This is an idea that has been bouncing around in my head. It happens all the time; I find it very hard to describe so I'll attempt to do so via example.
Scene One
You are driving in Northwest Ohio, an area known for its extensive farms, at a time of the day when traffic is more sparse than usual.
You come to a stop sign, and at that exact moment in time, another vehicle approaches the intersection. There are no other vehicles as far as the eye can see.
Scene Two
You are riding to your home in rural Virginia; it's late at night. Your exit is past the major towns near DC so it doesn't get a lot of traffic under normal circumstances, much less at this time of night.
You approach the stop sign at the bottom of the ramp. At that exact moment in time, another vehicle goes by, forcing you to actually stop. There are no other vehicles in that entire road.
I call this the Proximity Phenomenon. It's the concept of two vehicles intersecting at the exact same unlikely spot at the exact same unlikely time. In the examples above, 10 seconds earlier or 10 seconds later and the event would have gone unnoticed, or at least without you having to alter your intended action.
This has happened to me frequently, in the most unlikely spots in the most deserted parts of this great country of ours, and at those times I think: "What are the chances that I'm just putting around [Nevada] in the night in the middle of the desert and at this exact time, some other poor soul took off from a different location and just happened to arrive at *this* spot, *now*, not 5 seconds earlier or later???"
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The Diamonds Hypothesis
Earlier in my life I formulated a theory to deal with a specific conundrum. I still believe it holds, so with a few edits, here it goes.
The Problem
As a Christian, there is a tension between the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God, and the fact that there is unspeakable evil in this world.
If God is so good and powerful, why does He let this happen? Why wasn't Stalin drowned as a child?
The most satisfactory answer to this for me is Free Will.
The Free Will Idea
God did not want to create robots that would automatically "love" him. In this line of thinking, this kind of "love" is no different than programming your computer to pop a message saying "I love you!" every few minutes - would you feel loved? Or just annoyed after a while? A very short while.
True love cannot exist without Free Will, and Free Will cannot exist without all possible options. If God had created a perfect, blemish-free, problem-free world for us, how would this be different than the above programmed computer?
So the reason Stalin was not drowned as a child is that Stalin was a being who of his own Free Will chose to commit unspeakable evil, and God will not interfere with any being's exercise of Free Will. Note, will not, not cannot.
Problems with the Free Will idea
There are a few problems with this idea:
I believe the Free Will idea is partially correct, but because of the problems with it, I felt the need to expand it. Hence:
The Diamonds Hypothesis
Diamonds are created from that most humble and common of materials, carbon.
Carbon that is subjected to tremendous pressures over very long spans of time.
And that provides an answer to this conundrum. We live in a diamond mine. We are the carbon. And every now and then, a Diamond emerges from all the pressures and mayhem and heat: A Leonardo DaVinci, a Valentino Rossi, a Maya Angelou.
A being that is able to express beauty in a way that pleases God. And to Him, it's all worth it.
How do I know? We were created in his image. And we'll go to great lengths for Diamonds...
The Problem
As a Christian, there is a tension between the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God, and the fact that there is unspeakable evil in this world.
If God is so good and powerful, why does He let this happen? Why wasn't Stalin drowned as a child?
The most satisfactory answer to this for me is Free Will.
The Free Will Idea
God did not want to create robots that would automatically "love" him. In this line of thinking, this kind of "love" is no different than programming your computer to pop a message saying "I love you!" every few minutes - would you feel loved? Or just annoyed after a while? A very short while.
True love cannot exist without Free Will, and Free Will cannot exist without all possible options. If God had created a perfect, blemish-free, problem-free world for us, how would this be different than the above programmed computer?
So the reason Stalin was not drowned as a child is that Stalin was a being who of his own Free Will chose to commit unspeakable evil, and God will not interfere with any being's exercise of Free Will. Note, will not, not cannot.
Problems with the Free Will idea
There are a few problems with this idea:
- We were created in God's image, yet as soon as we (in the form of Adam and Eve) had the chance, we committed evil. So, God = Us = Evil?
- An expansion of the above idea, the Angels also had Free Will, yet as soon as they had the chance, God's own chosen right-hand man betrayed him and took 1/3 of the host with him. Again, God = Angels = Evil?
