This was very obviously not done "for pure personal financial gain..." But should billionaires be able to donate billions, tax-free, to exert political influence, which, generally (though, with rare exceptions, like perhaps Chouinard), they will use to directly benefit themselves and their family? And, should they be able to do so in a way that maintains that political influence for their family for generations to come?

Maybe Chouinard and his family have good intentions, but, like the article said, "one doesn’t want a constructed tax system predicated upon everyone being like the Chouinards."

https://qz.com/patagonia-s-3-billion-corporate-gift-is-also-...

That NYT piece is, more or less, a fluff piece; and, it's also worth noting, this same maneuver is frequently used in ways that are probably seen less "charitably," given the political influence 501(c)(4)s' potentially wield.

I also frequently choose not to engage with ill-informed comment threads; I'm regretting my lapse in judgement today.

It's a source of constant disappointment.

Exactly. Similar to the problem many adults have trying to get to work by bus, it often doubles or triples a commute time.

A plurality ~35% of high school students are driven to school, though not necessarily by a parent.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X1772514...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/how-dista...

EDIT: This is nationwide, there's reason to believe this percentage is probably higher in California.

It's really a tale as old as time (or at least as old as the United States). "States' rights," outside of theoretical discussions, has always simply been a tool, not a true guiding ideology.

The correlation can be meaningful in and of itself.

No, the serious question is why aren't more people living in SF, instead of the sprawl of low-density suburbs and pseudo-suburbs that surround the Bay Area?

The tiny area that makes up the City and County of San Francisco is relatively high density for its size, but the fall off in density once you leave the county (which occupies only the tip of the San Francisco peninsula) is precipitous.

> People act like it is, the reality is different.

No, people act like it is, because it really is... When you're talking about building high-density housing in the actual city (or medium-density in the suburbs with reasonable transit options)... Which is literally always what they are actually talking about. No one is talking about there being problems building low-density housing in the middle of nowhere.

> San Francisco is fairly dystopian.

If it is dystopian, it is not because of density. There are numerous higher density parts of the world that do not struggle with the issues San Francisco does. It has nothing to do with people's inability to see cows. It has to do with the US' refusal to support the things that facilitate living in cities.

> This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health.

The idea that increased suburbanization would have any positive effect on wealth inequality is completely absurd.

Great note/outline format, if I already know the key ideas/takeaways and where they are relative to each other, but really awful to follow reading it for the first time.

I don't think I would describe myself necessarily as pro-NATO, I just don't think its dissolution is reasonable, and I think its actually quite arguable that NATO dissolution would be a net negative. With that in mind, it's not uncommon for people, who are otherwise very far off from one another on the ideological or political spectrum, to agree (or at least agree in policy outcome) on individual issues (especially foreign policy ones). That's the nature of using a relatively one-dimensional spectrum to describe a complex system of beliefs.

With that in mind, here is an article from 2018 in Jacobin, a left-wing magazine, saying that, regardless of Trump's comments, NATO's continued existence remains a valid question [2]; in fact, the Democratic Socialists of America (the primary progressive/socialist/labor party in the US) has calls for the US to immediately withdraw from NATO as part of its stated policy, even after the Russian invasion of western Ukraine [3]. These are among the most well stated positions regarding NATO skepticism on the American left, but similar opinions were expressed throughout left-wing independent media in the months leading up to the invasion (and earlier).

1. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-rewrite-role-bolsterin...

2. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/nato-donald-trump-putin-c...

3. https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukr...

Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media, as an instrument of American imperialism, despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. With the outbreak of the war (outside of east Ukraine), some have walked back the more extreme aspects of those statements (as NATO's potential usefulness has been illustrated), but American imperialism via NATO is still discussed in the same breath as Russian imperialism via a military invasion and territorial annexation.

The truth is we have very little choice in our great powers or global hegemonies, and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. Should we be skeptical of NATO? Of course, as we should with all power structures, especially when they engage in actual violence; but to not have a nuanced discussion about what actual imperialism looks like in the 21st century, and to simply be blanket "anti-imperialist," is juvenile, and I'd argue probably detrimental to those that actually feel its real world effects.

I think it is quite possible that you were more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord (partially because incentives were more directly, and forcibly, aligned) than find a corporation willing to put profits as anything other than first.