Would a state income tax make it harder for the Seahawk's to recruit top players?

I'm for higher taxes on the rich, but I realize that there are consequences to everything which effect the masses of voters. We can't "have it all." For instance, high taxes on high incomes might make it harder for the Seahawks football team to recruit top players. An income tax might make our state less competitive in that arena, but what do we really value?

I value things like good parks and schools more. I value safe bike paths more than just having a winning team that people just watch on TV.

What are your priorities, winning teams owned by billionaires or good local parks?

Inherited fame and fortune got Hunter Biden into trouble. Higher taxes on inherited wealth could reduce this type of problem in society.

A committee, in the Republican lead house, is investigating Hunter Biden and his famous laptop. In several ways, this fixation could backfire on Republicans. I have a unique take on this.

Being the son of a famous politician, Hunter has been thrust into a world of fame and fortune. He may have not handled it well, which brings up the problem of wealth by chance and inheritance. Fame or fortune is not always bestowed on the most deserving individuals. My solution to this problem is higher taxes on the wealthy.

Higher taxes is something Republicans tend to oppose. They feel that taxes slow the economy. In some cases, a slower economy, versus a rat race, isn't necessarily bad.

Still a slow economy can be problematic. If we want prosperity, we shouldn't smother business with too many taxes. On the other hand, there is a difference between the idol rich and working capital in a business. Our tax codes do try and differentiate between these two forms of wealth by allowing businesses to deduct from their taxes for legitimate capital expenses.

Businesses often need to have expensive buildings and equipment for running the business, so this can make the owners look wealthy on paper.

Still, there are other forms of personal wealth and fame that people use in more detrimental ways. There are things like multiple vacation homes, travel, private yachts, jets and many things that could be deemed frivolously excessive.

There are investments in real estate, left empty, that can inflate prices.

Money often goes into things that I think most folks would consider not beneficial to society. For instance the amount of money dumped into politics and lobbying.

Celebrities, such as the offspring of famous politicians, get a lot of publicity and breaks. They get board appointments that are likely due to name recognition, such as Hunter Biden's appointment to that Ukrainian gas company board, a few years back.

This situation should blowback at Republicans since they seem to always want to protect personal wealth regardless of the situation.

I seldom hear anyone discuss this, from that perspective, so this is why I write.

Facebook is the poor man's version of celebrity status.

Maybe I should say "poor person's." It's an old phrase. Status as measured by the engagement one is likely to get. Comments, discussion. Better in that respect, than my own blog; unless I was a celebrity for some other reason; like for instance Kim Kardashian.

I also do get lots of interaction from being out and about at events and other face to face things locally. Being out as a pedestrian and on my bicycle as well.

One place with good conversation was the sauna area at YMCA, but, due to the pandemic and other reasons, that part of the Y has been closed and (I think) no plans to bring it back.

I keep adapting okay to the world around me so far.

Elon Musk person of the year, a mixed bag

Time Magazine has chosen Elon Musk as person of the year for 2021.

Time's choice tends to be based on having a big impact, not necessarily virtue.

Musk is now richest person in the world and one thing I will say in his favor, he isn't just parking his money in a safe haven. He's investing it in things that could be transforming society. Electric cars, batteries and pushing private enterprise to space.

If it wasn't for government and NASA, however, private enterprise wouldn't be into space as much. NASA could still be Musk's most lucrative customer for putting payloads into space.

Yes, accomplishments like reusable rocket boosters are valuable for improving access to space with it's scientific and economic value.

I still wonder about the goal of colonizing Mars, however. At least in the foreseeable future.

Mars is still only 1/3rd the size of Earth. By comparison, it's a poor substitute.

In our solar system, for the time being, there's no place like home - Planet Earth, but science and discovery can help us preserve and live better on Earth.

Mars. By ESA & MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/RSSD/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA, CC BY-SA IGO 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 igo, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5648

Earth. By NASA/Apollo 17 crew; taken by either Harrison Schmitt or Ron Evans - https://web.archive.org/web/20160112123725/http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001138.html (image link); see also https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_329.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43894484

The debacle around former WSU Coach Rolovich demonstrates the need to spend more money on science than sports

South grandstands, WSU football stadium. Picture taken during my 2017 bicycle trip to Pullman. Grandstands only filled several times per year.

