Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption



For more than two decades, California’s electric vehicle drivers enjoyed a privilege that millions of traditional commuters envied: the ability to glide into the carpool lane while driving solo.

That perk, created under the state’s Clean Air Vehicle program, was meant to reward early adopters of electric cars and hybrids while encouraging the broader public to embrace cleaner transportation. But after September 30, that advantage comes to an end.

When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed it stopped accepting new applications for Clean Air Vehicle decals on August 29, and existing decals will no longer be valid beginning October 1.

Fuel me once

That means a Tesla, Chevy Bolt, or Toyota Prius Prime with a single driver will be treated the same as a gas-powered sedan in traffic. Use the high-occupancy vehicle lane alone, and you risk a ticket of up to $490.

The reason behind this abrupt shift is not state policy but federal law. The Clean Air Vehicle program was last authorized through the 2015 federal transportation law, which included a sunset clause requiring Congress to extend it. That extension never happened. Without Washington’s approval, California cannot legally continue granting carpool lane access to EV drivers.

This has sparked frustration among both state officials and drivers who had come to view the privilege as a key reason to purchase an electric vehicle. Since the program’s inception in 2001, California has issued more than 1.2 million decals, with about 512,000 still valid this summer. The scale of adoption made California a national model for incentivizing EV use. For many, skipping bumper-to-bumper traffic was just as important as lower fuel costs or environmental benefits.

Grumblin’ Gavin

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sharply criticized the lapse, blaming congressional inaction. His office warned that revoking EV access to HOV lanes will worsen traffic congestion and increase air pollution.

California already struggles with air quality, hosting five of the nation’s 10 smoggiest cities, according to the American Lung Association. State officials argue that taking incentives away from EVs could discourage adoption at a time when they want more drivers behind the wheel of battery-powered cars.

But the politics of EV incentives have shifted dramatically in recent years. Bipartisan support has fractured, and federal priorities have moved away from programs like California’s Clean Air Vehicle initiative. Under President Donald Trump, environmental waivers that California used to set its own strict emissions standards were revoked.

He also signed an executive order halting federal EV incentives, such as the $7,500 tax credit, and moved to eliminate the state’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate. More recently, his administration backed several resolutions overturning California’s regulations, including its 2035 ban on new gas-powered cars.

RELATED: Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?

Kevin Carter/Yana Paskova/Getty Images

EV does it

California, for its part, has doubled down on electrification. Electric vehicles accounted for 25% of new car sales in 2024, the highest in the nation. The state now has more EV chargers than gas stations, and its climate policies require automakers to meet aggressive EV sales quotas if they want to continue selling gasoline-powered models. To bridge the gap, state lawmakers passed legislation in 2024 to extend the Clean Air Vehicle program until 2027. But because federal approval was necessary, that effort has now hit a wall.

The loss of carpool lane access raises serious questions about the balance between incentives and mandates. Many Californians purchased EVs with the expectation of long-term access to HOV lanes, and for commuters in areas like Los Angeles or the Bay Area, the time savings are significant. Taking that away could undermine consumer confidence in state-backed incentives. If benefits can vanish overnight, will drivers think twice before making the leap to an electric car, especially with prices still higher than many gasoline vehicles?

There’s also the issue of traffic itself. With over half a million cars losing carpool access at once, HOV lanes may open up — but the general flow of traffic could get worse. California has long promoted these lanes as a way to reduce congestion and emissions. Yet now, drivers who purchased EVs expecting relief from gridlock will be back in the same stop-and-go conditions as everyone else.

Fair fare

Some critics argue that carpool incentives were always meant to be temporary. When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers. EV sales are now far higher than expected when the program began, and some transportation analysts suggest that the incentives have already served their purpose. In their view, it’s time to reassess whether carpool perks are fair, especially as EVs become mainstream.

Still, the political framing remains contentious. California officials see the lapse as part of a broader pattern of federal resistance to their climate policies. They argue that while EVs have become more popular, the fight against pollution requires every possible tool, including access incentives. Without federal cooperation, the state faces limits on how far it can go.

Tolled off

Drivers, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. A Tesla owner who counted on the decal as part of their daily commute could soon be facing hundreds of dollars in fines. Discounts on toll programs, such as those tied to FasTrak Clean Air Vehicle tags, will also vanish unless drivers meet normal occupancy rules.

This moment highlights a broader tension in the transition to electric vehicles: the clash between ambitious state-level initiatives and shifting federal policy. California wants to lead the nation in electrification, but it cannot do so entirely on its own.

As EV adoption accelerates, the question becomes whether incentives should keep pace — or whether it’s time for the market to stand on its own.

For now, the result is clear. Starting in October, California’s EV drivers will no longer be able to rely on their clean-air decals to speed through traffic. Instead, they’ll have to join the same lanes as everyone else, while the larger policy debates play out in Washington and Sacramento.

What happens next will depend on how lawmakers balance environmental goals, commuter realities, and political priorities. But one thing is certain: The end of California’s Clean Air Vehicle program marks a turning point in how America incentivizes electric cars. For drivers, it’s a reminder that government programs can change overnight — and the road ahead may be more complicated than expected.

Losing our child exposed the depth of my husband’s abuse; it also gave me the strength to leave



I was stunned when it happened. Since the day we married, I had been his verbal punching bag — insults about my faith, my body, my job, and everything in between were constant. But this was the first time my husband put his hands on me.

My crime? After enduring a month of the silent treatment, I finally found the courage to ask, “Do you love me?” He snapped, and all 6’4”, 260 pounds of him charged toward me, pushing me so hard that I stumbled backward and out of our family room. When I regained my footing, I looked up at him — a head taller and a hundred pounds heavier — and said I was done being silent about his abuse.

I said, 'This is the worst day of my life. I need you.' He looked at me and said, 'No, the worst day of your life was marrying me.'

In hindsight, it wasn’t a safe move, because it enraged him. He grabbed my phone, and when I tried to leave, he planted himself in front of the door to the garage, my exit, refusing to let me get by. Terrified, I ran to our bedroom and locked the door. Later that evening, when I heard him walking on the floor above me, I bolted. It felt like I was moving in slow motion as I raced to the car, but I hit the gas just as he reached the doorway yelling, “You’re ruining everything!”

The mask of abuse

In a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, the researchers found that roughly one in four women and about one in seven men experience physical violence from a partner. Rates of emotional abuse are higher. Like most victims, I never imagined that this would be part of my marriage or my life. Few knowingly say “I do” to abuse. And — perhaps arrogantly — I didn’t think it could happen to me.

At 41, I owned a successful Washington, D.C., public relations firm, was a regular guest on cable news, and coached members of Congress on their on-camera presence. Surely someone who reads body language for a living would recognize the signs.

But abuse is insidious, and it starts with a mask.

Our story began like a pandemic romance. It was the fall of 2020, the first year of COVID. I had just moved from Washington, D.C., and he from Nashville — both of us to South Carolina, where we had family.

After a friend’s suggestion to try the dating apps in a new city, I begrudgingly created a profile. Over the years, I’d ended an engagement, had boyfriends who didn’t work out, and tried online dating, which felt like day trading. But finding a man who shared my faith and values, and who also offered mutual love and respect, had proved nearly impossible.

Before long, I connected with the person who would become my husband. We messaged back and forth, and then he asked, “Would you like to FaceTime?” When we met virtually, we both laughed and said, “You actually look like you!” — a rarity in the world of online dating photos.

That conversation turned into an hours-long first date, followed by a second where I met his family and a third where he met mine. I hadn’t lived near family in two decades, so having both families involved from the start felt safe.

Answered prayers

We seemed aligned in all the big ways: faith, politics, and family, including trying for kids at our ripe old age of 41 — I was exactly four days older. I still remember the night he met my cousin with Down syndrome. He spoke to him like the man he was — not someone with a disability — and knew all his favorite Disney songs. Later, he joined my family in singing hymns, knowing every word.

We shared many of the same passions: the arts, sports, travel, dogs. My English bulldog loved him for many reasons, but especially because he’d get on the ground, rope in hand, to play tug-of-war — the only sport my dog excelled in and one I didn’t. I’d sit back and laugh, heart filled.

