Tariffs are Taxes

 As tariffs begin to bite into the daily lives of ordinary Americans, it’s worth pointing out just how invisible this cost often is. We’re all used to seeing the sales tax line on our receipts—clear, straightforward, and honest. But when tariffs jack up the price of everyday goods, from electronics to groceries, there’s no such transparency. You just pay more, and most folks don’t realize it’s not the store or the supplier—it’s policy.

Wouldn’t it be fair to have that tariff cost spelled out? A simple line that says, “Tariff surcharge: $3.47” would go a long way in helping people understand who’s really footing the bill. Because spoiler alert: it’s not the foreign manufacturer. It’s you, the shopper. That transparency might also help people ask better questions about whether those policies are worth it or if there’s a smarter way to handle trade.

Tariffs may be a tool in the economic toolbox, but when they’re used like a hammer, everyone feels the bruise. Let’s start being honest about where those extra dollars are going and why. If we’re going to pay more, we at least deserve to know who to thank for the privilege. Wouldn’t you like to see that breakdown the next time you’re standing in line at the checkout?

Fixing Democracy: Why the U.S. House Needs Proportional Representation

The U.S. House of Representatives is broken. Decades of gerrymandering, hyper-partisanship, and an outdated electoral system have left us with a Congress that does not truly represent the people. A minority of voters can secure a majority of seats, ensuring that obstruction and gridlock remain the norm. Compromise, once a cornerstone of American governance, has all but disappeared. Our winner-take-all system creates a distorted democracy where millions of voices go unheard, fueling frustration and disengagement among voters. It’s time to fix this by adopting proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Problems with Our Current System

The first-past-the-post system we use in House elections rewards parties that can carve out districts in their favor, not those that best reflect the national will. This leads to:

- Unrepresentative Outcomes: In many elections, one party can win a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes. This allows one faction to dictate policy, even if it lacks broad public support.

- Lack of Competition: Gerrymandered districts create “safe” seats, making it nearly impossible for challengers to unseat incumbents. This locks in partisanship and decreases accountability.

- Extreme Partisanship: Since most seats are predetermined for one party, politicians cater to their base rather than the general electorate. This discourages compromise and rewards ideological purity.

How Proportional Representation Can Fix Congress

Proportional representation (PR) ensures that parties win seats in proportion to their share of the vote. If a party gets 40% of the national vote, they should get about 40% of the seats. This system encourages coalition-building, amplifies voter voices, and leads to policies that reflect a broader consensus.

Under PR, multiple representatives would be elected from larger, multi-member districts, ensuring more ideological diversity and less wasted votes. This means:

- More Competition: No more “safe” seats—every vote would matter.

- More Representation: A wider range of viewpoints in Congress, reducing extremism.

- More Accountability: Politicians would need to appeal to a broader audience, leading to greater responsiveness to voter concerns.

Increase the Number of Representatives

Another fundamental flaw in the House is its size. The number of representatives has been locked at 435 since 1911, despite the U.S. population more than tripling since then. Today, each representative serves about 760,000 people, making it nearly impossible for them to adequately engage with their constituents.

Expanding the House to better reflect population growth—potentially doubling its size—would bring the U.S. in line with other democracies. This would make representation more local, improve accessibility, and ensure that each citizen’s vote carries more weight.

A More Democratic Future

Proportional representation, combined with a larger House, would reinvigorate American democracy. It would ensure that every voter has a voice, reduce polarization, and restore faith in our political system. The current system is failing us, but we have the tools to fix it. It’s time to act and build a Congress that truly represents the people.

Why I Believe Privatizing Federal Functions is the Wrong Move

In my opinion, the federal government could spend money more wisely, but privatizing its functions isn’t the way to fix its inefficiencies. Having served almost ten years in the Navy and later worked as a Federal Contractor, I’ve seen plenty of waste in government operations. But from my perspective, it’s rarely due to corruption or fraud—it’s mostly inefficiencies and bureaucracy. I believe this is where the focus for reform should be, not on handing over responsibilities to private companies. 

