Continuing To Check White Privilege

Freshman Congressman Brandon Gill (R-TX) made headlines this week by questioning Dr. Anthea Hartig who is the Director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History during a Congressional hearing.

At age 32 Gill is the third youngest member of Congress. 

Based on what I have seen, he has a bright future in front of him.

Source: https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2026/07/21/brandon-gill-squares-off-with-smithsonian-american-history-museum-director-n2204578

 

Most of Gill's questions involved a "MASS Action Toolkit" that the National African American National Museum developed that Hartig oversees as part of her responsibilities with the Smithsonian.

I wrote about that toolkit back in 2020 and the utter lunacy of it.

It continues to amaze me that there are those who promote these ideas and attempt to defend them.

Objectivity and rational thinking is an example of white supremacy?

So is being polite?

As is being on time and being self reliant?

Thanks for Brandon Gill for exposing this "wokeism gone wild" to a wider audience.

My blog post from 2020 follows.

Checking White Privilege

(originally published July 16, 2020)

We are hearing a lot about white privilege these days.

We also hear that those who are white need to learn to check their privilege.

If you are white, there is nothing you can do about the color of your skin. The same holds true whether the pigment of your skin is black, brown or another shade.

It seems that some are now attempting to describe aspects of "whiteness" or "white culture" that need to be looked at critically because certain beliefs and customs are supposedly making nonwhite persons feel abnormal or inferior.

The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of African-American History and Culture recently posted a guide to “Whiteness” and "White Culture" in the United States on its website that seemed to be intended to indicate those behaviors that might need to be modified to keep white privilege in check.

As you read this bear in mind that your tax dollars paid for this. This museum was opened in 2016 during the Obama administration and cost $500 million of which half was funded by the federal government. 70% of the annual operating costs of the Smithsonian are funded by Congress.

You might also ask if you have ever read anything more racist in your entire life?

What is so repugnant and racist in this list is that it seems to suggest that these are not valuable human traits but are only aspects of white culture that are not shared, appreciated and have proven important to the success of the human race generally.

There is little question that all of these have been foundational pillars of what has made the United States of America the greatest country in the world today. 

I would humbly suggest that we need a lot more of everything on this list by a lot more people of all races considering what we see around us right now.

That includes a whole lot of white people who apparently have never understood that these were supposed to be a part of "their" culture.

Here is a partial list of those supposed "whiteness" traits.

Self Reliance

Individualism

The nuclear family

Children should be independent

Emphasis on the scientific method

Cause and effect relationships

Objective, rational linear thinking

Be polite

Hard work is the key to success

Work before play

Respect authority

Plan for the future

Delayed gratification

"Tomorrow will be better"

Property and entitlements deserve protection in the justice system

Be on time and value your time

If you attempt to go to the Smithsonian website link above you will no longer find these graphics. You can also see a copy here as written about in Powerline.

They have been taken down in the last 24 hours after many raised the same questions I have in this blog post.

Interestingly, the infographics above seem to have been adapted from the work of Judith Katz who works for a consulting firm that does diversity training for corporations and others.

Credit: The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group

Katz wrote this book in 1978 on how to do anti-racism training.

Does anyone else find it interesting that this woman wrote a book on anti-racism training 42 years ago?

She has also been accepting consulting fees from various corporations for decades on diversity and anti-racism training.

How is it then that we are told that racism is as prevalent as ever and we have institutional and systemic racism that makes it impossible for minorities to succeed in the United States?

What has her work accomplished? 

It could be argued that lists like those above are more about creating divisions among us rather than focusing on those things that should unite us.

For example, if you take the list above I would argue that it is probably more indicative of Asian American traits than whites in this country.

Self-reliant. Strong families. Polite. Punctual. Work before play. Respect authority. Plan for the future.

These are universal traits of successful people that have nothing to do with race, color or creed.

That may be one of the reasons that those of Chinese, Indian and Japanese descent outperform whites by large margins in income, education outcomes, test scores and incarceration rates in the United States.

For example, the median household income for white Americans was $67,865 in 2016 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Compare that to the median household income for other ethnic ancestry groups in the United States.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Wikipedia

Rav Arora, the son of Indian immigrants recently wrote an opinion piece in the New York Post titled "The fallacy of white privilege and how its corroding society". 

He points out that all of the minorities above have had to endure different forms of discrimination but they have not let it hold them back.

This includes immigrants from predominantly black countries.

Interestingly, several black immigrant groups such as Nigerians, Barbadians, Ghanaians and Trinidadians & Tobagonians have a median household income well above the American average. Ghanian Americans, to take one example, earn more than several specific white groups such as Dutch Americans, French Americans, Polish Americans, British Americans and Russian Americans. Do Ghanaians have some kind of sub-Saharan African privilege?

