberg, writing in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, seems to think that California State Proposition 40, which appears on California's November 3rd ballot, is actually "French" in its origins. Frankly, I don't really get that alleged "French Connection," but I do understand that Sternberg thinks that Proposition 40 is a "dog," to quote him on the subject. Here's a link to Sternberg's opinion piece. 

Despite what Sternberg has to say, I am planning to vote "Yes" on Proposition 40 (and since I believe in "voting early," I am actually planning to turn in my ballot later today, as part of a "NO KINGS" rally being held at 10:00 o'clock this morning, down at the Santa Cruz County Governmental Center, 701 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz. I am pretty familiar with the location, since I worked there for twenty years, from 1975 to 1995. 

Here is why Sternberg thinks that Proposition 40 is a "dog" (emphasis added):

Proposition 40 has a good claim to be the most significant item on the ballot anywhere in America this cycle. That’s only partly due to the fiscal math and the economics of the proposed 5% tax on those with assets above $1 billion. On the merits, the policy is a dog. 

As dangerous is the attitude Proposition 40 embodies. Its premise is that any and all private wealth constitutes an illegitimate diversion of resources away from the state. Despite the initial application to fortunes only above $1 billion, one discerns in the academic literature behind Proposition 40 no limiting principle. 

This is foreign to America’s political tradition, in which property rights are a foundation of our liberty. The tax is entirely redistributive and punitive, and in this regard its philosophical radicalness is underappreciated. Probably because the danger it poses to the economy is so distracting.

I do not think that the premise underlying Proposition 40's proposed one-time tax on billionaires is that "all private wealth constitutes an illegitimate diversion of resources away from the state." I think that the premise is that "we're all in this together," and that everyone in our society helps create both individual and societal wealth, and that it's both appropriate and fair - not to mention necessary - to make sure, when we face very difficult challenges, that those at the very highest income levels contribute fairly to our ability to deal with our rather daunting problems.

If you think that Proposition 40 treats billionaires unfairly, please consider the following, from The National Bureau of Economic Research (emphasis added):

We estimate income and taxes for the wealthiest group of US households by matching Forbes 400 data to the individual, business, estate, and gift tax returns of the corresponding group in 2010–2020. In our benchmark estimate, the total effective tax rate—all taxes paid relative to economic income—of the top 0.0002% (approximately the “top 400”) averaged 24% in 2018–2020 compared with 30% for the full population and 45% for top labor income earners. This lower total effective tax rate on the wealthiest is substantially driven by low taxable individual income relative to economic income. First, the C-corporations owned by the wealthiest distributed relatively little in dividends, limiting their individual income tax unless they sell their stocks. Second, top-owned passthrough businesses reported negative taxable income on average in spite of positive book income, further limiting their individual income tax. The top-400 effective tax rate fell from 30% in 2010–2017 to 24% in 2018–2020, explained both by a smaller share of business income being taxed and by that income being subject to lower tax rates. Estate and gift taxes contributed relatively little to their effective tax rate. Top-400 decedents paid 0.8% of their wealth in estate tax when married and 7% when single. Annual charitable contributions equalled 0.6% of wealth and 11% of economic income in 2018–20.

 

Do you remember that Sherlock Holmes story about "The Dog That Did Not Bark"? Sternberg calls Proposition 40 a "dog." But,  in this case, it turns out that the dog isn't barking because there really isn't much to bark about. There isn't anything too unfair about trying to have the billionaires pay something, by way of taxes, that might come close to what the typical labor income earner is paying. You know, someone like me or you!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-california-wealth-tax-french-connection-86d1fb82

#289 / A Tit For Tat

 

Ukraine

Russia

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

You have probably heard that saying, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If you click that link, you'll see an earlier blog posting of mine, discussing the implications of that phrase, and citing to Mahatma Gandhi. 

I remembered that earlier blog posting when I read a New York Times article about the war in Ukraine. In the hardcopy version of the article, the headline read "A Tit For Tat!" Same message as my earlier blog posting, I think. And some wise advice, too. 