The Problem with Privatization 

To me, privatizing federal services like Medicare or education seems counterproductive. Private companies exist to make a profit, and that doesn’t align with the government’s mission to serve its citizens. In my experience, privatization will inevitably lead to one of two outcomes: 

1. Services Cost More: Profit motives will force recipients to pay more for the same services.

 

2. Quality is Reduced: To maintain profitability, private companies might cut corners, meaning recipients get less for their money.

I find it hard to believe privatization could do anything but shift costs to the people who need these services most. For me, this is especially troubling when it comes to essential programs that millions of people rely on for health, education, and basic support. 

My Perspective on Fixing the Problem 

From what I’ve seen, the government can do better without privatizing. During my time as a contractor, I worked to improve the efficiency of federal procurement. These processes originated in an era when everything was done manually—with typewriters, carbon copies, and standardized forms like the SF279 and SF281. The problem is, when automation was introduced, it was often designed to replicate those old processes instead of rethinking them from the ground up. Even today, every agency seems to have its own variations of these forms, creating unnecessary duplication and inefficiencies. To me, this is a prime example of how government operations could be streamlined. Enforcing consistent, modernized practices could save a lot of time and taxpayer money without sacrificing service quality.

What I’d Like to See Instead

Here’s what I think the government should focus on to spend money more wisely: 

1. Streamline Processes: Enforce consistent use of standardized forms and procedures across all agencies.

 2. Bring in Efficiency Experts: Let contractors or specialists identify and fix inefficiencies, but keep the core services in-house.

3. Rethink Automation: Move away from outdated systems that mimic manual processes and invest in technology designed for the modern era. 

Why This Matters to Me 

I understand that some people see privatization as a way to cut costs, but in my opinion, it’s a short-sighted approach. It might save the government money on paper, but it’ll always end up costing recipients more or leaving them with less. As someone who has worked both in government and as a contractor, I know there’s plenty of room for improvement. But I feel strongly that we shouldn’t sacrifice the public good for the sake of private profit.

Catching the Software Bug: My First Taste of Programming

I wrote my first computer program in the summer of 1971, during a one-week course at the University of Missouri at Columbia. I was between my junior and senior years of high school, and it was my first experience with the mysterious world of computing. We learned FORTRAN WATFOR, punching commands onto stacks of IBM cards and feeding them into an IBM 360 mainframe.

The process was mesmerizing. Our job priority on the system was so high that we could feed our stack of cards into the reader, stroll into the printer room, and watch our program's output emerge almost immediately. That immediate feedback was exhilarating—computers were amazing, and making them work felt like unlocking some kind of magic.

That summer, I was fortunate to have extended access to the system. On my own time, I developed a simple program—nothing groundbreaking, but it lit a fire in me. The thrill of creating something functional, even on such a basic level, left a lasting impression.

Fast forward a couple of years, and I found myself at the University of Missouri at Rolla, punching those same cards and running FORTRAN programs on a similar mainframe. The excitement, however, was tempered by reality. Job priorities were lower; you’d submit your deck of cards and wait—sometimes a day or more—to see if your program had run successfully or crashed in a storm of syntax errors.

By my second semester, I had caught up on what I’d learned that summer and realized I wasn’t gaining much more. I turned in every program on time, they all worked, but my interest waned. Midway through the term, I quit attending class entirely, telling myself it wasn’t worth the effort.

Looking back, I see that was a mistake. Completing the course would have been an easy A—a rarity in my academic record—and I could have used the boost. But at the time, I was restless, my life was heading in a new direction, albeit a not so fruitful path.

Though I didn’t pursue programming again immediately, that early exposure planted a seed. Years later, I found my way back to software development, and that initial excitement I felt in front of the IBM 360 never truly left me. Accept now it was an Atari 800, and a 13" color television as a monitor.

Sometimes, it takes a while to find your path, but those early sparks of curiosity and passion have a way of guiding you—even if you don’t see it at first.