As the months went by, we shared our lives — going to church, gathering with family, working on projects around my house, watching sports, and meeting the people closest to us. I believed he was an answer to my prayers, and he told others that I was his. For the first time, I truly felt I had found the person I wanted to build my life with and that waiting so long to marry someone compatible had been worth it.

Ten months after we met, we married under an arbor he built representing the Trinity, surrounded by family and friends. I wore the ring my grandfather gave my grandmother when he returned from WWII, and he wore his father’s wedding band — his dad had tragically died just a month before we met.

Warning signs

Even before the wedding, there were moments that gave me pause. He sometimes grew emotionally distant, held rigid opinions, helped less than he once did, and, at times, was short with me. When I brought it up, he’d apologize and explain that he was still grieving his father’s death and struggling. I believed him. People talk about “red flags.” What I saw felt more like yellow flags — concerning but not alarming enough to call it off.

I shared my concerns with one of his relatives, my dad, and our premarital counselor, and each of them encouraged me to move forward. I thought to myself, We agree on the big things — faith and family — and with those at the center, we’re solid. I also knew I wasn’t perfect, and I loved him, so I walked down the aisle and said, “I do.”

A month into our marriage, I knew something was deeply wrong. I was writing a work email when he suddenly burst into the room, yelling, “I’m never going to church with you again!” The tirade, which included a list of other grievances, lasted so long that by the end I was curled into the fetal position on the bed, sobbing, as he stood over me berating me. It was the first of many times that I was scared of him.

He apologized the next day, dismissing it as “anger issues” in a flippant tone. But the outburst came out of nowhere, and his words didn’t match what he had said he believed. That was the moment I started walking on eggshells, gradually realizing, day by day, that the man I married didn’t exist.

A deliberate pattern

As the mask wore off, things that mattered to me were bound to be ruined — even simple joys like the holidays. If it wasn’t picking a fight before my family arrived — declaring, “I didn’t get you a Christmas present, and I’m not going to!” — it was deliberately stalling, making us arrive hours late to family gatherings. One holiday, he started a movie when we were supposed to leave, then burst into our bedroom angrily accusing me of not wanting to go because I had napped while waiting for him.

Then there were the bigger moments, like my grandmother’s funeral. He ruined that significant day — by complaining all morning about attending and how he felt fat in his suit. I spoke at her memorial service, crying not only for the grief of losing her, but also because of my husband’s cold disregard for what her death meant to me. We left early, simply because he was uncomfortable in his pants.

At first, I brushed things off, thinking — he just has poor time management, or he’s just having a rough day. But as his actions began to affect my day-to-day life, I recognized the pattern: Each act was deliberate, meant to create confusion and keep me under his control.

A constant target

My work — our main source of income — became a constant battlefield. Simply waking up at a normal time disrupted his desire to sleep, often until three in the afternoon after staying up all night. He worked mostly from home and admitted to lying to his employer about his hours, insisting it wasn’t his fault that he finished tasks faster than expected. If I made too much noise while juggling clients and household responsibilities, he’d yell at me. Sometimes the punishment came in the middle of the night — I’d jolt awake as he poked and pushed my face, intent only on depriving me of sleep.

My body was also a target. If he wasn’t tickling me so hard it hurt — despite my protests — it was relentless body-shaming. My weight, what I ate, what I wore — nothing was off-limits. Once, he sneered, “How can I be attracted to you when your stomach looks like a man’s?” Eventually, I went to a doctor, humiliated by some of the things he had convinced me were wrong with me. The doctor, both puzzled and concerned, assured me I was perfectly healthy. I broke down as I told my husband the results, confessing that I didn’t know how I could forgive him for pushing me that far. He sat there eating, offering no apology and showing no remorse.

As someone regularly on TV, I tried to mask the pain, but looking back at old clips, I can see the sadness in my eyes growing more visible over time. Once, he made me cry right before I went live, accusing me of putting my job above our family. Another time, after he’d worked on my car, the battery was dead. I begged him for a ride to the airport, but he refused, telling me to call an Uber — a long wait in our small town. I barely made my flight to speak to the largest crowd of my career, having to hold back tears when it should have been a joyful milestone.

Why did I stay?

I was also experiencing physical reactions to his abuse. I started grinding my teeth at night, leaving the insides of my cheeks raw and torn. My breathing grew labored, and at times, it felt impossible to catch my breath. And for the first time in my life, I developed anxiety — constantly fixated on making sure everything was perfect so he wouldn’t find a reason to criticize me.

For those who haven’t experienced abuse, it can be hard to understand why someone stays, but abuse is confusing because it is cyclical. The lows are punctuated by highs, and in between, there were moments when the man I thought I had married seemed to return, complete with apologies for what he had done. In one handwritten letter, he wrote, "I have projected fears and undue criticism upon you. The things which I have done were wrong and inexcusable.” Repeatedly, I heard "I’m sorry," pledges of changing, and plans to fix our problems, typically with lots of spiritual language. I wanted to believe him — I needed to believe him — because I didn’t believe in divorce.

I spent countless hours reading anything I could get my hands on, but the typical marital advice I kept seeing didn’t apply to what I was living. My marriage wasn’t hard because my husband didn’t pick up his socks or because I expected him to read my mind. No — my marriage was hard because it seemed to make him happy to hurt me.

Turning point

The day I read the book "The Emotionally Destructive Marriage" was a turning point for me. It included a questionnaire, and after answering all 31 questions, my result was clear: I was in a destructive marriage. The author wrote, “I don’t want to scare you … but trust me: Ignoring destruction doesn’t ever make it better or even neutral. The damage only grows.” And the danger was increasing.

The car itself became something he used as a weapon. He drove erratically no matter how much I begged him to slow down and stop recklessly passing cars. I’d sit there with eyes closed, praying. Eventually, I refused to get into a car with him unless I was driving. As punishment, I wasn’t allowed to listen to podcasts or music, and we rode in silence. Even reaching to adjust the air or sound system could earn me a very hard slap to my hand, like I was a child touching a hot stove.

I started noticing things getting broken. A bed frame I had slept in growing up — over 100 years old, one my sister and I had shared as children — sat in the guest room. He hated it, even though he never used it, purely because it mattered to me. One day, I found all the spindles kicked out. At the end of our relationship, when he moved his things out, an outside camera caught him throwing a personal item and leaving what was left of it beside the lawnmower — the single yard item I had specifically asked to keep. Later, I discovered the wires had been cut.

Conditioned to silence

Looking back, I’ve had to ask myself why I never confronted him when things were broken. If I believed he was responsible, why didn’t I speak up? That’s the nature of abuse — you’re conditioned to stay silent. Speaking out rarely fixes anything and usually makes things worse. Whether yelling, belittlement, silence, or countless other forms of punishment, I couldn’t risk triggering his rage — especially if I was leaving town for work and he was alone with my dog.

He knew I adored my sweet pup, which made him a primary target. Once, in a fit of anger, he aimed a leaf blower at him at full force while I begged him to stop. My dog, terrified, tried to fight back — snapping at the machine until his back legs gave out, leaving him unable to walk afterward. Another time, on a road trip, my dog panicked from my husband’s rage, gasping for air in the car. Instead of helping, he coldly shouted, “IF HE DIES, HE DIES.” I drove as fast as I could, frantically pleading for him to assist, but he refused. By the time we reached the Airbnb, my bulldog’s tongue was blue and he was barely breathing.

Even though my husband had physically abused me, the emotional abuse — including his lack of concern for my well-being or even my dog’s — was far more damaging. I’ve often heard women who have experienced emotional abuse say, “I wish he’d just hit me.” Part of that is because others don’t take abuse seriously unless there’s physical harm, but it’s also because emotional abuse can be more damaging. It often is subtle, creeping in slowly over time, yet studies show emotional abuse can have lasting consequences — including depression and anxiety — that endure long after the relationship ends.

Clinging to hope

What kept me going during this time was community. Even after he moved me out to the country — a move I later realized was meant to isolate me — I wasn’t alone. I had friends, a church family who walked with me (I eventually joined that church while finalizing my divorce), and my family, who supported me in every way imaginable. While I learned that marriage counseling is better suited for marital issues than abuse, three different men worked with my husband and me during this period. Traveling to D.C. for work also helped me reclaim a sense of self; I realized that people liked me and wanted to engage with me — something my husband had stopped doing.