- And my biggest problem with the Free Will idea; if Heaven is a place with no fear and no evil, is it also a place without Free Will?
I believe the Free Will idea is partially correct, but because of the problems with it, I felt the need to expand it. Hence:
The Diamonds Hypothesis
Diamonds are created from that most humble and common of materials, carbon.
Carbon that is subjected to tremendous pressures over very long spans of time.
And that provides an answer to this conundrum. We live in a diamond mine. We are the carbon. And every now and then, a Diamond emerges from all the pressures and mayhem and heat: A Leonardo DaVinci, a Valentino Rossi, a Maya Angelou.
A being that is able to express beauty in a way that pleases God. And to Him, it's all worth it.
How do I know? We were created in his image. And we'll go to great lengths for Diamonds...
Monday, November 8, 2010
2010 Midterm Elections: Analysis and Thoughts
If the media is to be believed, the 2010 US midterm elections where the Republican party took over the House and gained enough seats in the Senate to block any legislation, was a loud and clear repudiation of President Obama's policies. If the right-wing media (Fox News et.al) is to be believed, this means the rise of the Tea Party and a giant "Change Course!" message to the President.
Hardly. Or if you prefer, bullshit.
Immediately after the election, I was somewhat surprised by the attitudes of the power players. The President made the appropriate noises (his "shellacking" comment) but didn't really seem unbowed; the Republican leadership was not nearly as gloating as I would've expected; the Democratic leadership didn't seem to register this "earthquake" much at all.
Further analysis was clearly required, and what it reveals are either bad news for the GOP, or terrifying news for the GOP, depending on whether you believe exit polls reveal anything of much value.
The narrative was that "the nation turned against Mr. Obama and his policies", but the numbers do not bear this out. For my analysis, I used data from Politico.com and "The Unites States Election Project" (http://elections.gmu.edu/). I have to point out that this analysis relies on sampling; I'm still looking for a good source of raw data.
Methodology
As an example, let's take a look at my own district, Ohio District 15... I find this particularly interesting in that it was the same candidates, but the results flipped. This procedure was used to examine 30 randomly chosen data points around the country:
2008
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 139,854
Steve Stivers (R) 137,272
2010
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 86,410
Steve Stivers (R) 115,879
2008 Total National Turnout: 132,645,504 62.2% of voting eligible population
2010 Total National Turnout: 90,504,100 41.5%
Analysis and Thoughts
The data clearly show that where the Republican candidates won, they won by significantly smaller numbers than they *lost* in 2008. In a year when almost as much money poured in as in the 2004 Presidential election, this is not good news.
Add in the outright personal hatred (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/01/AR2010110105086.html) for the President fanned by the 24x7 right-wing media, and the news gets worse for the GOP.
If the narrative were true, one would expect that the turnout would have been comparable to the 2008 election, with as much money and noise and sounds of doom coming from the GOP. And I would certainly expect that, say, Mr. Stivers would've won with north of 150,000 votes, as this would've indicated that his base came out to support him and additionally, so-called-Independents who voted Democrat in 2008 switched allegiance.
The story gets even worse if you believe the exit poll data (here's a sample, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/republican-revival-midterm-elections-poll/). Other exit polls show the same thing: more people blame Bush and Wall St. for the economy than they blame the President; people are about evenly split on healthcare reform; people don't trust the Republicans. Again, on a year where the Republican base was *highly* energized and came out to vote, Mr. Stivers and others could not muster even the number of votes they did in their losing 2008 bids!
As far as the Republicans won, they won by turning out their base and convincing everyone else to stay home. This is not a sustainable strategy; clearly, the demographics are against the GOP. When the country comes out to vote, we vote Democrat.
As far as the Democrats lost, I agree with Alan Grayson (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44715.html); they lost by not doing what we elected them to do, which was to go clean house. They lost by being wimps, not by over-reaching. Let's hope this lesson is not lost on them.
