The Active Center

David Sepe
  • ٠٫٠ (٠)
  • تعليقات الأخبار

A A . . . . . . . . .

  1. قبل ٢٣ ساعة

    The Immortal Bambino: Babe Ruth’s Immunity to Elite HoF Pitching

    I’ve been sitting in grandstands since the early 1970s. I’ve seen the game change from the high-mound dominance of Gibson to the "Small Ball" speed of the 80s, through the steroid-era power surges, and into today’s world of 102-mph openers. If there is one thing fifty years of being a "student of the game" has taught me, it’s that comparing eras is a fool’s errand. You can’t compare a guy who played in wool in the afternoon to a guy today who has a nutritionist and a launch-angle monitor. However, there is one metric that cuts through the noise: How did you perform when the man on the mound was just as legendary as you? When we talk about Babe Ruth, the "facts" usually center on his 714 home runs or his 2.28 ERA as a pitcher. But for those of us who obsess over the nuances, the most staggering figure is his .339 career average against Hall of Fame pitchers. Think about that. Against the likes of Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, and Red Faber, men whose names are literally synonymous with the peak of the craft, Ruth was essentially the same player he was against a Triple-A call-up. He didn't just survive elite pitching; he ignored its status. The Standard Bearers: Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig In my time, I’ve seen some great ones. I watched George Brett flirt with .400 in 1980 and saw Tony Gwynn dismantle Greg Maddux with clinical precision. But the data tells a story of a "Big Three" that stands alone. Ruth, Ted Williams, and Lou Gehrig are the only hitters in the history of this sport who essentially maintained a 1.000+ OPS when facing the best arms of their day. Lou Gehrig is one of the few players whose numbers against HOFers mirror Ruth's in terms of consistent run production. Together, they form the most statistically terrifying duo against elite pitching in history. Williams, in many ways, was the more disciplined scientist. His .469 On-Base Percentage against HOFers is actually higher than Ruth’s. If I needed a guy to draw a walk or see twelve pitches against a peak Sandy Koufax, I might take Teddy Ballgame. But Ruth’s slugging, a .588 mark against the immortals, is what separates him. He wasn't just getting on; he was ending the game. The Evolution of the Elite As a fan who transitioned from the "Golden Era" highlights to the modern game, the drop-offs for some of our favorites are telling. Look at Pete Rose. "Charlie Hustle" was the hit king, but against HOF pitching, his average dipped to .286 and his power essentially evaporated (only 7 homers). It’s not a knock on Pete; it just shows that against elite stuff, the "slap hitter" has a harder time finding the gaps than the "force of nature." Pete Rose and Paul Molitor maintained respectable averages but saw significant power drops against HOFers, whereas Willie Mays and Hank Aaron used their longevity to compile massive HR totals against the best of the best. Contrast that with the modern era. I watch Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani today and see something that feels like a spiritual echo of Ruth. Their batting averages against "HOF-track" arms like Justin Verlander or Clayton Kershaw hover in the .250 range, considerably lower than Ruth’s .339. However, their slugging percentages (Judge at .521, Ohtani at .535) prove that the "Three True Outcomes" era has created a different kind of elite. They may strike out more than the guys did in the 70s, but when they connect, the ball stays hit, even against a 100-mph heater. The "Machine" and the "Kid" In the middle of my life as a fan, two players stood out for their consistency: Albert Pujols and Ken Griffey Jr. Pujols, specifically, earned the nickname "The Machine" for a reason. Maintaining a near-.500 slugging percentage against the best of the best for two decades is a feat of mental and physical endurance that stacks up against any era. Griffey, meanwhile, despite the injuries, proved he belonged in the conversation by launching 32 homers against the elite, a number that surpasses many of the legends of the 40s and 50s. Barry Bonds maintained an elite .421 OBP against HOF talent. His numbers reflect the "fear factor" he induced; even the greatest pitchers of his era (such as Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and John Smoltz) often preferred to pitch around him rather than challenge him in the zone. The Final Verdict Being a fan means accepting that every generation thinks their baseball was the "real" baseball. But when I look at the spreadsheet of history, Babe Ruth remains the ultimate outlier. Ruth didn't just pad his stats against average HOFers; he dominated the absolute icons: vs. Walter Johnson: Against the "Big Train" (arguably the greatest RHP ever), Ruth batted .293 with 10 Home Runs. In an era where 10 home runs was a season-total for most players, hitting that many off a single HOFer was unheard of. vs. Lefty Grove: Facing the premier southpaw of his era, Ruth hit .315. vs. Red Faber: One of the few who "contained" him, Faber held Ruth to a .247 average, though Ruth still managed 7 homers off him. Most players, even Hall of Famers, see their stats dip by 15% or 20% when they step into the box against an All-Time Great. Ruth didn't. He hit .342 against the league and .339 against the Hall. He wasn't just a great player; he was a player who was immune to the quality of his opposition. Whether it was 1923 or 2024, that kind of dominance is the only "fact" that matters. We can argue about the quality of the competition or the travel schedules all we want, but the numbers don't lie: when the stakes were highest and the pitching was best, the Bambino was still the Bambino. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including those pesky social media fees. If you can’t contribute to my GoFundMe, I get it, but you can help me by subscribing to my account or sharing this particular story with friends and family that you think would appreciate it. Your contribution, big or small, helps me keep going. Thank you. GO FUND ME

    ٥ د

  2. قبل ٤ أيام

    Marxists Suck at Holidays: A May Day Analysis of the Human and Economic Cost of Marxist Regimes (1917–Present)