In terms of whichever phrase you'd like to use, in thinking about what's happening in our world today, let me suggest that a number of observers have come to the conclusion that the next "Tat" that counters the next "Tit," is going to take us into World War III. 

Believe me, when we all, all around the world, are looking into the light provided by exchanges of nuclear weapons, the whole world is going to be blind, indeed!

This Time It's All Of Us, Or None!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) and (2) - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/world/europe/russia-ukraine-escalation.html

(3) - https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/667756/view/hydrogen-bomb-explosion

#288 / The Sidelines Are Closed

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Stephen Edward Schmidt (click that link for a photo) was born on September 28, 1970, and had a successful career as a Republican campaign consultant, working for President George W. Bush, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Arizona Senator John McCain during McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. 

More recently, Schmidt co-founded the Lincoln Project in 2019, in opposition to Donald Trump and his leadership of the Republican Party. Schmidt left the project in 2021 and has co-founded the Save America Movement, a Political Action Committee organized to oppose the actions of the Republican Party under our current president. Schmidt authors a podcast on Substack entitled, "The Warning."

As you can see from the image at the top of this blog posting, which came from a recent edition of "The Warning," Schmidt also sells various kinds of political apparel. Lots of online "influencers" do sell things, and Schmidt, it turns out, is no exception. 

The blog posting in which I found the advertisement reproduced above was published on October 10, 2026, and was headlined this way: "The Sidelines Are Closed: Democracy Is A Participation Sport. Introducing The Warning's New SHOW UP Collection."

I am all for "participation" in politics, and I absolutely agree that politics is a "participation sport," using that sports metaphor, though "sport" might undersell the priority I put on "politics." 

Let me suggest, however, that while I think it's great for people to "wear their heart on their sleeve," or on their "chest," as they engage in political activity, donning a pro-democracy tee-shirt is not the kind of participation that is going to change our political world. 

Politics is not only a "participatory" sport, it's a "team" sport, too. Let me just reiterate for you the "Seven Step" program that I believe should guide our serious efforts to make politics "count," and that can change the world:

1. Find Some Friends
2. Create A Group (Or Join An Existing One)
3. Make Certain That Group Regularly Meets In Person
4. Have The Group Decide What It Wants To Make Happen
5. Figure Out A Strategy To Accomplish The Changes Desired
6. Implement The Strategy Developed
7. Modify As Needed; Rinse And Repeat

Wear whatever you like!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://steveschmidt.substack.com/p/the-sidelines-are-closed

 

#287 / Our Atomization Age

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Here is another opportunity to read the full text of an article from the September 3, 2026, edition of The New York Times - even if you are not a subscriber. 

The article that I am inviting you to read is a "political" article, even though it was printed in the "Styles" section of the newspaper. It's worth your review. The author is Jesse McKinley, and the online title of McKinley's article is: "America Is Atomizing." The hardcopy version of the headline is different from the online version (that "different headline phenomenon" happens pretty frequently, in fact). The hardcopy version of the title to McKinley's article is this: "One Nation, Under Atomization." 

I was noting the "atomization" of our society (and in fact the "atomization" of the world entire) as early as November, 2012. Quite recently, I have bemoaned the atomization and polarization of our national politics, reducing the complexities of our national life to a choice between "red" and "blue." 

McKinley's contribution reminds us that "totalitarian movements...are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals," and he documents how pernicious the "atomization" and "polarization" of our nation has become. McKinley also notes that "atomization" is a term that describes multiple groups, all opposed to one another, so it's not just "red" and "blue" that are in opposition in our society and politics today. 

McKinley does not argue that our situation is hopeless. Citing to Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone, he tells us that "what most matters is face-to-face communication," which Putnam says "has almost certainly never been as low in American history as it is right now." That doesn't mean it's "game over," however:

There is a precedent for our current moment — and a comeback, Putnam said. The last Gilded Age, in the late 1800s, also had enormous concentrations of wealth, technological advancements and a self-centered sense of social Darwinism. 