Nigerian Americans, meanwhile, are one of the most educated groups in America, as one Rice University survey indicates. Though they make up less than 1 percent of the black population in America, nearly 25 percent of the black student body at Harvard Business School in 2013 consisted of Nigerians. In post-bachelor education, 61 percent of Nigerian Americans over the age of 25 hold a graduate degree compared to only 32 percent for the US-born population.

Take another look at the list of traits above.

I would suggest that teaching those principles in America's schools would do more to put ALL children on the path to success than spending billions of dollars on diversity training and telling people to check their white privilege.

I can't think of anything that is more injurious, debasing or racist than to suggest to any minority that they need not concern themselves with being a hard worker, being polite, respecting authority, valuing time and believing that tomorrow will be better because those are "white" traits.

You wonder why we are where we are today?

Look no further than this type of "thinking" and "teaching".

Data Center Data

It appears that we can expect the construction of data centers to be an increasing political issue over the next several years.

There are already more than 4,000 data centers that are operational in the United States according to Axios.

Virginia leads the nation in operating data centers with 663 followed by Texas with 405.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/12/18/data-center-growth-map-states

Data centers have been around for some time as they are the backbone of the internet and the digital economy,

They are the home for thousands of networked computer servers that store, process and manage the digital world we live in today.

They are behind your ability to browse the internet, stream movies and music, store photos, keep track of your Amazon order and bank online.

The introduction of cloud computing and artificial intelligence has resulted in even greater demand for larger and larger data centers.

3,000 additional data centers are now under construction or planned in the United States.

Texas and Virginia continue to be the leaders in data center development.

However, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Arizona are all seeing a lot of data center activity.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/12/18/data-center-growth-map-states

The size and scale of these new data centers is something to behold.

There is one under construction along I-71 between Cincinnati and Columbus that I passed a couple of months ago.

When finished I believe it will be similar to this data center that Amazon recently opened in October, 2025.

The reported cost of the Ohio facility that I drove by is $5 billion.

I spoke to a principal in a large construction firm based in Virginia earlier this year who told me that over the last several years almost their entire book of business has shifted from commercial building to data center construction.

His comment is supported by this graph that shows changes in U.S. construction spending between May, 2023 and May, 2024.

Source: https://americanedgeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Americas-AI-Surge-Powering-Growth-in-Every-State.pdf

Data center construction projects provide massive economic benefits.

According to this report, a typical data center construction project employs 1,600 to 1,700 local workers during the build-out and adds a quarter of a billion dollars to the local economy.

However, the surge in the demand for data centers has resulted in increasing push-back from more and more people.

This is driven first and foremost by a NIMBY  ("Not in my backyard yard") mindset.

Having a data center in your backyard is not much different that having an airport, a refinery or a wind farm considering their size and the utility lines necessary to power it.

There was a "national day of protest" against data centers this past weekend.

Source: https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2026/07/19/nation-world-news/us-data-center-protests-go-national-as-backlash-grows/

Opponents of the rapid buildout of data centers held 142 protests across 42 states on Saturday in the first nationwide effort to channel anger at the AI infrastructure expansion that has ramped up over the past year and roiled local politics.

The protests were coordinated by a grassroots group called HumansFirst, co-founded by a former leader of the modern-day Tea Party. She compares growing opposition to data centers to the right-wing populist movement that emerged in 2009 to protest what it saw as excessive taxation and government overreach.

The organizer of that protest might have been a conservative but the data center issue is also sure to also be popular with a lot of left wing activists.

Democrats Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earlier this year called for a moratorium on all AI data center construction.

Their concerns center around the potential loss of jobs due to AI as well as environmental issues.

For example, critics of these data centers complain about what they call the excessive water usage in these facilities. 

Water is used in data centers to cool the servers to prevent equipment failure and to control humidity to protect against static electric that might damage delicate components.

However, let's look at the water usage of data centers compared to other uses for this resource.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/25/water-energy-ai-flashpoint

This suggests to me that citing water usage as a concern for data centers is considerably overblown.

However, that does not mean that a data center in a single community will not place additional strain on the locality's water resources. 

At the same time, I imagine anyone developing a data center location is not going to build it without sufficient resources to support it over the long term.

The other big concern often expressed are the electricity demands for these data centers.

They require enormous amounts of electricity.

For this reason many of the data centers are building their own electric generation supply onsite because of long queues to connect to the grid.

Some new data centers are funding the reopening of mothballed nuclear plants for their sole use.

Gas turbine generation, onsite solar and batteries and small modular nuclear reactors are other methods being used to get the 24/7 power these data centers require.