    The history of the last century has been a titanic struggle between two irreconcilable visions of humanity. Traditionally, May Day has been used by various far-left, anti-American, movements to celebrate the "proletariat" and the rise of socialist ideals; however, for the citizens of the free world, this day should instead be a solemn occasion for observation and education. It should be a day spent understanding the hideous human conditions brought forward by Marxism and the regimes inspired by its tenets, a time to reflect on the staggering cost of trading individual sovereignty for state-mandated collectivism.  On one side stands the Classical Liberal tradition, which states that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, chief among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and Property. On the other stands the Marxist-Leninist project, an ideology that perceives the individual as a mere instrument of the state, to be molded, used, or discarded in the pursuit of a collective utopia. When we examine the ledger of the last 126 years, the evidence is not merely clear; it is harrowing. The most fundamental right, the right to life, was the first casualty of the Marxist century. As the political scientist R.J. Rummel documented in his seminal studies on "Democide," absolute power is a primary cause of mass murder. Rummel’s work, alongside the monumental research of Stéphane Courtois and his team in The Black Book of Communism, reveals a global death toll that staggers the imagination, estimated between 85 million and 100 million victims. This was not the accidental byproduct of war, but a systematic campaign against humanity. In China alone, approximately 65 million lives were extinguished, many during the "Great Leap Forward," a period where the abolition of private property rights and forced collectivization transformed the nation into a graveyard. In the Soviet Union, some 20 million perished under the boot of a state that viewed the starvation of the Ukrainian peasantry, the Holodomor, as a necessary step in the liquidation of class enemies. Yet, the carnage was not confined to the largest powers; the ideology’s rejection of individual worth was global in its application. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge’s attempt to enforce a radical agrarian collective resulted in the "Killing Fields," where between 1.5 and 2 million people—nearly a quarter of the entire population, were slaughtered or starved. North Korea’s regime, through decades of political purges, labor camps, and a policy-driven famine in the 1990s, claimed another 2 million lives. Across the Eastern Bloc, roughly one million dissidents and "class enemies" were executed in nations like Poland, Hungary, and Romania for the crime of desiring liberty. In Africa and Central Asia, the story was much the same: 1.7 million died in Ethiopia under the "Red Terror" and policy-induced famines of the Derg regime, while 1.5 million perished in Afghanistan following Marxist purges and the subsequent Soviet-Afghan War. Even in Latin America and Vietnam, hundreds of thousands more were sacrificed in re-education camps and guerrilla conflicts, proving that wherever the state sought to subsume the individual, the result was a rhythmic and predictable tally of death. Liberty, too, was systematically dismantled, as the Marxist state asserted a total claim over the body and movement of the individual. This "enslavement" of entire populations was manifested through state-mandated labor systems and the draconian restriction of movement. Between 1930 and 1953, the Soviet Gulag system saw approximately 18 million people pass through its gates; at any given time, 2 million souls were held in forced labor camps, their lives consumed by the industrial and mining appetites of the USSR. In China, the "Laogai," explicitly meaning "reform through labor," has processed tens of millions of prisoners since 1949, with some estimates suggesting a peak population of 10 million simultaneous captives. This legacy of bondage persists in North Korea’s Kwalliso, where 80,000 to 120,000 people are currently held in political prison camps, performing forced manual labor in mines and farms. Beyond the camps, the "Iron Curtain" served as a broader instrument of enslavement for the 130 million people of the Eastern Bloc. By denying the right to emigrate, forcing the collectivization of land, and asserting absolute state control over all employment, these regimes proved that when the individual’s right to his own person is denied, the nation itself becomes a prison. The Classical Liberal understands that property rights are not merely about material wealth; they are the essential safeguard of freedom. Without the right to own the fruits of one's labor, the incentive to innovate and the ability to flourish vanish. The economic data from the Maddison Project provides a stark "Great Divergence" that serves as a controlled experiment in human history, measuring the profound cost of Marxist policies by comparing socialist nations to their capitalist counterparts. We see this most clearly in the division of Germany; by 1990, East Germany, burdened by central planning, possessed a GDP per capita only 30% to 40% of its free-market counterpart in the West, despite both having started from a similar baseline. On the Korean peninsula, the contrast is even more divine: as of 2023, a South Korea that embraced property rights and trade is roughly 30 to 50 times wealthier than a North Korea where the state controls every grain of rice. Economists further estimate that had China adopted market reforms in 1950 rather than 1978, its GDP might have been four to five times larger by the turn of the century. The "lost GDP" of these "lost decades" represents a theft of human potential on a scale that is nearly impossible to calculate, representing trillions of dollars in missing medical advancements, infrastructure, and personal fulfillment. Beyond direct executions, Marxist regimes experienced a "silent" death toll due to the failure of state-run universal healthcare systems to keep pace with global medical advancements. Historical data shows that while life expectancy in Marxist states improved post-WWII due to basic sanitation, it began to stagnate or decline in the 1960s and 70s, a phenomenon known as the "State Socialist Mortality Syndrome." While Western life expectancy continued to rise by approximately 4–5 years per decade, progress in the Eastern Bloc stalled, leading to a six-year gap between East and West European men by the late 1980s. This was a direct result of a lack of innovation; because healthcare was treated as a "consumption branch" rather than a productive sector, research and development lagged. The USSR and its satellites lacked modern diagnostic equipment, advanced oncology treatments, and cardiovascular medications common in the West. Furthermore, the promise of "free" care often existed only on paper, as access to high-quality care or innovative drugs frequently required informal payments or high-ranking party status. The opportunity cost of this denied progress is measured in the millions of avoidable deaths from cancer, heart disease, and infant mortality. That this was a failure of the system rather than the culture is proven by the aftermath: following the collapse of these regimes, life expectancy in countries like Slovakia and Poland surged, rising up to seven years in a single generation, correcting the "excess mortality" previously caused by state inefficiency. The verdict of history is written in the blood of 85 to 100 million victims and the poverty of billions more across over 30 affected nations. The data provided by researchers like Courtois, Rummel, and the economic historians of the Maddison Project serves as a grim monument to the failure of the collectivist ideal, which in its pursuit of equality achieved only a 60% to 90% loss in economic growth relative to market peers and a historical aggregate of 40 to 60 million people enslaved in labor systems. It reinforces the timeless truth of the Classical Liberal tradition: that any system which seeks to "liberate" the collective by shackling the individual will inevitably end in tyranny, stagnation, and a 4 to 7-year decline in life expectancy compared to free peoples.  Therefore, May Day 2026 should be a day in which we in the free world observe, study, and reaffirm our allegiance to our current Constitutional Republic and social contract which protects our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property. The only path to true human flourishing lies in the protection of those unalienable rights that no government has the authority to grant, and no ideology has the right to take away. God Bless America on this May Day 2026. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including those pesky social media fees. If you can’t contribute to my GoFundMe, I get it, but you can help me by subscribing to my account or sharing this particular story with friends and family that you think would appreciate it. Your contribution, big or small, helps me keep going. Thank you. GO FUND ME

