Missed opportunities for meaningful dialog at Cal Anderson Park in Seattle.

In the news I read about an event and two protests in Seattle that went totally different directions than my thinking. The event was at Cal Anderson Park on Capital Hill. It was a religious rally related to the pro life movement, so I hear.

Counter protesters were pro transsexual and LGBTQ. My response to so called "pro life" is to point out the irony of pro lifers who support Republican policies of sending migrants back to dangerous countries and possibly kicking people off Medicaid. Wouldn't those policies be a threat to life?

The religious group is also, I'd guess, not friendly to us LGBTQ folks.

The religious folks sponsoring that event later held a protest at Seattle City Hall as they were upset with a message from the liberal mayor and the way the city handled the whole thing. There were arrests at both protests.

Disruptive and angry protests from either side are counterproductive. It's just people shouting past one another. Much of the protests were likely peaceful, but disruptive behavior soured the whole deal.

I still keep seeing the irony of folks saying they believe in the sanctity of life while livelihoods and healthcare are threatened for many.

The rest of the world can't afford to catch up with consumerist USA as a prerequisite before making transformational changes to greener economies.

As much of the world rises out of poverty and becomes more consumerist, somewhat like USA, the US gets tired of being blamed for climate change; a big segment of US is tired at least.

US government now turning it's back on attempts to address climate change, but much of the rest of the world is realizing that first catching up to US consumerism can't be a prerequisite for addressing the problem.

China is taking big steps to make it's economy more green. China's over 1 billion people can't afford to catch up with US consumerism before transformative changes are made; such as a surprisingly large percent of cars, sold in China, are electric. US bans imports fearing decline it it's auto industry which changes more slowly.

Where the energy comes from is still a big question, but transformational changes are being made there as well, in much of the world.

I still like life in USA with it's freedom to differ from mainstream society, but that freedom also can lead to gridlock of plans for transformational change. Rail transportation, solar, wind and nuclear power stall, in USA, do to gridlock between special interests. NIMBY fears may have sunk USA's past attempts to transform to a greener future.

I still hope we can somehow figure out a good road to the future.

What I would like to see the Democratic Party stand for.

Policies to create more affordable housing. Talk about zoning, planning, building and so forth. Encourage local governments to reduce sprawl, less restrictive "single family" zoning. This also to address climate change.

Improve our transportation system. Try and reduce America's dependency on private automobiles. Maybe lower the percent of commutes, by car, to 75% versus the current approx. 92% by car (so I've read).

Increase use of public transit, bicycles, walking and telecommuting. This will reduce traffic congestion and the need to devote precious urban land to parking.

Continue to promote electric cars for those who still insist on driving. Try and figure out a cleaner fuel for air travel. Serve more locations with passenger rail. Provide more frequent train service to places, like Spokane, where the only passenger service arrives late at night.

Place less emphasis on the costly pipedream of high speed rail, in USA, due to lack of available rite-of-way in congested areas.

Low population areas (like Eastern Washington) often have rail corridors that are under used while high population areas (like Seattle to Vancouver, BC) don't have land for new rail lines; especially land free of road crossings. High speed rail is a catch 22.

Resist Republican efforts to dismantle affordable healthcare.

Promote healthy lifestyles, diets and exercise.

Discuss immigration as a population issue. It's related to 8 billion people on this planet with many seeking refuge from brutal situations overseas.

Try to promote more livable situations worldwide with democratic reforms, birth control, human rights, women's rights, gay rights and so forth.

Realize the benefits of immigrates as labor and talent, but also think about the burden of increasing population on affordable housing, infrastructure and so forth.

Support reproductive rights, but try and emphasize the ideal goal of abortion being rare. Every child should be wanted. We need good birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy and good social services welcoming people into this world. Realize that population growth effects the environment.

Support the rights of LGBTQ people. Try to accommodate transgender rights, but have rational, non punitive, discussions about the costs of care (if that is a big factor) effects on sports and so forth. Recognize that understanding of gender is evolving given new science.

Place less emphasis on people fighting over who has been treated the worst. Avoid battles between various groups which one could call "resentment politics." Avoid calling for reparations over historic wrongs from past generations. Realize that life will never be totally fair, but try to continue incrementally moving toward fairness.

Try not to fall for the strategy of "divide and conquer" as those in power (for instance Republicans) often exploit resentments between groups to divide people.

As for the age issue (given talk about the age of many in government) I would reduce institutional reliance on seniority in Congress and other institutions.

Goals have been set, internationally, to reduce carbon emissions, but countries can't seem to find ways to follow the goals. Maybe we need to set goals that help us attain the bigger, more theoretical goals of reducing carbon emissions.

How about a goal to reduce private car commutes, in USA, to 75% versus 92%?

Yes, it might create some economic displacement, for instance in auto dependent industries. That is likely a big reason why national politicians don't touch it. Not only would it disrupt auto manufacturing companies and unions, but it would also disrupt drive-in businesses that depend on the way things have been done for the past few decades.

Protests against police may have brought the opposite of what was intended.

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the killing of George Floyd which sparked nationwide protests. I didn't participate in those protests though it was unfortunate what happened to Floyd.

In most cases, I felt, and still feel that police aren't as big a problem as some of the other problems we face in this country. Our culture has a lot of bro aggressive energy.

Since those protests, things seem to have slid more backwards away from the goals that most of the protesters advocated. We are now in the era of Trump.

Admittedly, I am speaking from my own experience, here in Bellingham which does, so I've heard, have a reputation for some of the kindest police in the country. Personally I tend to be a very cautious person anyway, so I haven't had problems with police. I notice much of American culture is driven by aggression and hostility; especially male aggression being dangerous: reckless driving, gun culture, domestic violence and so forth.

We do have lots of problems to address including a shortage of affordable housing. I would guess, from what I hear in the news, that there are some problems with policing, but I would put it pretty low on the priority list compared to many other factors that add to inequality, such as economic and political situations.

Fear of crime can create its own problems such as fear of strangers and a general lack of trust when people venture out in public. Increased fear of crime seems to have pushed society away from open hearts.

I also think that there are lots of good people and ideas that can prevail; especially as people are realizing what bad politics can do to a society. Populism can bring bad politics if politics is dependent on who yells the loudest. I feel that anger is usually a bad strategy for bringing a more humane society.

If Trump had won in 2020, we would probably have a new president today; likely a better president.

Some people are still grumbling that the 2020 election wasn't fair and Trump should have won it.

I say maybe if he had won it, we would be done with Trump by now; unless he somehow finagled a 3rd term.

Incumbent presidents tend to become unpopular. People weren't that enthused with Biden at the end of his term. Trump's popularity is dropping. No one can satisfy the finger pointing American people. We do have to look at ourselves in the mirror.

A better scenario would have been a Harris victory, in 2024, after Biden's victory in 2020.

Loss of international students likely to add to US economic downturn.

International students are now weary of coming to USA for college. As students leave for other, more welcoming countries, their money and talent will also leave USA; a loss to the US economy. Below reprinted from part of a story on NPR Morning edition (May 23 2025).

More than 1.1 million international students enrolled at U.S. colleges and universities in the 2023-'24 school year. They do not qualify for federal financial aid, and so for many colleges represent a crucial financial lifeline.

Last academic year, international students contributed more than $43 billion to the U.S. economy, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

This is one of many reasons why I think USA may be headed for an economic downturn.

Is the land acknowledgement for native peoples, at the start a meeting, or party, a waste of time?

It does remind people that this land was basically taken from people who lived here before modern USA or Canada. That could be worth something, but it does seem like just another ritual of going through the motions to appease the guilt.

If I had more artistic skills, I could draw a cartoon about the land acknowledgement.

It's at a meeting, or better yet, a party in a politically liberal setting.

The event starts with the land acknowledgement stating that land was taken from people who came before us.

Then the person at the microphone says, "Okay, time to party."

As the participants start in on the wine and cheese, someone has a thought bubble saying, "It's like going to church on Sunday and then going to the bars and drinking 6 days a week."

Sometimes I add other things to this idea, like the mic on the stage going live again and the host announcing that there was an accident closing the freeway so after the party, folks will need to leave by another route.

Basically, life goes on in its fun, or also its potentially destructive ways.

