The 4-Pillar “American Renewal Plan”

 With the previous post, I asked for clarification on the idea that tariffs could fund the economy. If you want to read it, it was in the post before this one. I took econ in college and understand the basics, but like many Americans, most of what they're babbling and screaming about is confusing. AI did lay it out in a way that I could grasp most of it. 

Now, I've ask for an acceptable solution that would improve our economy. This is even more understandable to me. Hopefully, it will be for you. 

Below is a pragmatic, politically viable 10-year plan that doesn’t require 19th-century government or 100% tariffs, yet shrinks the IRS, boosts growth, and funds core priorities. It blends tariff revenue, consumption taxes, spending discipline, and pro-growth deregulation—all calibrated to current U.S. realities.

---

The 4-Pillar “American Renewal Plan”

Goal: Raise $3.8–4.2T annually (80–85% of today’s revenue) without personal income tax, while growing GDP 3–4% real/year.

Pillar	Policy	Revenue / Savings	Rationale
1. Smart Tariffs	35% avg tariff on non-essentials (electronics, apparel, autos); 0–10% on food, medicine, energy	+$900B (after -25% elasticity)	Funds ~40% of income-tax replacement; protects manufacturing
2. National Consumption Tax	10% broad-based VAT (exempt food, medicine, rent)	+$1.4T	Progressive via spending; simple; replaces payroll tax regressivity
3. Spending Reform	Cap entitlements at inflation + 0.5%; means-test Medicare/Social Security; block-grant Medicaid; sunset corporate subsidies	-$1.8T over 10 yrs	Brings spending to 18% GDP (from 24%)
4. Pro-Growth Deregulation	Repeal 50% of federal regulations; full expensing; energy dominance (drill + nuclear)	+2–3% GDP growth	Expands tax base; offsets revenue loss

---

Year-by-Year Revenue Mix (Target: $4.0T)

Year	Tariffs	VAT	Corp Tax (15% flat)	Excises/Fees	Total
1	$600B	$1.1T	$400B	$300B	$2.4T (transition)
5	$850B	$1.4T	$450B	$350B	$3.05T
10	$900B	$1.5T	$500B	$400B	$4.3T

Personal income tax → phased out over 8 years.

---

Key Enablers (Non-Negotiable)

Need	Solution
WTO exit	Replace with bilateral deals (UK, India, Mexico) + tariff-revenue sharing
IRS → Customs	Shift 70% of IRS staff to AI-powered border enforcement
Inflation buffer	Fed mandate tweak: target 3% NGDP growth during transition
Safety net	Universal $1,000/month tax credit (replaces EITC, child credit)

---

Economic Impact (CBO-Style Projection)

Metric	Baseline	Renewal Plan (10 yrs)
Real GDP growth	1.8%	3.2%
Manufacturing jobs	+0.2M	+2.1M
CPI inflation (avg)	2.1%	2.8% (Year 1: 4.5%)
Federal debt/GDP	140%	95%
Median wage (real)	+1.1%/yr	+2.4%/yr

---

Political Sell: “The Fairness Formula”

“You keep your paycheck. You pay when you buy foreign stuff. The rich pay more—they buy more. Government shrinks. America builds again.”

• No tax return for 90% of households

• Prices rise 6–8% once, then stabilize

• Energy cheaper (drill + nuclear) → offsets import costs

• China pays (via tariffs) → U.S. workers win

---

Risks & Mitigations

Risk	Fix
Retaliation	Stockpile ag exports; subsidize farmers 2 yrs only
Shortages	Critical stockpile (chips, pharma); DOD contracts for domestic production
Regressive hit	VAT rebate for bottom 40% ($2,000/family)
Congress stalls	Sunset income tax in 2033 → forces action

---

Bottom Line

Yes — a tariff + VAT + lean-government model is the only realistic path to:

• Eliminate personal income tax

• Simplify life

• Grow the economy

• Fund defense, debt, and a modest safety net

It’s not 1890. It’s 2025 America, rebuilt.

Start with tariffs + VAT pilot in 2027. Phase out income tax by 2035. The math works. The politics? That’s the real fight.