The real prize in this election were the States, where re-districting will take place. The only real hope for the GOP in 2012 is a repeat of 2010, so I expect that to facilitate that, we will see some very weirdly shaped districts. In Ohio expect to see Cleveland/Columbus/Athens and other Blue districts to run all the way south to the Ohio River in an attempt to dilute the minority/independent vote. I expect we'll see voter intimidation and disenfranchising at Civil Rights Era levels.
At some point, I expect we'll see another Timothy McVeigh and/or an attempt on the President, as all this fire that was lit-up by the right-wing is frustrated by the inevitable legislative grid-lock and tries to find an outlet. And that'll be the tragedy of this election... the New GOP is willing to say and do anything to "win", and doesn't care about the consequences. How much more American blood will be spilled, and misery and pain visited upon us before we wake up to this reality?
2012 will not be a repeat of 2010.
Hardly. Or if you prefer, bullshit.
Immediately after the election, I was somewhat surprised by the attitudes of the power players. The President made the appropriate noises (his "shellacking" comment) but didn't really seem unbowed; the Republican leadership was not nearly as gloating as I would've expected; the Democratic leadership didn't seem to register this "earthquake" much at all.
Further analysis was clearly required, and what it reveals are either bad news for the GOP, or terrifying news for the GOP, depending on whether you believe exit polls reveal anything of much value.
The narrative was that "the nation turned against Mr. Obama and his policies", but the numbers do not bear this out. For my analysis, I used data from Politico.com and "The Unites States Election Project" (http://elections.gmu.edu/). I have to point out that this analysis relies on sampling; I'm still looking for a good source of raw data.
Methodology
As an example, let's take a look at my own district, Ohio District 15... I find this particularly interesting in that it was the same candidates, but the results flipped. This procedure was used to examine 30 randomly chosen data points around the country:
2008
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 139,854
Steve Stivers (R) 137,272
2010
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 86,410
Steve Stivers (R) 115,879
2008 Total National Turnout: 132,645,504 62.2% of voting eligible population
2010 Total National Turnout: 90,504,100 41.5%
Analysis and Thoughts
The data clearly show that where the Republican candidates won, they won by significantly smaller numbers than they *lost* in 2008. In a year when almost as much money poured in as in the 2004 Presidential election, this is not good news.
Add in the outright personal hatred (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/01/AR2010110105086.html) for the President fanned by the 24x7 right-wing media, and the news gets worse for the GOP.
If the narrative were true, one would expect that the turnout would have been comparable to the 2008 election, with as much money and noise and sounds of doom coming from the GOP. And I would certainly expect that, say, Mr. Stivers would've won with north of 150,000 votes, as this would've indicated that his base came out to support him and additionally, so-called-Independents who voted Democrat in 2008 switched allegiance.
The story gets even worse if you believe the exit poll data (here's a sample, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/republican-revival-midterm-elections-poll/). Other exit polls show the same thing: more people blame Bush and Wall St. for the economy than they blame the President; people are about evenly split on healthcare reform; people don't trust the Republicans. Again, on a year where the Republican base was *highly* energized and came out to vote, Mr. Stivers and others could not muster even the number of votes they did in their losing 2008 bids!
As far as the Republicans won, they won by turning out their base and convincing everyone else to stay home. This is not a sustainable strategy; clearly, the demographics are against the GOP. When the country comes out to vote, we vote Democrat.
As far as the Democrats lost, I agree with Alan Grayson (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44715.html); they lost by not doing what we elected them to do, which was to go clean house. They lost by being wimps, not by over-reaching. Let's hope this lesson is not lost on them.
The real prize in this election were the States, where re-districting will take place. The only real hope for the GOP in 2012 is a repeat of 2010, so I expect that to facilitate that, we will see some very weirdly shaped districts. In Ohio expect to see Cleveland/Columbus/Athens and other Blue districts to run all the way south to the Ohio River in an attempt to dilute the minority/independent vote. I expect we'll see voter intimidation and disenfranchising at Civil Rights Era levels.
At some point, I expect we'll see another Timothy McVeigh and/or an attempt on the President, as all this fire that was lit-up by the right-wing is frustrated by the inevitable legislative grid-lock and tries to find an outlet. And that'll be the tragedy of this election... the New GOP is willing to say and do anything to "win", and doesn't care about the consequences. How much more American blood will be spilled, and misery and pain visited upon us before we wake up to this reality?