Life for the yuppies and others continues only to pause a moment to acknowledge some guilt and use some precious time, from participants who are there, for face to face networking.

Maybe it's a waste of effort since face to face, community networking can be rare in itself.

51% worldwide commutes by car. Catching up with 92% in USA. Now over 8 billion people in the world. Likely a problem.

A new study of urban transport finds that most commuters globally are getting to work by car, fueling pollution, particularly in wealthier regions. Worldwide 51 percent of commutes are made by car, while 26 percent are made by public transit, 16 percent by bike, and 6 percent on foot. That's a big change since my college days.

In USA, I read that 92% is by car. It's been that way for decades, so in USA it hasn't changed that much compared to worldwide.

According to an article I found, electric vehicles are growing in popularity, helping to curb tailpipe pollution, but a study warned that heavy reliance on cars still contributes to urban sprawl, road traffic, and particulate pollution from wear and tear on tires. “The burden of cars in cities is huge and goes beyond the combustion of petrol,” said Prieto-Curiel. “It is also the parking space required, the driving infrastructure, the noise they produce, the toxic materials used in manufacturing and road pavement, the crashes they cause, and others.”

Interesting article that I excerpted from plus my own research about USA.

I'd like to see goals set for reducing car dependency. For instance in USA, maybe reducing car dependency to 70% from 92%. Just a small change could do a lot for relieving traffic congestion on I-5, for instance.

Goals like this at the local levels might mean more than setting worldwide targets for reducing carbon emissions. It seems like it doesn't matter where we set the carbon emission targets as they are not followed anyway. In USA, under Trump, the government has given up on carbon emission reduction goals anyway.

We need to figure out how to make these changes at our various grassroots levels in each part of the world. The various components which could add up to the large carbon emission number could be where the discussion needs to be focused.

Yale study I found at.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/cars-commutes-study
E360 Digest, March 19, 2024, More Than Half of Commutes Globally Made by Car, Study Finds.

Violence is a bad strategy for overcoming oppression because oppressors usually have the biggest weapons and will win in the end.

Violence is usually a bad strategy for overcoming oppression because those with the most powerful weapons are the one's who usually prevail. The violence that Hamas brought against Israel was met by a far more powerful response from Israel killing many times more people.

There are better strategies. New inventions and economic conditions can disrupt established orders and bring big changes.

The gradual change that the gay liberation movement and feminism has brought in American culture, over the past few decades, is another example. These things are sometimes thought of as subversive ways to gradually erode and change an existing order.

Things seem to be improving in Syria.

I'm hoping normalization of relations between US and Syria is a good idea. Things seem to be better in Syria since the brutal Assad Regime was overthrown a while back. My information just from following news.

Yes, population growth is a problem as most people in poor countries aspire to consume more; eventually becoming more like Americans.

Some people say that criticizing population growth is unfair to poorer countries as they think the main problem is over consumption in rich countries.

Problem is, it seems like most people, in poor countries, aspire to consume more. China is a good example. It now has a higher carbon footprint than USA due to 1.3 billion people industrializing, versus USA's 0.34 billion. Of course much of China's manufacturing is consumed in USA and other countries, however.

Still 1.3 billion has a big footprint even when the average Chinese citizen still consumes less than the average American. They do still have billionaires, in China, as do many other countries, in the world, including third world nations.

One big change that has happened in the last 50 years, since I entered college, is a huge rise in the consumption levels of people all over the world. Many folks have risen out of poverty in China and other places. This is a bigger change than the population growth, itself, though world population has doubled since then. Over the same time period, consumption has gone up far more.

Population growth is now slowing down, but it is still growing.

Even though many folks, in USA, feel guilty about our level of consumption, I don't see a huge trend toward voluntary simplicity. That can still happen and some folks embrace voluntary simplicity, but it doesn't seem to catch on in a big enough way.

These days, China may be doing more than USA to make it's economy greener. High speed rail, solar power, electric cars, even nuclear power. China has an easier time organizing on a big scale. In USA there are lots of citizen groups who fight changes.

I'd still rather live in USA in spite of democracy's inefficiencies, but it would be better if our self interests could bend a little more for common good.

Let us build that green infrastructure, for the most part at least. We are kind of gridlocked when it comes to making transformational changes. Trump wants to break the gridlock, but he and his supporters want to take us back in the wrong direction.

What would my past self think of my life today?

If the Robert of my senior year in high school were to see how my life has turned out now, the first thought might be disappointment. I had visions of a career in radio. Possibly being a talk show host. Comparing some high school visions to my life now is like comparing apples and oranges, however. The world and what they call the media landscape has changed dramatically. What they call social media didn't even exist back then.

Besides a tinge of disappointment, my high school self would also be fascinated in how the world and technology has changed. That self would be full of questions.

My big desire, back then, was to express my opinions and share of my authentic self; something that's done on social media. The ability to share thousands of my photos and observations, on a media channel that's worldwide at practically no cost, was inconceivable back then. I can pretty much say whatever I want without a boss looking over my shoulder, or the need for catering to a market. The audience is, most likely, a lot smaller, however. Again, it's a case of comparing apples to oranges.

Back in high school, I had visions of maybe someday being a talk show host, or a news commentator on a station like KGO, in San Francisco. It had an audience in the hundreds of thousands reaching up and down the entire west coast, at night, due to ionospheric skip.

Today, my signal can reach around the world, but do very many people tune in, given the millions and millions of other channels bombarding the world with their messages?

Transmitter power is no longer as relevant as it was back then; in fact, the entire AM radio band is almost fading into obscurity.

While I had some big dreams during my childhood, I also had lots of doubts and anxieties. I wasn't sure I would even make it through college. These days there are more terms for these conditions such as anxiety disorder and autism spectrum. Much of the time, during my childhood, I felt like I wouldn't be up to the task for great success anyway.

Since those days, I have seen many more flaws in the places I aspired to as well. Touring some radio / TV stations left me with a feeling that they can be stressful workplaces. With my mental condition, I probably couldn't work there anyway. Expressing one's authentic self would be difficult as well. Working one's way up from the bottom of a large organization was seen as a common route to more authentic self expression, after one gets closer to the top. I now have a somewhat more cynical view of the world around me.

Meanwhile, what happened to KGO Radio would be more of a dissapointment. It's kind of imploded, or at least it's not what it once was. It went to a sports gambling format that didn't last long. Last I saw, on news websites, it has new call letters and right wing talk from a national network. See article from my column in a small local publication called The Betty Pages about KGO.

Where I have ended up does make sense to me, given what I have learned along the way. Things don't necessarily turn out the way one expects, but I feel like excepting how the journey has been turning out is, at least, okay.

It has been an interesting journey so I'd hope that my high school self would be more full of questions and interest, in what the future has brought, than full of harsh judgements.

Supporting LGBTQ rights and other human rights might be the best way to boost your country's population. Talented workers will be seeking refuge in your country.

So many folks have been trying to get into Europe, Canada and USA that it's overwhelmed the borders.

On the otherhand, many countries, such as Russia, are trying to raise their birth rates. Who wants to live there? Not me, for sure. Talented people, who think outside the box, are trying to flee that country.

Some folks, like Elon Musk and Puin worry about low birthrates. They worry that there may not be enough young workers, being born, to pay for the social security and drive economic growth as world populations age.

My solution, to the so called problem of underpopulation, is to make one's country a place where people want to immigrate to.

There are certain countries, such as USA (before Trump) Canada, Australia and many European countries that have been overwhelmed by millions of folks trying to immigrate there. People don't want to immigrate to places like Russia in search of personal dignaty and human rights. It can be said that USA might never have a shortage of young workers because all it would have to do is open the borders and they will come. There is the phrase, "vote with your feet."

Ironically, many of the most desirable countries, to live in, are closing their borders, or at least they are restricting immigration. Are too many young folks wanting to live in these desirable countries? It's true, so many have been coming that it's overwhelmed the infrastructure and the affordable housing.

Rather than promoting births, I would rather see the nations of the world strive to become places where people want to live. Ironically, supporting LGBTQ rights might be the best way to increase one's population. Persecuted people are likely to be seeking refugee status in those countries.

I still think the environment would be in better shape if there were less people on the planet, but there is a legitimate worry that there may not be enough young workers, to pay for social security as populations age.