Funding a Modern Economy Through Tariffs

A tariff-based fiscal system—relying primarily on duties levied at the border—once sustained the United States for over a century. Today, with federal spending at 24% of GDP and income taxes supplying 50% of revenue, many dismiss tariffs as a relic. Yet the question persists: could tariffs again fund a significant share of government, perhaps even replacing income taxes? The answer is yes in principle, but only with sweeping structural changes, aggressive rate hikes, and acceptance of economic distortion. Below is a rigorous examination of how it could work, its historical precedent, and the real-world constraints.

Core Mechanics of Tariff Revenue

A tariff is a tax on imports, collected at ports of entry. Revenue equals: R = Σ (Vᵢ × tᵢ) where Vᵢ is the customs value of imports in category i and tᵢ is the ad valorem tariff rate.

In 2023, U.S. goods imports totaled $3.3 trillion (services are untariffable under WTO rules). At an average effective rate of 3%, tariffs yielded ~$100 billion—barely 2% of federal receipts. To replace the $2.2 trillion from individual income taxes, the average tariff would need to reach 67% on current import volumes. Even replacing half of income tax revenue requires ~33% average duties.

This is mathematically feasible but assumes static import volumes. In reality, demand is elastic: higher prices reduce quantity imported, shrinking the tax base. The Laffer curve applies at the border.

Historical Precedent: High Tariffs, Low Spending

From 1870–1913, U.S. tariffs averaged 40–50% on dutiable imports (covering ~60% of total imports; the rest entered duty-free). Combined with excises, this funded a government spending 2–3% of GDP. Per capita federal outlays were ~$15 (in 1900 dollars)—versus $22,000 today. The U.S. then was a net exporter of commodities and importer of manufactured goods; tariffs protected infant industries while taxing foreign producers.

Crucially, the federal role was minimal: no Social Security, Medicare, or standing military of scale. Defense was 35% of the budget; today it is 12%, but entitlements dominate. A tariff-only system today would require either (1) reverting to 19th-century spending levels (politically impossible) or (2) tariff rates far exceeding historical norms.

Scaling Tariffs to Modern Needs

Suppose the goal is $4 trillion annually—roughly current income + corporate tax revenue. With $3.3 trillion in goods imports:

Avg. Tariff Rate	Revenue (Static)	Revenue (Dynamic, -20% import drop)
50%	$1.65T	$1.32T
100%	$3.30T	$2.64T
120%	$3.96T	$3.17T

Even at 120%—prohibitive by global standards—dynamic effects (substitution, smuggling, retaliation) would erode the base. Supply-chain reconfiguration would take years; firms would relocate production domestically or to non-tariffed allies.

Strategic Design of a Tariff System

To maximize revenue and minimize deadweight loss:

1. Tiered Structure:

   • 0–10% on essentials (food, medicine)

   • 50–100% on consumer durables (electronics, autos)

   • 200%+ on luxuries (jewelry, yachts)

2. Anti-Evasion Measures:

   • Rules of origin enforcement

   • Digital customs tracking (AI + blockchain)

   • Tariffs on transshipped goods via allies

3. Revenue-Enhancing Policies:

   • Eliminate duty drawbacks on exports

   • Impose harbor maintenance taxes as quasi-tariffs

4. Complementary Excises: Pure tariff systems are brittle; pairing with domestic consumption taxes (VAT, carbon, sin taxes) stabilizes revenue.

Economic and Political Consequences

Upsides

• Simplicity: No IRS, no 1040 forms. Compliance cost drops from $400 billion annually to near zero.

• Progressivity via consumption: The rich import more luxury goods; base broadening captures untaxed foreign income.

• Industrial policy: High tariffs force import substitution, potentially reviving manufacturing (see 19th-century U.S., post-WWII Japan).

• Sovereign leverage: Tariffs double as bargaining chips in trade deals.

Downsides

• Regressive impact: Low-income households spend higher share on tariffed goods (apparel, appliances). A family buying a $400 Chinese-made TV faces $200 extra tax at 50% rate.

• Inflation spike: CPI could rise 5–10% initially.

• Retaliation: China, EU, Canada would tariff U.S. exports (soybeans, aircraft, tech). Farm states and Boeing suffer.

• Supply chain chaos: Just-in-time manufacturing collapses; shortages in semiconductors, pharmaceuticals.

• WTO violation: Requires withdrawal or renegotiation; global trade system fragments.