Yet through it all, I clung to the hope that if he truly wanted to change, as he claimed, I would walk that path with him. I had already mourned the man I thought he was and worked to find joy in life despite my home circumstances, and I loved him — and valued our marriage — enough to stay, as long as it remained safe. I kept reading that some people can’t change, yet my faith told me transformation is always possible. I now know that change must begin with a genuine desire — a desire he never had.

Painful clarity

When I got pregnant, everything became clear.

I was stunned when I saw the plus sign. At 42, I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to get pregnant, but after several tests to make sure it wasn’t a false positive, and with the changes to my body, I knew it was real. I was overjoyed but also anxious about how I was going to handle pregnancy at my age and with my difficult husband.

During our first year of marriage, we went to a fertility clinic to undergo testing. We were both fine! Yes, my eggs were old and chances were low, but we were capable of conceiving on paper. But we stopped pursuing that route as marriage became hard. He’d say, “If God gives us children, he gives us children.”

A few days after finding out I was pregnant, I started bleeding, and I knew something was terribly wrong. My husband found me in the kitchen crying. When I told him I thought I was losing the baby, he first hugged me — but then released me, looked me in the eye, and said I wasn’t allowed to be sad. Stunned, I told him that of course I was going to be sad about losing our child. He then yelled, “Now you’re just going to be sad all that time, aren’t you?” and stormed out of the room.

In our relationship, it was common for me not to be allowed to feel sad. Whether life was difficult or I was responding to his abuse, my emotions weren’t permitted. When a fight shifts from the behavior that caused harm to how you react to it, that’s a red flag. Truthfully, I didn’t always handle his treatment well. Sometimes I yelled back — something that wasn’t part of my personality before marriage. And whenever and however I responded, like a dog reacting to abuse, it was held against me.

This time was no different. As I endured physical pain and had to rush to the bathroom repeatedly, he would yell at me. I wasn’t allowed to disrupt his plans for the day. As this continued, a terrifying thought struck me: Would he take me to the hospital if I needed to go? My doctor had instructed me to come in the next morning, but to go to the ER if my bleeding worsened. Realizing I couldn’t rely on him, I made a plan B — I decided I would ask one of the contractors working on our house to take me if necessary. It was sobering to recognize that I trusted someone working at my home with my child’s and my own well-being more than I trusted my husband.

'The worst day of my life'

The next day, I went to the doctor with my mom. He refused to come, claiming he had to go into the office. With her by my side, I had an ultrasound and learned that the baby wasn’t there. I called him after. He knew what time my appointment was, but he wouldn’t answer his phone. He finally called me on his way home later in the day, claiming his phone had stopped working — something I didn’t believe.

As he walked into the house, he complained of a stomachache. Normally, I would have catered to him, but this time I told him it wasn’t about him: We had lost our child, and my body was dealing with the effects of that. I said, “This is the worst day of my life. I need you.” He looked at me and said, “No, the worst day of your life was marrying me.” He then stood up and yelled, “I don’t want to be a father, and you always knew that!” He went on to accuse me of many things, including trying to make up for everything I didn’t do when I was young by getting pregnant now.

There are no words for the pain his words caused — but they, along with his actions, revealed that he did not care about our child or me. I eventually left the house to stay with my parents. Four days later, my uncle and brother-in-law joined me as I confronted him: “I will no longer be your verbal punching bag. The marriage as we know it is over. You can either get help and stop abusing me, or you can divorce me.” I knew I couldn’t change him, but I could determine what I would and would not accept. That day, he moved out.

Revising history

I agreed to meet him four months later to see if he had worked on himself. He claimed he had changed, but it quickly became clear that his priority was rewriting the story of him pushing me a year earlier. He insisted he “never laid hands on me,” saying he only pushed with his torso, like a chest bump. I refused to go along with this revisionist history, which led to a voicemail begging me to change my story — acknowledging that he had hurt me but complaining that I could put him in jail.

During this time, we saw our final counselor to see if the marriage could be salvaged. I gave it everything I had, even though my family and friends urged me to leave, fearful for my safety. There were some good moments, but before long, his mask slipped. My husband, who was pressuring me to be intimate during this period — using Bible passages to shame me to the point that our counselor had to intervene — finally got his way. When he did, he ghosted me. His own words from the past rang true: “I guess I only want you when I can’t have you.” Intimacy in our marriage had always revolved around control and ultimately revealed what I meant to him — nothing more than someone to be used and discarded.

Knowing my husband hadn’t changed and didn’t want to change, I faced one devastating choice: Live with abuse — exposing any future children to it — or leave. His final blow was giving me no real choice at all, forcing me to end our marriage so he could play the victim.

Deciding to leave

When you love someone, it’s tempting to believe that forgiveness and support are the best way to help him. But real change requires his willingness, sustained effort, and consistent action. The most loving thing I could do for my husband was let him live the life he wanted, not rescuing him from the consequences of his actions. Excusing harm may feel like compassion, but without accountability, abuse only deepens — damaging both the one causing it and the one enduring it.

Staying is hard, but the real journey begins when you decide to leave. Statistically, it takes women an average of seven attempts before leaving becomes permanent, reflecting the many complex factors at play. I was one of the “lucky” ones — I had financial independence, no living children, a strong support system, and a few extra years of life experience. Even so, it was still the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

With divorce imminent, his vilification of me had reached its peak. Looking back, I see that the smear campaign began the moment I separated from him the year before, when he pushed me — to craft his victim narrative. Some chose to believe his lies, but those who truly knew and loved me — and asked questions — recognized them for the farce they were. He labeled me as controlling, manipulative, pious, even an addict — but these accusations were merely reflections of himself. At their core, an abuser’s projections are confessions.

I was also forced to fight to protect what I had built in life. During our last attempt at reconciliation, he shifted in an instant from kind to cold — as he often did — and said, “I can take you for half.” I had to fight. The logistics alone were overwhelming, and I can’t imagine how much harder it must be when children are involved. Thankfully, the divorce was smoother than our marriage, but the relationship still cost me tens of thousands of dollars. Yet it was nothing compared to the personal cost.

Alone in loss

That first summer without him, I grieved deeply, trying to heal — not only from my broken marriage but also from the loss of our child. Just weeks after my ultrasound, I learned I had had an ectopic pregnancy when searing pain sent me rushing to the hospital. The injections that followed took a heavy toll. Nurses in hazmat suits administered them, warning me not to share a bathroom because my urine was toxic and to avoid unprotected sex for four months since it could harm a future pregnancy — not that it mattered, being estranged from my husband. My body became a cocktail of cancer-level drugs and lingering pregnancy hormones. My arms ached for weeks without explanation, and my hair began falling out.

Yet I had to keep working because my husband refused to help with any bills. Each time I met with a client, I silently prayed that the client wouldn’t ask how I was doing, because holding myself together felt nearly impossible. More than once, I broke down — once even in front of a full room I was training. When you are carrying death inside you, your body feels like a grave, and you can’t always control the emotions that come with it.

The day I passed the baby lodged in my tube was the hardest — exactly three weeks after the injections. No doctor told me what to expect; I had assumed it would dissolve slowly. Instead, the cramping hit suddenly, and when I stood up from the toilet and looked down, I knew. Shocked and horrified, I fell to the ground sobbing while my faithful dog stayed by my side. At the time, it felt as if I had killed my baby. Logically, I knew the baby could not have survived in my body, and I could have died without medical intervention — but being forced to choose how he or she would die, through injection or surgery, and then witnessing the outcome felt like an added nail in the coffin. No mother should have to flush, especially alone.

A season of grief

At first, I couldn’t face celebrations. I skipped the baby shower for my first great-niece, afraid I’d cry the whole way through. But after a few months, I pushed myself to show up for the people I loved, determined not to let my husband steal any more from me. Over the next year, I hosted bridal showers and holidays and walked beside my niece, who had moved in with me. She was planning her wedding while I was finalizing my divorce — mine official just one month before hers.

I’m thankful for the beauty of life that surrounded me, even as mine was falling apart. It gave me hope. At times, putting on a brave face was exhausting, and I’d cry behind closed doors. But with the support of people who cared about me, I found the strength to keep walking through the pain. There are no shortcuts to healing — the only way through is straight into it.

