A CNN reporter posted the following question on Twitter yesterday --

I offered the following suggestions --

​​The Facebook
Facebook 2.0
Face Book
Facebook+ 
Faceb00k
Facebook ETC.
Facebook!
Facebookpedia
The New Facebook
Zuckerbook
The Cracker Barrel
Winklevoss
Ye Olde Facebooke
Facebūk
Le Facebook
F-a-c-e-b-o-o-k
The Social Network

It turns out that, alas, I was wrong in all my guesses.  Facebook has just announced that they changed the parent company name to...

Wait, so Facebook isn't even changing the name of Facebook at all??!  They're just changing the name of the company!  Facebook will still be...Facebook.  Yes, that's quite the major change to signal the big changes that all its bad news has seemingly demanded.  Cool.

By the way, the new name of the parent company will be Meta.

On the one hand, this is a perfectly good name for a huge tech company.  On the other hand -- "metadata" is the phenomenally valuable asset of user information that Facebook mines and sells to other companies.  (Maybe 15 years ago, I was interviewing someone at the Consumer Electronics Show and wrote about him describing that most people were missing the big picture about the company, that it was all the "metadata" of private information that was the most valuable thing to Facebook by far.  So -- well, one would think that merely changing the name of your parent company to one of the main issues that's pushed some people in Congress to say Facebook should be broken up because it controls too much information for one private company might not be the wisest tactic to take...

Once again, we add to my list of Things I Don’t Understand.  This time, the Thing I Don't Understand is the concept that there are elected officials who are against the Billionaire’s Tax – though more specifically what I Don’t Understand is why any Democrat in Congress would have a problem with the bill, especially enough to be an issue that blocks the party’s Build Back Better plan that the vast majority of the country supports and which will help their party succeed with voters. 

I will go into my bewilderment in more detail in a moment (not to worry, the detail will hopefully by “Fun with Numbers”), but to put it in its simplest form, I can explain my general bewilderment this way –
 
Two things:
 
First, there are only 714 billionaires in the United States.  Which work out to about 14 billionaires per state.  (Yes, I know that it doesn’t break down that easily, but cut me some slack – I’m trying to make this easy and fun.)  So, it’s not like they’re a big voting black. 
 
(Yes, they do have a lot of money to donate, but there are still limits on what an individual can give to a candidate.  And even if there are ways to get around these legal limits, it’s still limited.)
 
So, again, first thing – there are just 714 billionaires in the country, about 14 per state.
 
And second, most billionaires aren’t in the rarefied billionaire range of $50 billion up to the $271 billion that Elon Musk makes.  Most are in the $2-3 billion range.  Which means, and let’s have a weird fantasy here, if the Billionaire Tax was “If you are a billionaire, we will take away half your money” – and for those who haven’t read up on the bill, no, of course that’s not in the same galaxy of what the tax is, but let’s pretend – then after having half their assets taken away in taxes…almost every one of the 714 billionaires in American would still be a billionaire! (And any who now weren’t, the tax would stop.)
 
So, y’know, this doesn’t strike me as a big issue to hold up Democracy over.  And that’s looking at the Billionaire Tax from the fantasy perspective of the Unimaginably Worst Possible Case Scenario.
 
But as I said, that was the general fantasy look, and I said I’d get a bit more specific with (hopefully fun) details.
 
That said, I’m not going to get specific on the upper reaches of billionaires, since that’s ethereal and any complaints from that vantage point are near-indefensible.  What I mean by ethereal is that Elon Musk – perhaps the most-vocal of the critics (despite having benefitted from massive government bailouts that helped build is wealth) is worth, as I said, $271 billion.  And most recently, his wealth increased by $41 billion according to Forbes.  Wait, sorry, just to be clear, that wasn't “His wealth increased by $41 billion last year,” no, what I meant was – his wealth increased by $41 billion…yesterday!!  No, really.  So, if the government said, “Hey, Elon, you have to give us all the $41 billion you made yesterday,” he still would have his $271 billion.  And could make the same $41 billion back by next week, if things are slow.
 
So, we’ll leave such folks aside.  They’re not just fine, they transcend “fine.”
 
But let’s take those billionaires in the lower half of the billionaires list.  Let’s just deal with those whose worth is around $2 billion.  I can't find the full list of names, but the Forbes 400 ends at around $3 billion.  So, $2 billion does seem a reasonable demarcation point for our journey into the Lower Reaches. Here then is how the Billionaire’s Tax works (in simple form, as best as I can cobble together).
 
