Mr. Reynolds, I completely agree with your article. And understand why it isn't presented in your usual format. The only question is...you're preaching to the choir with the same script. Hope it works.
You can build an argument in fragments, or you can build it in layers. I prefer layers. Lay out the facts, show the contradictions, let the pattern emerge—then stack it. By the end, the reader should feel the weight, not just hear the claim. This piece is more direct than most, but it rests on logic, past performance, and visible contradictions. The billionaire angle isn’t moral—it’s structural. In a state flirting with punishing billionaires, running as one is not a strength. It’s a problem. Thanks for the comment.
Mr. Reynolds, I completely agree with your article. And understand why it isn't presented in your usual format. The only question is...you're preaching to the choir with the same script. Hope it works.
You can build an argument in fragments, or you can build it in layers. I prefer layers. Lay out the facts, show the contradictions, let the pattern emerge—then stack it. By the end, the reader should feel the weight, not just hear the claim. This piece is more direct than most, but it rests on logic, past performance, and visible contradictions. The billionaire angle isn’t moral—it’s structural. In a state flirting with punishing billionaires, running as one is not a strength. It’s a problem. Thanks for the comment.
Bill, do you know what is up with Rip? Is he ok?