Who was the highest paid public official in the state of Washington? The football coach at Washington State University in my hometown of Pullman, WA.

He was recently let go from his job due to the mandate among Washington State employees to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. He refused to get the vaccine for undisclosed personal reasons, at first and then when push came to shove claiming the religious exemption which was later denied by the university.

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense not to get the vaccine unless there is a medical reason. Mandates may be a bit draconnian, but they do seem to work in reducing spread of disease. In an ideal world, mandates would not be necessary as people would function more rationally out of the goodness of their hearts and an understanding of the best science currently available.

Aside from all that, this firing of Rolovich is rocking the boat at WSU. It's problems associated with these high stakes games. That's one aspect of this whole story that most people wouldn't think about buried under the headlines. Why has football had to become such a high stakes endevour?

I hear that the team is now over 80 million dollars in debt. Having a wining team and a wining coach is considered crucial for the roadmap to paying off that debt. Paying the bills with TV revenues, ticket sales and so forth. Supposedly this isn't taxpayer's dollars, but as debts and problems mount, self sufficiency for the team becomes a more distant aspiration.

Seems like there are too many things, in our society, where the stakes are made high. Stuff that shouldn't be that important.

I've never been much of a sports fan, however.

There is a new coach, at least temporarily, filling in the position and a game is coming up Saturday (tomorrow). Many folks are holding their breaths and hoping the football season will continue with some wins.

Since there doesn't seem to be enough common sense and there isn't enough understanding of science, in our society, these problems happen. This is a big deal because of the importance of Football, at WSU and the amount of debt riding on the situation. At least there is one expense that has been saved, coach Rolovich's high salary; the highest paid public official in the state.

He is now suing the university in a wrongful dismissal suit. Now, money going to lawyers.

This whole situation has lead to a lot of divisiveness among Cougar fans, alumni and so forth.

Maybe we need to value science more and celebrity culture, including celebrity sports, less.

Janet Yellen's 7 million dollar income from speaking fees over the past 2 years. Maybe, instead, put amateurs in charge?

This just seems inevitable, whether it's Biden, Trump or practically any other politician of national stature. Picks for high level staff will come from professional elites. They have histories of things like lucrative speaking contracts.

It's either that, or politicians would need to pick their staff from the ranks of amateurs. Putting amateurs in charge has consequences as well.

Professionals often do know more about what they are doing; at least. The issue of competency.

I realize that competency of leaders; especially corporate executives is often in question.

I'm a sync about corporate executives for sure, but I think amateurs, as a general rule, might do even worse. Put amateurs, or even crackpots, in charge of the Center for Disease Control; for instance.

Yes, it is being revealed that Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, has collected more than $7 million in speaking fees over the past two years. This from major corporations and Wall Street banks.

Par for the course.

I'm still in favor of competent leadership. Even Bernie Sanders is now part of the 1%, so I have read.

This just seems inevitable. It's not a deal breaker, but I am a critic of the high compensation that so many professionals and recognized leaders, in our society, get.

I still remember thinking that famous gay rights activist, David Kopay, was getting a lot of money for speaking at a symposium at Western Washington University, back in 1978 just because he was a former football star. The standard speaking fee for speaking at symposiums, on campus back then, was closer to $50 plus travel and hotel expenses.

These days, however, $1,000 might be seen as peanuts.

If you are a professional, be careful of your compensation. It might come back to haunt you as everything, these days, comes into scrutiny.

People grumble about Hunter Biden's high payment for sitting on that board. Fame opens doors; like the artist who commands a big price on name recognition.

In our society, fame and fortune can bring one opportunities not easily available to others. There's the famous artist who, supposedly, can sell a canvases for a fortune by just putting a dot on it.

Relatives of famous politicians will often get breaks on name recognition. For instance Hunter Biden's stipend for being on that board; something being talked about in a few circles these days.

One way to deal with these sort of inequities would be higher taxes on the elite. Many in the elite even want this because they see it as a price to pay for civil society. Billionaire Warren Buffett is noted for advocating some tax increases that would apply to himself. He's said that it doesn't make sense for his secretary to pay a higher percent of taxes on her wages than he does on his capital gains.

During my college years, the gay student organization would bring speakers to campus for symposiums. They would get stipends for coming to campus. I think usually around $50 plus travel, food and hotel expenses. This was back in the 1970's.