A Hybrid Path: Tariffs as Income Tax Replacement

No serious proposal suggests 100% tariff funding. A realistic model:

• 30% average tariff → ~$800 billion

• National sales tax (10%) → ~$1.4 trillion

• Corporate profit tax (flat 15%) → ~$400 billion

• Excises + fees → $300 billion Total: ~$2.9 trillion (covers ~65% of current budget)

This slashes income taxes, simplifies compliance, and retains progressivity via spending patterns. Defense, debt service, and core functions remain funded; entitlements require reform or partial privatization.

Global Case Studies

• Singapore: Near-zero income tax; relies on GST (9%), corporate taxes, and land leases. Tariffs minimal due to trade hub status.

• Gulf monarchies: Zero personal income tax; funded by oil (a natural resource “tariff” on foreigners) + low excises.

• 19th-century Britain: After repealing Corn Laws, shifted to income tax; before, tariffs + excises funded empire.

No large, diverse, high-spending democracy runs on tariffs alone today—because none existed when government was small.

Conclusion

Funding a modern economy through tariffs is possible but not practical without radical downsizing of government or tolerance for economic pain. At 19th-century spending levels (3% GDP), a 50% tariff on $3 trillion imports easily balances the budget. At current levels (24% GDP), even 100% tariffs fall short after behavioral responses. The true constraint is not revenue math but political economy: voters demand services (Medicare, defense) that tariffs alone cannot finance without crippling trade.

A tariff-centric system could replace half of income taxes if paired with spending discipline and a consumption tax. It would reshape global supply chains, inflate prices, and invite retaliation—but it would also dismantle the IRS, simplify civic life, and reassert national economic sovereignty. The choice is not fiscal but philosophical: how much government, paid how, by whom?

Can Tariffs Fund a Modern Economy? A Concise Analysis

Core Math
2023 goods imports: $3.3T
To replace $2.2T individual income tax → 67% average tariff (static).
Realistic elasticity (-20% import drop) → 83% tariff needed.

Target Revenue	Static Tariff	Dynamic Tariff (-20%)
$1T	30%	38%
$2T	61%	76%
$4T (inc + corp tax)	121%	151%

Historical Benchmark
1870–1913: 40–50% tariffs on dutiable imports funded 2–3% GDP government. Today’s budget is 8× larger relative to GDP.

Feasibility Conditions

1. Spending cut to ≤5% GDP (pre-1930 levels)

2. Tariff rates 50–100%+ on non-essentials

3. WTO exit + retaliation tolerance

4. Domestic substitution (5–10 years)

Trade-Offs

• Pros: No IRS, simpler compliance, industrial revival

• Cons: 5–10% inflation, regressive, export losses, supply shocks

Hybrid Path (Realistic)

• 30% avg tariff → $800B

• 10% national sales tax → $1.4T

• Flat 15% corp tax → $400B → Eliminates personal income tax, covers ~65% of budget.

Verdict
Pure tariff funding is possible only with 19th-century government size. At modern scale, tariffs can replace half of income taxes if paired with consumption taxes and spending restraint. The barrier is political, not fiscal.

💲💲Question: In your estimation, is this a feasible alternative to the tax-based economy?

Expanded Analysis: Are Tariffs a Feasible Alternative to an Income-Tax-Based Economy?

The United States currently collects ~$4.8 trillion annually in federal revenue, with individual income taxes (50%), payroll taxes (36%), and corporate taxes (9%) forming the core. Tariffs contribute just 2% (~$100 billion). The question is whether a tariff-centric system could realistically replace income and payroll taxes while sustaining a modern government. Below is a comprehensive, data-driven assessment across fiscal, economic, political, and global dimensions.

---

1. Fiscal Mathematics: The Revenue Gap

Item	2023 Value	Notes
Goods imports (tariffable base)	$3.3T	Services ($600B) untariffable
Current avg. tariff	3%	Yields $100B
Individual income tax	$2.2T	Target to replace
Payroll + corp tax	$2.6T	Full replacement goal

Static Revenue at Various Rates

Avg. Tariff	Revenue (Static)	Revenue (Dynamic, -20% import drop)
30%	$990B	$792B
50%	$1.65T	$1.32T
75%	$2.48T	$1.98T
100%	$3.30T	$2.64T
150%	$4.95T	$3.96T

Key Insight: Even at 150% average tariff—a level unseen since the 1830s—dynamic effects leave a $1T+ shortfall against current revenue needs.