2012 will not be a repeat of 2010.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Taxes and Democracy
The Tea Party movement is predicated on the premise that, as their name indicates (Taxed Enough Already) the level of taxation in 2010 America is onerous and a major cause of our current economic woes.
They seem to forget that taxes were much higher even under the Reagan administration, and that during America's Golden Age (the 50s and 60s) taxes were much, much higher.
But beyond that, I wanted to explore the very idea of taxation. To this end I quote a comment from my friend Ken Christian, which is the best explanation on this topic I have come across:
""Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." — Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Long ago, we accepted that education was not only to be paid for by all, but was mandatory; part of being an advanced, civilized society. Why are we so unwilling to accept that basic health care is also a fundamental part of a civilized society?
Food, clothing, and shelter are fully as much a part of civilized society (and even more basic, obviously) as police protection, national defense, fire protection, maintenance of roads, and all the other elements of life that we take for granted. They aren't politicized so much these days, but healthcare is, mostly because we realized that it had become so expensive, and thereby delivered in such an inequitable way. And for some, that seems to be the rub: they just don't want to admit that some things - the really big, really important (and yes, really expensive) things - will only be done by government, with its capabilities for collecting and dispensing funds. If they don't do it, who will? Wal-Mart? Lockheed? Microsoft? Good luck with that.
In terms of how government manages and monitors the big, important endeavors...well, the politicians have done us all a disservice by wasting our tax dollars, dispensing them as pork-barrel projects in return for campaign donations, and making other nefarious use of the money. Not surprisingly, people have loudly protested, and tax cutting became "the new black".
Just because taxes are lowered, however, does not mean that the remaining tax dollars are being used judiciously. And just because a lot of tax money has been wasted does not mean that the need for public, tax-funded endeavors has disappeared. On the contrary, we need them now more than ever, and folks, it's up to us to be sure that those things are discussed, funded, and managed correctly. Blindly voting for tax cuts and then declaring a victory accomplishes nothing. Nor is anything accomplished by ignoring how tax dollars are used.
(For others - primarily those who still long for the Gilded Age - it's just simple greed. They've got their money, they want to keep it, and society be damned. They will always be with us.)
You can't hold a bake sale every time society needs something. So our conversation needs to change. We must decide, with a simple majority, what the priorities are; and then levy taxes to pay for those priorities. You can't hold a bake sale every time society needs something.
So I'm all for public-funded health care. It's our money, and our children's money, and we need to make sure it's used correctly. But if we want civilization, we all must pitch in. Think about this when you're doing your tax return. And hold your government accountable for it.
Ken Christian - September 23 at 12:50pm"
They seem to forget that taxes were much higher even under the Reagan administration, and that during America's Golden Age (the 50s and 60s) taxes were much, much higher.
But beyond that, I wanted to explore the very idea of taxation. To this end I quote a comment from my friend Ken Christian, which is the best explanation on this topic I have come across:
""Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." — Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Long ago, we accepted that education was not only to be paid for by all, but was mandatory; part of being an advanced, civilized society. Why are we so unwilling to accept that basic health care is also a fundamental part of a civilized society?
Food, clothing, and shelter are fully as much a part of civilized society (and even more basic, obviously) as police protection, national defense, fire protection, maintenance of roads, and all the other elements of life that we take for granted. They aren't politicized so much these days, but healthcare is, mostly because we realized that it had become so expensive, and thereby delivered in such an inequitable way. And for some, that seems to be the rub: they just don't want to admit that some things - the really big, really important (and yes, really expensive) things - will only be done by government, with its capabilities for collecting and dispensing funds. If they don't do it, who will? Wal-Mart? Lockheed? Microsoft? Good luck with that.
In terms of how government manages and monitors the big, important endeavors...well, the politicians have done us all a disservice by wasting our tax dollars, dispensing them as pork-barrel projects in return for campaign donations, and making other nefarious use of the money. Not surprisingly, people have loudly protested, and tax cutting became "the new black".