    ٦ د

  3. قبل ٤ أيام

    The Complex Economic and Political Reality of California's Water Distribution Part II

    Being a political moderate in California often feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck from the center of the tracks. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our state’s water management, a system defined by northern abundance, southern demand, and a mid-state bureaucracy that seems designed to produce more lawsuits than liquid. For those of us who prioritize government efficiency and pragmatic results over ideological purity, the current state of affairs isn't just frustrating; it’s a failure of our basic social contract. The core of the problem isn't a lack of water; it’s a lack of will and efficiency. We are told by Sacramento that we must let our lawns die and shower with buckets because we are in a "permanent drought." Yet, during heavy precipitation events, our agricultural leaders in the Central Valley watch in horror as 95% of the water collecting in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is flushed directly into the sea. Farmers like Jason Giannelli point out that our massive pumps are often curtailed to 20% capacity due to regulatory frameworks. While protecting the Delta Smelt is a noble environmental goal, the centrist asks: Why haven't we modernized our infrastructure to allow for both environmental protection and water capture? The answer, sadly, is a decade of bureaucratic stall tactics. In 2014, we, the voters, passed Proposition 1, authorizing $7.545 billion to fix this very problem. We were promised $2.7 billion in new storage, specifically for "public benefits" like Sites Reservoir. A decade later, not a single major surface reservoir has broken ground. We are stuck in a cycle of "conditional funding," endless environmental reviews, and a failure to secure non-state financing. For a centrist, this is the definition of government inefficiency: we have the money, we have the mandate, and we have the water during storm flushes, but we lack the ability to move a shovel. This inefficiency has deadly consequences. The January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires were a wake-up call that "regional supply" means nothing if your local pipes are failing. While regional reservoirs were at healthy levels, hydrants in the Palisades Highlands ran dry. The local system collapsed under a pressure spike four times the normal rate. Adding insult to injury, the 117-million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir sat empty and offline for over a year just for a cover repair. Whether a full reservoir would have "changed the outcome" is debated by experts, but for the taxpayer, it is an inexcusable symbol of a system that is falling apart while we argue over the details. The average citizen is then hit with the "Paradox of Conservation." We do our part, we conserve, we cut back, and our reward is a higher water bill. Because 80% of a utility's costs are fixed (infrastructure, debt, maintenance), lower usage means lower revenue, which necessitates rate hikes to keep the pipes from bursting. We are paying more for less, all while facing a $50 billion infrastructure investment gap that Sacramento seems content to bridge with more bond measures rather than streamlined project delivery. So, where do we go? The conservative demands deregulation; the liberal demands "toilet-to-tap" and the dismantling of dams. The centrist demands efficiency. We need a moderate, risk-sharing approach that stops viewing water as a zero-sum game between a fish and a farm. We need: Systemic Modernization: A data-driven upgrade of aging pipes and canals to combat subsidence and leaks. Mandated Redundancy: Requiring high-fire-risk districts to certify dedicated high-pressure firefighting capacity so we never see a dry hydrant again. Balanced Storage: Moving forward on the most environmentally sound surface projects while aggressively expanding groundwater recharge. California is a state of immense wealth and natural bounty. It is time our government stopped managing scarcity and started managing our resources with the efficiency we pay for. We don't need more "perspectives," we need the water we were promised in 2014. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including those pesky social media fees. If you can’t contribute to my GoFundMe, I get it, but you can help me by subscribing to my account or sharing this particular story with friends and family that you think would appreciate it. Your contribution, big or small, helps me keep going. Thank you. GO FUND ME

    ٦ د

  4. قبل ٥ أيام

    Marxists Suck at Racial Integration: A Gen-X Integrationist’s Challenge to the Far-Left’s Embrace of Racism