I can’t pinpoint when it started to get easier. Grief comes in waves, with stops and starts, until it all blurs together. What I do know is that it took time to let go of every loss — the man I loved who never existed, my marriage, our child, the possibility of future children, the family I married into and loved, and the future I thought I had. All of it … gone. And beyond that, I had to heal from the abuse. Climbing out was messy and sometimes still is.

But day by day, I built a new normal. In the beginning, I cried whenever I spoke about what happened. Sometimes tears still creep in, but now I mostly share my story in a matter-of-fact way, as if it happened to someone else. With time, the pain softens, the fog lifts, and you begin to find yourself again — changed, but still you.

The grace of forgiveness

It took time, but I’ve forgiven him for what he has done. I’ve been forgiven for much, and I am called to extend that same grace. Still, I am saddened by the life he’s trapped in — a prison of his own making — and I pray he finds healing. However, the hardest part has been forgiving myself. I’ve carried the weight of marrying an abuser and the tremendous pain he caused those closest to me.

My parents, especially, but plenty of family and friends have spent countless hours helping me and praying for me, their hearts breaking alongside mine. When I told my cousin with Down syndrome about the divorce, he groaned in confusion and pain. My aunt pointed him to 1 Corinthians 13, the scripture passage he read at our wedding, and showed him how my husband, his friend, had failed to live out those words of love and did the opposite. My cousin had to come to terms with the truth, as I did, that my husband wasn’t who he said he was.

A protector's goodbye

I’ve blamed myself for what my beloved dog endured — some days my husband treated him kindly, but too often he didn’t. Through it all, my furry sidekick was a constant, showing me unconditional love as everything around us crumbled. One morning, not many days after he was diagnosed with heart failure and a year after I left my husband, I cupped his wrinkly, slobbery face and told him I was finally strong enough to let him go if he was ready. I hugged him tight, kissing his soft head, and left for work. Understanding that his job of protecting me was complete, he took his last nap, his face facing the sun.

I’ve blamed myself for my child not being wanted by his father — for choosing a man who didn’t want his own. But I’m thankful for the mama-bear instinct that came, forcing me to face a hard truth: If my home wasn’t safe for my child, it wasn’t safe for me. I’ve wondered if God sent that baby so I could see clearly that marriage doesn’t matter more than the safety of the people in it. I have peace knowing that my little one is now with the greatest Father of all — in heaven, safe, loved, and waiting for me.

Finally, I’ve blamed myself for falling in love with a man who harmed me. He took something sacred — marriage — and turned it into a weapon. I’ve had to grieve both the man I thought I was marrying — the one I loved who never truly existed — and the man he really was. Had he chosen to change, I would have walked beside him through it all. Facing the truth saved me, but it also forced me to confront the layers of betrayal that nearly crushed me.

On the days I struggle, I remind myself that my ex-husband wants me to carry the blame for his abuse and the divorce that followed. It’s part of his control that lingers. So instead, I focus on what I know to be true: I meant my vows — he didn’t. I loved him — he didn’t love me. I sought healing — he sought harm. And ultimately, after chance after chance, he chose himself.

Into the light

A strange blessing has come from all of this: I’ve discovered an underground community of women — and men — who have walked the same road. Many remain silent for good reasons: to protect their children, because of legal constraints, or out of fear of retaliation. I’m in the rare position of facing only the latter. But I refuse to live in fear of the man I married any longer.

I’m bringing the brokenness into the light, no matter what he may do, because I want others to know it’s not their fault. Just as I didn’t choose abuse, neither did they. We were deceived, believing the person we loved and who claimed to love us. There is no shame in that.

Abuse doesn’t define me. It is a chapter in my life, not the whole story. I’ve found healing, I have joy, and I now carry a deep empathy for the abused that I didn’t have before. What a strange, awful, beautiful gift to be able to look someone in the eyes and sincerely say, “You’re not alone, and there is hope.” I know with certainty that life after abuse can be meaningful — because I’m living proof that what man meant for evil, God can use for good.

This essay originally appeared in the Beverly Hallberg Substack.

Quick Fix: Is a flood-damaged car worth the savings?



Hi, I'm Lauren Fix, longtime automotive journalist and a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Welcome back to "Quick Fix," where I answer car-related questions you submit to me.

Today's question comes from Paul in Pennsylvania.

Hi Lauren:

What is the deal with flood-damaged cars?

Should I take a chance? The deals sound great, but am I buying a nightmare?

Great question, Paul, and I think this is something a lot of people get confused about.

Remember Hurricanes Rita and Katrina? Combined, they resulted in some 500,000 flood-damaged cars, many of which ended up on the used market.

I'll say now the same thing I said then: Don't buy a car with flood damage. It's not worth the risk.

Why?

Number one, there is no warranty. I don't care if the car is brand new, you lose your warranty right out of the box. No manufacturer is going to stand behind it. And they can tell if the car is flood-damaged; even if it's not obvious upon inspection, the insurance companies will report it.

Secondly, water can do unseen damage to a car's passive safety features. This includes airbags, forward collision warning, even seat belts.

If the water got into the base of the car, like where your feet go onto the carpet, that could rot out everything underneath — including the various computerized sensors that keep these safety features working.

Even worse, corrosion from water could actually cause an airbag not to deploy or deploy with no reason. Not good.

The third thing that people often fail to consider is the health hazards a flood-damaged car can present. If its in the ductwork, you're breathing it: anything from mold to mildew to E. coli.

Think about it: You don't know where the car was. It was underwater, yes, but was it salt water? Sewer water?

Now — if you suspect a car you're looking at is flood-damaged, the best thing to do is take it to an ASE-certified technician. If he confirms the damage, walk away. No matter how good the deal may seem, you do not want that car.

Even without a mechanic, there are a few tell-tale signs to look for.

  • Excessive air freshener: If they've doused the car with perfume in the interior ... yeah, that's a clue they're covering something up.
  • Rust in weird places: Rust is never good, of course, but in some places on a car it's understandable. In other places — on the hood hinges, for example — it's a very bad sign.
  • Moisture in the fuse box: If you see any signs that water's gotten under that plastic cover, that means it's been in a flood.

Finally, watch out for "washed" titles. Unscrupulous sellers will move a title from state to state to try to hide flood damage or a car's totaled status. Don't rely on the title alone; companies like Carfax can help protect.

Ultimately, its better to trust your gut than to snap up a too-good-to-be-true deal. Flood-damaged cars are nothing to play around with, and they can be very dangerous.

Got a car-related question? Email me at getquickfix@pm.me.

A stranger asked me to have a conversation; here's why I'm glad I agreed



I was sitting in a Starbucks the other day, typing away on the laptop open in front of me, pausing to look out the window and watch the cars roll by every few minutes, when a young guy walked over and just started talking to me.

Him: “Do you mind if I talk to you a bit? Would you like to have a conversation?”

In our day and age, sitting and talking with someone you’ll probably never see again is oddly refreshing. It just feels good.

Me: “Um, sure. Have a seat. Are you working on a project or something? Writing something?”

Him: “No. I’m just trying to talk to more people. I used to be really socially awkward, so a few years ago I decided that I should just talk to people when I have a few extra minutes.”

Channeling Albert

I thought it was a fantastic idea and said as much; then I asked if he came up with it on his own. He said that he had.

I told him that back in the 1930s the psychologist Albert Ellis did a similar thing for a similar reason. Basically Ellis — then a very shy young man in his 20s — would go to the park and talk to every single woman he saw. All ages, shapes, and sizes. He reported that it helped him immensely, essentially curing him of his crippling social anxiety.

I brought up Ellis not to undercut the creativity of his idea but to underscore the fact that he was on to something very real. Great minds think alike, you know.

I asked him if he thought it had helped him, and he, like Ellis, confirmed that it certainly had.

Stop me if you've heard this

He told me he was Catholic and was waiting for a Jehovah’s Witness who was meeting him for a debate. I didn’t ask him how exactly they set this debate or how they crossed paths, but I can only imagine that they were discussing theology online and decided to continue their argument IRL.

It really sounds like a good start to a joke, doesn’t it? A Catholic and a Jehovah’s Witness walk into a Starbucks for a theological debate.