Just because taxes are lowered, however, does not mean that the remaining tax dollars are being used judiciously. And just because a lot of tax money has been wasted does not mean that the need for public, tax-funded endeavors has disappeared. On the contrary, we need them now more than ever, and folks, it's up to us to be sure that those things are discussed, funded, and managed correctly. Blindly voting for tax cuts and then declaring a victory accomplishes nothing. Nor is anything accomplished by ignoring how tax dollars are used.
(For others - primarily those who still long for the Gilded Age - it's just simple greed. They've got their money, they want to keep it, and society be damned. They will always be with us.)
You can't hold a bake sale every time society needs something. So our conversation needs to change. We must decide, with a simple majority, what the priorities are; and then levy taxes to pay for those priorities. You can't hold a bake sale every time society needs something.
So I'm all for public-funded health care. It's our money, and our children's money, and we need to make sure it's used correctly. But if we want civilization, we all must pitch in. Think about this when you're doing your tax return. And hold your government accountable for it.
Ken Christian - September 23 at 12:50pm"
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Neutered
A thought has been bothering me lately. It is, why are we, as a nation, taking the abuse we're taking from the moneyed elites. I think I got it...
For this, let's pretend we're in high school. I'm a guy so this will be from a guy's point of view; obviously, if you're a girl, change the narrative as appropriate.
So we're in high school. There's a guy who's tall, charming, good-looking, athletic, captain of the b-ball team, has a cool ride... he's got every advantage and we would expect that this guy would get the prettiest, smartest girl in the school, right? Sure, it's the natural order of things.
But not satisfied with that, this guy is going after every girl... *your* girl. What would you do?
Probably grab a couple of your friends and go have a talk with Mr. Charming and set him straight?
Of course!
But that's not what's happening - Mr. Charming is not only getting our girl, he's got us saying "well, I guess he deserves her"... he's got us helping him get the other guys' girls! And that is not right.
I don't understand why we're all not beating the living daylights out of this worthy... we've been neutered. We've been conditioned to accept that whatever Mr. Charming does is the right thing, even when it's clearly against our interest. We are not American MEN anymore... I can't imagine those WWII vets putting up with anything like this.
When I started writing this, I thought about making Mr. Charming a big bully forcing his way... but that lacks nuance, and is not appropriately descriptive of what's going on.
The point is, just because one can do something, it doesn't mean one should. And one guy taking every girl in the school is a surefire way to trouble. As those WWII vets knew, so it didn't happen on their watch. We are falling way short of their standard.
I, for one, am fighting...
For this, let's pretend we're in high school. I'm a guy so this will be from a guy's point of view; obviously, if you're a girl, change the narrative as appropriate.
So we're in high school. There's a guy who's tall, charming, good-looking, athletic, captain of the b-ball team, has a cool ride... he's got every advantage and we would expect that this guy would get the prettiest, smartest girl in the school, right? Sure, it's the natural order of things.
But not satisfied with that, this guy is going after every girl... *your* girl. What would you do?
Probably grab a couple of your friends and go have a talk with Mr. Charming and set him straight?
Of course!
But that's not what's happening - Mr. Charming is not only getting our girl, he's got us saying "well, I guess he deserves her"... he's got us helping him get the other guys' girls! And that is not right.
I don't understand why we're all not beating the living daylights out of this worthy... we've been neutered. We've been conditioned to accept that whatever Mr. Charming does is the right thing, even when it's clearly against our interest. We are not American MEN anymore... I can't imagine those WWII vets putting up with anything like this.
When I started writing this, I thought about making Mr. Charming a big bully forcing his way... but that lacks nuance, and is not appropriately descriptive of what's going on.
The point is, just because one can do something, it doesn't mean one should. And one guy taking every girl in the school is a surefire way to trouble. As those WWII vets knew, so it didn't happen on their watch. We are falling way short of their standard.
I, for one, am fighting...
Friday, October 8, 2010
Why Vote?
A couple of recent posts by friends of mine got me thinking about this. In their posts, my friends expressed frustration with the level of noise (to put it politely) currently seen in political advertising.
So Why Vote?
Politics is fundamentally about how the pie gets divided and allocated, the pie being our resources. And, you've already paid to participate; you don't pre-pay at an expensive restaurant and then walk out, right?