With the Billionaire’s tax, none of that $2 billion would be taxed.  None, as in zero.  Put it all aside for a rainy day.  The $2 billion is only the red line that denotes who qualifies for the tax.  Only the amount that their wealth went up – over the $2 billion they already have -- during the previous year will be taxed.
 
I’ve read different percentages for the tax, it’s not clear (maybe it hasn’t been determined exactly yet).  But most say it’s in the range of 30% -- so, for the sake of simplicity, let’s go with that. 
 
Okay, now let’s say you’re that $2 Billionaire.  And let’s say you had a good year financially this past year, and your wealth went up a strong 10%.  That’s an additional $200 million your wealth increased.  Well-done, you can buy that island you always wanted.
 
Except first, that pesky Billionaire’s Tax will kick in, and you have to pay 30% on your $200 billion gain.  So, that takes out a whopping $60 million you have to pay to the government.  At least, though, that leaves you with $140 million more than you had the year before.  Now, most people would be able to live incredibly comfortably on that $140 million for the rest of their lives, and their children and grandchildren’s lives, even while giving very generously to charities, and they no doubt would do.  I mean, seriously, you have $140 million!!
 
Actually, no, you have a whole lot more, but that’s just what you made this year, after taxes.  You still have that $2 billion you haven’t even touched.
 
And that’s just if you’re one of the billionaires on the lower end of the billionaires list.  Not one of those with $10 billion.  Or $50-100 billion.  Or Elon Muskian $271 billion (as of this writing, who knows what it will be when I post this).
 
Now, to be clear, this isn’t exactly how the Billionaire’s Tax will work.  But it’s generally sort of close, kind of.  Give or take a few billion.  The point is, the basic principle is correct.
 
And again, there are only 714 billionaires in the United States.  And this Billionaires Tax only affects them.  All of whom will still keep all their billions.
 
And analysts say it could bring $200-250 billion each year to the U.S. treasury -- enough to completely pay the approximately $175 billion each year for the Reconciliation Bill benefitting all Americans.
 
That why I said I don’t understand the opposition of any elected official to the Billionaire’s Tax on 741 people paying a minimum tax on their increased wealth, pretty much like all Americans do on their income tax.  Yes, yes, I do basically get why Republicans against it – “Because they’re fascists” is the general explanation to anything Republican these days – but even at that, it’s still sort of bewildering, since supporting it would likely be highly approved by voters in their state, other than the 14 billionaires.
 
But why there is even the slightest hesitancy by any Democrat in Congress to support it – enthusiastically – is something I Don’t Understand. 
 
Happily, almost all Democrats do support it, enthusiastically.  And happily the few holdouts seem to be okay with it in theory, but want to finetune it.  But…but…democracy is at stake here, and quibbling over vapor fumes left by 714 people who are doing spectacularly for the rest of their great-grandchilden’s lives and beyond is just…bewildering.
 
It will get done.  And very soon.  I’m sure.
 
It should have been done long ago.  Instantly.

 
From the fine folks at The Dodo, this is a really wonderful video, beautifully done.  It’s about ospreys who have been visiting a family for a decade.  Then, one day, a bald eagle attacked the mother – and what the family did and how it transpired over time was all captured on video. 

Every once in a while, a person has a “tell” so pronounced that they give their culpability away.  Like someone insisting, “No, I didn’t do that” – and then they suddenly start blinking rapidly and twitching their body.  Both Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) and Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) had their “Okay, yes, I’m really very guilty” twitches the other day.
 
In the case of Brooks, he was talking with CNN reporter Melanie Zanona and insisted that he had “no involvement” in planning the rally in Washington on January 6.  However, his lips kept moving and then added, “I don’t know if my staff did, but if they did I’d be proud of them for helping to put together a rally lawful under the First Amendment at the ellipse to protest voter fraud and election theft."
 
Ah, the Sgt. Schultz Defense from Hogan’s Heroes, "I know nothing, noothhhing." While blaming it all on his staff.  I’m sure they’ll love that, as he fritters away his Staff Loyalty Points that dwindle away before your very eyes.
 
So, let’s see...Brooks is saying – between blinks and twitches – that he, a United States Congressman, has a staff so out of control that they helped plan the January 6 rally that lead to in insurrection under his very nose and he was totally unaware of their actions.  And…and then, after 11 months, Brooks STILL "doesn't know" if his staff helped plan the Jan. 6 rally??!  Amid all the news stories ever day for almost a full year, as the House of Representatives have been holding hearings on the rally and its subsequent insurrection, while the Department of Justice has been arrested people who participated – many of whom have been convicted and jailed – Rep. Mo Brooks never has yet found out if his staff helped plan that rally, where a hangman’s noose was put up, cries to kill Vice President Mike Pence and which lead to the storming of the Capital.
 