I talked with him for about 15 minutes. He told me he was 18 and that he was in middle school during COVID, to which I responded, with my palm holding my forehead, “My God, you are so young and I am so old.” We talked a lot about his experiences speaking with people. How some were more open and others less so, and how he thought other people in his generation would benefit from doing something similar.

I told him that I think the Zoomers’ emotions were calibrated differently from their elders' due to technology and the social isolation it has brought along with it. He agreed.

RELATED: What college students can learn from loneliness

Heritage Images/Getty Images

Communication breakdown

He also shared a theory about how we perceive one another in our technological age. He explained that in his opinion we tend to project the most extreme views onto those with whom we disagree before we even interact, with the result that we adjust our own views to be more extreme. Everyone is constantly doing this, which is why communication gets worse and worse.

I found this compelling. I had never thought of it that way, and while I need to ponder it more to know if I really agree or not, I think there must be some truth to it. I also think, due to his age, he has a more personal insight into his generation’s sense of the world than I. He is a native to his strange world, while I am only a documentarian noting the ways of these peculiar people we call Zoomers.

Listen up

I like talking to people. Truthfully, I like doing the listening more than the talking. It might be because I’m a writer and always looking for inspiration, or maybe it’s because I’m perpetually curious about everyone and everything. Whatever it is, I like sitting there, just listening, taking in what they have to share, trying to figure them out. If you ask people about themselves, they will just talk and talk, and you can learn about all these other corners in all these other lives.

Our world can feel very internal these days with the internet and all the text-based interaction we suffer through. It’s easy to feel alone and estranged from everyone else. In our day and age, sitting and talking with someone you’ll probably never see again is oddly refreshing. It just feels good.

I really enjoyed my time talking with Zoomer Albert Ellis. I was fairly uninspired when he sat down, and our discussion was invigorating in a way that only human interaction can be. I learned something about the Zoomers and their social struggles as seen through his eyes. And it was heartening to see this young guy trying to better himself in the real world. Perhaps the kids — or at least some of them — are all right.

After a few minutes, a big black truck pulled up and a slender guy in his 40s with graying hair hopped out. The Zoomer across from me concluded that this must be his debate partner and said goodbye. He met him outside on the patio, where they sat at a black table, across from one another, for quite some time. I went back to my work, writing. Every few minutes I glanced out the window to see the a spirited theological debate, politely raging, IRL.

Are you a 35-year-old with a nose ring? Forget ‘adulting’ — you need to grow up



This week’s column is meant for anyone younger than 40, which ropes in most Millennials and all of Gen Z and more. But they won’t listen to Olds like me at 51, so maybe you good readers can find a way to slip this into their Ovaltine if they’re your kids or grandkids.

I suppose if I were smart and wanted to market this well to that crowd, I’d call what follows a “guide to adulting.” But I won’t, because using the non-word “adulting” is the kind of kiddie nonsense that young people should have stopped doing before they started doing it.

You’d think this set was raised in a joint custody arrangement between 2 Live Crew and a band of cockney orphans in Dickensian London.

The new 17?

We’re in an era of unprecedented infantilization. Chronological adults are grown-ups in years only; they have the minds of children. No, it’s not “just like it’s always been.” I’m not saying “the same things old people have always said.” There has never been a time in history before the Millennial generation when helpless, unskilled, and babyish behavior was tolerated in adults, let alone culturally praised as it is today.

The average 35-year-old in 2025 has the tastes, habits, and deportment of a 17-year-old from my youth. They bond over cartoon comic book superheroes; they giggle in the corporate office tower over Stanley-brand water cups and clicky acrylic nails like girls used to do in ninth grade in the bathroom.

I’ve had enough.

Let’s get to it.

OK, groomer

Fifteen years ago, I hired 24-year-old “Olga” for a secretarial job at my company. She was great and worked for us for years. But I almost fired her on the first day. She walked into the office wearing a belly-baring crop top and jeans slung so low she might have been modeling for a depilatory cream ad.

“This is not appropriate office wear; this is an outfit for the clubs,” I said as she looked at me shocked. Her mother had never told her that it wasn’t cute to wear provocative clothing to a professional job, because mom was too busy trying to look her daughter’s age.

Prescription for young ladies:

  • No exposed belly.
  • No excess cleavage — no more than half an inch should be shown, if any.
  • Wipe 75% of that makeup off, and absolutely no false eyelashes in broad daylight. That’s an evening look for women of questionable reputation.
  • Pry off those acrylic claws and keep your nails no longer than what’s standard for a French manicure. In fact, just do that — the French manicure.
  • Take that nose ring out.

Prescription for young gentlemen:

  • No dyeing your hair — not for fun, not to cover gray. Dyed hair on a man gives the impression that he’s unstable or untrustworthy. Do not sass me about this.
  • Shave your face, or, if you wear a beard, trim it neatly. You may not do handlebar mustaches or biblical patriarch 4-foot long trailing vines. Honestly.
  • Wash your hair. Repeat: Wash your hair.
  • Then comb it.
  • No long hair. No, a ponytail will not do. A gentleman’s hair should be short and neat. You may rock a fade, a modified slick ’50s pompadour (my favorite), and similar, but that’s all.
  • Buy jeans that fit sufficiently to remain above your butt crack, and tuck your shirt in.
  • No jewelry except a wedding ring or a class ring. No, you may not wear “just one diamond stud in my ear.” Do you want to look like a gentleman or a Brooklyn pimp from 1972?

That’s fashion and grooming sorted. Let’s move on to speech.

Talk stupe

If you’ve been alive for 50 years, you’ll notice how different America sounds today. You’ll notice how immature and declassé even newscasters sound now. As a young man, my friends mocked me for my sharp, nasal upstate New York/upper Midwest accent. Sample of me speaking at 17: “Oh my Gad! I’ll have a side seel-id with reeyinch dressing!”

I deliberately cultivated a (then-normal) “newscaster from nowhere” flat American accent, the kind that all professionals of every race and background strove for. It served me well in two ways.

First, my speech no longer made me sound like what I was (a welfare kid from a semi-rural trailer park), removing class-based preconceptions from the minds of people I needed to impress. You can object to that all you want, but it won’t change reality. If you talk like you’re down-market, you will be perceived as down-market.

Consider the widespread fashion among American young people to mimic low-class (and particularly black low-class) pronunciation and mispronunciation. It sounds “street.” It sounds vulgar. It sounds uneducated. Many of them think this is positive. It is not.

Second, since my aim was to communicate clearly and respectfully with my fellow adults, I no longer peppered my speech with up-to-the-minute slang and obscure in-jokes. Today, however, nearly everyone young (and too many older people) seem more focused on broadcasting how “cool” they are to their peers than in expressing their thoughts with elegance and precision.

Remove these from your vocabulary:

  • “Adulting,”
  • “Not a good look,”
  • “Comfy,”
  • “My journey,”
  • “Lived experience,”
  • “Do better,” and
  • “Super” as a replacement for “very.” In fact, drop “very” as well.

Glottal stop it

Amend incorrect and grating mispronunciations. The worst feature of modern accents are the glottal stops that everyone under 40 is suddenly inserting into words. You’d think this set was raised in a joint custody arrangement between 2 Live Crew and a band of cockney orphans in Dickensian London. If you don’t know what I mean, click here to listen to examples of glottal stops.

In all the following, people are dropping the ‘T’ sound and putting in a glottal stop. It’s nails on a chalkboard. The only kids who did this when I was in school came from ignorant households and were still saying “puh-sketti” at 12 years old.

  • Not “buh’in,” but “button.”
  • Not “impor’enh”, but “important.” (And never “impore-dent.”)
  • Not “kih’en,” but “kitten.”
  • Not “moun’uhn,” but “mountain.”

Extra credit: Stop dropping your G’s. You are “swimming,” not “swimmun.” This doesn’t sound “authentic;” it sounds stupid.

RELATED: How not to be socially awkward

Bettman/Getty Images

Missed manners

A trip to any store will convince American adults of a certain age that remedial etiquette lessons are necessary. A great many parents have not instructed their children in the most elementary forms of manners and interpersonal communication.