    I have spent my entire life, as a child and now as a public school educator believing in a simple, steady trajectory: that the United States, though flawed, was moving toward the "Dream" of racial integration socially, politically, and economically. I am a member of Generation X, a generation that came of age when the integrationist ideal fell within our grasp. We didn't just hope for a post-racial society; we were building one in our classrooms, our sports teams, and our neighborhoods. I was in kindergarten and early elementary school in the early 1970s and can remember the “anti-discrimination” lessons at school and in the commercials as we watched our afterschool afternoon cartoons. I remember one PSA in particular that showed a grandfather with his grandson fishing on a boat, and the grandson talking about his “Jewish friend,” and the grandfather telling his grandson that he is “prejudiced” because he is identifying his friend as Jewish rather than simply his friend. We were being lovingly raised and conditioned to believe in the virtues of meritocracy and colorblindness.  I can remember watching the Cincinnati Reds, the Big Red Machine, playing baseball in the middle to late ‘70s, and being fans of Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan and Tony Perez. They were great baseball players playing for one of the premier baseball teams of all-time.  Although we saw color, and knew of “race in America” to some degree, we didn’t see it as an identifier of being a member of an oppressor/oppressed social construct. We just saw great baseball players who got to the top of their profession based on merit and the right to equal opportunity, and as kids, we wanted to emulate them. Today, kids are being conditioned to acknowledge Pete Rose and Johnny Bench’s privilege and Joe Morgan and Tony Perez as under-represented members of a marginalized class. What a sad path today’s children are being led.  However, as I look at the federal indictment handed down against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in April 2026, I am filled with a profound and sickening sense of betrayal. It appears that while we were working to put out the fires of ignorance, those who claimed to be our greatest allies were secretly holding the matches. The Era of Progress: A Retrospective To understand my anger, you have to understand where we were. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the progress was palpable. We were moving away from the overt, systemic hatred of the past. Racism was becoming a social death sentence; it was retreating into the shadows because we, as a collective, had decided it had no place in our future.  I can remember watching the Cincinnati Reds, the Big Red Machine, playing baseball in the middle to late ‘70s, and being fans of Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan and Tony Perez. They were great baseball players playing for one of the premier baseball teams of all-time.  Although we saw color, and knew of “race in America” to some degree, we didn’t see it as an identifier of being a member of an oppressor/oppressed social construct. We just saw great baseball players who got to the top of their profession based on merit and the right to equal opportunity, and as kids, we wanted to emulate them. Today, kids are being conditioned to acknowledge Pete Rose and Johnny Bench’s privilege and Joe Morgan and Tony Perez as under-represented members of a marginalized class. What sad times.  In the ‘80s we were blessed to listen to the best era of American music. We listened to Phil Collins, Madonna, Whitney Houston, Tina Turner, Gloria Estefan, Boy George, Van Halen, Los Lobos, Michael Jackson, Prince and a list of other great, unique, and talented musicians and artists. White, black, latino, gay, and binary…we didn’t care. We liked the music, the looks, and we made those artists extremely wealthy by buying concert tickets, albums, and merchandise such as t-shirts. Although we could identify people by their skin color, gender, and sexual orientation, we just didn’t care, we loved their music, style, and creativity based on merit. That’s the foundation of “colorblindness.”  In the 90’s we saw Black excellence thrive from Michael Jordan leading the Chicago Bulls to the greatest win/loss record ever in the 1995-96 NBA season and eventually win 6-world championships to General Colin Powell lead and become a major voice for the United States military during and after the Gulf War. We witnessed Dr. Mae Jemison become the first Black American woman in space in 1992 aboard the Shuttle Endeavour. We bought tickets to the movies to watch Denzel Washington, Whoopi Goldberg, and Cuba Gooding Jr. win academy awards for their performances on the silver screen. By the 1990s, the number of affluent African-American families, defined as having incomes over $50,000, increased from 266,000 in 1967 to over 1 million by 1989. There are roughly 1.7–1.8 million Black millionaires today, this represents over 50-fold growth in the past four decades.  I could see the social, political, cultural, and economic success of Black America over the course of my lifetime, it was palpable. This social and cultural growth mindset was the foundation of my youth and the pillars upon which I built my adulthood.  As an educator, my mission was to ensure that every student, regardless of their background, saw themselves as an integral part of the American tapestry. We were winning. But apparently, for the SPLC, "winning" was a threat to the bottom line. The Indictment: Manufacturing a Nightmare The DOJ indictment, announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, reveals a gutless betrayal of the Civil Rights mission. The organization is charged with 11 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering, not because they were fighting hate, but because they were allegedly funding it to stoke the fears of donors. The specifics are enough to make any integrationist fume: The National Alliance Payoff: While publicly claiming this neo-Nazi group was "moribund," the SPLC reportedly funneled over $1,000,000 to Informant F-9, a leader within that group, between 2014 and 2023. The Charlottesville Arson: Most disturbing is the role of Informant F-37. This individual was a member of the inner leadership circle that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally. Under SPLC supervision and funded by over $270,000 in donor money, F-37 helped coordinate transportation and posted racist vitriol online. The SPLC didn’t just monitor the fire in Charlottesville; the indictment suggests they helped pay for the wood and the kerosene. They needed a spectacle of hate to justify their "Hate Map" and to keep the millions flowing from terrified citizens and corporations like Apple. The Cost of the "Partisan Smear Machine" The economic impact of this deception is staggering. In the wake of Charlottesville, an event the SPLC allegedly helped facilitate through its informants, donations skyrocketed. Their endowment ballooned to over $730 million. This is blood money. It is money taken from people who genuinely wanted to help, only to have it used to pay the salaries of Klansmen and neo-Nazis through shell companies like "Fox Photography" and "Rare Books Warehouse." This isn't just financial fraud; it is a moral crime against the progress of this nation. By manufacturing the narrative that the United States is an "inherently racist nation," these activists have undone decades of hard-won social cohesion. They have convinced a new generation that the Dream is a lie, all to ensure that their "partisan smear machine" remains profitable. A Call for Accountability As someone who has stood at the front of a classroom for decades trying to erase the lines that divide us, I demand that those responsible be held to account. The names in the indictment are just the beginning. We must expose every far-left "activist" who chose a paycheck over the peace of our communities. The march toward the Dream is unsteady enough without supposed allies tripping us from behind. To stoke the fires of racial tension for financial gain is a gutless, hollow expression of greed. The rise of far-left critical theory and its insular and Marxist inspired anti-Americanism must be challenged on the merits. We must return to the path of true integration and cast out the far-left social arsonists who have profited from our pain. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including those pesky social media fees. If you can’t contribute to my GoFundMe, I get it, but you can help me by subscribing to my account or sharing this particular story with friends and family that you think would appreciate it. Your contribution, big or small, helps me keep going. Thank you. GO FUND ME

    ٥ د

  5. قبل ٦ أيام

    How Do You Screw Up Selling Fast Food and Providing Jobs for Low-Income Workers? Ask a California Progressive Democrat. Balancing Interests: A Centrist View on the California Fast Food Council