Making your country a desirable place to live is the solution. This should be the strategy for each nation on the national scale. On the global scale, the environment would still be easier to protet with less people on the planet as a whole.

The world would be better if, rather than a race to the bottom, countries competed with one another in creating desirable places to live. If there was ever a shortage of people, the most desirable countries would win in terms of attracting taleted workers to their economies.

Democracies would have an advantage if there was ever a shortage of people because they would have less shortage of people when people choose where they would prefer to live. Betty Pages article.

Having a family is often given as an excuse for having a car.

I often tell people I have never driven or owned a car. They often say, "That is admirable for health and the environment." Then the next thing they say is, "But we have a family." "we have to get kids to soccer practice and so forth, so we can't live that way."

Neurodivergent possibly a better term than autism.

I haven't been diagnosed officially, but several people have said that I may be on the autism spectrum. I think that a better term to describe this is neurodivergent; someone who's brain works differently than average.

Autism is in the news with HHS Secretary Kennedy's wish to study it. I doubt that it's related to vaccines. My own assumption is that autism seems more prevalent, these days, due to more awareness. Back during my childhood, people weren't aware of it.

These days, it seems like lots more people are on that spectrum, probably because, in the past, it just wasn't articulated. Some folks have always been a bit strange and had some trouble plugging into mainstream jobs, schools and so forth, but describing it as autism wasn't done.

When I first started hearing about it, I thought that one could call it a "catchall disease." One can be different in many ways so just toss it into that category.

Thinking of it as a disease can be problematic though I hear there is a spectrum from high functioning to severely limited. In some cases it can even be a virtue given what mix of skills one might have, or not have.

The term neurodivergent seems to work better, in my opinion. There are lots of different kinds of people and there are many attempts, especially in recent times, to find ways for divergent people to connect with jobs, schooling and so forth. It takes some flexibility in things like school lessons, resumes and so forth.

The virtues and tradeoffs of local sourcing. Short term propserity is not one of them.

There are many values in life beyond things that are counted by money and prosperity. Things like free time, peace of mind, rest, health, friends, hobbies and interests.

The economy of money is important, but it's not the whole story. It does seem like today's prosperity relies on international trade and ironically, President Trump, in the name of increasing economic prosperity, has thrown a monkey wrench into trade and the economy. We are likely experiencing higher prices and an economic downturn.

Local sourcing for manufacturing is a virtue in itself, but not likely to bring short term prosperity. Voters, who want results quickly, are likely to be disappointed.

Local sourcing is something that a lot of people, on the left, have talked about also; for instance local sourcing of food. Many folks complain about foods shipped from thousands of miles; such as the opposition to the "thousand mile salad." They want "locally produced," such as, supposedly, at places like the Bellingham Farmer's Market. Then they buy some coffee; not grown locally. Ironically the wide variety of fresh vegies in salads need to be sourced from far places when it isn't the growing season for fresh things locally. We could rely more on canned goods, I guess.

Problem is, we can't have it all. American people are somewhat spoiled.

Local, community values, time and money are all factors we have to balance each day. I think in terms of things being tradeoffs rather than zero sum games.

The job slashers at DOGE forget that many skilled people are on probation so they get fired while some of the dead wood is not on probation so it remains. That's not a strategy based on merit.

Elon Musk's DOGE government cuts seems like the Peter Principle to me. That principle about mediocracy rising to the top.

I hear only 4% of the budget is staff and they keep saying, "Laid off employees are put on administrative leave with pay;" I guess. They are not saving much money and still paying salaries just to not have the work done?

Then they are laying off new staff that is still on probation. This seems like seniority over skill. Why not layoff those deemed less competent and forget about seniority? Much as they talk about tearing things down and disliking unions, maybe that's a bridge too far? If it isn't politically easy to slash folks with highest pay and seniority, in favor of keeping new hires possibly based on merit, it's just the old order wielding a new meataxe.

The reaction against immigration is a reaction to overpopulation, but the reaction could even be worse than the problem itself.

The reaction against immigration, in much of the world including USA, is like a symptom of a disease. The disease is over population, but the symptom could be worse than the disease, itself. It's like an auto immune disease where the reaction is worse than the disease itself.

The world could accommodate it's 8+ billion people better than it does today, but the reaction against new arrivals is pretty strong. The reaction indicates that there is a problem of too many people, but the reaction, itself, is likely worse than the actual problem.

Republican Party brand is losing popularity.

A silver lining in all this world economic chaos is that the Republican Party brand is losing popularity.

It looks like Trump has painted himself in to a corner.

April 5th protest in Bellingham.

Hands off protest against Trump on April 5 2025 had an estimated 3,000 people show up at City Hall in Bellingham. Many showed up at the old Federal Building at Cornwall and Magnolia as well.

The volitility of one person rule.

The Republican Congress has given the president too much power so he can be nearly a dictator via executive order.

World stock markets go up or down based on his actions and or rumors of his actions. He and his ideas drive much of the international news and happenings.

Taxes, tariffs, revenue enhancements. All names for similar things.

Taxes, to pay for the government services that people use, are an unpopular concept. Often politicians will call them by a different name; for instance tariffs on imports.

Tariffs are basically taxes by a different name. They are more like consumption taxes; like sales taxes. They tend to be more regressive as focused on lower and middle income classes versus graduated income taxes which focus more on wealthy folks.

Right wing populism tends to shift taxes away from upper class people; possibly due to the law of unintended consequences. Don't believe all the rhetoric from right wing pundits.

Another phrase that is used instead of taxes is "Revenue Enhancements." After George Bush Sr. said "read my lips, no new taxes" he did sign some bills to help fund Social Security and so forth. They were called revenue enhancements.

Taxes are often needed to pay for the services that most people expect from government.

When workers shot themselves in the foot, politically. Remembering when Reagan fired the PATCO Union that had endorsed him in 1980.

Auto workers union still supports the tariffs thinking it will shift work back to USA. If car sales drop and workers get laid off, they may change their minds.

I remember, during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, the union for air traffic controllers endorsed Reagan in 1980. Soon after that, they ask for improvements in their working conditions that Reagan refused, due to his promise to cut domestic spending. The air controllers went on strike and Reagan played hardball. They got fired.

The system continued as folks crossed the picket lines. This was seen as a turning point in Reagan breaking the unions.

Some comparisons between today and the 1960s.

Money is not that good of a measure for quality of life. No amount of money, millions, billions, or even trillions of dollars could have purchased a smartphone, in the 1960s, as its capabilities did not exist. If those capabilities were to even partially exist, back then, it would be worth millions, yet today, it could cost well a few hundred dollars; much less than one month's rent for most US apartments.

Today, we struggle to produce enough value, in goods and services, to pay the cost of living. With warning signs flashing, from climate change and / or the federal debt, anxiety is through the roof. Add to this, worry about the trade deficit.

In early childhood, I saw a movie, at the Cordova Theater in Pullman, called "Babes in Toyland." They figured out how to get the machine running faster and faster making more and more toys till the machine blew up. The lights went dark, as they hid outside the factory. Peering through a window, they saw the dead toy machine in eerie silence.

I remember being scared of the dark for a long time after that.

More recently, I watched that movie again on YouTube. It seemed to have a hidden political message about society, consumption and moneymaking that went over my head as a child.

One of the joys of my childhood was the transistor radio. Today I think of it as the smartphone of the 1960s. It was far, far less capable than so many of the products, we have today, but the feeling of wealth, that it provided, seemed comparable to what people feel today, if not greater.

In earlier decades, our expectations seemed lower, yet mundane things; like a place to call home and ability to see the dentist, were a given; if one was middle class at least.

Today, we are more aware of neighbors around us, in USA, with struggles for survival. Some of that trauma was more swept under the carpet, back then at least.

One difference between a portable radio and the smartphone is a smartphone's dependency on the network. Without elaborate systems of the internet and cell towers, the smartphone loses just about all it's capability. On the other hand, the radio is more independent with it's own battery for power. It works without a phone network, or subscription to cellphone service.

Radios can still be a dream product for independent minded survivalists. They work off the grid, but they still rely on civilization to function. There needs to be radio stations for radios to pick up the signal and the programming. Without radio stations, the radio only gets static which might be useful on the AM band for warning if a thunderstorm is nearby. The crackle of distant lightning has a characteristic sound on AM radios.