This graphic shows the 20 largest data centers under construction and the electric capacity needs measured in gigawatts. 

For context, one gigawatt of power is capable of supplying about 750,000 average homes.

Source: https://orennia.com/insights/the-20-largest-data-centers-being-developed-in-north-america

People are worried that these data centers will mean additional energy use, grid constraints and higher utility bills.

It is understandable because we have reached a point in which our lives are dependent on electricity.

We need it to heat and cool our homes. We need it for refrigeration and cooking. We need it for lighting and to access the internet. We need it for automatic garage door openers and to charge our phones.

If the power is out in your home for a couple of hours you quickly realize just how dependent you are on that power.

This summary of a Gallup survey on the concerns about data centers breaks it all down.

How much electricity do data centers use?

In 2025 they consumed about 5% of total electric demand in the United States.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-energy-do-data-centers-and-artificial-intelligence-use

This demand will increase but even if it doubled it would only amount to 10% of electricity demand in the United States.

Where is electricity being used by sector currently?

Source: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser

Residential typically consumes 33% of total electricity demand today.

Commercial uses are about 39%.

Industrial uses 28% of total electricity. 

25 years ago each of these sectors used about one-third of electricity demand.

As more industry went offshore the electricity required to support it declined.

Less electricity is used in the Industrial sector today than 25 year ago in absolute terms.

The electricity used to support Industrial uses has been transferred to the Commercial sector which generally includes public, private and government office buildings and nows include data centers.

As we have moved to a digital economy it is natural that more resources would be required to support it.

I understand the concerns about the number of data centers but it needs to be understood that this infrastructure is what is likely going to power the U.S. economy in the coming decades.

We can ignore that reality but the United States will lose to China and others if we think we can compete economically without this infrastructure.

All of the complaints about data centers reminds me of the criticism we heard about fracking as it first was introduced in the United States.

We were told that fracking was going to contaminate the water table and supply. it was going to cause earthquakes and result in dangerous methane leaks.

How is it we hear almost nothing about any of these issues anymore?

Two-thirds of all oil and 75% of all natural gas production in the United States now comes from fracking.

If we had listened to the naysayers the United States would not be energy independent and the economy would look a lot different than it does today.

The United States now produces over twice as much oil today as it did in 2010.

Source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_crude_oil_field_production

The United States is producing more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia COMBINED.

The United States is also the leading producer of natural gas in the world.

Where would we be if we had listened to the critics and fear mongering?

In addition, do we know how much of the opposition to data centers is being fueled by our enemies?

Consider this recent New York Times story which explains that both China and Russia are running major foreign operations to fuel opposition to data centers in the United States.

Why would they do that?

It goes without saying that we need to be diligent in protecting our natural resources and carefully consider the placement of new data centers to insure the least amount of disruption to our environment and population centers.

However, if we want to continue to take advantage of our digital economy. its future potential and the leading position that the United States has in this sector, it cannot be done without the infrastructure to support it.

Data centers are as critical in that regard as fracking has been in drilling for more oil and gas.

If you don't believe it, try living without what fracking and those data centers provide us and see what it means to your quality of life.

Social Security---The High Cost of Demagoguery

The Trustees of the Social Security program recently released its annual report on its financial status.

It is not a pretty picture.

The Social Security retirement fund is projected to become insolvent in the first quarter, 2033--- a mere seven years from now.

It can survive until 2034 if they raid the companion Social Security Disability fund to pay retiree benefits.

At that point all of the trust fund assets will be exhausted and benefit payments can only be paid to the extent of current Social Security tax revenues. Current Social Security tax revenues only cover about  75% of current outlays.

This means that every current Social Security beneficiary could be faced with a cut amounting to about 25% of their current benefit.

Social Security could be restored to firm financial solvency (75 year timeline) with the equivalent of a 29 % (3.65 percentage point) payroll tax increase, a 22% reduction in total benefits, or a 27% reduction in benefits for new beneficiaries if Congress acted to solve the problem this year.

If Congress waits to 2034 to solve the problem it just gets more expensive.

Delaying action until 2034 would increase the size of necessary adjustments by 15 percent. In that year, taxes would need to be raised by 34% (4.27 percentage points), benefits cut for all beneficiaries by 26%, or some combination thereof. Changes to benefits for new beneficiaries alone would be insufficient to restore solvency to the program, even if benefits were eliminated entirely.

Source: https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-2025-social-security-trustees-report?_sc=OTQzMjQwNSMxNzc3MDg%3D

Liberals would like people to believe that all of Social Security's problems could be solved by simply removing the earnings tax cap  (currently $184,500) and making all earnings subject to the FICA tax.

There are three problems with this.