But he argued that those Americans found their way back to a more unified country, in part by solving issues at a local level, where citizens have more trust in their leaders. And they relied on younger people to find solutions. 

Americans led their country to “an upswing,” as he described it in a 2020 book. 

“They,” he said, “fixed it.”

Well, I want to emphasize how strongly I agree that it's not "game over." In one of my earlier blog postings, titled, "No Savior Should Be Expected," I provided the following suggested plan of action for those who would like to bring "face-to-face" communication into our politics: 

1. Find Some Friends
2. Create A Group (Or Join An Existing One)
3. Make Certain That Group Regularly Meets In Person
4. Have The Group Decide What It Wants To Make Happen
5. Figure Out A Strategy To Accomplish The Changes Desired
6. Implement The Strategy Developed
7. Modify As Needed; Rinse And Repeat

If we want to eliminate the atomization and the polarization of our politics, that's a formula I believe will make a big difference!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/style/america-is-atomizing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-VA.Iods.3sXU-6eX--AN&smid=url-share

#286 / Talking To Each Other Less

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

If you click the following link, I am told by The Wall Street Journal that you will be able to read the entirety of a column by Julie Jargon. The column I am talking about is entitled, "We’re All Talking to Each Other Less Than We Did a Decade Ago." I am recommending that you read Jargon's column. It's not that long. Here are the beginning paragraphs:

When was the last time you engaged in friendly banter with your barista, chatted with your neighbor or called your mother? 

Chances are, you placed your latte order on an app and ignored your neighbor when you pulled into your driveway. Your mom? She likely had to settle for a text. 

Digital interactions are replacing face-to-face interactions with loved ones and strangers. And the rise of AirPods means we’re all tuned into our own little worlds, appearing unapproachable for conversation. 

The result: We’re speaking much less than we did a decade ago. Yes, someone counted our daily words.

"Real" life is "in-person" life. When I tell those who follow my blog postings to "Find Some Friends," I am not talking about the Mark Zuckerberg/Meta/Facebook variety. I'm not talking about striking up a conversation on Zoom.

Democratic self-government (which is something I absolutely do know about) cannot take place "online." It CAN'T. It's that simple! Not only is the "online" world completely owned and controlled by massive corporations, it severs the human connections that make a genuine politics possible. 

I've said this before (many times). It's TRUE!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/speaking-study-words-per-day-decline-6f549d5a

#285 / The Paxton Policy

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That's Ken Paxton, above. Paxton is currently the Attorney General for the state of Texas. He is running for election this November, hoping to become a United States Senator for Texas. Paxton's opponent is James Talarico, a Bible-toting nice guy. Paxton is anything but a nice guy. You probably know all that, if you are keeping up with the news. 

My blog posting, today, is not, really, intended to focus on Ken Paxton. I want to comment on a policy announced by Paxton's wife, Angela Paxton, who is also a Texas politician. Her comments in a recent article in The New York Times struck me as significant. The article was titled, "Politics In Mind, Estranged Wife Sticks By Paxton." That is, of course, the "hardcopy" title. Online, the headline will be a bit different, but the article is the same. Click the link to read it as a "gift article," available to you even if you don't subscribe to The New York Times. 

Angela is currently divorcing Ken, "on Biblical grounds." That means that Angela is divorcing her Attorney General husband because he has committed adultery. Nonetheless, Angela is actively urging that the voters in Texas elect her husband to the United States Senate. Here's her explanation, as presented in the article in The Times:

As the race tightened, Ms. Paxton, who declined a request for an interview, began quietly making the case for her husband in private conversations and small party gatherings. In remarks to a women’s club in September, which she pointedly titled “The Elephant in the Room,” she announced her plans to back the entire Republican ticket. 