Still, radio stations are important for radios to work. Aside from so many people's low opinions about the fabric of community that we share, our devices and riches are still pretty much dependent on community. Even the transistor radio, which could be king of the toolbox for survivalists, needs radio stations equipped with auxiliary generators to power the station in an emergency.

Wealth, measured in money, is dependent on what the market will price things at. Perception of well being is more than just GDP, as measured in money, and we really can't detach ourselves from community and the world.

Schumer dodged the bullet of blame on government shutdown and then let the Republicans fall on their own tariff sword.

Senate Minority Leader Schumer (D) dodged a bullet of blame when he voted, along with Republicans, to raise the debt ceiling and avert a government shutdown.

Now Trump and the Republicans are crashing the stock market with extreme tariffs. This is likely leading us into inflation and recession. The pottery barn rule applies to Republicans who are likely to be in full path of blame. "You break it, you own it."

Why so many people have more stuff, than in past decades, but feel like they are in more poverty?

I'm old enough to remember the 1960s though I was a child. In many ways, it was a more spartan time than today. Compare the transistor radio, which could only pick up a few stations, to the smartphone of today. At the same time, there was more of a feeling of prosperity. Why is this the case? One thing is that among the large middle class, there was more security about basics such as housing and health insurance. Yes, the luxuries were spartan, but something we didn't look forward to was more assured; going to the dentist.

Expectations were lower so I think there was a bit less of comparing one's lot in life with others. Yes, there was the phrase, "keeping up with the Joneses," but it seemed like less of a zero sum game for survival, or at least to avoid homelessness.

As we face big worries, from the left over climate change and from the right over the deficit, it seems like austerity is likely to be shoved upon the bulk of people; except as always, most of the super rich. Bad politics will likely keep people unhappy, but in an ideal world we ought to figure out how to measure our progress in less financial ways.

All the money, in the world, could not have bought the smartphone, back in the 1960s, yet today it's vast capabilities are, basically, taken for granted.

Measuring everything in financial terms is very limited. Multi million dollar computers of decades past have little capability, or portability, that so much less expensive things have today, yet measuring these gifts in money seems to be a broken paradigm.

What is the true worth of an experience, of friendships of community, safety and the environment? Money doesn't even provide an absolute measure of something like a smartphone. In 1960s it would be almost like having pure magic. Today, it's value pales compared to one month's rent in a cheap apartment.

A silver lining is the discrediting of the Republican Party.

Due to the law of unintended consequences, Trump and the Republican Party, I think we are headed into a period of austerity and much less material prosperity for most people. A silver lining is the discrediting of the Republican Party.

Trump's bait and switch. Now it's get used to sacrifice. Since we are ask to do it anyway, it's better to sacrifice consumption for the environment, however.

Concern over inflation is one thing that powered Trump's campaign. Now it looks like "bait and switch" as tariffs are likely to add to inflation.

So there's a new promise? Short term sacrifice for long term gain; localizing production. Is that even worth it? Manufacturing doesn't create lots of jobs given automation.

It may be a case of making lemonade out of lemons; the lemonade is reduced consumption.

I know it will hurt a lot of people, but my thought is that reducing consumption can be a good thing overall for the environment and the long term human condition. You're given lemons, you make lemonade. This is not what most Trump supporters had in mind, but there is the law of unintended consequences.

Maybe most cars are lemons anyway. Trump only won by a very thin margin. Economic angst can turn popular opinion and elections on a dime.

Can 8 billion plus people on this planet live the American Dream as currently defined by many?

8 billion plus people, on this planet, can't all live the so called "American Dream" as it's currently defined in much of popular opinion. The carbon footprint is too high, there isn't enough space for all the cars.

Now I see, in the news, that many immigrants to richer countries are starting the realize that the welcome mat is frayed. Realizing the dream is impractical, they are sometimes making do and learning to appreciate their own countries. Hopefully some of the oppressive governments, in those countries, can be reformed.

The whole world, including USA, may have to learn different and less consumptive ways of living. Hopefully cultural and technological advance, miniaturization and so forth, can help people along the way.

I heard this segment of NPR Sunday Morning Edition this morning. Toward the end it talks about people possibly making the best of things and appreciating, to some extent, the countries, the beaches, the families, communities and the lives that they left as they find themselves unwelcome many of the places they have tried to migrate to.

Relocalizing manufacturing may not create that many jobs as manufacturing automates more and more as time goes on.

Much of Trump's thin margin in the popular vote was due to promises to reduce inflation and increase prosperity. Now his rhetoric has shifted toward short term sacrifice for long term gain; supposedly tariffs will bring short term hardship for a future of greater prosperity. Manufacturing jobs relocating to USA.

Problem is, manufacturing is becoming so automated that it doesn't create as many jobs as in the smokestack past. Tariffs are likely to bring down prosperity instead. As I've been thinking all along, USA needs to consume less. Less cars, for instance.

Unfortunately, that burden of sacrifice is borne by the majority of folks, while a wealthy elite continue to benefit from wider income inequality. Automated manufacturing can increase wealth inequality as owners profit while few workers benefit.

What we need is a society that is less focused on materialistic gains. We need a culture that flourishes in other ways. We have much of that now as it flourishes in the arts, learning, human connection and volunteerism. Life is about more than just money.

Trumpism seems to be trying to take us in another direction.

The ways I would hope we could have avoided to reduce consumption.

Family Planning, like Planned Parenthood does, is a better way to deal with an overwhelming number of mouths to feed than starvation. Today's news is talking about rising hunger, in the world, related to cuts in USAID.

On another topic, I sometimes think there are too many cars. Today, I hear news about tariffs on imported cars. Well, I guess cars will go up in price waiting for US production to ramp up. There are better ways to reduce car dependency than tariffs on cars and car parts. The auto industry straddles borders.

Reduce dependency on imported cars from bicycles and transit.

Is US becoming one party state allowing one autocrat to rule by executive order?

This president is basically doing everything with executive orders. Congress is supposed to have a say, but the Republican majority, in Congress, tends to back the president so Congress has basically become irrelevant.

Only some US court judges stand in the way of these executive orders. About the only big decision, in Congress was to raise the debt ceiling. If the Democrats would have blocked that, it might have just put them in the path of blame for government shutdown.

Who knows, maybe this president would have just raised the debt ceiling by executive order? I wouldn't put it past him and who would have stopped it, except for some judges?

Our system of checks and balances looks like it's only being held together by a thin line of judges and who knows how long that can last given appeals to the mostly Republican Supreme Court. Also who enforces the rules that any of the Federal judges make?

Fortunately Supreme Court justices don't always vote "party line," but the federal government does seem to be evolving into a one party / one person (Donald Trump) system. Without the judges, are we sliding into an autocracy?

There are other checks, however. There are the opinions of American people, who only put Trump back in the White House with a very thin margin. That margin can easily erode given economic problems, such as the cost of living which no president seems to be able to bring down.

There's also still the media and it's influence on public opinion.

There are state and local governments which still have quite a bit of power.

There is also the private sector; businesses, corporations, unions, non profits and so forth that still have power and influence.

There's the influence of world opinion, including the allies that once trusted us in Europe, Canada and so forth. That respect is quickly vanishing as former allies are working on plans to deal with the US as an unreliable partner these days.

The economy could be the ultimate check; the stock market and so forth. Do most of the American people feel happy and secure, or is the cost of living and economic uncertainty continuing to ravage public opinion? This can turn against the Republicans in power.

Consumption can cause problems, but housing costs are so high lots more TVs need to be sold to pay the bills compared to in the 1960s

Image taken by my brother Bill in 1960s.

Our consumptive society is causing lots of problems in both the environment and politics. Consumption, however, creates the jobs that pay the high bills for housing and certain other necessities. Consumption is needed to keep people employed.

I'd like to think we could figure out a better way to keep moving forward, as a society, beyond just increasing material consumption. How about indexes for happiness? Problem still remains, how can people afford to pay the bills, rents, mortgages and so forth. Certain things have gone way up, in cost, compared to the flow of consumer goods and services.