First, it needs to be remembered that under current Social Security law high earners get proportionately less in benefits than low wage earners.

Uncapping the the cap would entitle high earners to higher benefits under the current formula.

As it is, hIgh earners only replace about 26% of the earnings they paid Social Security taxes on while low earners replace about 74%.

Uncapping the payroll tax without adjusting the benefits would make it far, far worse 

Social Security would look less like the social insurance program it was designed to be and more like a conventional welfare program. Such a change would alter the foundational elements of the program that have existed for almost 80 years.

Second, putting another 12.4% tax on high earners (6.2% on the employee and 6.2% on the employer) above the current cap could have massive negative effects on the economy.

It would be as if a massive flat tax was layered on to the current tax system.

One economic model suggested that such a tax burden could reduce long-term GDP by 1.5 percent.

It would represent the largest tax increase as a share of GDP in the last 40 years.

You begin to understand the impact when you consider what it would look like for a high earner in California.

Someone with over a $1 million of earnings would see a top marginal rate of 58.5%. A self-employed individual would be looking at a top marginal rate of 66.5% as Jared Dillian in an article at Reason.com explains.

Under current law, employees and employers each contribute 6.2 percent in Social Security payroll taxes on the first $184,500 in income. By eliminating the cap, that 6.2 percent tax would become a new top marginal tax rate. For example, a taxpayer in California would pay a 37 percent federal income tax rate, a 13.3 percent state income tax rate, a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, a 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax, and a 6.2 percent Social Security tax, for a top marginal rate of 58.85 percent. For self-employed people, who pay both sides of payroll taxes and Medicare taxes, the top marginal rate would rise to 66.5 percent—among the highest marginal rates in the world.

Third, most projections suggest that doing this by itself is not enough. Other measures such as raising the retirement age or raising the overall tax rate for everyone would still be required. 

The Committee for a Responsible Budget has developed a handy interactive tool that allows users to develop their own plan to restore solvency to Social Security.

For example, here is a plan that would involve all of the major issues that I believe will have to be considered to some degree in any Congressional compromise to insure Social Security's solvency.

1) Increase in the overall tax rate

2) Increase in the maximum tax cap

3) Increase in the future retirement age

4) Reduction in benefits for high earners

5) Reduction in COLA adjustments.

For example, the plan I proposed in the tool gets Social Security to 98% of what it needs for long-term solvency.

It is about as balanced as it can be between tax increases and benefit adjustments.

At the same time, it is unlikely to make anyone happy.

This is where we find ourselves due to not addressing this issue earlier.

What is sad about all of this is that President George W. Bush made an effort to reform Social Security in 2005---21 years ago. It made a lot of sense since the reserves in the trust fund had grown to substantial amounts and were still growing as the Baby Boom generation reached their peak earnings years.

Bush's plan would have allowed younger Americans to establish voluntary personal accounts in which workers could invest part of their payroll taxes.

The Bush plan would have also curbed the benefit formula for higher income workers but left in place the formula for average and lower incomes.

This would have taken a great deal of pressure off of Social Security's future funding issues as well as providing younger workers the opportunity to get a better return on their lifetime of Social Security contributions.

The proposed legislation went nowhere in the face of sustained demagoguery by Democrats and the AARP  that the Bush plan would involve "gambling" on the stock market.

20 years later we can assess how that would have worked out.

Those voluntary accounts would have performed spectacularly for the benefit of the Social Security system and its beneficiaries under almost any investment scenario.

The S&P 500 is up 767% since January 1, 2006.

The NASDAQ has provided a return of over 1,000%.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935.

Lost in history is this quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his message to Congress on January 17, 1935 asking Congress to enact the Social Security program.  

It is clear that Roosevelt understood that the program he was asking for was unsustainable in the long term and had to be replaced by a "self supporting system" in 30 years or so.  Unfortunately, that was 91 years ago.

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

FDR openly admitted when the legislation was proposed that Social Security would need to be transitioned to a self-supporting annuity plan system in about 30 years in which the contributions of workers and employers would fund their future Social Security annuity payments. 

FDR also envisioned a system by which individuals could add voluntary contributions to increase the annual amounts received in old age recognizing individual initiative.

Apparently, everyone forgot about FDR's roadmap of how Social Security should work in the future in order to be sustainable.

I asked Google AI where we would be today on Social Security if the Bush plan had been adopted 20 years ago when it was proposed.

Source: Google AI

What is incredible is that the AARP put out an an article last year it which it bragged about stopping the Bush plan claiming that it "saved" Social Security in 2005.