Anonymity in Alcoholics Anonymous: Protecting People, Places, and Events

Anonymity is a cornerstone of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), crucial to its success and the safety of its members. The principle goes beyond mere privacy—it serves as a protective shield for individuals in recovery, ensuring they can focus on their sobriety without fear of exposure, stigma, or judgment. In this article, we'll explore how anonymity relates to people, places, and events both within and outside the fellowship, and why it’s important for the continued growth and effectiveness of AA.

Anonymity and People

At the heart of AA is the belief that the fellowship should protect the identity of its members. This allows people to attend meetings without the worry of being identified as someone struggling with alcoholism. It's not just about personal privacy—it's also about humility. Anonymity discourages ego from becoming a driving force in someone's recovery, keeping everyone on equal footing regardless of their status outside the rooms of AA.

Consider, for example, a public figure who attends an AA meeting. If their attendance were made public, it could discourage others from attending for fear of being associated with alcoholism. It could also turn the meeting into a spectacle, where the focus shifts away from recovery and toward curiosity about the individual. By staying anonymous, both the person and the fellowship maintain integrity, and the individual is allowed to recover without the added pressure of public scrutiny.

Anonymity and Places

When people gather for AA meetings, they typically do so in specific locations—church basements, community centers, or rented spaces. These places are generally neutral and do not publicize AA’s activities to the broader community. If meetings were highly publicized or linked to specific organizations or venues, it might deter newcomers who feel self-conscious about being seen entering a known AA space. Additionally, the locations might develop a reputation that could compromise their purpose as safe, judgment-free environments for recovery.

A lack of anonymity regarding meeting locations could also lead to a phenomenon known as "attraction rather than promotion." AA operates on the principle that individuals should be drawn to the program based on its merits, not through aggressive advertising or publicized events. Anonymity ensures that meetings are primarily about recovery, not about the place or its associated reputation.

Anonymity and Events

Events related to AA, such as conventions or sober retreats, also operate under the principle of anonymity. While these gatherings can be vital for connection and recovery, they generally avoid publicizing attendees or activities outside of the AA community. For instance, an AA convention held in a public venue might list only the time and place, but not publicize individual speakers or notable attendees. This maintains the focus on recovery rather than personalities, ensuring that those attending feel safe and respected.

A public event that ignored anonymity could become more about the spectacle than the substance. Imagine a well-known speaker being announced at a convention in a way that attracts public media or curiosity-seekers. The event would lose its primary purpose—helping individuals recover—by becoming a public affair. Anonymity preserves the spirit of recovery by keeping the focus on principles, not personalities.

Examples of Breaches of Anonymity and Improvements

History has seen several instances where anonymity in AA was breached, often with negative consequences. One such example occurred when a famous actor publicly disclosed his involvement in AA. While his intention may have been to destigmatize alcoholism, it inadvertently placed him as a representative of the fellowship. This contradicts AA’s Twelfth Tradition, which states that anonymity is “the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.” By placing an individual’s identity in the public eye, it distorts the purpose of anonymity and shifts the focus away from recovery.

In contrast, consider how anonymity could have improved the situation. The actor could have shared about recovery in a more general sense, avoiding specifics about AA. This would preserve his personal choice to speak out while still protecting the fellowship’s core value of humility and equality. Alternatively, he could speak about addiction through a professional or charitable organization, removing the direct link to his AA participation.

Conclusion

Anonymity in AA is not just a privacy measure—it’s a foundational principle that protects individuals, creates safe spaces for recovery, and ensures that the focus remains on sobriety rather than personalities or public perception. Whether related to people, places, or events, anonymity safeguards the fellowship’s integrity, allowing it to operate based on attraction rather than promotion. Without anonymity, the dynamics of AA could easily be compromised, turning recovery into a public spectacle or leading to stigmatization. By honoring this vital tradition, AA ensures that anyone seeking help can do so without fear, in a place where their identity and privacy are respected.