I remember how wealthy I felt this country was during my childhood. The toys, we had back then, compared to the Smartphones of today, were quite spartan. The happiness I gained from just a simple transistor radio was quite high, compared to people taking the Smartphone for granted.

Another part of the problem, today, is wealth and income inequality. Humans have a tendency to compare ourselves with others who have more. Today's world seems to be governed by the politics of resentment. During my childhood, we only got 3 or 4 channels on our new color TV. It was still pretty exciting tho the color only worked occasionally. Reception was fringe as far as we were from the Spokane TV stations and many of the shows were still in black and white, but when the color worked, it was remarkable.

I was impressed by the wealth of USA when I saw certain shows, like Lawrence Welk, where whole street scenes could be built in the studio for just one act. A quaint little town could be served up, just for someone to sing a song and then a totally different scene for the next act. I kept thinking, wow, they have lots of money to do that.

My thought of abundance was reinforced by all the talk of how rich USA was compared to other countries in the world. We could go to the moon and fight poverty, with President Johnson's Great Society, both at the same time.

Newscasters did worry, at that time, as to whether we could afford it all, however. There was the Vietnam War and the concern about spending for both "guns and butter."

I had TV in my childhood, but I was more into my radio. While the TV only brought a few channels, the radio brought many more choices; especially at night due to ionospheric skip. I spent many a night tuning in stations from places like New Orleans, Chicago and San Francisco.

I was fascinated by the magnetic waves, called radio waves, which would travel that far. I'd even drew lines on maps to imagine the trip those waves were taking. Today, our toys offer much more, but there seems to be less appreciation of what we have. Cynicism and jadedness seems to prevail.

Compared to today's products, the consumer products of my childhood were quite spartan, but the slower flow of goods and services seemed more appreciated back then.

Today's incredible flow of goods and services seems like a desperate need for survival. The economy needs to stay in high gear to keep the jobs going so people can even afford to have a place to call home.

Yes, there are twice as many people as before and other countries, around the world, have caught up with our lead.

Development that has led to low density sprawl has had an effect for sure. These days, with our larger population, it's leading to more and more traffic gridlock. Somehow we need to rekindle the mindset that we are moving forward.

Yes, our technology is increasing in sophistication, which I still think is a good thing, for the most part. The problem seems to be more related to the mindset and maybe our higher level of expectations. Expectations can create needs and the needs, in our world, are overwhelming. The cynicism, jadedness and the desperation related to just getting to and hanging on in the middle class, I guess.

We need to innovate our culture, somehow, for a more enjoyable and sustainable world. Just increasing, ever more, the throughput of products isn't likely to do it.

I'm a fan of having more free time, but so many working people can't afford that. Retirement is one of the joys of life.

The years I was working, at low paid jobs, my rent and bills were low enough that I got by okay. I also could take lots of time off for bicycle travel and community involvement. I felt blessed, but my expectations were different from mainstream. Rents were also lower, back through most of those years and the places I lived were well below market, even for back then. Yes, some of my accommodation was a bit spartan, but life was, for the most part, good.

My related Betty Pages article.

I use my desktop computer more than my smartphone.

I like having a smartphone, but I think smartphones have led to the degradation of discussion. The small screen and keyboard tends to favor sound bytes and gotcha points over more nuanced discussion.

The portability of the smartphone leads to its use in settings ripe with distraction. I tend to do my sharing from a desktop computer in the quiet of my apartment. I like to think more deeply about things. The phone is a great tool, for certain uses, but it's not so good for other uses. When I venture out from home, I sometimes forget to bring my phone with me. This is a mini form of unplugging; not necessarily done intentionally, however. It's just that I forget.

Out in the real world, the phone can be an instrument of distraction. It can interrupt with it's stream of notifications; though mine tends to be quiet. I don't get lots of notifications and one can set it to not provide so many notifications.

Using the phone in the real world also means that the world's distractions can interfere with one's writing. Deep thought and discussion isn't always that easy to do on the go. The smartphone still does have many good uses, however.

Seen on the reader board at the church near where I live.

Populism is leading us to oligarchy.

I'm not that into sound bytes, but here is one I just thought of.

Populism is leading us to oligarchy.

Eliminating the people.

The executive order to eliminate content promoting diversity, equity and inclusion has led to eliminating lots of people and their stories from government websites.

I think this could eventually mean eliminating all people to be fair and to keep things more simple.

Stories about the personalities and contributions of people, if eliminated from NASA websites, for instance, remove the human side of the story. Much of the contribution to American life happens to come from people who could be classified as women and various other minorities.

I did some screen captures, from a story on the NPR website, about this situation. I created my own art piece (below) about this. In comments, I'll put a link to that story. Graphic is about before and after images on a website from Small Business Administration.

I must admit, sometimes I find the science, itself, more interesting than the human stories. Galaxies and telescopes, versus the people who discovered and invented things.

Still, I think the humanity is important, but there is a push to erase diversity, which I think basically can lead to erasing people altogether. This makes me think of AI (artificial intelligence) eventually replacing people altogether.

Article that inspired this post.

Pondering the ultimate fate of the universe

The universe could be reborn in a new big bang after its current cycle of expansion? No one knows, of course, but I like this idea better than an alternative that is often called "the heat death of the universe."

In the heat death scenario, the universe keeps expanding out from the original big bang, never to return. It just disperses out to basically a cold nothingness; with stars running out of fuel and so forth. I like the idea of the universe returning back to another big bang a lot better.

Of course all of this is long past our lifetimes, but it can have philosophic implications.

In the late 1990s, astronomers found evidence that the expansion of the universe may be accelerating. This due to something called "dark" because they don't see it; dark energy. They just see the effect it has on the growing distance between galaxies.

Dark could also imply evil as I think about the idea of the heat death, but the term actually just comes from something astronomers haven't yet seen. They just see evidence that the galaxies are moving apart; the expansion of the universe. That rate of expansion could be changing over time.

Back when I was in college, before the 1990s, the ultimate fate of the universe, between rebirth and heat death, was also being discussed.

Back then the question was about how much matter is there, in the universe, to create the gravity needed for pulling the galaxies back together after they were flung out from the big bang? Matter is said to create the gravity needed to eventually halt the expansion of the universe so it falls back to another big bang birth; so to speak.

Even back then, it was beginning to look like the universe did not have enough mass for returning back to another big bang. Then came the 1990s discovery that the galaxies were not only dispersing out from start, they were actually being pushed apart faster and faster as time goes on. Some yet unseen thing was continuing to push them apart. They started calling that dark energy.

Well, now there is even newer evidence that the unseen thing, whatever it is, could be weakening, or basically changing over time. It could even lead back to pulling the universe together again. I guess dark energy, itself, pulling the universe back together again. It's said to be related to the nature of space/time itself. I guess space/time expanding and then, eventually, possibly contracting again back to start. This is all speculation, of course, as we continue trying to learn the big questions about the universe and our place in it.

Article I found on an NPR website.

Dark Energy is weakening.

Why we can't build anything anymore.

Video, I found on the web, that explains a dilemma we face. It's thought provoking though a former White House speech writer for GW Bush is involved. These days, maybe Bush could be thought of as a reasoned and thoughtful president.

The dilemma is worth considering and the video is done in a professional way that can reach an audience in a way, possibly more entertaining and digestable, than my own writing.

Why we can't build anything anymore.

Regulaions can stand in the way of transition to a greener economy.

I can see why there is push back against regulation.

Regulations stop a lot of things, but we need to figure out how to build a greener future. We need to be able to build enough housing to keep up with population growth. We need to build alternative energy facilities without having to wade through years of red tape.

Much of these regulations are the result of lobbying groups, lawyers, fears of the future, neighborhood associations and risk adverse thinking. Government is blamed, but it is often a tool of these other things in society.

I still think population growth needs to be reduced, but we do need to build more. Just bringing the 8 billion people, already on this planet, up to more comfortable living standards means lots of building. Either that, or cutting back on our space and consumption demands; for instance less space for parking.

As immigrants come into this country, we need to build for, or at least adapt, to more people. One way to adapt is to use less, of course, but that's a hard sell.

There is a lot of push back against immigration which I see as a result of things like unaffordable housing and increasing traffic congestion.

Crime is often cited as a factor against immigration, but crime rates are even higher among native born. I think growth is a bigger factor, though crime tends to be pushed as an issue by the right wing. Growth is a huge problem if we are not building and / or adapting to it.