Source: https://www.aarp.org/advocacy/times-aarp-fought-for-social-security/

In early 2005, fresh off reelection, President George W. Bush went all in on his proposal to “fix” Social Security by allowing workers to divert the payroll taxes that fund the program into “personal retirement accounts.”

In his State of the Union address that year, Bush said his plan would save Social Security for future generations by encouraging workers to invest that tax money in the stock market.

AARP disagreed. The nation’s largest advocacy group representing older Americans joined other critics who said the proposal would essentially dismantle the bedrock retirement security program and subject older Americans to the whims of Wall Street in their golden years. 

AARP was ready for the fight — armed with polling data, detailed counterarguments and a blizzard of TV and radio ads. Another potent weapon: its members, estimated to number about 36 million at the time, who flooded the phone lines of their members of Congress to express their opposition.

It just proves that there is a high cost to demagoguery.

A grave error was made in not reforming Social Security 20 years ago when there was a surplus to work with and there was time to implement the reforms.

No such luxury exists today.

Social Security will have to be reformed in the next few years and it will be very painful.

Current beneficiaries will likely not see their benefits cut but that is not assured depending on the nation's overall debt situation.

Retirement ages for younger Americans will undoubtedly increase.

The FICA tax will likely increase for everyone. but it will not mean higher benefits in the future, The returns on Social Security contributions will just get worse.

The payroll tax cap for high earners will be increased significantly if not completely eliminated.

Social Security will become more like a redistributive welfare program than the insurance program that it was originally designed to be. 

Undoubtedly, at that time we will also see the leadership at the AARP claim that they "saved" Social Security.

As we watch all of this unfold over the next few years remember that there is a high cost to demagoguery.

Most all of it was avoidable if demagoguery had been put aside and reason prevailed.

It is a lesson to remember for a number of other issues we are facing today as well.

Democrat Socialist Dope---July 17, 2026 Edition

As the 2026 mid-term elections are approaching and the Democrat Socialists are attempting to take over the Democrat party, I thought I should initiate a semi-regular blog post featuring the latest "dope" on what these Far Leftists are saying and doing.

It seemed to me that titling this feature "Democrat Socialist Dope" makes sense due to two definitions of the word "dope"  that seem to be particularly appropriate.

First, I want to provide you information about what is going on with the Democrat Socialists that you might find useful and that you might not have otherwise heard.

Definition 3 below.

Second, by sharing this information it should leave no doubt as to how stupid, idiotic and annoying the people are who are pushing this Far Left nonsense.

Definition 2 below.

Of course, it is very possible that a good number of people pushing the Democrat Socialist agenda have been imbibing too much in the stuff in Defintion 1 above.

Let's check out the latest dope with the Democrat Socialists.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City and other top elected officials in the city are poised to vote on an 18% pay raise for themselves next week.

Source: https://nypost.com/2026/07/14/opinion/an-18-city-council-pay-hike-is-a-middle-finger-to-nyc-voters/

The pay hike would boost the Mayor's pay to $305,800 from $258,750.

City council members would go from $148,500 to $175,500.

For context, here is what some other top elected and othes government officials are paid around the country.

President Donald Trump                                 $400.000 (donating all to charity)

Vice President J.D. Vance                                   $235,100

U.S. Senators and House Representatives          $174,000

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas                              $153,750 

Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida                            $141,400

The Mayor of New York City is already making more than the Vice President of the United States and this will increase the pay by another 18%?

The Mayor of New York City will make more than the pay of the Governors of Florida and Texas, COMBINED!

City Council members in New York City will make more than U.S. Senators and Representatives?

Mamdani has stated he will not take the pay increase if it is passed but isn't it curious that one of the first tangible "accomplishments" of the Democrat Socialists in New York City is to take a bigger piece of the pie.

 Let it not be forgotten that Mandami ran on a platform of providing free bus fares among other things he said were going to make things more affordable in New York City.

Nothing has happened on that score principally because 1) it would cost as much as $1 billion to do it, and 2) the Metropolitan Transit Authority is a state agency not under mayoral control.

Meanwhile, rents for one bedroom apartments in New York City just hit a new record high.

How does Mamdani propose to fix this?

He wants to ban landlords from getting proof of income or allowing credit checks of potential tenants and he also wants to make it harder to evict someone when they don't pay.

I am sure that will work out great.

All the while, more and more high income earners in New York are taking their money and leaving.

Source: https://nypost.com/2026/07/13/us-news/ny-sees-dramatic-exodus-of-us-millionaires-causing-nearly-11b-loss-study/

If the trend continues that was already taking place before Mamdani took office they might find a way to solve the housing storage without building another unit.

Another reminder that you should take any promise from a politician with a grain of salt.

If it is a Democrat Socialist politician, it is more like a ton of salt.