    The California Fast Food Council, established through the landmark Assembly Bill 1228 (AB 1228) and signed into law in late 2023, represents a significant shift in the state's approach to labor regulation. At the heart of this legislative experiment is the mandate for a $20-per-hour minimum wage for fast-food workers—a rate that took effect on April 1, 2024, and stands significantly higher than the standard state minimum wage. From a centrist perspective, the creation of this council and the $20 wage floor reflect a direct response to the rising cost of living and a recognition of the sector’s large, often vulnerable workforce. However, it also raises immediate and difficult questions about market intervention: how can the state improve worker livelihoods without triggering a cascade of unintended economic consequences, such as accelerated automation, reduced operating hours, or price hikes that disproportionately affect low-income consumers? By granting the council the power to adjust wages and workplace standards for an entire industry, California has created a powerful regulatory body that must now navigate the delicate balance between social equity and the economic vitality of a sector characterized by high-volume, low-margin operations. The council's mandate is significant and multifaceted. It is charged with setting standards for wages, working conditions, and training within the fast-food industry, including the authority to adjust the minimum wage annually by the lesser of 3.5% or the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). As the council looks toward 2026, its agenda is increasingly focused on the sustainability of the initial $20-per-hour floor. A primary item for 2026 is the deliberation over a potential cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that could see the wage rise closer to $21 per hour to account for persistent inflation that has eroded the purchasing power of the 2024 gains. Beyond wages, the 2026 roadmap includes drafting new sector-specific health and safety standards, particularly concerning workplace violence prevention and heat illness protocols—issues that labor advocates argue are unique to the high-stress, fast-paced environment of quick-service restaurants. This level of intervention in the market is not without controversy. While advocates argue it is necessary to protect workers and ensure fair labor practices, others express concern about the cumulative burden of these regulations on small-scale franchisees who are already grappling with increased ingredient and energy costs. The composition of the Fast Food Council is a key factor in this debate. The council includes representatives from various stakeholders: business owners, workers, and union representatives, along with a neutral chairperson. This structure is intended to ensure that decisions are informed by a range of perspectives. The current voting members of the council and their political affiliations (where known) include: Nicholas Hardeman (Chair): A longtime political staffer and former Chief of Staff to State Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins. He is a registered Democrat. Joseph Bryant: International Executive Vice President of the SEIU. He represents worker advocates and is typically aligned with labor/Democratic interests. Maria Maldonado: Deputy Field Director for the California Fast Food Workers Union (SEIU). She represents worker advocates and is aligned with labor/Democratic interests. Anneisha Williams: A shift leader at Jack in the Box and member of the California Fast Food Workers Union. She is a registered Democrat. Angelica Hernandez: A cook trainer at McDonald's. She is not registered to vote. Michaela Mendelsohn: CEO of Pollo West Corp (El Pollo Loco franchisee). She is a registered Democrat. Richard Reinis: Partner at Thompson Coburn LLP and former Krispy Kreme franchisee CEO. He is a registered Democrat. Piardip “Joe” Johal: CEO of Wendy’s of the Pacific. He is registered with No Party Preference. SG Ellison: CEO of Diversified Restaurant Co. (Taco Bell/Arby’s franchisee). He is registered with No Party Preference. The inclusion of non-voting members from agencies like the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) and the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) further adds to the complexity of the council's deliberations. The process by which individuals become members of the council is entirely centralized through the executive branch, specifically through gubernatorial appointment by Governor Gavin Newsom. While AB 1228 mandates that the council be composed of specific interest groups, including employees, advocates, and franchisees, the Governor retains the ultimate authority to select which specific individuals fill those seats. This centralization has drawn sharp criticism from fiscal conservatives and political moderates, who point to the fact that nearly every voting member with a known party affiliation is a registered Democrat. Critics argue that by failing to appoint a single fiscal conservative or a registered Republican to the board, the Governor has created an ideological echo chamber. There is a growing concern that without moderate voices to push back against aggressive labor proposals, the council is inherently biased toward the left or even the far-left. Skeptics maintain that this "one-sided" recruitment ensures the council acts as a rubber stamp for organized labor's agenda rather than serving as a truly neutral body capable of weighing the economic risks of rapid wage inflation and regulatory expansion. A crucial aspect of the Fast Food Council is the system of checks and balances designed to prevent any single interest from dominating its actions. These include balanced representation, a legislative framework, public meetings, political oversight, legal challenges, and limitations of authority. However, many centrists and industry analysts argue that these supposed safeguards have already failed to prevent a "worst-case scenario" for the state's most vulnerable employees. Since the legislation was fast-tracked, reports have surfaced indicating that the industry has seen the loss of approximately 18,000 jobs as businesses have struggled to absorb the sudden 25% increase in labor costs. For working-class and low-income families, this displacement negates the theoretical benefits of a higher wage floor. Critics point out that the legislative framework failed to include "off-ramps" or economic triggers that would pause wage hikes if job losses reached a certain threshold. Instead of acting as a moderating force, the oversight mechanisms appeared unable to address the reality of franchisees cutting staff, reducing hours to part-time status, or closing locations entirely to remain solvent. This job contraction suggests that the "checks" in place were insufficient to protect the very individuals the law was intended to help. The effectiveness of these checks and balances remains a subject of intense, ongoing debate characterized by fundamentally different views on economic justice and market reality. On one side, labor advocates and progressive members of the council argue that any initial job losses are a temporary "correction" in a sector that has long relied on exploited labor; they contend that a more stable, better-paid workforce will ultimately lead to higher productivity and lower turnover. On the other side, business groups and centrist economists point to a "decoupling" of California’s fast-food prices from the rest of the nation as proof of the council's distorting effect. They argue that the council ignores the nuances of the franchise model, where individual owners, often immigrants or multi-generational families, cannot simply "absorb" costs like a multinational corporation. This debate is further complicated by disagreements over data: while the DIR tracks raw employment numbers, industry skeptics argue these figures fail to capture the thousands of "ghost" jobs, shifts that were never scheduled or positions left unfilled through attrition. This lack of consensus on the actual state of the industry has led to a breakdown in trust, with critics viewing the council's public hearings as mere formalities for pre-determined, left-leaning policy outcomes. Ultimately, the California Fast Food Council stands as a polarizing case study in modern labor policy. While the intentions behind AB 1228 were rooted in the desire to lift workers out of poverty, the real-world results have validated the cautionary maxim of economist Milton Friedman, who famously argued that "one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." In the case of the California fast-food industry, the results suggest a growing disconnect between intent and impact. The reported loss of 18,000 jobs represents a significant blow to the very working-class and low-income demographics the policy aimed to support. Furthermore, the current state of the industry is defined by soaring prices for consumers and a pervasive "shrinking" of opportunity for those who remain employed, as hours are cut and responsibilities are consolidated to offset the $20-per-hour floor. For a centrist observer, the success of the council should not be measured by the moral weight of its goals, but by its ability to reverse these negative trends. Unless the council can address the reality of job displacement and the burden on small franchisees, it risks becoming a cautionary tale of how top-down market interventions can inadvertently harm the economic vitality and stability of the communities they were designed to serve. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including thos