“It’s not the people — it’s the seat,” Ms. Paxton said in the speech, which she later posted on YouTube. “Because we have more control over that seat and the future when we control the seat — when it’s still in the family, even if we’re mad at them.”

Ms. Paxton, in other words, subscribes to the idea that voters have two choices (and only two). You're either "Red" or "Blue." If a decent person who otherwise appeals to you (as Talarico does) happens to be in the "Blue" party, you're supposed to reject that "person" because "party" is everything. I note that Ms. Paxton does not apply this rule to her own life (she is divorcing that guy whom she has found to be a dishonest liar).

Unfortunately, Angela Paxton's understanding of how politics should be practiced is not unique to her. As anyone who regularly reads my blog postings knows, I think that the "Paxton Policy," as articulated by Angela Paxton, is 100% dead wrong - at least, it's wrong if you would like our politics to be based on what our Constitution calls for. 

The Constitution, let me reiterate, does not recognize "parties" as a key category. It recognizes "persons," and it suggests that we, as a society, should make decisions about what our nation should do by having voters elect people in whom they have personal confidence, with the implicit corollary being that we should boot them out of office if they do not properly or worthily represent us. It is pretty clear that virtually the entire Republican Party (with only a few exceptions) has bought into the "Paxton Policy" on how we should operate our politics. The majority of the House of Representatives, and the majority of the United States Senate, are currently members of the Republican Party. They have stood by and watched our current president turn the government into a mechanism for his personal aggrandizement, and have ceded their Constitutional duty to determine whether or not the nation should go to war to that same person. Why? Clearly, it's the party tag that counts, not what the person does, or what kind of a person she or he is.

The correct response to the "Paxton Policy" is not to "vote Blue." That's just the same policy with a different coloration.

We need to choose our representatives because of their personal qualities, by by our evaluation of whether or not they will do a good job for us - not by the color by which they identify their party allegiance. 

That approach to politics is what we need to resuscitate if we want to maintain self-government in the United States of America. So, if you happen to live in Texas, check out the guy below, James Talarico, and don't be fooled by the bad advice being handed out by Ken Paxton's wife: 

James Talarico

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Paxton

(2) - https://jamestalarico.com/meet-james-talarico/

#284 / Quantum Superposition

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The picture above has been lifted out of a New York Times article titled, "How Scientific Is The Sci-Fi Of 'Dark Matter'"? If you click the link I have just provided, you should be able to read the entire article, which was published in The Times on Sunday, August 30, 2026. Even non-subscribers should be able to read the article, by Connie Chang, since The Times has assured me that this is a "gift article." 

The black box in the photo is not actually "operrational," but is part of a movie set. In the movie, based on the novel, Dark Matter, by Blake Crouch, a person entering into that box can be "put into a state of quantum superposition: an idea rooted in real science, based on the nonintuitive concept that subatomic particles like electrons can, on some level, exist in two places at once." 

Oddly enough, I find myself having to admit that I am a little bit bedazzled by "physics," though I hardly understand anything about it. In fact, one of my earliest blog postings, from July 12, 2014, was titled, "I Wish I Understood Physics." If you click this link, right here, you should get a listing of all of my blog postings discussing "physics," starting back with a posting about Einstein. I think there about sixty more, after that one!

One of the things I keep thinking about, as I try to grapple with physics, is the fact that "reality," the nature of the world we inhabit, is really beyond the limits of our current comprehension. Strange things, like "quantum superposition," provide evidence of that. I am not the only one who doesn't "understand" physics. Even those who have devoted their lives to the study of physics don't, really, know what their discoveries actually mean about the ultimate nature of reality and the universe. 

Since it's a Sunday, today, I can link back to a more recent blog posting that makes this same point, citing to the ruminations of a Catholic Bishop. All the "religious" things we hear about, and read about in the Bible, might actually be "scientifically" consistent with what "physics" is discovering - all those strange things!

Like I say, I really wish I understood physics.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/27/arts/television/dark-matter-science-quantum-mechanics.html