AND, while supposedly not knowing if his own staff was involved, Mo Brooks still threw them under the bus by suggesting that they might have helped plan it!!
 
And to add even more perspective to Mo Brooks using pantomime to tell the world he was involved, keep in mind that  Brooks has previously acknowledged that he knew that things could get so violent on Jan. 6 at the rally that he put on body armor under his jacket before he himself got up before the crowd and spoke to him.
 
But no, he had no involvement planning the “lawful” rally that lead to the insurrection.  And doesn’t know if maybe his staff did – but suggests that maybe, possibly, conceivably they did.  Meanwhile, he just happened to be strolling down the avenue on January 6, wearing his body armor, saw a crowd of tourists, and being a Congressman decided he couldn’t pass up talking to a crowd – which he admits he knew could be violent.
 
“I don’t know if my staff did,” says Mo Brooks, “but if they did…”  Man, just reading his words you can see the eyes blinking and body convulsing.
 
“I don’t know if my staff did.”
 
Well…okay, fine, then, if Mo Brooks isn’t up to finding out, happily there a House Select Committee already in place who would be happy to take on the responsibility.  And so, they should just subpoena his ace staff and ask them, under oath, about their planning the January 6 rally without approval from their boss, since he now has said they may have done so – and kept it hidden from him.  Though he did at least concede that he knew later, somehow, that it could become violent.
 
Cue the eyes blinking – violently.
 
In the case of Marjorie Taylor Greene, her “tell” was less performance art and much more literal.  Actually, “much more literal” doesn’t do it justice.  As far as “tells” go, she actually told.
 
Talking with CNN’s Melanie Zanona, as well, the reporter say that Greene also denied (of course…) that she was involved at all in any planning of the rally, saying that the "only thing" she was "very involved in" was objecting to the election results on Jan. 6.  (Greene then tried to deflect attention from the Rolling Stone article which provided evidence of her involvement and added: "Shouldn’t they cover music?"
 
Her denial would be such a definitive statement...if only there wasn't video of Marjorie Taylor Greene leaving the White House in late December and saying to reporters that she just had a "great planning session for our January 6th objection." That, in the world of “tells” is telling it bluntly.
 
By the way, how do we know of this video of her telling us about her planning?  Greene herself posted it on her Twitter feed at the time.
 
Oh, and just to fill things out properly -- P.S. Rolling Stone has covered politics for 54 years. To paraphrase Marjorie Taylor Greene -- Shouldn't she know that?
 
And as the expression goes – cue the video.

Yes, there is Marjorie Taylor Greene herself telling us all right to the camera proudly that she and the White House planned their “January 6th objection.”  Before her now saying, oh, er, no, um, no, she wasn’t involved with planning it at all. 
 
At least she didn’t try to fob it off on her staff.  But then that would have been tricky, since she already told her it was her.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote here about the cousin I was named after, I.J. Wagner, who was one of the early ad men doing singing commercials for radio.  And I mentioned how his style was to use repetition (almost to annoyance) so that people would remember the name -- and also wrote about how he gave Studs Terkel his start.

There was something I left out though, which was what Studs himself wrote in a couple of his memoirs -- but I couldn't track it down, so I couldn't include it.  But I just now came across at least one of the two passages I recall reading.

This was from one of Studs Tekel's memoirs, Touch and Go, where he writes on page 116 about his beginnings in radio in 1944.  I've added this into the earlier article, so the tale is now more complete.  He says --

"By this time at Meyerhoff [an ad agency in Chicago], I'm working on the Wrigley account, under the wing of I.J. Wagner, the inventor of the singing commercial.  He liked me and suggested I do a sports show, The Atlas Prager Sports Reel.  Atlas Prager was a local beer, out-fit-controlled.  The show was on every night at 6:00.  The announcer would say, 'Atlas Prager got it, Atlas Prager get it!'  Wagner deliberately made it irritating so you'd remember the name."

Then later in the book, Studs adds, "Eventually, Wagner said, 'I'm moving to a new agency, Oleon and Bronner, and I want you to come with me.  What would you like to do?"

So, when I say that Iz liked repetition and that he really did give Studs Terkel his start, it's not just family lore, but he writes it himself.