Prescription:

  • Look people in the eye when they speak to you. Stop looking at your phone or at the floor.
  • But do not perform the Gen Z stare. If you’re not mentally retarded, you may not goggle at people with a blank expression as if you didn’t know how to respond to the greeting “hello.”
  • When someone says, “Hi, how are you,” you must respond. It’s easy. Just mimic the form back to them: “Hi there, I’m great. How are you?”
  • When placing a phone call, you identify yourself first. It’s intensely rude to call someone and ask for “Josh” without first saying, “Hi, this is David Smith from Smith Capital. I’m looking for Josh, please?”
  • The proper response to “thank you” is “you’re welcome.” It is not “no problem,” and it is never “no worries.”

Whine moms

Extra credit: Work on your pitch and intonation.

It started with the valley girls of the ’80s, but now everyone, man and woman alike, is speaking in what I call “gear-shift tonality.” Recall how a car engine winds up higher and higher as you shift a manual from first gear to second to third, etc. The pitch gets higher and higher until you shift, then it drops back down and starts again.

That’s for manual transmissions, not for human speech. Gear-shift tonality makes even declarative sentences sound like questions. It’s also known as “upspeak.”

Whatever you want to call it, stop doing it. Anyone not in your age set finds it annoying and wearying. It makes you sound child-like, tentative, unsure, or manipulative. Remember, Margaret Thatcher took vocal lessons to lower her speaking register in order to be taken seriously in world politics.

That concludes today’s instruction. Keisha and Valerie, you will stay behind and clean the chalkboards to work off the demerit for chewing gum (open-mouthed too). All remaining pupils may close their desks and take their primers home. Class is dismissed.

Is the Daylight DC-1 the world's first 'healthy' computer?



Filmmaker and mother Jessica Solce was frustrated by the difficulty of finding healthy, all-natural products for herself and her family. To make it easier, she created the Solarium, which curates trusted, third-party-tested foods, clothing, beauty products, and more — all free of seed oils, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and other harmful additives.

In this occasional column, she shares recommendations and research she's picked up during her ongoing education in health and wellness.

Last year, I went to Palestra’s Age of Light conference in San Salvador intending to deepen my understanding of how light and health intersect. As I expected, I heard compelling speakers like Jack Kruse, Sol Brah, and Erwan Le Corre discuss red-light therapies, photobiology, and the urgency of restoring our relationship with natural light.

I did not expect someone to be announcing a new tablet.

Daylight’s LivePaper screen is gentle on young eyes, free of blue light and flicker. Kids can read, draw, and learn — even in bright sunlight — without glare.

Then Daylight Computer founder Anjan Katta did just that, boldly positioning his new DC-1 tablet as a radical rethinking of how tech, light, and human health might integrate. “The hope," Katta told us, "is a healthier, more humane computer that can help you build a better foundation for your life.”

What does that even mean? Why take on the Goliaths of tech? We already have Apple, Android, and Kindle. Clearly, Katta’s motivation wasn’t just practical.

iPad kids

It might surprise you to learn that Apple founder Steve Jobs didn’t let his own kids use iPads because he feared they were too addictive. A wise move, considering that more than a decade after its release, “iPad kid” has become shorthand for children glued to screens and prone to meltdowns when deprived of them. Adults aren’t immune, either — after all, our kids only mirror what we model.

Research shows direct links between screen exposure and developmental delays. One study found that 1-year-olds who logged four or more hours of screen time per day showed delays in communication and problem-solving by ages 2 and 4. Missed milestones are not minor; they’re signs of neurological disruption.

Technology’s long-term effects on the brain and body are profound — and Katta knew this firsthand. The 2016 Stanford engineering grad had spent his life in front of computer screens and suffered from eye strain, disrupted sleep, migraines, ADHD-like symptoms, and mood swings.

Once he traced these issues back to light, the problem became clear. The cure, however — a truly healthy kind of screen, one that doesn't overload our systems with blue light, flicker incessantly, and keep us indoors — did not yet exist.

Katta made it his mission to invent it. Six years later, the DC-1 was born.

Light as nutrient

If you follow health circles online, you’ve likely heard about light’s impact on well-being — from Andrew Huberman’s discussions of morning sunlight and circadian rhythm to the basic idea that blue light at night disrupts sleep. You probably also know that sunlight helps us produce vitamin D and that darker winters can bring on the blues.

Light should be considered alongside diet, exercise, and sleep as a fundamental pillar of health. It is our most constant environmental input — the very energy base of our ecosystems. It governs circadian rhythm, cellular function, and energy production. It influences how well we sleep, move, and even metabolize nutrients.

From infrared to ultraviolet, the full spectrum of sunlight benefits our health. But problems arise when we isolate parts of that spectrum — especially blue and UV light.

(For an in-depth look at the effects of light on the body and brain, especially in children, I encourage you to read my three-part series on blue light.)

Blue-light blues

Blue light dominates not just our phones, tablets, and computer screens but our indoor environments, too. Because blue light signals “daytime” to the brain, it suppresses melatonin and raises cortisol. Constant exposure disrupts circadian rhythm, contributing to insomnia, mood disorders, obesity, diabetes, and even certain cancers.

These aren’t minor issues — and they’re growing worse each year. We must confront our relationship with light itself. No amount of “biohacking” can replace a healthy light environment. Solutions like the DC-1 and better indoor lighting are essential stopgaps while we reorient our lives toward nature.

The DC-1's display solves the blue-light problem by using ambient light — or gentle red light — as its backlight. The screen resembles E-Ink but refreshes far faster thanks to its patented LivePaper technology.

It also eliminates screen flicker. Unlike natural sunlight or incandescent bulbs, LEDs flash on and off imperceptibly fast, straining the eyes and nervous system. The result? Headaches, fatigue, and anxiety. Daylight restores stability.

RELATED: Hello, darkness, my old friend: How to get your body's circadian rhythms back on the beat

Caroline Seidel/Getty Images

Screen saver

If we want to reverse the damage done by technology, we’ll need large-scale reform. But meaningful change begins with individuals. Light affects mitochondrial function — and mitochondrial DNA, passed through the maternal line, is heritable. We — and future generations — are shaped not just by what we eat, but by the light environments that feed our cells.

Simply stepping outside, away from screens, can do more for your health than any pill or supplement.

After six years of development, Katta built a device that acknowledges both science and nature — technology that harmonizes with our biology rather than fighting it.

Daylight’s LivePaper screen is gentle on young eyes, free of blue light and flicker. Kids can read, draw, and learn — even in bright sunlight — without glare. Stylus support makes it feel like pen and paper, encouraging creativity and handwriting. Its distraction-free interface promotes focus and calm. In short: technology without neurological mayhem.

Adults benefit too — less eye strain, fewer headaches, less fatigue. The paper-like display reduces the dopamine-driven scroll reflex that keeps us addicted to our devices.

Connection without addiction

The Daylight Computer mission statement offers a refreshing and much-needed change of priority. As Katta said, "The questions that motivate us are: What are the base defaults of an operating system that sets you up for better habits — for better health?”

When he introduced the DC-1, Katta hinted that the company would also be developing a phone. I can’t wait for that — especially for kids. They deserve communication tools that foster connection without addiction.

I’m excited for the continued growth of Daylight Computer and hope that it inspires other entrepreneurs to create technology built not just for productivity, but for human flourishing.

Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?



California, your days driving U.S. emissions policy are numbered.

That's the message behind House Bill H.R. 4117, the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act — and it's shaking up the automotive world.

Even if it clears Congress, lawsuits are certain. California has never been shy about using the courts to defend its regulatory turf.

First introduced on June 24, 2025, and now under review by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the legislation seeks to repeal federal and state motor vehicle emission and fuel economy standards under the Clean Air Act and related laws.

Its stated goals? Lower costs for consumers, simplify compliance for automakers, and revive U.S. competitiveness. But behind the legal jargon lies a direct challenge to one of the most powerful forces in U.S. auto regulation: California.

Game changer

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Roger Williams of Texas and co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Michael Cloud (Texas), Brandon Gill (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), takes aim at Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (federal emissions standards) and portions of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (CAFE standards).

But the sharp end of H.R. 4117 is pointed directly at state-level mandates like California’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, which requires 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. If passed, the bill would prevent California — and any other state following its lead — from setting their own emission or fuel rules, putting Washington and Sacramento directly at odds.