Just changing the system doesn't work without changing culture.

A recent NBC poll shows low approval rating for the Democratic Party. Trump's approval is falling also, but not as low as the Democrats.

I still think the Democrats come closer to my values than the Republicans, but my values and lifestyle is different than most people. My thinking is neither mainstream Democrat or Republican. I think I am less into wealth and consumerism than most people and I don't drive a car.

It seems like Republicans have an easier time aligning with mainstream culture than Democrats. Inexpensive energy, economic growth, low prices on consumer products and low taxes fit well with the aspirations of the general public as viewed in national polls.

What Democrats advocate is more of a stretch given our general culture of consumption. In the long run however, Republican values can lead to ruin. This due to things like climate change and wealth inequality. Most people tend to focus on short term pragmatic things, in their personal lives, rather than the big picture.

I keep thinking that just changing the system hasn't worked that well for decades, we need to rethink deeper cultural issues.

Many of these deeper discussions and aspirations do happen among people. These discussions also happen more among local, rather than national politicians; such as city, county and state level politicians. Figuring out something better than gridlock traffic and unaffordable housing tends to be talked about more at the local levels among individuals as well as politicians.

Learning more about our own communities rather than celebrities and sports could improve our politics.

It seems like most Americans know more about movies and sports than they do about the communities they live in. This could explain why so many of the politicians that get elected have bad ideas.

Basic knowledge about the workings of the government, the economy and the landscape is useful. For instance understanding a concept called "economy of scale." This can explain why large corporations often offer lower prices than small mom and pop businesses in spite of the high salaries they pay a handful of top executives.

Understanding the tradeoffs would be useful since we can't always "have it all."

Small might mean better community while large could mean more efficiency. Knowing what the tradeoffs are, intentionally making the choices and accepting the consequences can reduce anger and impatience.

At times, it seems like people are just lashing out and stumbling in the dark not knowing why things happen. Having more awareness of the landscape and systems around us would help us more than knowing sports scores or Hollywood celebrities.

Myself, I find the community and the landscape I live in to be more interesting than what happens on a football field.

Trade war recession might lower consumption and the carbon footprint.

An unintended consequence of the Trump Presidency and the tariffs is likely to be a recession or even a depression. It's not something most people are looking forward to, but it could reduce consumption and the carbon footprint.

It may take a bear market to be a check on Trump.

Due to incompetent Republican leadership of the national government plus some other economic worries, the stock market could be trending down, day after day, week after week. This could be what they call a "bear market."

The silver lining could be public opinion turning against Republican leadership in Congress and the presidency. Meanwhile it could mean US goes into a recession and quite a bit of savings gets lost; at least temporarily.

Money doesn't mean that much to me, but I do have a small amount in a mutual fund. I've been thinking maybe I should have pulled my small amount out of the mutual fund when I saw that Trump had won the election. I predicted that a bear market would be likely going forward. Still, my little account is set to low risk, so it's not that much exposed to stocks.

If I had closed out that little account and put the money into my regular bank account, at least it would be less complexity filling out my tax form. My income is so low, I hardly owe any taxes anyway, but having that fund adds a bit more complexity for figuring out how to fill out the form.

Confusion at IRS due to big layoffs is another topic in the news.

If nothing else, maybe economic problems will change minds. The workings of the economy; like the weather, is one thing that egotistical politicians can't really control. It's something much larger than politics, itself. Technocrats often have a better handle on managing an economy than ideologues.

Community wealth versus personal wealth. Private business assets that serve the public, can be considered part of community wealth along with public infrastructure and so forth.

I prefer community wealth to personal wealth. My thoughts are different than the thinking of many folks. I think community wealth can include private wealth that serves the public; for instance a store that the public can shop at. This is different than wealth is not open to the public; such as the store owner's private home.

Community wealth also includes wealth owned by government; such as parks, roads and schools. Community wealth can be owned by worker's collectives, coops, non profits and so forth.

Even large private corporations can be community wealth. Chains of stores, such as even Walmart, can serve the public if the public wants the fruits of "economy of scale." Bigness sometimes means lower prices, more selection and so forth. Small "mom and pop" stores offer other virtues; such as connection to local community.

Big corporations can be owned by a very wealthy individual who's wealth is invested in the stores themselves, or they can be owned by stockholders. Stocks can be owned by things like union pension funds, or exclusive private circles of super wealthy and often greedy owners.

Much of the quality of life depends on how people behave who own and use the wealth. Undue influence over politicians is irresponsible use of wealth. Advertising can be seen as a problematic use of wealth.

Community wealth, that is open to and used by the public, is better in my opinion, than personal wealth; such as a bunch of mansions that are for private use only.

Interesting to note; I've heard that Oprah Winfrey had one of her private homes on Orcas Island, near here. It was later sold to another owner.

Fun time at a dance.

Saturday night was a fun dance at the Hotel Leo for Bellingham Queer Collective. Music was full of energy from a real good DJ named Westwood.

I'm posing with some friends, Mark Allyn and Michelle, outside the dance in the hotel lobby holding a red blinker from my bicycle. Dancing the night away.

Dance organized by Bellingham Queer Collective.

San Francisco ferries made in Bellingham.

News from San Francisco, but most Bellingham people don't realize; it's also about Bellingham.

San Francisco is getting 3 new electric ferries and they are being made at All American Marine in Bellingham. Passenger only ferries made in Bellingham, but used elsewhere. Why not here? I would guess San Francisco Area is more viable for non automobile ferries due to higher population density.

From Bellingham, ferries would go to San Juan Islands and how does one get around on the island without a car? Maybe, in Friday Harbor, but no where else. How about by bicycle?

I remember when we did have passenger / bicycle only ferry service from Bellingham to the San Juan Islands as well as to Victoria, BC. This was back in the 1990s. They left from Fairhaven Cruise Terminal. The ferries were privately run for a few years before, I guess, the economics of this didn't workout.

Artwork in the alley at the downtown Bellingham parking garage.

Could US Republican Party lead to Ukraine's defeat and USA being expelled from NATO?

In my mind are various different scenarios that may, or may not be what the future brings.

One possible scenario, given Republican Party rule, in US, is Ukraine being defeated by Russia in the near future. Resistance to Russian rule, from Ukrainian people, would continue to be a thorn in Russia's side so Putin's victory would be similar to George Bush's famous moment on the aircraft carrier during the second Iraq War when he declared "mission accomplished." As history shows, Iraq remained in turmoil with US troops involved long after that moment.

Another part of this scenario holds that our NATO allies, including Canada, reconfigure NATO to, basically, expel the US as a member. This could happen formally, or at least in practice, if not officially. Other NATO members are starting to distrust the Trump Administration with security secrets. They fear information could be passed on to Putin.

I can see sharing my above post to Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, but he would never see it anyway, due to volume of mail and me being outside his district. He, as well as some other Republicans has played lip service to Ukraine remaining independent, but many of his actions and his support of Trump undermine that. The start reality of this situation is likely to face us.

One thought I have had quite often is that Ukraine could temporarily give up the Donbass and Crimea in exchange for protection to the rest of the country. If this could work as a cease fire it could be a step. Who knows what will happen, in the long run, to Russia or Ukraine. USSR did fall and that could happen again.

Looking way back to another, more optimistic era is this comment I placed on another person's post.

Things seemed much better back when the Soviet Union was trying to reform and develop more respect for human rights. The US and the west was trying to help USSR and then Russia reform. Things; especially in Russia, have gotten much worse since then. Maybe the former Soviet Republics broke away too quickly. I think maybe if the Soviet Union had held together a bit longer, the reforms could have had a better chance to take hold. Economic instability and chaos lead to return of authoritarian rule. As it is today, especially in Russia, I think human rights have been extinguished for the near future at least.

American dream is not about access to cheap goods. My different take on Treasury Secretary Bessent's comment.

I've thought that all along. I've advocated other qualities of life besides just material wealth and consumerism.

Still, I don't think that's what the Trump Administration and the voters for Trump had in mind. Tariffs slow down the flow of cheap goods leading to inflation. Voters voted against inflation.