    ٦ د

  6. ٢٧ أبريل

    The SPLC Federal Indictment, Gutless Far-Left Leadership, and the Charlottesville Controversy

    In April 2026, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed a federal indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), charging the organization with 11 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The central allegation is that the SPLC defrauded donors by secretly funneling over $3 million to the very extremist leaders and organizations it claimed to be dismantling, including significant funding provided to a primary organizer of the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville. Radical Shift: The Move to Far-Left Leadership The indictment highlights a significant ideological shift within the SPLC, particularly following the 2019 firing of co-founder Morris Dees. Under subsequent leadership, including Interim CEO Bryan Fair and recent directors of the Intelligence Project, the organization has transitioned from its original mission of civil rights litigation into what critics and the DOJ describe as a "partisan smear machine." Examples of Radical Far-Left Stances The DOJ and congressional oversight committees have identified several key areas where the SPLC’s radical shift has manifested: The "Hate Map" Expansion: The SPLC significantly expanded its criteria for "hate groups" to include mainstream organizations that hold conservative views on gender, immigration, and education. Targeting Parents and Education: In its 2024 Year in Hate and Extremism report, the SPLC labeled parental rights groups such as Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education as "anti-government extremist" organizations, equating concerned parents with violent militias. DEI and ESG Advocacy: The organization shifted its focus toward aggressive advocacy for radical Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks, often labeling any opposition to these corporate and educational policies as a hallmark of "white supremacy." Attempts at "Canceling" Moderate and Conservative Voices The indictment alleges that the SPLC actively sought to monopolize the "fight against racism" by marginalizing and "canceling" anyone outside of its radical far-left orbit: Turning Point USA (TPUSA): The SPLC targeted TPUSA as a "case study of the hard right," leading to significant security threats against its members. Following the assassination of its founder, the FBI cited the SPLC’s rhetoric as a factor in severing its intelligence-sharing relationship with the group. Family Research Council (FRC): By maintaining the FRC on its hate list alongside the KKK, the SPLC has been accused of inciting "cancel culture" campaigns that resulted in financial de-platforming and, in one instance, a violent shooting at the FRC headquarters. Silencing the "Integrationist" Middle: The DOJ argues that the SPLC’s narrative—that the United States is "inherently racist"—is designed to silence moderate integrationists who believe in the progress of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, effectively branding anyone who believes in a colorblind meritocracy as an extremist. Key Figures in the Indictment The charges were announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel. While the SPLC as a corporate entity is the primary defendant, the indictment references several high-level internal figures and external informants: Todd Blanche (Acting Attorney General): Stated that the SPLC was "manufacturing racism to justify its existence." Kash Patel (FBI Director): Alleged the group engaged in a "massive fraud operation" to enrich themselves while paying extremist leaders. Employee-1 & Employee-2: Identified in court documents as individuals who became the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Director of the Intelligence Project, respectively. They are alleged to have opened shell bank accounts for fictitious entities. Informant F-37: A member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Under SPLC supervision, F-37 reportedly posted racist content and coordinated transportation for attendees. Informant F-9: An associate of the neo-Nazi National Alliance who was paid over $1 million over a decade while fundraising for the extremist group. Specific Monetary Expenditures The DOJ alleges that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC used donor funds to pay informants and "field sources" (the "Fs") through shell companies such as "Fox Photography" and "Rare Books Warehouse."   Entity/Event Alleged SPLC Payment Timeframe National Alliance (Informant F-9) Over $1,000,000 2014–2023 Unite the Right Organizer (Informant F-37) Over $270,000 2015–2023 Aryan Nations Affiliate Over $300,000 2014–2020 KKK Members (Former) Over $73,000 Total Period American Front President $19,000 Total Period The Charlottesville Connection and Fatal Impact The indictment provides a timeline suggesting that the SPLC’s financial involvement in Charlottesville was not merely passive observation, but a catalyst for the violence that resulted in the death of Heather Heyer. Active Promotion: The DOJ alleges that the SPLC-paid informant (F-37) was part of the inner circle planning the "Unite the Right" rally. Logistical Support: This informant used SPLC-provided funds to help coordinate transportation for participants to Charlottesville, ensuring a higher turnout of volatile actors. Online Agitation: The informant made racist postings under SPLC supervision to maintain cover and, as prosecutors argue, "stoke racial hatred" to heighten tensions. Legal Culpability in the Death of Heather Heyer The federal indictment argues the SPLC is legally culpable for the violence and subsequent death through several mechanisms: Facilitation of State and Federal Crimes: FBI Director Kash Patel stated the SPLC "utilized funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes." By providing the logistical and financial infrastructure for the event, the SPLC is alleged to be an accessory to the resulting violence. Proximate Causation: The DOJ posits that without the SPLC's secret funding of organizers like F-37, the rally—and the specific environment that led to James Alex Fields Jr. driving into the crowd—would not have reached the same level of lethality. Deceptive Omission: By withholding the fact that they were funding the organizers, the SPLC prevented local law enforcement and the public from understanding the true nature and scale of the threat, leading to inadequate security measures that failed to protect Heyer and others. Economic and Societal Impact Fundraising Explosion: Following the 2017 violence, the SPLC’s revenue "ballooned." Major corporations, including Apple, donated millions (e.g., Tim Cook pledged $2 million) based on the SPLC’s portrayal of the event as evidence of a rising white supremacist threat. Resource Misallocation: Donors contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to "dismantle" hate, unaware that their contributions were allegedly paying the salaries of the very leaders they sought to oppose. Destabilization of Public Trust: The indictment alleges that by "manufacturing" extremism, the SPLC swayed from its original path of civil rights litigation to become a "partisan smear machine" that profited from social division. Conclusion The SPLC has vowed to "vigorously defend" itself, claiming the charges are politically motivated. However, the details regarding the funding of Charlottesville organizers suggest a deep misalignment between the organization's public mission and its covert operations, raising fundamental questions about the commodification of racial tension and the organization's direct role in a tragedy that claimed an innocent life. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including those pesky social media fees. If you can’t contribute to my GoFundMe, I get it, but you can help me by subscribing to my account or sharing this particular story with friends and family that you think would appreciate it. Your contribution, big or small, helps me keep going. Thank you. GO FUND ME