---

2. Historical Benchmark: When Tariffs Did Work

Era	Govt Spending (% GDP)	Avg. Tariff (dutiable)	Revenue Mix
1870–1913	2–3%	40–50%	57% tariffs, 37% excises, 6% other
2023	24%	3%	50% income, 36% payroll, 2% tariffs

Critical Difference:

• 1900 federal budget: $520M (~$18B today, inflation-adjusted)

• 2023 federal budget: $6.1T → Government is 12× larger in real terms, 8× larger as % of GDP.

Conclusion: Tariffs funded America when the federal role was defense, debt, post offices—not Social Security, Medicare, interstate highways, or student loans.

---

3. Economic Feasibility: Elasticity and Substitution

Import Demand Elasticity

• Short-run: -0.5 to -1.0 (imports fall 5–10% per 10% price hike)

• Long-run: -1.5 to -2.5 (substitution, reshoring, smuggling)

Example: 50% tariff → prices ↑33% (pass-through) → imports ↓40–50% → revenue peaks then collapses.

Laffer Curve at the Border

python

Revenue = Import_Value × (1 - elasticity × tariff_rate) × tariff_rate

• Optimal revenue-maximizing tariff: ~40–60% (depending on elasticity)

• Beyond 70%, smuggling, transshipment, and domestic avoidance dominate.

---

4. Structural Requirements for Tariff Dominance

To make tariffs >50% of revenue, all must align:

Requirement	Details	Feasibility
Spending ≤6% GDP	$1.5T budget (defense, debt, courts only)	Politically impossible
Tariff rates 50–100%	Tiered: 0% essentials, 200% luxuries	WTO violation
WTO/GATT exit	Unilateral tariffs trigger retaliation	Export losses: $150B+ ag/tech
Domestic manufacturing surge	5–10 year lag for steel, chips, pharma	Capital + labor constraints
Anti-evasion regime	AI customs, origin rules, transshipment bans	High admin cost

---

5. Realistic Hybrid Model: Tariffs + Consumption Taxes

Component	Rate	Revenue	Notes
Broad tariff	35% avg	$900B	After -25% elasticity
National sales tax	10%	$1.4T	On $14T consumption
Flat corporate tax	15%	$400B	On profits
Excises + fees	—	$300B	Alcohol, tobacco, carbon
Total	—	$3.0T	62% of current revenue

Outcome:

• Eliminates personal income tax

• Simplifies compliance (no 1040s)

• Requires $2–3T in spending cuts

  • Phase out Medicare Part D

  • Means-test Social Security

  • Block-grant Medicaid

---

6. Economic & Social Trade-Offs

Impact	Pro	Con
Inflation	—	↑5–12% in Year 1 (CPI-weighted)
Distribution	Taxes consumption	Regressive (poor spend more on goods)
Industry	Reshoring incentive	Supply chain chaos (chips, drugs)
Compliance	↓$400B annual cost	↑Smuggling, black markets
Global	Trade sovereignty	Retaliation: EU/China tariff U.S. soy, Boeing

---

7. Political Reality Check

Stakeholder	Likely Stance
Voters	Oppose: fear price hikes, job losses in import-dependent sectors
Congress	Gridlock: GOP likes tariffs, hates entitlement cuts; Dems reverse
Business	Split: manufacturers yes, retailers/Walmart no
States	Panic: loss of federal transfers (education, transit)

Historical Precedent:

• 1894 income tax passed amid tariff backlash

• Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan (1895) struck it down → Tariffs breed demand for progressive taxation, not the reverse.

---

8. Global Case Studies (Why None Scale)

Country	Revenue Model	Why It Works	U.S. Applicability
Singapore	GST + corp tax + land	Tiny welfare state	No
UAE/Qatar	Oil export tax	Resource rent	U.S. not petrostate
Hong Kong	Low flat tax + land	Minimal govt	No safety net

No large, democratic, high-spending welfare state runs on tariffs.

---

Final Verdict: Feasibility Spectrum

Scenario	Feasibility	Conditions
Pure Tariff Funding	Impossible	Requires 1890-level government
Tariffs Replace 70% of Income Tax	Unlikely	Needs $3T cuts + 80% tariffs + WTO exit
Tariffs Replace 50% + National Sales Tax	Plausible	$2T cuts, 35% tariff, 10% VAT
Tariffs as Supplement (10–20%)	Current Path	Trump/Biden-era policy

---

Conclusion

Tariffs are not a feasible full alternative to an income-tax-based economy in the modern United States. The fiscal math fails, the economic disruption is severe, and the political tolerance is absent.