FEFA fix

Supporters argue the current system of EPA rules layered with California’s mandates and CAFE standards create a regulatory maze that raises costs and limits choice.

The Fuel Emissions Freedom Act promises to fix this by:

  • Lowering prices for drivers: Meeting the EPA’s 2023 rules, which require a 49% emissions cut by 2032, could raise new car prices by thousands. Repealing these standards would ease costs for buyers and keep more affordable gas-powered vehicles on the market.
  • Simplifying regulations: Automakers currently juggle federal requirements and California’s dictates, plus a patchwork of states copying California. The result? Confusion, higher compliance costs, and supply chain strain. H.R. 4117 promises a single, unified system.
  • Strengthening U.S. industry: Instead of funneling billions into forced EV development, manufacturers could refocus on consumer demand, job growth, and homegrown production.
  • Restoring choice to consumers: With California mandating EV adoption, critics argue consumers are losing the freedom to buy the cars they actually want — trucks, SUVs, or traditional sedans. This bill restores that choice.
Sounds promising, but make no mistake: California is not about to give up its power without a fight.

RELATED: The Stop CARB Act: A bold move to rein in California’s control over emission rules

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Waiver goodbye?

Crucial to that power is the state's unique authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own emission standards, with other states free to follow its lead. For decades, this waiver has allowed California to dictate national auto policy by sheer market size.

H.R. 4117 would revoke that authority, ending California’s role as the de facto regulator for the entire U.S. auto market. Supporters call this a win for fairness and consumer freedom; opponents call it an assault on states’ rights and climate progress.

As of September 2025, the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act sits in committee, facing heavy opposition from Democrats, environmental groups, and California lawmakers. Even if it clears Congress, lawsuits are certain. California has never been shy about using the courts to defend its regulatory turf.

The sheer viciousness of the fight ahead is a testament to how much is at stake: this is about nothing less than who controls America’s automotive future — Washington, Sacramento, or the free market.

Zohran Mamdani: NYC's pimp mayor



My friend and journalist Ben Kawaller went cruising the streets of Manhattan for "sex workers."

To talk to. Just to talk.

You can tell that Mamdani truly believes that sex work is work, because, like actual work, you can’t find any on his resume.

In a video filmed for the New York Post, Ben gets a stripper, an OnlyFans model, and some hookers — see, there’s a spectrum of sex work — on camera to give their thoughts on mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s support for the decriminalization of sex work. (Stripping 'round the pole and on screen are already legal, so what we’re really talking about is decriminalizing prostitution.)

The video is worth the watch, but if you don’t have two minutes and 52 seconds to spare, spoiler alert: The sex workers Ben spoke to will be voting for Mamdani.

No Cuomo

I don’t know how many members of the skin trade are registered to vote in the five boroughs or what their johns will do at the polls — like, are you allowed to vote against your dominatrix? — but it doesn’t bode well for Andrew Cuomo’s mayoral campaign.

Cuomo can take off his shoes in every mosque in the city and attempt to publicly shame Mamdani for holding supposedly contradictory fundamental beliefs in Islam and the “fundamental belief that sex work is work,” but I don’t think it’s going to harm Cuomo’s 33-year-old opponent.

When it comes to delivering this message of hypocrisy to the faithful, Cuomo is no Angel Jibrīl. No, Andrew is a heavily flawed politician, who looks like a successful funeral director who decides to open a diner.

Forget the blood he has on his hands from the COVID years. On the issue of sex work, Cuomo is the New York governor who “signed a repeal of a prostitution loitering law,” which made it easier for streetwalkers to set up shop on the corner than hotdog vendors.

What’s ironic is that while Cuomo never paid with money for his scandals of inappropriate touching, he paid big-time with his career. And unfortunately, New Yorkers are going to pay an even bigger price when their city is under the control of Mamdani, the comically “African-American" chic communist who wants to seize the means of production and pimp the most productive members of society like cheap whores.

Collectivist 'em all

I’m not the one to make an argument for or against sex work, but I am the one to imagine Mamdani’s future New York City, where sex work is legalized and his collectivist policies are written into law.

Let’s be honest: The goal of decriminalization is eventual legalization — just like the goal of socialism is communism. Mamdani might call himself a Democratic Socialist on "The View" — and the ladies are dumb enough to fall for the rebranding — but we all know that Democratic Socialism is simply socialism on Lupron.

You can tell that Mamdani truly believes that sex work is work, because, like actual work, you can’t find any on his resume. Now while I don’t see him joining any brothel co-ops, decriminalization will lead to more taxpayers for the government to squeeze, and thanks to the world’s oldest profession, no one will have an excuse to be unemployed. If you have a body — in whatever condition it’s in — no doubt there’s a freaky customer out there for you.

But with all the new sex workers, competition will be tight (or loose?), so I see sex work becoming yet another genital in the gig economy. In addition to migrants zipping down avenues on e-bikes for UberEats, you’ll now have them delivering flesh takeout against traffic. Just think what this will mean for congestion pricing!

RELATED: Socialist Mamdani’s $65M plan to turn NYC into ‘gender-affirming’ sanctuary for ‘transgender youth’

Noam Galai/Getty Images

Breast equity

But the expanded tax base could help fund Mamdani’s promise to provide $65 million in funding for gender-affirming care. That means prostitutes of all gender identities can get the bodies they need to better serve the public. But to maintain NYC's breast equity, top surgeries and breast implants will have to balance out.

Phasing out the city’s gifted-and-talented programs in government schools is going to hurt public education, and replacing the school-to-prison pipeline with a school-to-whorehouse pipeline is going to make for some awkward conversations between educators and students.

Imagine being a high-school guidance counselor having to break the news to a student, “You don’t have the grades for college or the work ethic for trade school — but there’s always the corner.”

The barriers to entry are low to nonexistent in sex work. For now. But when the state seizes the means of reproduction, licensing will ultimately follow, and in order to combat corporate greed, there will need to be price controls. Your body, your choice — except when it comes to price-gouging.

Laid off

Until Mamdani decommodifies housing, you’ll be able to exchange sex for rent, right? But the specifics will have to be ironed out to protect tenants’ rights. No one wants to be evicted from their home because a landlord snuck a kissing clause into the lease.

The first time I heard “sex work is work” was in a sex-and-gender studies class I took as an undergrad at NYU. Supporting sex work between consenting adults has been the hip stance to take. But any time I offered minimum wage to a date sympathetic to the cause, she’d get offended. Even though I agreed to pay for the full hour — even if I didn’t use it all.

I also learned that marriage is a form of sex work — which I didn't stop believing until I actually got married. In short: There are so many things I put up with with my wife that I would never put up with a ho. Neither a pimp nor a john I be. Plus, no guy has ever thought, “I really want to get this hooker pregnant!”

My family and I no longer live in New York, but I come in often to work. It’s an expensive commute, and I may need to take on a side hustle to afford it. As the saying Karl Marx popularized goes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

If sex work is work, then the same applies. And under Mayor Mamdani, everyone is f**ked.

When did my local TV news become leftist propaganda?



Being a writer, I lived for many years in New York City. During that time, I always enjoyed watching the local news. I liked the tough, hard-nosed style of the local anchors. They didn’t mince words. Muggings, murder, mayhem: They gave you the news, and they gave it to you straight.

They also didn’t play favorites politically. They reported on conservative mayors like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg the same way they covered liberal mayors like Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams.

Now, it’s common to see female reporters focusing on the psychological effects of news events. How do people 'feel' about the fire/robbery/bridge collapse?

The local TV broadcasters treated all politicians the same. There was a kind of disciplined professionalism in their coverage. You got the feeling if they showed any kind of consistent bias, the highly intelligent New York audience would cry foul.

The green, green grass of home

During my New York years, when I would travel home to my parents’ house in Portland, I would enjoy watching the local news there, since it was so different. Portland, being a low crime/high trust city for most of its existence, didn’t have much news to report.

And so I would sit and chuckle to myself as I watched stories about a bake sale at the senior center, or a feel-good piece about a disabled person who learned to ski, or maybe there was a fire and the local firemen rescued the neighborhood’s favorite cat.

And of course, the local newscasters were folksy and upbeat. This was the Pacific Northwest. There was always a hiking story. Or a fish story. Or the opening of a new artisanal coffee shop story.