    ٦ د

  7. ٢٤ أبريل

    The Complex Economic and Political Reality of California's Water Distribution Part I

    In the popular imagination, California’s water crisis is often reduced to a binary struggle: a choice between the needs of the environment and the survival of the agricultural industry. This tension is frequently distilled into provocative statistics, most notably the claim that the state "wastes" 80% of the water it catches by allowing it to flow into the Pacific Ocean. However, beneath this rhetoric lies a deeply complex reality defined by geography, aging infrastructure, and a legal landscape that struggles to keep pace with a changing climate. The perception of "waste" is the first hurdle in understanding the state’s distribution system. In reality, approximately 50% of California’s total water supply is legally and biologically mandated for environmental flows. These are not merely aesthetic allocations; they serve critical functions. Instream flows support endangered species like the Delta Smelt and Chinook Salmon, while massive volumes are required to push back saltwater intrusion from the Pacific. Without this constant pressure of fresh water, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the hub of the state’s water system, would become too saline to support the very farms and cities that rely on its pumps. Of the water that is successfully diverted for human use, agriculture accounts for nearly 80%, with urban centers consuming the remaining 20%. While urban use has steadily decreased due to successful conservation efforts, agriculture remains the primary consumer, fueling a Central Valley that is globally unmatched in productivity but politically sensitive regarding its massive water footprint. The most heated point of contention today is the "95% vs. 50%" paradox. Central Valley farmers frequently observe that during massive storm events, the Delta pumps are restricted to just 20% of their operational capacity, resulting in 95% of that specific "pulse flow" being flushed into the sea. Meanwhile, the state defends its actions by citing a long-term annual average of 50% environmental allocation. Both groups are technically correct, but they are looking at different windows of time. The state’s figure represents a yearly balance across all conditions, while the farmers’ figure captures the system's inability to seize moments of sudden, overwhelming abundance. This disconnect highlights the true systemic failure: California’s infrastructure is optimized for a climate that no longer exists. The state lacks the storage and conveyance capacity, such as modern reservoirs and groundwater recharge sites, to capture short-duration, high-intensity storms. Consequently, when a storm hits during a critical regulatory window, such as a salmon migration, the water cannot be legally or physically diverted, and it must be allowed to flow to the ocean. These technical failures inevitably bleed into the political arena. In 2020, the Trump administration attempted to shift the balance through a revised Biological Opinion (BiOp), which aimed to ease pumping restrictions and increase deliveries to the south. This federal intervention was met with immediate resistance; the State of California and various environmental groups filed lawsuits to block the implementation, arguing that the new rules violated the Endangered Species Act. The resulting legal gridlock meant that the older, more protective rules remained in place, effectively decreasing the water available for human diversion compared to the federal government's original intent. The debate over California’s water distribution is a symptom of an inflexible system pushed to its limits. Whether through "intentional regulatory flushing" or political litigation, the outcome remains the same: a cycle of scarcity that persists even in times of rain. Solving this crisis will require more than just a victory in court or a change in administration; it will require a fundamental modernization of infrastructure to capture the volatile extremes of a 21st-century climate. Hello, and thanks for listening to my podcast For years, my mission has been to foster a community around engagement, unique takes on interesting stories, and conversation. If you value what I do, please consider supporting me. I've started a GoFundMe to cover my production and operational costs, including those pesky social media fees. If you can’t contribute to my GoFundMe, I get it, but you can help me by subscribing to my account or sharing this particular story with friends and family that you think would appreciate it. Your contribution, big or small, helps me keep going. Thank you. GO FUND ME