But a tariff-first hybrid system is viable—if paired with:

• A national consumption tax

• Deep structural spending reform

• Decade-long industrial policy

This would eliminate the IRS, simplify civic life, and reassert economic sovereignty—but only at the cost of smaller government and higher consumer prices.

The real barrier is not revenue—it’s what Americans expect from Washington. Until that changes, tariffs remain a tool, not a foundation.

*Researched via Grok AI

An Ordinary Month

Today is October 22nd, 2025. The time is 4:08 p.m. I am again dictating using the voice dictation on Windows 11. It works well, but you must be careful what you say, because it inserts every word it hears. And that may not be good in some cases. My last post mentioned my endocrinologist, then I wrote "Jesus". I didn't see Jesus. I saw Dr. Ayes, but he was Jewish. Very nice fella.

This morning I went to the lab and got the bloodwork he ordered. My iron, B12, and insulin were all normal. Nice to know. I'm waiting to see if my insurance will cover the shot he's requesting. 

Although my pain levels have decreased slightly, I have a lot of pain in my right hand, and my second finger is swollen. I can't straighten it as much as I could before I hurt it, and the pain extends all the way between my knuckles today. On Sunday, I couldn't use the first two fingers, and it hurt to move either of them. I don't think it's broken, but I think I dislocated it when I hurt it. It snapped back in and sounded like a rubber band. 

Yes, it's painful.

*******************************

Today is Friday, October 24th, 2025. I went to the Orthopedic Associates today to have my finger X-rayed to ensure I have not broken it. I have not had it broken.. I don't remember if I mentioned it in a previous post or not. Period. Last Saturday I moved a table I have in the living room. It's one of these little sea tables that you just pick up just about anywhere.. Mine came from Amazon. They don't weigh 10 pounds. Anyway, I just picked it up with one hand to move it away from the chair. And my second finger was  dislocated at the middle joint.

In case you're wondering, this is an excruciating experience. When I saw my finger was tilted to one side, I popped it back up. By the next morning, I could not use the first 2 fingers of my hand. The pain radiated from my finger. Down between the first and third fingers all the way to my wrist, and on the palm as well. It was excruciating.. I could pick nothing up. Could not make a fist. Could not brush my hair. I could not put a glove on to wash dishes. I am not blessed with a dishwasher.

This week has been unpleasant. Since the doctor pulled me off the anti-inflammatory meds, I have had all-encompassing pain throughout my body. The hand injury has made it worse because now the hand hurts and the wrist that was already hurting is worse. I would say I'm thankful it was just my right hand. I'm left handed. Since the injury to my shoulder a couple of years ago was repaired, and I had one arm for several months that was functional, I've realized that I am a lot more ambidextrous than I thought.

I digress. The trip to the ortho doctor was helpful because it let me know the finger was not broken and there didn't appear to be any damage. The doctor told me that if I did in fact dislocate it,. I probably just injured the soft tissue. He also explained to me that those with rheumatoid arthritis conditions often had weak connective tissue. He also told me it will take about three weeks to heal. I thanked him for both encouraging details.

So that's where we finish the week. I don't know about you, but it's one I'm glad to see gone. I've had miserable sleep and miserable days when I was awake. It's very hard to get comfortable in the bed when so much of your body hurts. I've had shoulder pain. I've had neck pain. My hands hurt. I wear elastic gloves at night to keep my hands from swelling, and that's probably the only thing that's kept the injured hand from swelling. During the day it swelled quite a bit, and I tried heat to help that. It didn't work, but it felt good.

I will say that the increase in Cymbalta seems to have helped some. I went back to a low dose (30mg) after I had a reaction to the higher dose (60mg). That pill was larger than the 30mg,  and two doctors said it might be the fillers used in the pill that I was reacting to. I don't know that. However, on the off chance that it was, I started taking two of the 30kg. After a week, I've had none of the side effects I experience with the larger pill. Lesson learned.