So how do you make a choice? Like a lot of things in life, it boils down to research, your intuition...
Say you're considering a weight-loss system and you see an ad promising "take this pill once a day, you'll look like a model! You don't have to exercise or give up your double-cheeseburgers!!", well... you'd say "yeah, right..."
Or when buying a car, you don't just rely on the salesman's representations -- you go online, you do the research, you ask your trusted friends, you do the test drive.
Same with politics... there is such a thing as objective truth, so claims can be objectively evaluated. If a politician is not talking, in some way, about the allocation of the pie, then you know they're throwing a smoke-screen at you. If they're promising to put a man on Mars for a million bucks... yeah, right. Figuratively speaking; you know what I mean.
So please vote; and remember... politics is fundamentally about deciding how our resources are used now and in the future. About what kind of place do you want to live in, do you want your children to live in. And this decision-making is something you do in your own home every single day.
So Why Vote?
Politics is fundamentally about how the pie gets divided and allocated, the pie being our resources. And, you've already paid to participate; you don't pre-pay at an expensive restaurant and then walk out, right?
So how do you make a choice? Like a lot of things in life, it boils down to research, your intuition...
Say you're considering a weight-loss system and you see an ad promising "take this pill once a day, you'll look like a model! You don't have to exercise or give up your double-cheeseburgers!!", well... you'd say "yeah, right..."
Or when buying a car, you don't just rely on the salesman's representations -- you go online, you do the research, you ask your trusted friends, you do the test drive.
Same with politics... there is such a thing as objective truth, so claims can be objectively evaluated. If a politician is not talking, in some way, about the allocation of the pie, then you know they're throwing a smoke-screen at you. If they're promising to put a man on Mars for a million bucks... yeah, right. Figuratively speaking; you know what I mean.
So please vote; and remember... politics is fundamentally about deciding how our resources are used now and in the future. About what kind of place do you want to live in, do you want your children to live in. And this decision-making is something you do in your own home every single day.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Co-opting The Middle Class
I've been wondering about something recently...
Why is it that so many people are in favor of fiscal policies that disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealthy, to the extent that some of those policies are even harmful to these same people?
This article provided me with a few clues
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/30rich.html
So, in the name of simplification of the tax code (and is there a living soul who does not dread the 1040?!), we have eliminated the distinction between a family making $250,000/yr and one making $25,000,000!
$250,000 is a nice amount of money, but in certain parts of the country (the coasts, for example) an income in that range does not make you rich. Heck, faced with $500,000+ mortgages for your basic 3-bedroom home, that income buys you a middle-class life. Families in this range are likely to be small-business owners, or professionals (think doctors and such)... that is, people who work, hard, for a living. People who are successful through their own efforts. People who are creating jobs and opportunities for other Americans.
So it's perfectly understandable that when the talk turns to "raising the taxes on the rich", families in that range raise a howl. It does affect them. And hard-working people should be rewarded, not punished.
The solution, as suggested in the article, is quite simple: allow the tax code to differentiate better between these hard-working people and the idle ultra-rich by creating more tax brackets at the upper end.
Done and done.
Why is it that so many people are in favor of fiscal policies that disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealthy, to the extent that some of those policies are even harmful to these same people?
This article provided me with a few clues
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/30rich.html
So, in the name of simplification of the tax code (and is there a living soul who does not dread the 1040?!), we have eliminated the distinction between a family making $250,000/yr and one making $25,000,000!
$250,000 is a nice amount of money, but in certain parts of the country (the coasts, for example) an income in that range does not make you rich. Heck, faced with $500,000+ mortgages for your basic 3-bedroom home, that income buys you a middle-class life. Families in this range are likely to be small-business owners, or professionals (think doctors and such)... that is, people who work, hard, for a living. People who are successful through their own efforts. People who are creating jobs and opportunities for other Americans.
So it's perfectly understandable that when the talk turns to "raising the taxes on the rich", families in that range raise a howl. It does affect them. And hard-working people should be rewarded, not punished.
The solution, as suggested in the article, is quite simple: allow the tax code to differentiate better between these hard-working people and the idle ultra-rich by creating more tax brackets at the upper end.
Done and done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)