In terms of politics, our TV news was always respectful of whoever was the governor or mayor, regardless of their political orientation. That was expected. It was the right thing to do.

Besides which, the only politicians anyone noticed in Portland were eccentric amateurs like Mayor Bud Clark, who was a popular tavern owner and made a famous poster of himself: “EXPOSE YOURSELF TO ART,” it said and showed him naked in a trench coat flashing a statue outside an art museum.

I sigh just thinking about it. Portland, when it had a sense of humor.

The winds of change

Now, in Portland, there is a firm and obvious left-wing bias in all the local TV news. When did that happen?

I remember when Trump was first elected, there was a big push by the national media to vilify the new president in every way possible. But Trump was such an unusual president, it seemed to come with the territory.

I assumed the hysteria would die down eventually and that Trump would get the same treatment as Ronald Reagan. Attacked as a crazed “authoritarian” at first, but eventually, the media and his detractors would see that he was just a normal conservative.

At the same time, I fully expected my local media to not take sides. Their beat wasn’t Washington, D.C. They would continue with their cat stories and their ski reports.

George Floyd did nothing wrong (or did he?)

It was the George Floyd incident that began the politicizing of the local news in Portland. When we were told that Floyd was murdered by an evil white policeman, the local media felt obligated to express some form of outrage.

This was no time for nuance or objectivity. George Floyd was the victim of horrible police abuse (supposedly). So even the local news people, who didn’t know anything about the case or what actually happened, felt obligated to join in, with emphatic denouncements of police brutality.

Who can be in favor of police brutality?

Interestingly, when the summer riots of 2020 began in Portland, the local news stations returned to a more objective perspective.

Every night, they would send reporters downtown to check on the wild skirmishes and nocturnal riot-subculture that dominated Portland during the “100 Nights of Protest.”

Much of this reporting was genuinely objective. What was odd though, was that these local newsrooms almost exclusively sent women downtown to report on the violence. That always seemed strange to me. Not that women can’t withstand tear gas and flash bombs and being hit by flying objects. I’m sure they can.

But I noticed this, because it was another example of progressive values permeating the local TV news establishment.

These outlets were so determined to demonstrate their belief in equity and equality, they were willing to send young, inexperienced female reporters into the midst of a professional riot.

RELATED: Portland police spark outrage after 'wrongful' arrest of journalist Nick Sortor, allegedly victimized by Antifa; DOJ to investigate

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images

Not your grandpa’s local news

Twenty years ago, the lineup of most local news programs was fairly uniform. A one-man/one-woman team of anchors, with a woman doing the weather and a man doing sports. Usually, it was men out in the field, covering crime, death, and car accidents.

Now though — at least in Portland — we are in an era of mostly female anchors, men doing the weather, sports being co-ed (we have a lot of women’s sports teams), and sending mostly female reporters into the field.

These female reporters are different from male reporters in that they tend to ask victims and eyewitnesses about their emotional response to whatever has happened to them.

The “emotionalization” of the news seems to have happened at all levels of the news business. Now, it’s common to see female reporters focusing on the psychological effects of news events. How do people “feel” about the fire/robbery/bridge collapse?

This new approach to news, emphasizing emotions over facts, also seems to suggest an increasingly leftist-oriented local media.

Trump’s invasion

Lately, Portland is in the news again, with Trump threatening to “send in the troops” if our local authorities can’t stop the attacks on ICE agents and clean up Portland’s dystopian streets.

Though our local news programs make half-hearted attempts to appear neutral, they are quick to amplify the idea that Trump’s plan to send troops is an “invasion."

They further promote their leftist version of the situation by never mentioning the presence of Antifa or even calling them by name. This creates the impression that the people harassing and attacking the ICE officers are just concerned citizens, though it is pretty obvious from the news footage that they are not.

And of course, for every one interview they show of people supporting Trump’s plan, they show three interviews of people denouncing him and claiming that Portland is doing just fine. (It’s not.)

No, in Portland the local news is now an appendage to our leftist establishment. And you know that in those newsrooms, in those studios, there are plenty of people who don’t agree with the continued destruction of Portland. But they have to go along with it, or they’ll lose their jobs.

'Portland Strong'

The craziest thing of all is that the new catchphrase being pushed by the left is “Portland Strong.” This is hilarious, considering Portland is the most touchy-feely, socialistic, nanny city in the country.

The last thing Portland is is “strong.” If we were strong, we wouldn’t have drug addicts, the homeless, and anarchist radicals in total control of our streets.

Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate



The house of cards is starting to fall.

Stellantis, one of the world’s biggest automakers, just pulled the plug on its all-electric Ram 1500 REV pickup. Chrysler is scaling back its EV-only promises. Jeep is leaning back into hybrids and even reviving the Hemi V8.

The reality is simple: People want options. Some may choose EVs. Others will stick with hybrids or V8s. That’s how a free market works.

What’s happening here isn’t just a business decision. It’s a rebuke of the political agenda that tried to force Americans into an all-electric future, whether they wanted it or not.

For years, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Brussels dictated what automakers “must” build. Billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into subsidies and charging infrastructure. Regulations made gas-powered engines harder to produce, and deadlines were set for their elimination. Automakers fell in line — publicly touting bold EV promises, while privately worrying that the market wasn’t there.

Now the truth is impossible to ignore: Consumers aren’t buying the vision.

Ram jammed

Ram’s 1500 REV was supposed to be the brand’s answer to the Ford Lightning and Chevy Silverado EV. But months of delays, weak demand, and slow sales across the full-size EV pickup segment forced Stellantis to cut its losses.

Instead of an all-electric truck, Ram is pivoting to a range-extended version — essentially a hybrid that can drive on gas when the battery runs out. The “Ramcharger” name is being dropped, and the range-extended truck will simply carry the 1500 REV badge.

Congrats to Ram for finally admitting that the electric pickup fantasy doesn’t match the real-world needs of truck buyers.

Hemi roars back

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it admitted it “screwed up” by killing the Hemi. The replacement, a turbocharged inline-six called Hurricane, might have been efficient, but it lacked the soul, sound, and the brute force that Ram owners expect.

Even customers of the high-performance RHO complained. Stellantis listened. The Hemi is coming back, and Ram partnered with MagnaFlow to offer aftermarket exhausts that restore the roar that regulators tried to silence.

Truck buyers demanded power and personality, and Stellantis is delivering it, even if it flies in the face of government mandates.

RELATED: Can a new CEO save Stellantis from bankruptcy?

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

Chrysler had once promised to go fully electric. Not anymore. Its 2027 crossover, built on the STLA Large platform, will now offer hybrid options instead of being EV-only.

Jeep is doing the same. The Cherokee is returning as a hybrid, the Grand Wagoneer will get range-extending tech, and the brand is reintroducing the Hemi across multiple models. Even with its new Wagoneer S EV, Jeep isn’t gambling everything on one technology.

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

Antonio Filosa, the new Stellantis CEO, is making a strategic shift: Forget rigid EV deadlines, and instead build flexible platforms that can support gas, hybrid, electric, or even hydrogen drivetrains.

It’s a survival move. EV mandates weren’t written with consumers in mind; they were written by regulators trying to engineer a market from the top down. But when customers walked into showrooms, they didn’t buy the hype. They saw higher prices, long charging times, weaker towing, and shorter range.

The politicians assumed the public would play along with their games. They didn’t.

White flags

Stellantis isn’t the only automaker waving the white flag. Ford has slashed production of the F-150 Lightning. GM has delayed the Silverado EV and rethought its timeline. Even Tesla’s Cybertruck (hyped as a revolution) is struggling to gain traction.

Billions in subsidies can’t change the fact that EVs still don’t deliver what most Americans need. And now, automakers are being forced to admit it.

Drivers take the wheel

The moral of the story? Automakers can’t build cars for regulators and expect consumers to fall in line. Politicians can’t legislate demand into existence.

The EV mandates weren’t about innovation — they were about control. But control only works until consumers push back. And now they are, with their wallets.

Stellantis may have “screwed up,” but its decision to return to engines, hybrids, and flexibility shows it learned a lesson that Washington still refuses to hear: The future of driving should be decided by drivers, not bureaucrats.