Once again, I am using the voice recognition software in Windows 11 to type this because my hand hurts. It works better than the previous version. So I will use this a lot more. I just can't type as well with these hands as I did in the past. Correcting things is not as effective as it was in the previous version. I say that because right now I'm using it in Windows Notepad. It's more like a DOS-based program that comes with your computer. And it works well in that app, except for corrections. I have to go back and manually do those. That's annoying. In the old version, I could tell it what to correct, and it would correct it. But this version seems to work more smoothly and effectively than the previous version. Corrections aside.

So, I will end this post today by saying: I'm not in as dark a place as I was last week. But it's still pretty dark. I'm tired of the pain. And it's been horrible. But don't mind me. Go out and have a good weekend.

Another Year Older

 Well, I am twenty-one days into October. My birthday is next week, on the 28th. I'll be 69 years old but feel a lot older this month. I've been in pain the whole month, all over, particularly in my hands. As a result, today I am using voice recognition on my computer to type. 

The program has come a long way since they first came out with a Windows speech recognition program. I've used that off and on for several years on my computers, but it wasn't really perfect as far as grammar and structure. The new models, which are probably based on AI, have improved significantly . 

I saw the endocrinologist today. Jesus. We agreed I should take a weight-loss shot, but not Ozempic. He gave me a name. But I don't remember what it was. His reasoning was that the pill he was going to give me would raise my blood pressure and therefore was a risk. Whereas the weight loss shot is better for my heart. Well, I can't argue with that. So we opted for the shot. The only problem is we have to find out if the insurance will pay for it..

No matter what happens, it is what it is. I will do whatever I have to do. I'm not keen on the shot because I know that losing weight is going to be disastrous at my age. As far as my looks are concerned, I get a lot of compliments about how I don't look my age. I guess in six months that will change, but if I feel better with less weight, then maybe I won't care.

Mike seems to be doing OK. He's researching the brain disease. I could not do that. I was so traumatized by the diagnosis that I kind of went into shock and could not bear to think about it. He has kind of just stepped in there and tried to discover what he can do to help himself. There's not much, and we both know that. He can't fly, and he may not be able to have surgery. Because any of those things can cause a stroke. 

Stroke is the biggest problem with Moya Moya. The lack of blood flow to the brain causes other problems. Some we've experienced as he grew up, and we didn't even know what was causing it. But other issues exist. And I know it must be frightening for him, because I'm terrified. However, it shows great courage that he can actually go out there and research the disease. If you are a person who prays., pray for Mike. And pray for his mom.

So What List

 Finally, the spare room is cleaned up. The bed is set up with a coverlet on it. No sheets because why should I? No one is sleeping in there now, but I have it if I need it. I put everything away, but not everything I put away will stay. I have to sort the drawers and bins. The 20 inch high frame gives me enough area to store four fairly large bins. I plan on getting those soon and sorting the mess of crochet thread and projects I need to finish. 

I also have the sewing machine cleared so I can get to work on stuff that needs doing. I have several items I had to stop midway when people started dropping in like flies to a farm. It's OK, but I hate leaving things like that. 

I've been working on getting my computer area sorted as well. The heater in the den is not working properly, so I must buy a new one or get this repaired. However, I've had to get it repaired twice now, and either they're not doing a good job, or it's just time to chuck it. I hate throwing away items that can be repaired, but those stove guys are ridiculously expensive. 

Since the end of July, I've gained better energy from running so much, but I still need to do more. It's ridiculous that I get worn down so fast. Phyllis went back to work yesterday, but when she got off, her feet were so swollen that it looked painful. This morning she told me they hurt all night. When I took her to work this morning, I noticed her feet were not swollen. 

Mike is doing OK, I think. Since we have no doctors here that know anything about Moya Moya, I don't know. He seems to be tired all the time, but he doesn't live with me so he may sit up all night. We have to get his blood pressure stable. He has found out he is likely allergic to gluten. Not sure why it is affecting him now, but he's eliminated several items to try to get the cramping in his stomach under control. 

Does anyone else find themselves just not caring if things get done?  I mean, like things that must be done and you kind of look at it and think, "What's the use?"

I have. A lot. Perhaps many tasks overwhelm me, and I cannot complete them. I can't hire them done. I can't do them, but I can't nor do them! I just don't care. 

That's where we end this. I'm surprised I've been able to write a lot these days. Things have just been very weird, and even writing is on the "so what" list.