Speaking of Mamdani, he was recently asked to explain why the number of rapes has been increasing in New York City.

Here are the statistics of reported rapes as compiled by the New York City Police Department since 2021.

Rapes + 51% since 2021

Rapes + 30% since 2024

Source: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/PR011/nypd-fewest-shooting-incidents-shooting-victims-murders-recorded-history-for

Mamdani claims that most of the increase is due to "an expanded definition of rape" and rapes from prior years that are being reported in the current year.

There may be SOME truth to the latter explanation in looking at the data but I would like to know what has changed in the definition of rape over the last five years?

Mamdani also conveniently does not mention the thousands and thousands of men from third world and Islamic countries who have come to New York City (many illegally) who often treat women as little more than property.

Of course, Mamdani and other Democrat Socialists believe no one here illegally should be deported and the country should have open borders.

Finally, various Democrat Socialist leaders over the last month have been busy further articulating their vision for the future of the country.

The DSA has released an updated platform that goes beyond what I wrote about in these pages in June.

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/

In summary, they want to effectively dismantle the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

Forget about the separation of powers between co-equal branches of government.

Their plan is to rip and tear it all up.

Abolish the Senate.

Abolish ICE.

Allow anyone who is in the country to vote even if they are not a citizen.

Expand the House and have the President and Supreme Court selected by and subordinate to that sole legislative body.

The DSA is also telling people that under their plans they can work if they want to but it will not really be necessary as all their bills would be paid for.

Source: https://program.dsausa.org/

How?

It will all be paid for by wealth taxes and public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.

They call it economic democracy.

History has called this communism.

Source: https://program.dsausa.org/

They conveniently don't explain who the rich and wealthy are going to be if the government has taken control and ownership of all the businesses that were responsible for that wealth.

You can read the entire revised DSA phttps://program.dsausa.org/latform here.

Do you now understand why I used the word DOPE in this new feature?

Is there a better description of those trying to sell this agenda?

We can only hope that we have enough people left in this country who are not dopey enough to believe what they are selling.

The Best and Brightest?

We are told that the best and brightest among us can be found on the campuses of elite colleges and universities like those in the Ivy League, Stanford and Amherst.

Is that true anymore?

Consider the percentage of students claiming disabilities and the startling increase in the numbers at some of these elite colleges and universities over the last decade.

Stanford.       38%

Amherst.       34%

Brown.          22%

Cornell.         22%

Chicago.        21%

Yale.              20%

Credit: https://americaninequality.substack.com/p/accommodating-the-elite-ignoring

At UC Berkeley the number of students who report having a disability has quintupled in the last 15 years.

Claims for disability accommodations are not limited to the most elite colleges and universities.

Pace University in New York reports that 37% of its students have a disability, up from 5% in 2015.

Hampshire College in Massachusetts has 38%, up from 10% a decade ago.

Scripps College in California has seen it numbers go from 11% to 36%.

For context, the number of students at community colleges that typically report having a disability has remained flat over the last decade at 3%-4%.

What is the explanation for the surge in disability claims? 

Mental health experts claim that the increase is due to better diagnosis and less stigma for conditions such as ADHD, autism, anxiety disorders and depression.

This may be true but a big reason seems to be the fact that in 2008 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was broadened to include conditions that limited life activities such as thinking, concentrating, reading and communicating to be covered disabilities.

This led the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), an organization of disability-services staff, to release guidance urging universities to give greater weight to students’ own accounts of how their disability affected them, rather than relying solely on a medical diagnosis.

This was all it took for college administrators, who generally have a liberal mindset, to grant almost any disability requests that are made by students.

The remedy for someone with a disability is some type of accommodation.

At these colleges if it is ADHD, autism of anxiety it typically might mean more time to take a test or turn in an assignment or being allowed to take the exam home or in a quiet room without distractions.

This then results in a cascade effect.

In a competitive environment, if others are doing it and you are not, you end up being the loser.

You end being stupid if you don't game the system.

This young woman at Stanford tells her story of how the system works at Stanford.

Source: https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-stanford-undergraduates-claim-disabled-sw99r3k8c

Are these the values we want from our best and brightest?

We used to live in a world where having a disability was so stigmatized that many with a disability did everything in their power to try to overcome it so as to blend in.

Those with a disability worked harder as they wanted to prove they could do almost anything any other person could.

We have now reached a point where the opposite is true. 

Those with the most ability are claiming disability to further their natural advantages.

Of course, all of these disability accommodations then further diminishes those that have real significant physical or mental disabilities.

All of this also reinforces a statement I have made often in these pages.

Incentives drive behavior.

There is one absolute when considering human behavior.