Looking deeper, the way I like to think versus Trump, or even Democrat talking points, I think less consumption could be good for the environment. It could lower the carbon footprint.

Less consumption could also focus society on more intangible values; such as community connections, knowledge, good conversations and health; other values than just financially measured wealth.

Some Trump people don't necessarily have that in mind, but they seem to be pushing for bringing more manufacturing and production back to USA.

Many, on both the left and the right, envision an economy where we produce more of our own wealth. This could mean higher priced shoes, for instance, since they would be made locally. It could also mean higher wages as more things are made and grown locally. Higher wages, but more expensive foods and products.

Maybe housing would become more affordable, however, since other things, in the economy, such as consumable products and wages, would go up relative to housing and land, which has to be sourced locally. More local sourcing of goods and services sounds good, but there is another wildcard factor here; automation.

Re-localizing production will not necessarily lead to higher wages and less income inequality. Big business may still just automate and not really need the masses of people for producing the goods and services. Wealth may still only rise to the top.

Again, I keep thinking, we need to back away from so much lust for wealth and consumption overall. I'd like to see society focus more on the experience of life, itself; wealth and consumption only being one part of life.

Yes, survival and having food on the table is important, but a question I keep asking is, "what are we doing with our time?" "Are we spending our time in gratifying activities?" "Are we celebrating and uplifting our communities?" "Do we like and trust our neighbors?"

I keep asking, "what is the total quality of our lives beyond just what's measured with money?"

As some critics on the left may have almost wanted, US prosperity may crumble, but it's brought on by the right and the law of unintended consequences.

Tariffs are a way to finance the government versus income taxes. It's a way of shifting taxes to consumers. Lower income and middle class gets taxed more while higher income and wealth categories get taxed less.

This is what was voted in last November. American voters shooting themselves in the foot by a slim margin, back then. By now, maybe regret.

It will likely lead to higher inflation along with a downturn in the economy; possibly a steep downturn similar to when coronavirus happened.

Our relations with our allies and trading partners are going sour. Meanwhile the US is becoming more friendly to autocratic dictatorships; such as Russia.

Some people, including some folks in USA leaning toward the left, have been critical of American prosperity and consumerism all along. Consumerism has been seen as destructive to the natural environment; for instance. Also destructive to the human psyche.

Over the years, quite a few people have predicted a downfall of the US economy. This turmoil may be the reset some people have been predicting as in Mother Earth striking back.

My thoughts have been less drastic. I do think much of our consumer culture does need change, but not such a catastrophic change. I think we need to reduce consumption and probably value money less. At the same time, I would like to see us keep many of the good virtues we have had in our culture such as open mindedness, innovation and interest in the community's well being.

If we are smart, we can have a soft landing off what has been our somewhat too hectic economy. We may need to slow down a bit, but do it carefully. This is not what Trump voters had in mind and if it happens, it will be from the law of unintended consequences.

Unlike some folks on the left, I tend to not blame US imperialism for most of the world's problems. Yes, there is the history of imperialism. There has been slavery, land taken from native people's, the US conquest over part of Mexico in the 1840s and so forth.

More recently there has been some continued exploitation of world resources by US interests, but this has happened all throughout world history. The Romans did it. Various tribes among the American Native peoples did it before European settlers arrived. The world has a long history of conquest and bullying. Much of the world's problems, today, are not caused by the US.

World history has not been all about conquest and bullying. A case can be made that European conquest, during the so called Age of Discovery (Columbus and so forth), was the worst. Still, I think these problems of violence and greed are world problems and not necessarily all about the US.

The US has done many good things as well. Innovation, inspiration to much of the world. We have promoted freedom of thought, multi multicultural communities and so forth.

Especially, in recent times, we have done much toward looking at ourselves in the mirror. We've criticized our own actions; such as reexamining the Japanese internment during World War II. We have reexamined our own history of slavery and treatment of native Americans. We've criticized ourselves in regards to how we treat the environment. We've had many good intentions even though some might say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Lots of people, including many of our critics on the left, have benefited in their personal lives from the vary prosperity of the American economy.

There has been a lot about American culture and the American system that I continue to like. I'm hoping that the good things, in our culture, are salvageable; given the worldwide human condition that also includes greed and viciousness.

Short term populist "bread and butter" issues versus a longer term vision for a sustainable world. BP Oil looks more to short term.

The short term pragmatic pocketbook wins out over a long term vision of needs for the future. Putting food on the table comes first. Short term return on investment comes first. I think this is a result of pressure from populism around the world.

Businesses have trouble going too far out on a limb toward long term goals of global sustainability. If they go out beyond where the consumer markets, investors and voters were willing to go, they tend to pull back. Some folks would say, it was just "green washing" anyway so they wouldn't even get a lot of support, for their attempts at reform, from the traditional left. One can't expect an oil company to lead the way to a different future.

Pragmatism can be considered a virtue, but it's a virtue that focuses on short term needs. It's putting food on the table today, versus long term needs.

Culture needs to change, rather than just trying to change the system from top down, to reduce the carbon footprint.

For many years I have thought that most of the environmental movement has focused on the wrong strategy for making change. The strategy has been fighting government and corporations to try and get them to change. Instead, I think the problem is our culture. It's the consumption and voting habits of the masses.

At the same time, I don't necessarily blame individual people for the problem. One person is just a drop in the bucket so one person, alone, can't make the change either. What it takes is a realization that markets and voting patterns drive the situation.

More emphasis needs to be placed on culture and our mass behavior. The structure of our society, whether it's corporations, governments, or whatever, matters less, but it still does have an effect.

I tend to shift the emphasis back to the people, in mass, but I am not so naive as to think that the power of governments, corporations and wealthy individuals isn't a factor. It is, of course. It's kind of like a vicious cycle, but ordinary people, in mass, is the main factor I focus on.

It is really both, but most people's emphasis, as well as the media coverage, is usually on getting laws changed for trying to reform government and corporate structures from the top down.

Changes from the top down are usually met with populist uprisings over bread and butter issues, for instance the effect of carbon pricing on the cost of driving to work for ordinary people.

Populism tends to swing back and forth like a pendulum. It's almost like a pendulum with no long term vision. It is a floundering pendulum.

Personally, I haven't bought into as much of the consumer fashions of most folks. I seem to be less influenced by advertising, movies and so forth.

My life seems to be as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable, than mainstream consumer culture. At least I think it's less stressful.

There are many deep changes that need to be made in popular culture for us to move toward a greener future.

I think the pendulum does keep swinging, so it looks like it will swing away from Trumpism, now that Trump is the incumbent.

Still the pendulum seems to not have much of a long term vision. It mostly just flounders around trying to figure out who is to blame for the state of the world.

Meanwhile most people are just looking short term at how to survive and feed their families in this culture. Long term visions remain on the back burner.

Worse economic conditions and bad health likely in the next few years.

I think the US life expectancy is likely to go down for a while due to more stress created in part by economic stress and disturbing news around Trump.

Also I think bad medical advice, such as the reluctance to use vaccines and turmoil among government health organizations will add to increasing death rate and lower life expectancy for a period of time in the near future.

Trump wants to call it Gulf of America while devastating North America as a trading block with Tariffs against Canada and Mexico.

Trump's desire to rename Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America is only symbolic. In reality he doesn't believe in holding together the North American trade zone which includes Canada, USA and Mexico.

Tariffs against Canada and Mexico would devastate North American industry; such as the auto industry that straddles these borders.

Things looked good in early 1990s reform of Soviet Union, but now the breakup of USSR has lead to backsliding; especially in Russia itself..

Things looked hopeful in the early 1990s as the Soviet Union was reforming and opening up to more human rights, freedom of speech and innovation.

I think the Soviet Union may have broken up into independent republics too quickly, however. Since then, things have been shaky and especially Russia, itself, has turned more toward a form of fascism. Russia is seeking to reconquer former Soviet republics, such as Ukraine. This has lead to a brutal war that has turned to stalemate.

Now Trump Administration, in USA, is changing course seeking an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine, possibly at any cost. This potentially a form of peace without justice.

We'll see how this turns out. Hopefully still a lot of unknowns as to what the long term situation will bring.

When the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Seems like Republican thinking cares more about the lives of the unborn than the lives of children and adults already born.