One year, they brought a famous former football player to speak. David Kopay. His stipend was $1,000. I remember thinking that was a lot of money. I was participating in some events that the gay organization was sponsoring, but I wasn't directly involved in the project to bring Kopay to campus.

Kopay had made a big name for himself in professional sports and later came out of the closet. This was a big news item at the time. It made for bigger headlines than the gay symposium normally got in the campus. A win for symposium organizers. WWU was pretty liberal toward LGBTQ people, back then, but bringing Kopay to campus was a real headliner.

Since then, I've looked up Kopay in Wiki and seen that he has had a long career of support for gay rights, which is commendable.

Seems like my college days were just yesterday, but this was over 40 years ago now.

During 1977, sculptures on campus were controversial. A foundation paid $55,000 for an iron sculpture called "India." When people questioned it's worth, I remember a quote from one professor, on the Art Acquisition Committee at the time, saying, "$55,000 is not a bad price for an Anthony Caro Sculpture." Caro, a famous artist.

I thought, "it's the name."

After that sculpture was installed, a few gorilla artists left welded assemblies in the grounds around the campus with signs saying, "I donate." The money for India came from something called the Virginia Wright Foundation which had donated several sculptures.

One morning, there was a big pile of old tires in the main square of campus with a sign attached saying "Pakistan." A few days later, maintenance removed the tires.

It doesn't snow that often in Bellingham, but here is a picture of India was during a snow storm.

The biggest art, sculpture controversy was during the intallation of For Handel. Said to be the biggest controversy to hit campus since the Vietnam War. Now accepted as part of the landscape.

Back issues of Western Front Newspaper can be searched online for that controversy around 1976-77. It's a whole nother story in itself.

Nobel Peace Prize often just goes to the famous, like even maybe Donald Trump?

Tidbits from a conversation I had with a friend at the Co-op. He's impressed that the Korean War may be coming to an end. Something disrupted that long gridlocked pattern.

I mentioned that there were people, at a Republican rally, saying that Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize. My friend hadn't heard that. The thought was kind of horrific, in a way. Who knows what actually lead to the possible end of this standoff between the Korea's My theory is that Trump's somewhat reckless and off the wall comments could have been like the surprise thing that disrupted the gridlock? Who knows. It could have been a very risky move that just happened to turn out right; like tossing a rock, but having it land in the right spot as if not from skill but from chance.

On the other hand, Obama was very cautious, circumspect, not noted to try off the wall or much in the way of risky things.

Then the thought that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, a few years back, came up. I mentioned that I think there's a bias toward celebrities getting the prize so US presidents are likely candidates.

My friend, who's liberal, pointed out some of the darker things that people criticized about Obama. Drone killings and so forth. My friend would be more of a Sanders guy.

I said that possibly no recent US president deserves the prize. How about a good person who's less famous?

I do feel that people who get into power can have good intentions, but get pulled into making unfortunate compromises. Then I mentioned Canada's "darling on the left" Pierre Trudeau who's still backing expansion of Kinder Morgan oil pipeline. His image is becoming tainted on the environmental front. Then I said that the best way to stop pipelines is for consumers to become less dependent of fossil fuels. To become less money minded, maybe less addicted to middle class comfort values?

He said we can still do middle class living if we look to the sun. Solar power, electric cars and so forth. I mentioned my brother who has solar collectors on his roof and powers his car that way. My brother says he gets around half of his energy needs, including his car, from the sun. The friend I was talking to at the Coop has worked in the field of solar energy installation.

Could be better to say "power amplifies" rather than "power courrupts"

One of my friends, who's pretty far to the left politically, says Obama has the dubious distinction of being the only Nobel Peace Prize winner to have bombed another winner of the Peace Prize. He was referring to the accidental US bombing of Kunduz hospital, in Afghanistan, during October of 2015 which had members of Doctors Without Borders working there. Doctors Without Borders won the Peace Prize in 1999.

I still think Obama was a good president, as presidents go, but being in charge of the world's largest military has consequences. Mistakes can be made, down the chain of command, of which some folks will hold the person at the top responsible. The problems come with the territory. It would be nearly impossible to be President and not have things go wrong. The larger amount of power one holds, the larger the catastrophes that can happen. Some folks say "power corrupts," but I have a different twist on that phrase. I say "power amplifies." Mistakes made by the most powerful military in the world can be big mistakes, but ordinary people make mistakes everyday. For instance; behind the wheel of an automobile that can also lead to death.