    ٧ د

  8. ٢٣ أبريل

    The Great California Tax Debate: Taxes and Proposition 13

    Moderator: Welcome to our debate on California's fiscal policy. The state boasts the highest income, sales, and gas taxes in the nation, yet faces an exodus of residents and businesses. We will address two questions: First, are these high taxes hindering economic expansion and deterring young families? Second, should Proposition 13, the bedrock of California property law, be repealed or reformed? Meet the Debaters: Economic Philosophy and Ideology To understand the arguments presented, it is essential to know the fundamental philosophies driving each participant's view on taxation, government spending, and capital: Karl Marx (Marxist/Socialist): Advocates for the abolition of private property and the capitalist system, viewing all tax debates as distractions from inherent worker exploitation. Adam Smith (Classical Economist): The father of free-market economics, who champions minimal state intervention, low and uniform taxes, and the efficient operation of the "Invisible Hand." Ronald Reagan (Supply-Side Conservative): A proponent of tax cuts, deregulation, and reduced government spending to stimulate economic growth by increasing production and investment. Donald Trump (Populist Conservative/Supply-Side): Focuses on business tax reduction and deregulation to boost national competitiveness, often framing high taxes as a penalty on success. Barack Obama (Progressive Centrist/Keynesian): Believes in a strong, progressive tax structure to fund necessary collective investments (infrastructure, education) and mitigate market failures and inequality. Gavin Newsom (Progressive Democrat/Keynesian): Argues that high, progressive state revenues are vital "investments" to address modern crises like climate change and housing, ensuring shared prosperity. Round 1: High Taxes and the California Exodus DONALD TRUMP (Business Magnate, Populist Conservative): Look, this is a very simple thing. California is a disaster, an absolute disgrace. The highest taxes—highest!—in the country. They’re driving out the job creators, the smart people, the people who actually pay for everything. Businesses are leaving for Texas and Florida, where the taxes are low and the regulation is minimal. When I was in charge, we cut taxes tremendously, and the economy boomed. Newsom and Obama, they want to take your money and spend it on things nobody needs. If you want young families to move to California, you don't tax them out of a home; you make it possible to hire people, build things, and keep your hard-earned money. It's common sense. It's a tremendous mistake.   GAVIN NEWSOM (Current Governor of California, Progressive Democrat): Mr. Trump, with all respect, you mistake correlation for causation. People are leaving California primarily because of the cost of housing—a crisis fueled by decades of under-building—not because of the top-tier income tax bracket, which only affects the wealthiest 1% of earners who, by the way, are driving the world's 5th largest economy. Our high revenues are investments. They fund the world-class public education, the climate solutions, and the safety nets that make California the global center of innovation and optimism. What you call a "disaster," I call a commitment to shared prosperity. You want Texas wages for California services, and that math simply doesn't add up.   RONALD REAGAN (40th U.S. President, Supply-Side Conservative): Governor Newsom, what you call "investment," I call “confiscation” and what I see is as the relentless expansion of the state apparatus. High marginal tax rates—which California specializes in—do not just affect the "wealthy." They affect the entrepreneur who decides not to take a risk, the doctor who decides not to work extra hours, and the engineer who relocates their intellectual capital to a state that respects their effort. Taxes are not merely a means of revenue for the government; they are a penalty on worker production. We saw in the 1970s that high taxes did not lead to prosperity; they led to stagnation and flight. The best social program, as I always said, is a job, and California's current tax regime is discouraging the very creation of those jobs. BARACK OBAMA (44th U.S. President, Progressive Centrist): I appreciate the historical context, President Reagan, but we have to recognize the world has changed. The structural issues in California—the lack of affordable housing, the infrastructure needs, the legacy of inequality—demand robust, collective investment. Our tax system, particularly the income tax, is progressive. It ensures that those who have benefited most from the innovative ecosystem that California has fostered contribute their fair share to maintaining it. The debate isn't whether taxes matter; it's what we get for those taxes. We cannot fix homelessness, climate change, or crumbling infrastructure on a budget designed for 1978. Young families want great schools, safe neighborhoods, and climate resilience, and those things are funded by revenue.   ADAM SMITH (Classical Economist, Author of The Wealth of Nations): Gentlemen, we must look to first principles. The high taxes currently levied in California violate my second and third maxims: certainty and convenience. When taxes are so high that they actively induce the emigration of capital and labor, they become inefficient—they destroy the very source of the revenue they seek to draw upon. The state's appetite for revenue acts as a great discouragement to industry. Further, the complexity and high rates in the income and sales tax structure distort the natural direction of capital flow. A simple, low, and uniform tax, proportionate to the income a man enjoys under the protection of the State, is always preferable to this dizzying array of punitive levies.   KARL MARX (Communist Philosopher, Author of Das Kapital): This entire conversation is a farce. High taxes, low taxes—it is all mere window dressing on the inherent exploitation of the capitalist system. Mr. Trump wishes to lower taxes so the bourgeois can retain a larger share of the surplus value extracted from the workers. Governor Newsom wishes to raise taxes to fund superficial reforms that pacify the masses but leave the fundamental structure of capital and wage-slavery intact. The worker's meager income is perpetually consumed by rent and commodity prices, regardless of the state's tax rate. The problem is not the rate of the tax; the problem is the system of private ownership that allows one class to extract the wealth created by another. Abolish capital, and this debate on tax percentages becomes immediately irrelevant.   Round 2: The Future of Proposition 13 Moderator: Proposition 13 caps property tax at 1% of the purchase price and limits annual increases to 2% until the property is resold. Opponents argue it starves local government and disproportionately benefits long-term commercial owners. Proponents call it the indispensable shield for homeowners. Should Prop 13 be repealed or reformed? RONALD REAGAN: Proposition 13 is the great expression of the taxpayer revolt against an overreaching government. It is more than a tax policy; it is a declaration of economic freedom. It ensures that no Californian—especially the elderly and those on fixed incomes—will ever be taxed out of their homes by rising property values. To repeal it is to invite the financial chaos and government rapaciousness of the 1970s back into our lives. Any attempt to introduce a "split roll" to raise business taxes is a backdoor repeal that will simply result in higher costs passed directly on to consumers and struggling businesses. Protect Prop 13 at all costs.   GAVIN NEWSOM: Prop 13 has become an engine of inequality that starves our communities. It has created a fundamental imbalance where a business that purchased its property in 1980 is paying a fraction of the property tax of a new, small business that purchased property last year. This is not fair, and it starves local governments and schools. I support a targeted, commercial-only reform—a "split roll"—that preserves the constitutional protections for homeowners and family farms, while requiring large corporations to pay their fair share based on current market value. We must reclaim the local control and funding needed to address our infrastructure and educational deficits.   DONALD TRUMP: A "split roll" is a bad, bad idea. It's a socialist attack on business stability. These commercial properties are the engines of the California economy! You raise their taxes, they don't just "pass the cost" on—they fire people, they move headquarters, they stop investing. It’s a direct tax on jobs. Prop 13 protects the long-term stability needed for big investments. Newsom’s plan is just another way to get his hands on money so he can waste it. Keep Prop 13 intact; it’s a tremendous deal for America, and it keeps some stability in this crazy state. And believe me, if they eliminate Prop 13, you'll see even less housing. The huge tax hikes on land and new commercial development will kill the incentive to build the apartments and homes California desperately needs.   BARACK OBAMA: The structural rigidity created by Prop 13 is undeniable. When you lock in property assessments for decades, you create a system that is profoundly unfair to newcomers, businesses, and, most importantly, the public education system. The revenue base for our schools, which should be local and robust, has been held hostage for fifty years. Reforming the commercial property component is a pragmatic, centrist solution. It respects the spirit of protecting the long-term homeowner while restoring the necessary financial capacity for local communities to invest in the next generation. It is about equity and restoring democracy to local finance.   ADAM SMITH (Classical Economist, Author of The Wealth of Nations): From a purely economic perspective, Proposition 13 is an anomaly—a distor

    ٤ د
مشاهدة الكل (٨١)

حول

A A . . . . . . . . .

المعلومات

  • صناع العمل
    David Sepe
  • سنوات النشاط
    ٢٠٢٥ - ٢٠٢٦
  • الحلقات
    ٨١
  • التقييم
    ملائم
  • حقوق النشر
    © Copyright 2025 All rights reserved.
  • موقع البرنامج على الويب
    The Active Center