Human beings respond to incentives. We quickly understand what is in our interest and what is not, and we respond accordingly. We will act in accordance with what is in our best interest. Period.

If the incentives for people are properly aligned, you will get the behavior and result you want.  If the incentives are not properly aligned, you will get poor results.  Whenever you get a poor result it is likely that you will find that the underlying incentives were not aligned properly.

None of this would be possible but for the college administrators that are allowing it to occur.

This leads to another story that caught my eye recently about the best and brightest at Brown University.

Economics Professor Roberto Serrano has taught a undergraduate course on "Welfare Economics and Social Choice" for much of the 34 years he has been at Brown University.

This is the background for the story in Serrano's words.

In part due to the tragic shooting that took place at Brown on December 13 during a review session for a final exam, I decided to move my course’s two exams—the midterm and the final—from an in-class exam to a take-home, closed-book format. I thought that would help students deal with exam anxiety. The exams would be made available to students through an online portal, and they would have 11 hours (for a two-hour test) to complete and submit each. Unsurprisingly, the course enrollment jumped to 86, far above 30, the highest maximum in previous semesters.

On the midterm exam, the average grade was 96 with 40 students obtaining perfect test scores.

This compared to class averages of between 65 and 80 on midterm exam scores in previous years.

Serrano suspected cheating.

He noted that there were a lot of answers on the exam that included passages that closely matched what he found when he provided the questions to ChatGPT.

Serrano told the class of his suspicions but stated that he would not void the midterm exam scores.

However, he stated that the final exam would be in person.

If the grade distribution of the final was similar to the midterm he would average both scores.

However, if there was a large difference he would void the midterm grade completely for the entire class and the final exam alone would constitute the course grade.

What happened next with the best and brightest?

18 students immediately dropped the course learning the final exam would not be taken at home..

Another 9 students did not even show up for the final.

3 students took the exam but merely signed their name and turned it in blank.

The average fell from 96 to 48---the lowest in the course's history.

More than half did not score above 50%.

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/learning-assessment/2026/07/08/brown-professor-suspects-most-his-class-used-ai-cheat

 

In reviewing the graph above, I can see only two students who appear to be scrupulously honest.

Student 1---scored 95.5 on the midterm and 95 on the final.

Student 22---scored 55 on the midterm and 59.5 on the final--the only student to score higher on the final than on the midterm. That is one honest and hardworking kid that deserves some type of award.

However, they probably ended up with a D because Professor Serrano set the failing grade at 50.

What's the worst part of this?

Serrano reported the obvious cheating to the Brown administration and characterized its response as "meek".

In May, Serrano submitted the data shown above to Brown’s Standing Committee on the Academic Code and received no response. After he went public with his story in late June, the committee, through his department chair, asked Serrano to submit individual complaints against each student suspected of cheating, including copies of their exams, he said.

“What they are asking is ridiculous … I believe they plan to run them through some AI-detection tool, which is well-known to give many false positives and false negatives,” he said. “Their response, I must tell you, is seen as appalling and insufficient by hundreds of people who have emailed me in support, many of them Brown alumni.”

As colleges and universities grapple with AI, cheating must be taken seriously, Serrano said. “We cannot afford to have a society in which a significant fraction of our best young minds think that cheating is OK,” he said. “That leads to a declining society, to a failed society … We cannot choose to become idiots.”

Keep in mind that the "best and brightest" are supposed to be our next generation of lawyers, doctors and government leaders.

Is a client supposed to agree to a lawyer billing double the hours because he needs more time to complete the task due to ADHD?

A pre-Med student claims they need to take their exams in a quiet room because they are too easily distracted in a crowded classroom. How does that work out if they end up being a doctor in a chaotic emergency room?

Will we ever have a political leader again who can speak on their feet without AI writing their speech?

Are we grooming our young  people in our colleges and universities today to be the best and brightest?

Or just a bunch of idiots devoid of values?

California Nighmare

The Mama's and Papa's song California Dreamin' was the #1 song on the Billboard end of year survey for 1966.

The song was written by John and Michelle Phillips when they were living in New York City during a cold winter and missing sunny California.

The lyrics of the song begin this way.

All the leaves are brown (all the leaves are brown)

And the sky is gray (and the sky is gray)

I've been for a walk (I've been for a walk)

On a winter's day (on a winter's day)

I'd be safe and warm (I'd be safe and warm)

If I was in LA (if I was in LA)

The weather is still generally warm in California.

It is debatable on how safe it is in parts of LA.

However, the dreamin' is definitely dying under the weight of compounding financial and other challenges in the state that have been almost entirely self inflicted due to liberal policies.

California is looking more like a nightmare than a dream in 2026.