The friend I was talking to said he voted for Obama, but is now disappointed and would never forgive Obama for this. I feel this is another case of circular firing squad. Obama, Hillary Clinton and the so called Democratic establishment were not perfect, but look who is in that position now. Donald Trump; a far more reckless person.

Some folks feel Obama should have done more to pull us out of Afghanistan and reduce the size of our military. Could be, but if he would have tried that, Congress would have, most likely, stopped him. They would have even had him removed from office. Also a large portion of the American people would have stopped him. The problem is people being guided by fear, rather than trust. Disarming a big part of our military brings up the same kind of fear that notice of a sex offender moving into one's neighborhood can bring. Fear at the grass roots level.

There is a trade off when someone takes a position of high power and high responsibility. It's easier to be more idealistic when not fully engaged with our tainted world.

That brings up a problem with the Nobel Peace Prize, itself. It often goes to someone prominent in the news. Obama got it just 12 days after taking office so folks felt he hadn't done anything to deserve it yet. Another controversial prize was in 1994 when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat got the prize along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Also prominent figures.

Charles Manson has name recognition going for him in our celebrity fixated culture

A young woman wants to marry Charles Manson, even though he is in prison. Adolph Hitler sells a painting, even though he is dead. The power of being a celebrity. Famous and infamous. Too many people coast on name recognition and audiences still rely on it more than they should. Remember the lesser known brands, or at least take time to look beyond celebrity status. This applies to politicians as well. Name recognition should not rule the day.

Time Magazine's Person Of The Year 2006 - You

Dethroning The Celebrity

I am reminded of a controversy over Time Magazine's person of the year in 2001; New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Who had the biggest impact on news in 2001?

The thought of giving such an award to Bin Laden for orchestrating those 911 events was disgusting. Giuliani was a safer compromise. More heroic, but not necessarily the person making the biggest splash to shape our memory of 2001.

That's the problem with "top dog" celebrity, "winner take all" contests.

It looks like Time's 2006 pick has dethroned the whole idea of being top dog and given the award to all of us.

I am pleased with this turn of events.

The Internet can empower all of you.

We can all share a tiny fragment of being "person of the year." There really isn't one centralized "person of the year."

I have often thought that too much emphasis is placed on the winners and celebrities in society. We all have stories to tell. I am happy to see all of us share in the 2006 award.

Hope no one has to do something really ominous to be heard.

One year, the computer, rather than a person, won that prize. I think it was sometime in the 1990s.

Power Corrupts or Power Amplifies

An acquaintance of mine was wondering why they invited President Bush to Pope John Paul's funeral when they didn't invite mass murderer Charles Manson. He said Bush has killed more people.

My phrase "power amplifies" came to mind.

I said, "you would rather have Bush as your neighbor than Charles Manson." "If Bush wasn't in a position of power, where every little act, or mistake, is amplified into great consequence, he would likely be a nice neighbor." "Might invite you over to a back yard barbecue."

On the other hand, if Charles Manson were the President, the entire world might be obliterated in nuclear war.

Power amplifies.

Bush seems about as nice as most average Americans. Maybe he is a little more "career driven" than many. Anyone in his position of power can do things that have consequences effecting the lives of millions, actually billions. I doubt I would trust many of my neighbors in the White House. Some, yes.

If the President sneezes, the world catches a cold; figuratively. An average person sneezing might not be noticed.

So power amplifies.

Does power also corrupt? Can power change one's personality from "nice guy" to "power maniac?" Have you ever had a friend who changed when they became the "boss?"

There is the old phrase that says, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Several friends of mine have admitted that they became "a different person" when they got behind the wheel of an automobile. "There goes Mr. Nice Guy." The dog eat dog world of I-5 traffic brings out a different side of their personalities.

Just about everyone, I know, drives, but I wouldn't call them mass murderers, even though automobile related deaths are high on mortality lists.

The popular phrase, "power corrupts" may have some truth to it, but I still prefer to think, "power amplifies."

Saying "power amplifies" may let people off the hook, a bit, since it basically just says that the more power one has, the more oomph there is to one's actions.

Oomph to one's actions either good or bad.

I did vote for Kerry, however.