The 8 billion+ people already on this planet is a lot of people. This has lead to immigration around the world as folks seek safer and better places to live. There is lots of pushback against immigration.

Now cutbacks in USAID are in the news as well as possible cutbacks in Medicaid funding for those in need.

My 8th grade plans for a new floating state for USA. The state of Lincoln. It could float away if USA was not governed well.

Sometime around my 8th grade year, my interest in large ships and buildings motivated me to draw rough plans for a 100 mile long ship.

My ship would be a floating new state added to USA; the state of Lincoln. I remember thinking that if USA was not governed well, my state could just break ties and float away. It could become an independent country, join Canada or something, I guess.

I still have plans for that ship. It's a scroll of glued together pages photographed below.

A friend of mine, at that time named Carl Swanson (lived on our street), also drew up plans for a ship. His ship was called Washington. Talking to Carl's dad, back then, I remember saying, "if USA doesn't shape up, the state of Lincoln can ship out."

100 mile long ships wouldn't be viable on earth, but much more recently, I saw a documentary, on YouTube, about luxury liners and cruise ships. In the documentary it said that large ships could be a precursor to colonies in space.

My junior high (now called middle school) interest in ships.

There is recent news about the rusty SS United States luxury liner. It has been sitting at a pier in Philadelphia awaiting some new use. It's finally being towed to Alabama for cleaning and then to Florida to be sunk and turned into an artificial reef and tourist attraction for scuba divers.

During my childhood, I developed a big interest in the luxury liners. I also have an interest in large buildings.

Before air travel was so common across the Atlantic, there were the giant ships; like floating hotels. They made me think of floating cities, all in one building. There were Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, from UK, The SS United States, The SS France, Norway and so forth.

The largest one, back then, was the Queen Elizabeth. It was based in UK and did the trip from UK to New York. On board were staterooms, restaurants, I think maybe even a swimming pool. It was later brought out of service and they tried to turn it into a floating university. It would have had dorms, classrooms and so forth for visiting various ports of call around the world. Unfortunately it caught on fire during remodeling in Hong Kong harbor during my high school days. It ended up as scrap metal.
,
Some of my interest in the ships might have been related to news about the Queen Mary which was brought out of commission, during my middle school years. It was turned into a hotel / museum at Long Beach, CA. I went onboard the Queen Mary, in 2003 during a bicycle trip down the coast. (More below).

During my middle school years, I also remember seeing a movie on television called "A Night To Remember." It was about the sinking of the Titanic. Not being much into movies, I do still remember just about every film I've seen in my lifetime of not many movies. That movie was in black and white; a dark scene indeed.

My interest in ships is related to my interest in buildings, campuses and cities. Places that have lots of variety under one roof, so to speak.

Now it's Trump's turn to become the unpopular incumbent.

Public opinion does swing like a pendulum. More people are becoming wary of what could be seen as Trump's overreach according to some recent polls.

Also lots of things, that people complain about like inflation, are difficult for any president to mgically fix. Tarrifs could make consumer products more expensive; especially in the short run.

In the long run, maybe society is too consumptive and dependent on long distance supply chains, but we can't "have it all" and change doesn't come overnight. Do we really want a recession? There is a phrase that goes, "be careful what you ask for as you might get it."

Recent news from New York.

An executive order might end congestion pricing, but it can't end congestion itself.

New York City was trying to reduce traffic gridlock on Manhattan Island with congestion pricing for automobiles on that limited space. No executive order can magically end traffic congestion or end worry about climate change, for that matter. On such a crowded island as Manhattan, public transit is a better way to go.

DEI acronym has become a punching bag.

It's unclear what effects, threats of cutoff in Federal funding programs will have on diversity programs in colleges of Washington State.

Here in Bellingham, WWU has some programs aimed at folks that could be considered on the margins of mainstream society, for instance myself as a gay person. Most funding is from state or other sources, but some federal funds are in question, I'd guess.

I think many of these programs are useful though I tend to be fairly critical of much of the anger, seen in the news, related to lack of total fairness in society; especially through history.

Society has had a history of discrimination, but things do improve. Meanwhile there is quite a bit of debate over this leading to push back from some folks who would like to turn back the clock to the way things were in past decades.

I still think most of these diversity programs are useful, going forward.

DEI gets criticism, but it's basically seems like just a more recent acronym for things that society has been progressing toward all along. Slowing down the rhetoric, DEI stands for diversity equity and inclusion.

I remember (actually Google AI helped me here). This was in the news years ago.

In a 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that colleges could consider race as one of several factors in admissions, but not as a quota. The ruling legalized affirmative action, but prohibited racial quotas.

McConnell played a big part in creating a Frankenstein.

Looks like Mitch McConnell, former Republican majority leader in the Senate has created somewhat of a Frankenstein in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

McConnell is known for pushing Republican agendas and not even holding the hearings to consider President Obama's last choice for Supreme Court nominee. Now that he is opposing some of Trump's more unusual nominee's, such as Kennedy for HHS. The MAGA movement turns on him as he announces that this is his last Senate term. Wobbly now at 84 years of age.

Surviving the Reagan budget cuts. A thought for today.

Near start of the Reagan Presidency, lots of budget cuts, similar to now. Being outside professional circles (I was working as a janitor) I thought I was more immune to the cuts. My informal art could continue.

Back then, before the internet, there was a funky network of artists who sent things to one another in the mail. There were shows that usually had no jury, so it could be a free for all of free thinking.

The network was informally called The Mail Art Network.

It does still exist today and many of the participants participate in social media, as well, these days.

Here is a copy of a collage I sent out to some show, or something (I forgot) with Reagan trying to pull the plug Mail Art which was basically powered by hobbyists; so to speak.

Cornucopia of creativity dumping out mail art while Reagan asking Nancy, his wife, where the plug is to pull the plug.

I've scanned much of my vast collection of crude, political cartoon like, collages from past years. Above is one from early 1980s.

Some of the artists were behind the Iron Curtain in countries, like Poland (Back then) behind the curtain. Things were starting to loosen up behind the Iron Curtain back in those days. Homemade postcard a Mail Artist sent me, from early 1990s related to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Another somewhat related memory.

I remember when Reagan fired the Air Controllers. Their union PATCO had endorsed Reagan for president back in 1980; talk about voting against one's self interest.

He fired them after they went on strike for better working conditions during his presidency. He was trying to keep to his budget cutting promises.

Other unions said they wondered where was PATCO, when they needed support. Most other unions endorsed Carter instead of Reagan. The air control system did survive, however, during all that turmoil.

The planet Venus visible in an evening sky along a bike trail.

I have been adding to my large collection of photos on Flickr.

We need to figure out the science and economics for engineering a "soft landing" into a green future, from the fossil fuel based economy we depend on today.

This is more important than figuring out who's at fault.

For reducing climate change, I think we need to figure out the science and economics for engineering a "soft landing" into a green future, from the fossil fuel based economy we depend on today.

More important than figuring out who's at fault, We need to think about things like this. How to implement solar? Is nuclear fission okay? Can we figure out hydrogen fusion. Can we develop hydrogen as a chemical fuel for transportation? Can we make public transit more convenient? How do we plan neighborhoods for affordable housing? Should we think of natural gas as a "bridge fuel;" better than coal or oil at least?

These questions interest me more than who's to blame for the situation we are now in.

Trump's cutback on USAID is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Picture of a local billboard about protecting life with some graffiti against government regulating women's bodies.

My message is somewhat different. I notice the irony about protecting life while sending an over supply of undocumented children and adults out of USA and potentially into harms way.

I took video, instead of still, because I noticed angle of sun and brisk wind made billboard look like it was on fire.

Some thoughts of mine about different churches.

Catholic church tends to believe that life begins at conception and should be valued throughout an entire lifetime, regardless of nationality. Catholics tend to support compassion and charity.

Conservative Protestant's are divided. Some tend to support charity while others support the politics of "holding on to your money." I think Bernie Frank once said, about the Christian Right that, "the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth."

Liberal churches, such as of my own upbringing, United Church of Christ, tend to support local choice in the reproductive matter. Not necessarily fans of abortion, but understanding that the complexity of these situations are difficult to dictate from afar; such as from the halls of Congress.

Liberal Christians tend to support compassion and sanctuary for people who face difficult situations in their lives.