Governor Gavin Newsom recently approved a $352 billion budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

That level of spending is an increase of 10% from last year and is 72% higher than when Newsom took office eight years ago while the population is essentially unchanged over the last decade.

That compares to an overall national inflation rate of 29% over the same period.

California is facing a future structural budget deficit of $35 billion per year according to the state legislature's financial advisor..

However, this assumes that state revenues will continue at the same pace as they have in recent years which have been fueled by outsized personal income tax receipts due to AI stock market gains.

The state's top 1% earners pay about 50% of state income taxes but a proposed wealth tax has caused a number of high earners to flee the state.

At the same time, California owes the federal government over $20 billion it borrowed for unemployment claims during Covid that has not been repaid.

It is the only state that borrowed money from the feds that has not repaid the loan.

Source: https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/california-employers-face-higher-taxes-as-ui-debt-tops-20-billion/103-4d90ab3a-5ec9-4e6f-a336-e5ebc9cc43c8

California also faces mounting unfunded pension obligations,

20 years ago these obligations were fully funded.

It is now estimated that these pension obligations are underfunded by over $250 billion,

Source: https://equable.org/resource/california-pensions-calpers-calstrs-2025/

A financial nightmare is a certainty in California if the economy or stock market has a slight wobble.

In Los Angeles, county officials are warning that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is facing insolvency by next year due to a projected $230 million deficit.

Source: https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-unified-school-district-faces-potential-insolvency-county-officials-warn-could-run-money-year/19478950/

The Los Angeles Unified School District could run out of money within about a year and is showing severe signs of financial distress, according to county education authorities.

The nation's second-largest school district, which serves more than half a million students, faces possible insolvency, prompting the Los Angeles County Office of Education to take action.

"I think it's something everyone was hoping would be avoided, but I don't think it's really a surprise to anyone," educational consultant Jamie Bacall said.

County officials said LAUSD is projected to be more than $230 million in the hole by November of next year. In response, the county superintendent has appointed a fiscal expert and given the school board 45 days to fix its budget.

What has caused the problem?

Student enrollment is only about half of what it was in the early 2000's.

At the same time, total staff has increased by 10%  over the same period.

Source: Google AI

Compounding the problems, the school board just approved new union contracts covering multiple employee unions.

Those contracts are projected to raise costs by $1.13 billion in the upcoming school year and by $1.44 billion in 2027-28.

Employee unions downplay the warnings stating that they expect the state to provide more funding.

I guess they have not been paying much attention to what the numbers look like in Sacramento.

They are also not paying much attention to demographic trends which suggest there is going to be a need to cut school spending a lot over the next decade due to further enrollment declines.

California will lead the nation in enrollment losses according to this data.

The financial problems in California even extend to the beautiful and tony coastal enclave of Santa Monica that abuts Los Angeles.

20 years ago it would have been unthinkable that Santa Monica would have financial problems.

This was the headline in a recent Wall Street Journal story on the city.

At first glance, this picturesque coastal enclave bordering Los Angeles appears to have it all: palm trees along a famed shopping promenade, wide beaches and a wealthy tax base.

Instead, Santa Monica is in recovery mode. It is trying to bounce back from a string of problems—mounting liability settlements, falling international tourism and years of fading retail businesses—that led the city of roughly 90,700 to declare “fiscal distress” in September. 

There are just not many people dreamin' to be in California anymore.

Liberal policies are destroying a state with tremendous natural advantages and turning it into a nightmare.

Illegal immigration openly encouraged and protected.

Doing little to curb open drug use.

Homeless encampments that are tolerated.

Failure to police and curb crime.

Overregulation.

In addition, consider the tax environment in the state,

The top marginal tax rate in the state is now 14.4%--the highest in the country.

However, even a single filer making $71,000 must pay a tax rate of 9.3%.

Source: Grok

The average state and local sales tax rate is 8.99% but the rate in the city of Los Angeles will be 10.25% effective October 1, 2026.

The state gas tax is the highest in the nation---63.4 cents per gallon.

Despite it all, California is still heading towards financial disaster.

A day of reckoning is on the horizon.  The cliff draws closer.  

The big question is what happens when they go over the cliff?  

Bankruptcy is not an option as states are prohibited by federal law of going that route. 

You can be sure that there will be calls for a federal California bailout if it gets bad enough,  

This may be the biggest unspoken issue that will be before us in the next decade.

Who is sitting in The White House and in Congress will make an enormous difference when the time comes.  

20% of all House Democrats alone are currently from California.

That number will probably be even higher after the 2026 mid-term election.

If the Democrats are in power they will be highly motivated to write any checks necessary to keep California afloat.

You may believe California is not your problem.

The reality is that California's nightmare might become all of ours at some point.